Catastrophes, Then and Now

A comment from Digital_Knight: I take it you don’t put a lot of stock in predictions of crisis?

Well, it depends upon the data. I did not place reliance on the Y2K crisis predictions, as I too was in IT (as this post mentions).

I think that the global warming catastrophists are hugely overstating the effects of an increase in CO2, which in practice are not likely to be measurable within the noise limits of the system. In order to make it seem that the last few years have been the hottest on record, that record has had to be altered in a way that would be criminal under other circumstances. But it produces the answer that the customer (primarily governments and green interests) pay for, and will last a while longer yet.

There are many bad effects of global warming:
— the corruption of science, a la NASA, NOAA, the CRU, the IPCC and many other places formerly of high integrity;
— the cost to economies of new green taxes/carbon caps and the like, resulting in less economic energy and resources going to useful things;
— the swelling of government in size and in regulatory trappings to save us from this “crisis”;
— the acceptance of attempts at extortion and fraud between countries;
— and the defense of all of this by good people, who have been taken in and are then dug into their positions.

On top of this, the debt (which people confuse with deficit) seems to be an irreparable, and fragile, threat to the United States. We are one trigger-pull by China (which could be involuntary on their part) away from a tremendous uproar that would bring us to a near-standstill, and cost a great many lives through starvation and misery, quite independent of any war.

China is faltering, itself, and is taking extraordinary steps to keep “looking good” while hoping they can repair their internal problems. That could result in the involuntary trigger pull.

These things amount to a crisis, I think, but not in the same way as the catastrophists believe.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle