wifeisafurd;842487482 said:

---

There is plenty we as individuals can choose to do. What I find is affluent liberals I know want is the government to do something, but not impact them. Sorta like politicians who always seem to pass legislation that exempt themselves.

---

That doesn't even make sense. Government regulation would probably impact everyone, that's the whole point. What arguments do you hear "affluent liberals" making that would have the government enacting environmental policies that do not impact them? Specifics please.

wifeisafurd;842487482 said:

---

But again I ask what have you done?

---

I'm only one guy, so there's only so much I can do. I live in an apartment building, so I can't really use solar panels. The last time I needed to buy a car I decided to buy a hybrid. I take public transit to work.

wifeisafurd;842487482 said:

---

And what has government action done on have any major impact on global warming?

---

Well, in this country we have one very large political party that essentially takes the position that global warming doesn't exist. Given that, it's very hard to get any significant government action to happen in the first place. So come back and ask me when it actually happens.

Also, any actions that have been taken in recent years (for example, the Obama administration's efforts to invest in renewable energy) would not bear any fruit for many years. So again, check back with me in a decade or so. There are no quick fixes.

wifeisafurd;842487482 said:

---

BTW, the UN, in its wisdom, had declared global warming is irreversible, so they don't think you can do anything.

---

The UN thinks we should do nothing about global warming? That's news to me. Where did you get that?

But it does appear your position is "Let's do nothing" so thanks for clarifying that at least.

wifeisafurd;842487482 said:

---

There is plenty we as individuals can choose to do. What I find is affluent liberals I know want is the government to do something, but not impact them. Sorta like politicians who always seem to pass legislation that exempt themselves. But again I ask what have you done? And what has government action done on have any major impact on global warming?

BTW, the UN, in its wisdom, had declared global warming is irreversible, so they don't think you can do anything. One could argue that their viewpoint was, as often is the case, is influenced by politics. More specifically, the desire of emerging economies to continue to use fossil fuels in their development.

---

68% of carbon dioxide in this country results from transportation and electricity generation, so that's pretty much most of what you need to worry about; whether you're recycling or eating organic vegetables doesn't really matter Globally, the best thing would be to initiate a carbon tax and refund it to the populace via lower taxes but that's not going to happen. In the meant time the developed countries will work to reduce pollution because of both cost and the fact that people in developed countries prefer to live and do live in a lower pollution environment. Eventually China and India will also come to this realization; in fact many in those countries already have.

dajo9;842487330 said:

---

Has there been a federal program that has become law that has the intent of making a substantial impact on climate change?


Individuals can only do so much. I've been driving a hybrid since 2008. I looked into solar power for my house but I have too many trees on the southern side. No, I'm not taking any personal drastic action (though my wife brings her own bags to the grocery store, which I find to be pretty drastic). But I support regulations that improve fuel efficiency and that brings cleaner energy to my home and work. These are things individuals can't do on their own (short of solar power). Only collective action will change the course. Just like where I grew up in smog-infested San Bernardino, but which now has clean air thanks to government regulation.

---

The answer to question is yes, as discussed below.


Well good for you for making the effort (this is not sarcasm). Collective action is really the only way to go. And there is nothing wrong with clean air, even if we are not talking about global warming. In most cases, regulators look at clean air as a balance of industry (jobs) and emissions.

The most liberal guy I know who is also very vocal about the environment drives a Bentley and lives in a huge energy sucking house. However, he and his wife are celebrities so they should be exempt from any hypocrisy standards. But its interesting to see all these people drive around in gas sucking luxury cars and complain about global warming.

Since your now in my world, lets discuss the federal programs expressly aimed at global warming (you can even look them up in the propaganda put out by the Feds):

1) Standards for Gas Emissions and Fuel Use. This was supposed to save round 3000 million metric tons (which in the scheme things is a really small number) of CD emissions by 2025. Most of this stuff has been delayed (hence the 2025 year) and the program is being eclipsed by the move of individual drivers away to alternative fuel cars and hybrids.

