Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it...
BLOGS I REALLY LIKE...
OxBlog
Volokh Conspiracy
ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico
QandO
Powerline
RightWingNutHouse
Ace
Lorie Byrd
PoliPundit
LGF
Wizbang
INDCJournal
JustOneMinute
RightWingNews
Three Sheets
LaShawn
XRLQ
Betsy's Page
OTHERS NICE ENOUGH TO LINK ME...
SortaPundit
Don Luskin
California Yankee
Let It Bleed
TechieVampire
SecureLiberty
BenedictBlog
StopTheACLU
ProteinWisdom
Election Projection
The LiberalWrong
Autonomoussource
RatherGate
HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit
AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S USUALLY WRONG...
Mark Kleiman
HE WHO DOESN'T LIKE BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE The Moderate Voice
Email Steve
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I'm sure my fellow conservative bloggers will have plenty to post about the UN admitting they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the AIDS epidemic. Some will no doubt blast the UN's presumably faulty methods of gathering and interpreting the data, while others will likely suggest that the UN intentionally maintained the fiction in order to maintain its prominent "role in tracking the spread of the epidemic and recommending strategies to combat it".
My two cents focuses on a tangent of sorts. Given how we once again have seen that, at best, the unintentional fallibility of the UN's estimates of problems that threaten the world, why should we value their proclamations on the dangers of global warming? If they can screw up measuring the number of people with the AIDS virus, why should anyone believe their measuring of man's impact on the environment, especially when counting people with a virus ought to be incredibly easier than figuring out just what has contributed to climate changes over the past hundred of so years? If they programmed their computers (intentionally or not) in such a way as to greatly overestimate the growth in the number of people with the AIDS virus, why should anyone have faith that their computer models predicting all sorts of environmental problems are any more reliable than the programs they screwed up, especially when there are so many more unknown variables to try and account for in estimating climate changes than the spread of a virus?
Why should the people of the world have any confidence that the UN, telling us that the world will suffer irreparable damage if we don't stop doing this and stop doing that, isn't pulling another Oakland*? Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reverse what may not have happened (global warming in the first place) trying to fend off what may not be a problem in the future?
As I've said before, global warming MAY be happening... and the effects of global warming MAY have a net negative impact on us... and we MAY have some ability to do something about it... but I've never been comfortable that those screaming the loudest that we have to act now have had their act totally together.... and this just reinforces my natural skepticism.... as it should yours.
* "there's no there there
|
My two cents focuses on a tangent of sorts. Given how we once again have seen that, at best, the unintentional fallibility of the UN's estimates of problems that threaten the world, why should we value their proclamations on the dangers of global warming? If they can screw up measuring the number of people with the AIDS virus, why should anyone believe their measuring of man's impact on the environment, especially when counting people with a virus ought to be incredibly easier than figuring out just what has contributed to climate changes over the past hundred of so years? If they programmed their computers (intentionally or not) in such a way as to greatly overestimate the growth in the number of people with the AIDS virus, why should anyone have faith that their computer models predicting all sorts of environmental problems are any more reliable than the programs they screwed up, especially when there are so many more unknown variables to try and account for in estimating climate changes than the spread of a virus?
Why should the people of the world have any confidence that the UN, telling us that the world will suffer irreparable damage if we don't stop doing this and stop doing that, isn't pulling another Oakland*? Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reverse what may not have happened (global warming in the first place) trying to fend off what may not be a problem in the future?
As I've said before, global warming MAY be happening... and the effects of global warming MAY have a net negative impact on us... and we MAY have some ability to do something about it... but I've never been comfortable that those screaming the loudest that we have to act now have had their act totally together.... and this just reinforces my natural skepticism.... as it should yours.
* "there's no there there
|