CF, I am using the term scientist more generally, including the science of economics and all other relative fields needed to determine best policy. The information needs to be digested by the public and pressure put on the politicians to do the "right" things.

I don't feel that scientists have really been granted an adequate pulpit on this issue and that very powerful interests such as Rupert Murdoch and the Koch bros. have muddied the waters to the point that the public is not hearing the messages of the scientific community.

I don't worship scientists, but I trust them more than billionaires in the energy industry, politicians or business men in general.

I'm turning in this note to the Koch bros. Better lock your doors.

I went to the urgent care clinic because I cut myself pretty bad and needed stitches. They asked me how many guns did I own? I asked why they were asking that? They said part of the new regulations. I said what if I refuse to answer? They said they could not treat me. So I told them 666. The info goes into my new public health file. You know the new law where your health records have to be shared with everybody. It may explain why your car insurance just went up. They look for risk factors in the public records.

CF, false equivalency. Just check the public record on Koch bros political contributions (investments). It's amazing how much they have invested to pursue their political (economic) agenda, they are in a league all their own. If you add it all up, they've probably spent at least 50 million dollars to promote climate change skepticism alone.

Not sure if you think I'm showing a level of paranoia equivalent to some other comments here of just having a little fun- can't see the twinkling eyes over the internet.

Drew, if I'd known you own 666 firearms I would not have been snarky with you, but your latest report does seem halucinatory. If such a thing happened to me I'd refuse to tell them and sue the SOB's if they denied me treatment.

H'man:

I don't know what it is called but you and those on your side of the issue speak in dramatic and emotional terms, relaying an emotional or even hysterical tone. "dire" "so something yesterday", "seas lapping at our doorstep", and sometimes even sarcasm to buttress a point .

"... prognosis is dire enough that we need to take action __yesterday__". If we needed to take action yesterday then I guess we blew it and it is too late.

Also your repeated paranoia about Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, Koch Brothers is SILLY !!!!!.

Some Fox commentators have 2-3 million listeners out of a population of 350 million and they are stopping progress on combating GW?????

I also note that you did not even try to deal with points that I raised in my post.

I have asked numerous times... So please tell me :
If you had the power of law by decree ...

What would you, HM, do to solve the problem? With NO POLITICAL opposition, how would you solve the problem?

Mike

as quoted from the following link;

"While scientists tangle over whether or not man affects climate change, governments are weaving revenue schemes that depend on it.

Around the nation and world, the taxation of CO2 is gaining appeal as a revenue generator."

Here is a link that might be useful: governments cash in on CO2

Mike, of course I speak in dramatic terms- I am trying to be at least a bit engaging and drama is a tool, but the point is, if majority expert scientific analysis suggests that now is the time to begin dramatically reducing carbon pollution we probably should seriously consider taking significant action.

If it isn't Murdoch and the Koch bros, how is it that the laymen constantly come back to the idea that scientists are on the take and dishonest on this one particular issue. So many of these ideas are spread like seeds and you can follow them straight back to the source if you want.

What makes you think that if you spend millions of dollars to spread ideas you can't sell them. I don't think I'm silly, I think you may be politically naive. Look up Roger Ailes' political history and see how these think tanks work to manipulate the media and us. Do you think the Koch bros. are idiots and just throw away their money without regard for the results?

It isn't only the right wing that does this, of course, but I believe that the right wing in this country right now has absolutely no shame. And who on the left invests as much money to pursue their political ideology as the Koch Bros? Again, this is not a conspiracy theory, but a matter of public record.

You ask me what I would do about it, but at this point I couldn't answer that precisely. I believe that a carbon tax might be a somewhat affective and direct route if the tax is spent on carbon-free power development, including possibly new technology nuclear.

However, I don't know what I'm talking about and I don't have the background to say with any authority what course should be taken- that has never been my point here.

All that I've said in my mix of the last 300+ comments on this topic is, let us listen to the scientists themselves then the economists, engineers,etc. What climate scientists are saying is not exaggerated or excessively dramatic, and the majority consensus is that action is required now.

Although I probably should know better, I'll add my voice to this thread ;-)

First off, I should say that no one alive today will likely know if there is GW or not. That verdict will not be conclusive for century or so, long past when any of us discussing it today are still around to argue or say "I told you so.".

What we are all trying to do is predict a complex system with a small amount of knowledge and data about that system, and draw conclusions about the future trend. A worthwhile task, but not an easy one just from the POV of the science involved. Throw in politics and economic prejudices and it becomes a total mess. However there are a few points I have not heard presented that are worth considering:

I have not heard a standard cost-benefit analysis done at the high level. That is where one looks at the various possible outcomes and projects what happens and the associated costs with each outcome if various courses of action are taken. It is a pretty standard way companies and some individuals make decisions. Folks have hinted at parts of this here, but if one can take a dispassionate view (hard to do on this topic), layout the possible scenarios, possible actions, and there associates costs and results, it becomes much easier to choose a course of action.

There have been parts of such a study, usually done by one side or the other, that surprise surprise reinforce their camp's view. But I would like to read the results of an unbiased presentation of all the possible outcomes and the cost-benefits of the various solutions applied to each.

What one usually hears are the most extreme points in this matrix (dire GW and we did nothing, or we do a bunch of expensive stuff and there is no GW). And while those may be the more interesting points, certainly the most politically and economically charged, they are not the entire story. It is only be seeing the full spectrum of possible climate changes, possible actions with their associated costs and benefits, that one can make a rational choice. And of course as we learn more about the climate system, this matrix will change, but at any point in time, it represents the best analysis of risk and action taken (or not taken). That is if you can honestly look at all the possibilities without dismissing the ones you don't like.

If anyone knows of such a study/paper, please let us know.

In the mean time, from personal observation in my own backyard, it's hard to deny that my local climate has changed. I can now grow and ripen fruits and vegies that did not ripen here 20 years ago. I mount my snow tires a month or more later in the year than I did 20 years ago. Is this a trend; yes locally it is or has been so far. Is it part of a bigger, longer term trend; that's the big question. At this point I am merely noticing the trend, I am not taking credit or blame for it.

Although I probably should know better, I'll add my voice to this thread ;-)

First off, I should say that no one alive today will likely know if there is GW or not. That verdict will not be conclusive for century or so, long past when any of us discussing it today are still around to argue or say "I told you so.".

What we are all trying to do is predict a complex system with a small amount of knowledge and data about that system, and draw conclusions about the future trend. A worthwhile task, but not an easy one just from the POV of the science involved. Throw in politics and economic prejudices and it becomes a total mess. However there are a few points I have not heard presented that are worth considering:

I have not heard a standard cost-benefit analysis done at the high level. That is where one looks at the various possible outcomes and projects what happens and the associated costs with each outcome if various courses of action are taken. It is a pretty standard way companies and some individuals make decisions. Folks have hinted at parts of this here, but if one can take a dispassionate view (hard to do on this topic), layout the possible scenarios, possible actions, and there associates costs and results, it becomes much easier to choose a course of action.

There have been parts of such a study, usually done by one side or the other, that surprise surprise reinforce their camp's view. But I would like to read the results of an unbiased presentation of all the possible outcomes and the cost-benefits of the various solutions applied to each.

What one usually hears are the most extreme points in this matrix (dire GW and we did nothing, or we do a bunch of expensive stuff and there is no GW). And while those may be the more interesting points, certainly the most politically and economically charged, they are not the entire story. It is only be seeing the full spectrum of possible climate changes, possible actions with their associated costs and benefits, that one can make a rational choice. And of course as we learn more about the climate system, this matrix will change, but at any point in time, it represents the best analysis of risk and action taken (or not taken). That is if you can honestly look at all the possibilities without dismissing the ones you don't like.

If anyone knows of such a study/paper, please let us know.

In the mean time, from personal observation in my own backyard, it's hard to deny that my local climate has changed. I can now grow and ripen fruits and vegies that did not ripen here 20 years ago. I mount my snow tires a month or more later in the year than I did 20 years ago. Is this a trend; yes locally it is or has been so far. Is it part of a bigger, longer term trend; that's the big question. At this point I am merely noticing the trend, I am not taking credit or blame for it.

Steve, I agree with everything you say except when you, as the media often does here, put climate positions in two separate political camps that simply represent two equally legitimate view points.

As long as the skeptic side is dominated with the viewpoint that the climate science community is deliberately skewering data for career advancement and poo poos all the research, there is no equivalency there and rational action is imperiled.

I also am slightly perplexed that you can suggest that you may already be experiencing very noticeably warming weather and not express concern that such a dramatic change in seasons might not also include a matrix containing increasing drought in this countries mid-section and in other corn, wheat and soy growing areas in other parts of the world. If this happens or is already happening, it won't matter if the science is absolutely conclusive and alarming consequences could occur next year or in the very near future.

Never the less, I agree that action should be based on data and not emotion, even if that is impossible to absolutely achieve. A start would be for the skeptic side to stop accusing scientists of mythological motivations and let the scientific community do their work.

> the skeptic side is dominated with the viewpoint that the climate science community is deliberately skewering data for career advancement and poo poos all the research

You don't really believe what you just said, do you?

I would like to add to this discussion but I need to get out and gas up my SUV so that the plants around me can get that co2 boost to grow larger.

Mike ( not being snarky... just having some fun)

This post was edited by mes111 on Wed, Nov 20, 13 at 8:21

Harvestman6, I try to stick to the scientific viewpoint only. Something that is very hard to do without political and economic prejudices creeping in. Take a look even here on a gardening forum, your post generated a couple of political replies with no useful content.

I don't pay much attention to the popular media for exactly this reason. Might as well be reading the sports section with predictions about next Sunday's game, in fact there might be more science there.

I do think that some of the skeptical writers (not the popular, and energy corp tied ones) have some points worth considering. But their points are in terms of additional scientific factors which aren't being looked at; not diatribes about how the current measurements are flawed or corrupt or not showing what been published. The connection of earth weather/climate with the sun cycles is one that might have some merit (although may not have a huge impact on warming/cooling).

Let's face it, nature is a complex system. We humans have a tendency to reduce complexity to one or two variables. While that can be useful in some areas (mostly the simple systems we create), it's just plain wrong in many others, especially complex systems.

To answer your other question, it is pretty hard to not notice local climate differences, especially for someone who gardens or grows plants outside. The changes here over the last two decades are obvious (USDA zones have all moved up a zone or two). While I am happy to have a longer growing season, I am also aware of the other changes this brings, wildfires, floods (we had them all in the last few years).

The real question is why has this happened, and what does it mean for the future. That's the point that I am still open on. It appears we are in a warming trend, and that that trend will continue. Personally I expect that will happen with about an 80% prob. But I am open to the possibility that the climate trends will oscillate or even reverse. I would not count on those outcomes, but they are possible, given our rather feeble understanding of all that goes into the climate system. (And I recognize there are other cycles, such as the methane hydrates melting, which may dramatically accelerate the warming trend too)

In the mean time, as we work on this question, we personally are faced with the question of what to do? And do you take responsibility for your actions. I would have no problem if folks who were skeptical of GW and went on burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow were held accountable. If CO2 is found not to really be a factor, great they were right. If it is a primary factor, they should be the first to go hungry when the famines hit. But we all know there is no such accountability. If there were I suspect humans would be taking a much more conservative (in the original meaning of the word) approach to GW. Until I hear the skeptics owning up and accepting the consequences for what they do if they are wrong, their talk is just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).

Steve, we are in agreement with everything you said. What I do wish is that a thorough and objective survey of top notch climatologists from around the world would be made that queried them on, given the current state of research, what is their best guess on outcomes right now. Drought, rising oceans- the full bit. Then take the average and put it through whatever specialists would be best at analyzing the most probable level of damage to humanity and and where it will most occur.

I realize that the accuracy of this would be questionable, but it seems the best we could do to determine how much of an investment should make right now to reduce emissions.

CF, it surprises me that you question my seriousness of that statement. Every time we discuss this topic here the skeptic side chimes in about how climatologist are cherry picking data to get grant money. On this very thread there have been comments that suggest this. A perfunctory survey of the internet will quickly reveal how frequently this point is repeated.

sf rhino wrote:

"In terms of competing with China's coal plants, I had a hard time finding good numbers on this. I see quotes ranging from about 1-2 coal plants per week, averaging 500MW/plant (so 500-1,000MW/week). In 2012 the US had about 14,000MW of wind power come online (to a total of over 60,000MW; we have about a 30% increase every year). That means the US is building the equivalent of 1 power plant (500MW of wind) about every 4 weeks."

I've been very busy the last few days and finally had a chance to catch up on this thread.

I agree Rhino, the U.S. is not doing nothing on wind power, just not enough in my opinion. China's new coal plants will generate roughly 1500 megawatts per plant (see link below).

According to "http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_installed_capacity.asp"; the U.S. added roughly 13 gigawatts of wind energy in 2012. That is slightly over 1000 megawatts worth of capacity per month. In other words, while China is adding that capacity every week, we are building the same wind capacity in a month and a half.

This is woefully inadequate in my opinion. Regardless of how one feels about global warming, wind energy makes sense. In the right locations, cost of wind energy is comparable to more traditional forms of power generation.

Again, I don't understand why we can't afford to add the same amount of wind generating capacity, as China's coal generating expansion, when we have four times their domestic output and with only one quarter of the people. It's not because of lack of wealth on our part, but lack of a commitment. According to Wikipedia, we have enough wind energy in the U.S. to generate 9 times our total current electricity consumption.

Personally, I would like to see wind mills as common as road signs in the U.S. It would signify energy independence for our country (and cleaner air). We seemed to have gotten used to (and live with) obnoxious road signs (with no benefit). Why not get used to looking at wind mills, which would offer us a natural "free" non-polluting resource for energy (maybe we could remove some of the road signs if people want to reduce road art)?

Kansas has quite a few new wind farms, but there was one county in southern KS (can't remember which one) where the county commissioners voted against wind farms because of aesthetics. Completely absurd in my opinion. Those people deserve to have a coal or nuclear plant in their backyard instead.

You and Hman make a good point that population control would take some time, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't see progress along the way. It could take a century to reduce our population in a minimally disruptive way to 100 mil, but we would start to see some benefits immediately.

Last I heard from an oil analyst on the radio, Americans use an average of 30 bls. of oil (and oil equivalent products) per person per year. If we reduced our births in the U.S. from the current 4,000,000 to half that, we would save 60,000,000 barrels of oil the first year. Not a tremendous amount of savings, but each year would have a sort of compounding effect (second year save 120,000,000 barrels, third year 180,000,000, etc.)

From I scientific perspective, I've not heard any scientists state we have too few people on this planet, but I have heard/read several scientists state we have far too many people, with no end in population growth in sight. These same scientists also claim a population crash will be inevitable from something nasty like (disease, starvation, pestilence). Those who chose not to bring children into those circumstances may well be glad they made that choice. Either way population will eventually be controlled, either by our own thoughtful careful means, or that of nature. I think everyone knows nature is typically not very kind.

Here is a link that might be useful: China's new coal fired plants - water stressed regions

Here's a prominent global warming proponent and "Scientist" with a political agenda.

Here is a link that might be useful: He wants you to suffer for the earth

Olpea, surely you don't believe questions of how many children people should have can be answered mostly by science (unless you, like HM, include "sciences" as soft as a ripe astringent-type Asian persimmon)?

HM, sure your political opponents exaggerate and dramatize things just like you do, but you said "dominated with the viewpoint." Maybe it's just dominated in the caricatures of your political opponents that you find in the extreme politically biased media of the opposite side, but surely you don't believe those extremes represent the mainstream of the political bloc opposing you?

> The real question is why has this happened, and what does it mean for the future.

Steve, you, too seem to want to think that the huge political questions that follow from whatever the best science may be are practically insignificant. Will any proponent of global warming activism ever admit that he's on a highly disputable political crusade (completely apart from any underlying scientific questions)?

> I would have no problem if folks who were skeptical of GW and went on burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow were held accountable. If CO2 is found not to really be a factor, great they were right. If it is a primary factor, they should be the first to go hungry when the famines hit. But we all know there is no such accountability.

So you equate objecting to your political crusade with personal responsibility, despite the sure fact that GW skeptics carry a LOWER fossil fuel footprint than their political opponents (who predominate among the more elite classes that carry the heaviest footprints). No wonder your political opponents don't even want to come to the bargaining table. The elites are primarily responsible (in actual practice), but they blame their political opponents instead because they won't "solve the problem" by giving more power to them, the elites.

CF, you are making a political argument out of this. There is no debate going on between the people who are trained to understand the data. Rarely do scientists rally so consistently around any theory, short of maybe the theory of gravity.

I am liberal politically, yes, but this shouldn't be an argument between liberals and conservatives and shouldn't be politicized at all. As I've already stated, only political conservatives in America tend to question the legitimacy of human caused global warming- the debate elsewhere is about what to do about it (not whether to do anything).

I don't know why you keep going there- that side burns more fossil fuel- as if that has anything to do with the actual debate. It is just another red herring to discredit the "other side".

Because people of higher education in this country make per capita a lot more money then non- professionals they are also going to be bigger consumers. If there was a carbon tax they would be taxed more heavily as well.

Oh yeah, and a higher education does tend to make folks more receptive to the scientific perspective and therefore more likely to agree with majority scientific opinion.

If I was arguing that the answer is for everyone to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint your point might have some relevance.

Most people calling for action on climate change stand nothing to gain as far as getting power or money from the effort, Making this an issue about elites vying for more power is just crazy talk as far as I'm concerned. What is the basis for this conspiracy theory?

The elites in this country are the kind of people I work for and they do not need a carbon tax to increase their wealth- what elites are you talking about specifically? Let's have some names. I bet for anyone you can name there are ten who stand to gain from unfettered development of petro and coal based energy.

"Most people calling for action on climate change stand nothing to gain as far as getting power or money from the effort, Making this an issue about elites vying for more power is just crazy talk as far as I'm concerned. What is the basis for this conspiracy theory?

The elites in this country are the kind of people I work for and they do not need a carbon tax to increase their wealth- what elites are you talking about specifically? Let's have some names. I bet for anyone you can name there are ten who stand to gain from unfettered development of petro and coal based energy. "

Harvestman, haven't you heard of Enron?

Here is a link that might be useful: Some history of the carbon conspiracy

"Olpea, surely you don't believe questions of how many children people should have can be answered mostly by science"

Cousinfloyd,

I wouldn't state my position that way. I'm not at all in favor of someone dictating, "how many children people should have". That is a personal matter for each family.

I'm in favor of education. In that sense I think scientific disciplines (or simply logic) can measure the impact of people on our own habitat. I'm a believer in education because it has changed my own views on this subject.

I don't think there is any debate humans are facing dwindling natural resources, less available arable land, deforestation, and many other problems resulting from very large numbers of our race.

In spite of this, world population continues to increase by 75 million per year. I think this is a problem.

Swamp, I checked the site and it was exactly the kind of thing that I think has clouded the whole issue. It was not in any way a science based article, just the typical country lawyer kind of editorializing where the author simply misrepresents the science the author has no authority or proven ability to evaluate.

Just the fact that he welds the issue of the fairness of the Kyoto treaty to the science of climate change is an indication of what is the motivation of the perspective.

Why should I respect the writer and his interpretation of climate science? He is a spokesmen for corporate interests- a pundit for Forbes Magazine, for heaven's sake. Once again, all I am advocating is taking the politics out of climate science where people with no understanding of the science itself come up with clever new ways to make the innocent appear guilty or show how the earth is actually flat.

I am not an advocate of the Kyoto treaty and the kind of carbon tax I would personally advocate (at this moment and with inadequate info) would be tied directly to the energy itself and used to create alternate energy sources. Enforcement would be created by trade barriers that made carbon based production more expensive, but the money would go to clean energy only- not to developing countries.

Olpea, thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to ask whether you thought anything should be dictated, though. What I meant to ask was whether someone could say, "I'm a scientist, and although it's your right to make your own decision, I can tell you with my scientific authority that your decision to have X number of children is objectively/scientifically bad," or "I'm not a scientist, but I've heard from scientists/reviewed the science, and although it's your right..."

HM,

> I don't know why you keep going there- that side burns more fossil fuel- as if that has anything to do with the actual debate.

If burning more fossil fuels doesn't have anything to do with the "actual debate," what does?

But I'm not the one bringing up the issue of responsibility; I was just responding to Steve's comments about "what to do" "personally" and "tak[ing] responsibility for your actions." It was his argument, and I was simply pointing out that the facts don't support his argument. The purpose of the argument seems to be moral manipulation for political purposes, but that argument immediately fails on the premise. It is nonetheless telling how weak the support for your side is. The argument to your opponents might stand a little better chance if you could show that you believed it yourselves.

> I am liberal politically, yes, but this shouldn't be an argument between liberals and conservatives and shouldn't be politicized at all.

Which is to say, so long as we take your political position for granted, namely that centralizing power in the hands of elites, the political process, the Washington establishment, etc. is the best way to solve problems generally, there's nothing to politicize. And, of course, if we begin by taking that political view as a given then there isn't really anything to politicize, but why would you expect the kind of people in this country that still have their own guns to take your political view for granted? But you've completely changed your tune in your last comment. You've gone from answering the question of what should be accomplished from saying, "Obviously what many of us believe needs to be accomplished are policies enforced by our government," in other words, saying that the debate is all about politics, to saying "all I am advocating is taking the politics out of climate science where people with no understanding of the science itself come up with clever new ways to... show how the earth is actually flat." (You conveniently ignore the historical fact that Galileo was harassed as a skeptic of, to quote you, "interpreting [scientific facts] much differently than the vast majority.") In any case, if you actually wanted to take "the politics out of climate science," you'd be content with people saying, okay the earth clearly seems to be warming, and there's a plausible scientific case that burning fossil fuels is a significant cause, but there's a much weaker case for believing that continuing to burn fossil fuels at a somewhat slower rate is going to make a significant difference going forward (or that doom isn't already inevitable or that climate altering technology won't be our savior), and there's zero scientific case for believing that giving more power to politicians would even accomplish the intermediary goal of a slower rate of burning fossil fuels. One needn't "disagree with majority scientific opinion" to distrust the political process and white collar elites to take over every sphere where scientists have described a problem. But so long as all the talk about science is indistinguishable and inseparable from your political vision you shouldn't expect your political opponents to pay homage to any of it, which is to say, since your science is ultimately all about your politics, your opponents quite reasonably aren't going to concede anything. If it gets under your skin that your political opponents don't want to award you points for science in your political crusade, then you're only further encouraging them, because they probably like getting under your skin. And what politicians and the masses say about science really doesn't matter at all anyways apart from politics (which you now say you want to take out of it) and what to do personally (with which you show no concern apart from politics.)

CF, your remarks are extremely difficult to deal with in the barrage form they come in- I wish you'd edit a bit for clarity and maybe employ a few more paragraphs to make it more readable for me. That would certainly make it less laborious to formulate a coherent response.

You seem to be saying (along with some other things) that even if the climate is warming in a dangerous manner and action does need to be taken, the government can't effectively do anything about it, because, you know, our government can't be trusted to do anything right.

I could go much further and deal with what you are saying point by point, but that would be, umm, pointless, because that position, all by itself, makes me realize I could never come to any agreement with you or even, probably, learn anything from you- at least on issues involving politics or even government.

I ask one thing in parting, though- what government exists or has ever existed that reaches your standards of a properly functioning government?

CF, I'd like to answer your comments on my statement about people taking responsibility for their actions...

My position is if a warming trend is happening then we will be glad for any and all efforts to slow it. Things that slow the trend are generally good in that case, and things which worsen it bad. If the warming gets as bad as some of the predictions, then the consequences will be severe; famines, coastal flooding, and the like.

I don't think the science is iron clad conclusive yet (and probably won't be proven or dis-proved for some time to come). But most everyone in the first world at least has heard about climate change (or global warming, or whatever you'd like to call it). The question is what are you going to do about it, and are you willing to take responsibility for your choices if you are wrong.

If one chooses to believe that CC is a hoax, and go on living your life burning tons more fossil fuel and adding to the problem you might be right. But what if it becomes clear that CC is real and some of the dire consequences do start to happen are you willing to "pay" for your mistake? It doesn't matter what you believe now, you made a choice are you willing to bear the burden of that choice if it turns out to be the wrong one? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and let the pain and costs you wrought fall on others?

You don't need to answer, and the reality is that no-one is likely to hold people accountable for there decisions now (many of those people won't even be around when TSHTF, if it does).

But my point is that if people thought that they would be held to account for their decisions, they would take a much more cautious approach to this (other things in the world as well).

This is why I would like to see a real risk-cost analysis done. Such an analysis doesn't care with which side is right or wrong (and we really can't know that now anyhow). It takes a look at what the costs and benefits are to each potential scenario coupled with each choice of action. Some combinations lead to disaster, some sort of an OK solution, and if you are lucky a few great ones. But by doing this you at least become aware of where the really bad possibilities are and can be on the lookout for them developing, while working on your chosen path.

Instead, what I mostly see is people arguing my side is right. Yeah well, that's nice that you have a position and are willing to defend it, but since we can't and won't know the real answer for some time yet, and there may be dire consequences to getting this wrong, doesn't it make more sense to change the nature of the discussion?

Q???

I've heard the magic number of 450 ppm of CO2 as a "red line" we must not cross.

Has anyone calculated how much of a decrease in CO2 emissions is necessary to attain that goal? And over what period of time?

And if such a calculation has been made, has anyone calculated the economic cost?

Mike

FOLLOWING IS JUST MY OPINION NOT SCIENCE.

Throughout human history there has always been the tension between the "haves" and the "have nots". At this time I don't want to go into why the "haves" have and the "have nots" don't. That is a different conversation.

There were always those who felt that those who have should use and give some of what they have to help those who do not. This happened by voluntary charitable giving and sharing based on some philosophical/religious/moral imperative. Under this regimen the giving was voluntary.

In time, a societal imperative was added to the giving which added a coercive element to the giving/helping. Taxes were imposed, property was confiscated and the moneys distributed according to the dictates of the political class.

Now the giver had no choice of giving and no input as to who was to receive the help.

There were always those who said "not enough is being given" and " you must re-distribute more of the wealth". Then there were those who, now had no say in how and to whom the help was given, said "too much or the wrong kind of help". There are arguments to made on both sides, but that is a different topic.

The tension always existed as it does today. The political class has always been able to play the "us against them" card to separate people, who otherwise have many more other interests in common, from each other. My own opinion of the politician class is that it is more interested in accumulating power and if a tangential benefit flows to the politician's constituency then that is fine, but the goal is accumulation of power.

NOW as to CC/GW.

There has also been "re-distribution of wealth" argument on the global scale. This side of the argument has now also latched on to the GW/CC bandwagon seeing it as an opportunity to obtain a greater degree of wealth transfer to the "less developed" part of the world. The political class is now using GW/CC as just another food source.

Listen to all of the speeches in the UN from the "representatives" of the "third world" nations. All of their troubles are caused by us. Most of these nations are run by dictators and despots. Most all of the "rulers" on these third nations world have used the trillions in aid that they have received to enrich themselves, their families and allies. Meanwhile, their "people" still don't have roads, education, toilets, food etc.

I fear that our feel good or guilt driven politics will prove to be our undoing.

Mike

Mike, if you are worried about Kyoto treaty methods to re-distribute wealth, I wouldn't worry too much bout that. U.N. treaties that involve paying out by developed countries to underdeveloped don't have any teethe and the tradition is that not much gets out there. Check results of current K. treaty.

Certainly our own nation finds much more affective ways to squander wealth and has spent much of its economic advantage coming out of WW II- most of it on unnecessary wars and an obscene military budget in general, IMO, followed closely by a bloated, inefficient health care system, criminal justice system etc. etc. and as much as some conservatives complain about gov attempts to redistribute wealth it is flying towards the plutocracy.

I certainly agree with you on the division created by Gov. vs private charity or aid. I think many liberals don't understand small town, big church culture where people take care of their own and don't want any "help" from the federal gov. Of course that doesn't mean they don't want their medicare or social security.

Those in small town culture (physically and/or mentally) don't understand how this system fails in more urban environments and generally in a more secular society. There are many problems in the modern world that only a central gov. can rectify, as flawed as such govs invariably are..

H'man:

your response is so rich....

I am not worried about the Kyoto treaty. I was just taking note how the "third world" political class has hitched itself to the GW/CC bandwagon to further their demands.

As to our nation "squandering " our wealth. I think that it is up to me to decide how to spend ("squander" in someone else's eyes) what is mine. If I don't get the value for my buck that another thinks I should get, it is just too bad on him. It is still my buck to spend as I see fit.

Again you start with the "liberal/conservative" labeling smokescreen argument. Sorry that duck don't fly...

"The bloated healthcare system"....? Our system, although labeled "Private" has been greatly influenced by governmental intrusion ( even before Obamacare) which warps the system and DOES NOT allow it to work effectively and without "bloat". Why can't I buy health insurance in New York from a company in Georgia. Why, does the government pass a prescription drug bill that does not allow it to negotiate cheaper prices with the drug companies. The health care system is bloated precisely because of governmental involvement.

The snark about the conservatives who don't want "help" but then "want their social security and medicare" should be beneath you. The government sets up a Social Security System that takes a combined 15% of my pay every week from the time I start working at 18 until I stop at 65 and more money for Medicare from my entire working life and when they start paying it back you call that "government help"???.

If they did not over-promise (SS & Medicare) and under-deliver or better yet if they had not meddled and screwed it up in the first place I would have enough money to take care of myself.

YES>>> I believe that the collective can take it upon itself to help the truly needy, unfortunate who are so through no fault of their own.

BUT let it be honest about it... Let the government come out and say "We, the members of your government, feel that it is a good idea to provide health care to certain people who are unfortunate for various reasons and we want to impose a tax on all of us to cover the cost.

Instead, because they don't want to use the word "tax", they say, "we are not going to tax you so we can do the right thing" What the government says is "...we are going to force you buy something with things in it that you don't want or need, like an 80 year old couple having maternity benefits, so that the extra money you pay to the insurance company can be used to offer insurance to those who can't afford it. And if they still can't afford it we will subsidize them with money we get from you in other ways.
And when people complain that the government does not have the right o force you to do this, the government, without an iota of shame, says "we are allowed to tax you to do this so we are taxing you to force you to do this".

And, more... they pass Social security which is a retirement plan. And on its own it might work. But then they say that it would be a good thing to have benefits for minor children of deceased citizens. That is a laudable goal but instead of selling that idea to the populace and raising taxes to do so, they just tacked this benefit to the retirement plan without adding funding to cover this cost. When the actuarial work was being done for the retirement system the variable of some people dying early was taken into account in the calculations but not for their children to be receiving these benefits. But don't bother me with the details. They announce to the sheep, look what wonderful stuff we are giving you that you aren't having to pay for. The cost is added in a stealth mode because now the original system calculations don't work, but, that won't be apparent for years and by then everybody already got the free stuff and won't remember or hold accountable those who screwed it up. They added feel good benefits to accumulate more power now . People got free stuff without having to pay for it- at least not now!!!.

Then hey add "Social Security Disability" benefits. To a retirement plan??? again without funding.... and in the same way. So the retirement plan is going broke....

I think that right now the RETIREMENT portion of the Social Security payments that go out every month are only about 20% of the total going out. The remaining 80% is for all the other stuff the feel good politicians added to it.

The SS retirement system is a joke. The US Treasury Department (one arm of government) borrows money from another arm of the same government ( Social Security "trust" fund) and gives SS an IOU (in the form of a low interest bearing bond). The low interest on the bond that the government gave to itself is insufficient to cover the benefits that the SS Dept needs to pay out. And the government now artificially drives down the interest rate on government bonds when the Federal Reserve ( another arm of the same government) buys the bonds being issued by the US Treasury ( with money "created" out of thin air because nobody else wants so many bonds and so much). But wait.... this causes interest rates to go down so the interest that the US Treasury pays to the Social Security Dep't goes down... so SS now has even less money coming in to cover the benefits that they promised. AND.... at the same time the super low interest rates now PUNISH & SCREW all of the people, many many senior citizens among them, who did the right thing as they were told to do by "SAVING FOR THEIR OLD AGE". Now their savings accounts are giving off 1% ( maybe) interest to live off.

So... HM please explain to me and to those people who live in the "small town culture (physically and/or mentally)" --- [[just can't stop the condescending, self important, all knowing SNARK, can you?]] ---- who are probably also holding on to their guns and bibles just how this wonderfully efficient government of yours, which has f****'d up practically everything it touched, can be the only entity that can solve the "... many problems in the modern world that only a central gov. can rectify, as flawed as such govs invariably are.." ( your words).

And I bet that the people living in the "small town culture" are all mis-informed and brainwashed by Fox News and the Koch Brothers. Because otherwise they would just __know__ that the "... urban environments and generally in a more secular society..." are so much superior.

BTW, the criminal justice system is generally a problem caused in the generally government supported more "secular" "urban" environment.

As to the "... unnecessary wars and an obscene military budget in general...", I don't say that there was no waste but to call it obscene ignores the fact of the reality on the ground after WWII. There were two forces in the world at the time. One was a metastatic expansionist repressive dictatorship and the other, by any definition, the opposite.

Immediately after WWII, the first entity gobbled up more than one half of Europe and Asia with little resistance from the other.

By the time the second woke up, the only response available was the "obscene" military budget. You, today in 2013, can luxuriate by calling it "obscene", but think of those people who were living it in 1946, 47,48,49, and really had to deal with it.

As to those "on unnecessary wars"...20/20 hindsight is wonderful!!! Maybe you should ask the people of today's South Korea if it was un-necessary or those in South Vietnam who weren't all that crazy to live under Ho Chi Min, or those in Laos or Cambodia and Grenada, and Panama and yes even IRAQ !!!!.

Just because a war does not have the desired effect or outcome as was in Vietnam or Iraq does not make it as "un-necessary" in "front-sight" as does in hindsigh.

Could we have done it better, or in a different way? Maybe... but it does not warrant your holier than thou analysis of the past? Nah... .

And ... I know that you will be able to cherry pick a phrase or two or more in my response and tear it to shreds, but please take a look at the post as a whole if you wish to comment. .

Finally, to you HM and to all others I apologize for the length of this post.

Mike

Mike, your interpretations are so offensive it really takes me back. It is as if I was personally insulting you- your response is hostile to the point of stunning.

Snarky is something you do to individuals, not anonymous groups.

I am as cynical and appreciative of the motivations of urban liberals as I am of more rural social conservatives (see comments I've made in the past about the organic food movement), I have no idea how you construed what i said as an attack on who, what? What is your investment? What do I represent to you? On the bus I ride on we are all angels and clowns at once. I don't really see the villains.

The comments I made, I stated, were just my personal opinions, and once again, I fail to see how you take it as a challenge to attack my opinions in such a personal manner.

Judging from your attack on the U. S. government, I suppose I'm probably more an outlet than a cause- but, as a general condition, I'm not certain of my own motivations, so why bother theorizing on those of people I don't even know.

I'm not engaged in this discussion for this kind of battle and I'm sorry that I somehow brought you to this state. Your opinions don't anger me and I don't think anything I said should have angered you.

I never accused you of faulty thinking or being brainwashed by Fox News, or the efforts of the Koch Bros and I never presume to know how any single person comes to their political conclusions. What's more, when friends accuse me of being brainwashed by the NY Times, or MSNBC, I don't really find it offensive.

Do you feel I'm insulting your people? There is no political group that I identify with like that.

H'man

I was not personally offended by what you said and I was not out to insult you.

My opinion on the government leans more towards its incompetence than to a conscious evil intent. My contempt is towards the politicians' class.

Your past posts do reference Murdock, Fox and Koch as those whose power and influence are , in part at least, is causing the populace to ignore the science. ( see your post Nov. 19). I read you comments sounded that the unsophisticated small town mentality resulted from the same influence of the evil industrialists.

When I noted that I thought that there was an attempted money grab using GW/CC issue your response seemed to indicate that this was a better use of our wealth than the wars, bloated healthcare etc. Actually I came to the defense of our government's use of our money post WWII.

Then your small town mentality comment seemed to dining rate it. I am NOT from a small town, but for some reason that seemed to me to be un-necesarily condescending.

And NO you are not insulting "my" people. There are no "my" people.

My reaction might have been raw but was not intended to be insulting

Mike

No problem.

By the way, I was against the Viet war, and Iraqi war in front. I also thought Desert Storm was probably easily avoidable and the death of so many Iraqi draftees forced to the front lines by a dictator was something worth avoiding at any reasonable cost.

I marched against the Viet war in the early '60's as a child with my parents, as I was raised a Quaker, which is a pacifist religion. I actually argued with my sixth grade teacher about it saying Ho Chin Ming would win a general election of open democracy because he was a national hero for driving out the French (something I'd read in a book by a French writer who opposed the war for a second time around).

It shouldn't be surprising that I'm not real thrilled by my country having a military budget it can't afford and more than the next ten highest spending countries combined. But this isn't a debate I actually want to go into here. It was just a passing comment and not even related to climate change as you imagine I meant. I certainly don't expect all reasonable and intelligent people to agree with me.

Mike, the question I always have for libertarians is, where has their ideal system ever worked? What government in the real world are they asking us to emulate?

Complain as you will about our government, history has not shown that a laissez-faire system is more meritocratic, efficient or in any way more virtuous- whether you are speaking of the outcomes for the poor, the plutocrats or anyone in between.

Post Roosevelt, socialistic America has provided its people with the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, although it has arguably slipped in the standings of late.

But I don't really want to get into a boring political discussion point by point. I just wish you'd answer the first paragraph's questions here.

When I consider the limitations of our own species, the difficulties we have in resolving conflicts, of seeing the other sides point of view, our natural tendency to exaggerate our "fair share" and above all, our propensity for violence to resolve differences, my expectations of any government are not that high. I'm grateful for the one I have, with all its faults.

The reason I continued this discussion was to help educate myself and others on the issue of climate change. I learned about a form of nuclear power that I may be able to support and also began to think about the limitations of any world wide treaty to address the problem. I hope a few others got as much out of it. I guess venting can also be helpful.

So much for consensus...

So all those posts in this thread or related threads about the number who believe in the big lie, turns out to be a big lie itself! ROFLOL, This is even better than the ozone hole!!
No doubt at all in my mind that the press cannot be trusted at all. The new era, "the information age", will defeat them is defeating them, as more and more people bring truth to power. What a joke the current administration is, not only the US, but the UN, and most of the western world.
And the press is one large propaganda machine. Unable to distingish truth from fiction. Man George Orwell was a genius! He saw this coming.
I was ready to give up, but you know, I think the truth will all come out one day. A little bit of hope via the free internet is still hanging on. And may just win the day.

Here is a link that might be useful: The joke they call consensus

This post was edited by Drew51 on Mon, Nov 25, 13 at 1:50

Drew, If you are going to enter a story that is 3 years old (yet still interesting) I probably should post this rebuttal.

I was surprised to find that someone as entrenched in environmental causes and appears in no way financed by energy interests took this position. I will read more about it and see if any other attempts at objective surveys are out there.

If you agree that we should base our actions on a legitimate consensus of scientists in relevant fields then we are in agreement.

I have no investment in the belief in man-made climate disasters. A single article by an outlier is not enough to alter my position, however. I have heard many climatologists being interviewed on this subject over the last few years who generally seem to fall on the "Al Gore" side of the issue. If the consensus is phony, I don't see how the credentialed skeptics don't have a media platform when this article received huge attention, apparently.

Here is a link that might be useful: response

Drew, here is a more complete and seemingly quite reasonable rebuttal.

Here is a link that might be useful: survey

H'man:

I've taken the last couple of days to ruminate and to re-read the posts of this entire topic (both threads) to try and analyze, for my own introspection, my responses and reactions.

The various labels, liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian etc., try to standardize a description for individuals and you just can't do that.

I am not a "pure" libertarian any more than I am a pure conservative or liberal.

On some issues I am to the "right" of Attila the Hun, and you'd be surprised how far "left" I might be on some others.(the whole idea of labeling "right" and "left" started with William Buckley on a T.V. talk show debate in the 1960's)

If I was to form a political party, I would call it the "Sit Right" party. I find myself, more and more just realizing that some stuff that is being done just "doesn't sit right" with me. When that happens I start looking into the subject to see what about it is bothering me and whether it is important enough for me to concern myself with it.

I think that "government's" role should be limited to setting down basic rules/laws. The rest needs to be left to the collective "mega-mind" to develop.

What we seem to forget is that even the largest governmental rule making body is made up of individual human beings.

Once you invest any body with coercive powers, the individuals comprising that body take notice. Over time that the more "aggressive", the more "radical" the most invested "activist" members of that body start to exert their influence within the body. The more gentile members, the less radical, less confrontational members lose influence and are pushed to the side.

Over time the benign governmental body is no longer so benign. The society then becomes victimized by the nameless, faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat who writes the rules and has the practically absolute power to enforce.

We have legislators who write laws and within the laws they abdicate their duty by giving the power to interpret and enforce the law (rulemaking) to the bureaucrat.

I propose that every lawmaker be required to affirm that he/she has read the law, understands the law and his/her understanding of what the law is trying to accomplish.

We make corporate officers to attest that they know the contents of the financial statements that the corporation is releasing.

I further believe that any law that requires more than 50 pages is too complicated.

you said that ...
--"Post Roosevelt, socialistic America has provided its people with the highest standard of living the world has ever seen, although it has arguably slipped in the standings of late."

I think that this was despite the "socialist" turn. The system had a certain momentum that worked despite the turn.

The second part of your statement may have subconsciously proved my point. Roosevelt himself said that governmental employees must not be part of a union for collective bargaining. He stated the inherent conflict of interest of politicians who hold the purse strings disbursing their largess o a group that could now be counted on to return the favor with political support. But, even the the FDR socialist g-d was ignored when it came to human nature's desire for an advantage.

If the government is the protector of the weak, why do the employees of the very government need unions to protect them from the protector?

After 50 years after Roosevelt the turn began, because the needs and desires of the bureaucracy came to dominate the needs of the people that the bureaucracy was to serve.

I am not talking about a totally laissez-faire system. But wahtever you say about a laissez-faire system, it is more energetic that a top down control system which history HAS proven, becomes calcified and does NOT work. A more a laissez-faire system forces human ingenuity to adapt t the environment to be more creative in order to grow, prosper and even survive. When you strip away the need of the individual to do for himself because some government program will provide it with no effort on the individual's part, you strip the energy from the human condition and that is THE recipe for extinction.

That is what __I__ mean by "large government". As I look upon the current landscape, I see more and more of what I described above.

I think that our national will is being sapped because our individual will and energy is being supplanted. Now is that a liberal, conservative, libertarian view? I don't know. IT JUST DOES NOT SIT RIGHT WITH ME.

Happy turkey everyone,

Mike

This post was edited by mes111 on Tue, Nov 26, 13 at 11:29

It is amazing that something so arcane as evidence for man-induced climate change can have such high-energy interest among nonspecialists.

Personally, I stick to topics of lesser controversy, say like gay marriage, gun control, homeschooling, vaccinations, socialized medicine, and jet contrails.

None of those things have anything to do with my fruit trees. When I started getting pests in my trees like green stinkbugs, which had never been a menace here, and we moved up a full climate zone, this issue took on a special resonance. Cornell has even started recommending that commercial growers consider the investment of frost control- because of climate change they believe is already happening.

Growers are always thinking about the weather and worrying about it. Climate is not the same as weather, of course, but it certainly pulls it.

That's why I limited it to "evidence for man-induced climate change."

Of course climate change per se has far wider interest.

The following link details how "man made climate change" is used as the impetus for looting the united states, australia and europe. Note that "emerging economies" like china and india?!? are exempt from regulation under the U.N scheme for redistribution of wealth.

Here is a link that might be useful: U.N. robin hood scheme

Swamp, no one here has endorsed the above treaty or refuted what you've already submitted about it.

GB, if you are interested in climate change, you are also interested in causes.

It's nice to know that some really get it, and I'm not alone.

Here is a link that might be useful: The alarmist rant demystified

Drew,

The author (Delingpole) is doing a bit of cherry picking himself. He comes across a bit confrontational, which I guess is necessary nowadays for anyone to be a popular commentator.

Anyway, the chart he is showing is not a chart in support of the argument "Extreme weather events are increasing: yet another green propaganda myth". He is showing a chart of deaths due to extreme weather. This is not the same as the number of extreme events. Is it surprising that more people died of weather-related events in the 1920s-1940s? That was an era of world wars & their aftermath (not to mention a world-wide depression, antibiotics were just being discovered, viruses were not well understood). Many many posts ago, I put up a chart showing the increase in the number of billion-dollar weather events per year. This is also not the same as an increase in the number of events. It is more a function of our development along the coasts and short-term thought when it comes to civil planning.

The chart that Delingpole shows is taken from data in the paper "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (I.M Goklany) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 14 Number 4 Winter 2009. The paper is definitely making the argument that the human costs of climate change are over dramatized. However, just looking at the data from the paper we cannot draw the conclusion that Delingpole is making.

From the actual paper:
Figure 1: The number of extreme climate events per decade
{{gwi:125600}}
There is likely better reporting of extreme events now as compared to the early 20th century; however this graph clearly shows the events are increasing.

Figure 2: Deaths and death rates due to extreme climate events per decade
{{gwi:125601}}
This is the data from Delingpole's graph. He is showing the data from Figure 2 and making a statement contrary to Figure 1. Did he not see Figure 1 (didn't read the paper he is referencing?) or is he selectively reporting the data that fits with his argument? Either way lacks integrity both scientifically and journalistically.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link to paper

I'm not making any kind of statement with regards to climate change here (anthropogenic or not); I just think that these are interesting data to look at.

One thing I didn't mention before, death & $ by extreme weather events is often due to location more than severity. A weak storm hitting a population center or sensitive area can be worse in terms of human life and dollars than a massive storm that hits an unpopulated area.

Also interesting from that paper--looking at the causes of the deaths in each decade during the peak of deaths (1920s, 30s, & 40s):
1920s (5 events): 97% deaths due to drought (0% to floods)
1930s (6 events): 0% deaths due to drought (98% to floods)
1940s (9 events): 93% deaths due to drought (3% to floods)

Interesting how the cause flip flops each decade. This is probably due to one or two major events causing the deaths in each decade. I don't have the data on this (but you can see the link below), but dam construction really took off in the 1950s and 60s. It would make sense that this would greatly reduce the number of deaths due to both flooding and droughts.

If you look at the 1990s-2000s the majority of the deaths are due to storms and extreme temps.
1900-1989: storms = 11k deaths/year; temps 0.1k/year
1990-2009: storms = 20k deaths/year; temps 5k/year

The paper is really trying to make the point that our morbidity and mortality rates due to climate are decreasing and that a lot of that decrease is due to technological advancements we have thanks to our access to energy/fossil fuels. Some of that is definitely true, but there are obviously large opportunity costs associated with some of that development.

Here is a link that might be useful: Contains a chart on global reservoirs

There is a liberal argument for not drastically reducing greenhouse emissions, assuming government based efforts to reduce world poverty is primarily a focus of liberals. In the long view, it should concern folks of every political position- the tide that lifts the poor lifts all of us.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dirty fuel and poverty

The only ship that's sinking around here is GW. Nice they are going to let that ship pollute the pristine waters, what a shame. What were they thinking? A fools journey to prove GW. They certainly set back the cause. It just goes to show how little we understand our weather. But the disaster makes perfect sense to me. It once again, after many times, shows the incompetence of the scientists associated with GW.

You've read all of their findings and met with each of them personally, to find out for yourself what they were about?

Please let this thread die now. Start another if you like.

I think it's pretty telling that Drew51 thinks that a couple cold days disproves global warming.

XXX

This post was edited by mes111 on Fri, Jan 3, 14 at 20:13