Arnold Williams (notebuyer) wrote,
Arnold Williams
notebuyer

Math is Hard

As it turns out, math is hard. Physicists, government advisors, environmental journalists, all of them can get trapped in simple math problems, and end up spouting nonsense -- and believing it.

Latest Example:

It came in July, courtesy of the chief climate adviser to the German government. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chair of an advisory council known by its German acronym, WBGU, is a physicist whose specialty, fittingly, is chaos theory. Speaking to an invitation-only conference at New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, Schellnhuber divulged the findings of a study so new he had not yet briefed Chancellor Angela Merkel about it. The study has now been published. If its conclusions are correct--and Schellnhuber ranks among the world's half-dozen most eminent climate scientists--it has monumental implications for the pivotal meeting in December in Copenhagen, where world leaders will try to agree on reversing global warming.

Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose scientific reports are constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 (from 1990 levels) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020--i.e., quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon-free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by "buying" emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries' deadlines by a decade or so. [bold mine --.ed]



If you remember percentages, 100% is ALL OF IT. That means, no more cooking, no more breathing, no more driving. Everyone dies. "Carbon free" means everything is dead. You know, I'm not too worried about global warming if the alternative is death. I'll take the heat.

There are problems in basic physics with the "catastrophic climate change" scenario. But if I'm counting on people who can't do percentages to figure it out, I think we're in trouble.

UPDATE: fixed link
Tags: global warming
Subscribe

  • Atheism and Religion: not that different

    ▾ The basic question for atheists: What does it mean to live without a religious framework? - The one who thinks he can live without or outside a…

  • Pascal Vindicated Against Silly Arguments

    Pascal Vindicated Pascal proposed that you would get better outcomes from believing than not. God rewards believers with eternal happiness (Psalms…

  • Calendar Notes:

    How to orient yourself around the year. ▾ I. Quarter Days - A. Lady Day March 25 (Old Style new year) - B. Midsummer June 24 (St. John the…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments