Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Silly Science

This is silly, and a little demeaning to the issue:

"How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming," Tatiana Schlossberg, NY Times 8/3/16.

We could stop feeding people, too, and they'd starting emitting a lot less CO2, including the CO2 saved from the farm factories that will stop growing the food these noneating people won't eat.

Sure, energy policies are complex. But solving global warming doesn't mean we have to be stupid.


David in Cal said...

I'd love to see every proposed action that would affect global warming measured by some standard metric. E.g., one possibility would be the projected impact on average temperature in year 2100, assuming that climate sensitivity = 2 deg C. I suspect the impact of change in crime would measure as decimal dust. But, a measure like this could help public and policy-makers evaluate and compare the cost vs. benefit of various serious suggestions and proposals.


David Appell said...

I'm sure it would be dust too. But you need to make socioeconomic assumptions in order to project climate, and that's where the uncertainties lie.

Plus, 2 C is probably too small.