2) Renewable Fuel Standard Program: was supposed to reduce 138 metric tons, and cut imports (all this was before the fracking boom). The idea was that a portion of gas would contain renewables. A good idea with no impact on global warming. There have been real problems getting this program implemented.

3) Various carbon and greenhouse emission rules for power plants. For those of us with electric cars that live in certain areas of the country this would be important if it was not probably unconstitutional and illegal since the EPA missed the required deadlines to issue the rules. Assuming the rules are upheld, there is criticism that the technology doesn't exist to meet the standards and that the Feds will give everyone waivers in a few years, so this is really just feel good rule making to make a certain politician look good to his constituencies. A better way is what Cali does is to force energy retailers to use alternative energy sources that have smaller carbon footprints.

4) Greenhouse Gas Reporting System. This doesn't reduce any emissions and the Cal regulators I know think the reporting system is a burden and flawed.

5) Landfill Air Pollution Standards: This program hardly reduces any emissions (and could actually increase emissions), and imposes huge costs on state and local taxpayers. The irony is most landfills capture emissions, particularly methane, in power plants and produce recycled energy. This is one of those regs where we had Cal Tech and other scientists telling the Feds they were wrong and government attorneys saying they didn't care.

6) Oil and Natural Gas Standards: The big claim here is that the rules if upheld by the courts, "will reduce emissions from 95 percent reduction in VOC emissions from more than 11,000 new [e.g., future] hydraulically fractured gas wells each year." The rules will also reduce air toxics and emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The assumption here is that fracking would continue unabated despite the drop in oil prices, and the addition of these costs. These rules I assume will make for a safer work environment, but will have no impact on global warming. In fact, to the extent the rules legitimizes the use of fractured gas wells, it probably adds to the advancement of that industry and the evolution of the US as a fossil fuel exporter. Suffice to say this is not a popular rule with either blue or red state regulators.

7) Geologic Sequestration Rules. This sounds like a budget item, but is the process of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power plant, into a well thousands of feet underground and sequestering the CO2 underground indefinitely. With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of CO2. Again, this may be a good idea in the future if the technology works, but the emissions savings are negligible compared to world wide CO2 emissions. Also, this rule could usurp what a lot of states are doing.

The last issue raises a real big issue with the overall White House Climate Change Regulatory Initiative. It gets in the way of State regulatory schemes or approaches, especially states like Cali who are far ahead of the EPA on techniques to attack global warming. These rules take many big emitters out of the State scheme due to Federal supremacy and free to pollute way beyond State standards, and there are other technical issues which will put people to sleep. From the standpoint of environmentalists I know (its a small community), there appears to me to be two different perspectives. There is uniform consensus these rules could help with local air pollution situations, but have no real impact on global warming. One perspective is that this is a start, and hopefully will be a lead for the rest of the world to follow. Another view is these rules are highly cosmetic and aimed at making voters and others think the Feds are doing something on global warming, and will lead to less concern for global warming. I think most environmentalists would like to see a carbon tax on imports and most domestic products, but even that has a lot of issues.

wifeisafurd;842487501 said:

---

The answer to question is yes, as discussed below.


Well good for you for making the effort (this is not sarcasm). Collective action is really the only way to go. And there is nothing wrong with clean air, even if we are not talking about global warming. In most cases, regulators look at clean air as a balance of industry (jobs) and emissions.

The most liberal guy I know who is also very vocal about the environment drives a Bentley and lives in a huge energy sucking house. However, he and his wife are celebrities so they should be exempt from any hypocrisy standards. But its interesting to see all these people drive around in gas sucking luxury cars and complain about global warming.

Since your now in my world, lets discuss the federal programs expressly aimed at global warming (you can even look them up in the propaganda put out by the Feds):

1) Standards for Gas Emissions and Fuel Use. This was supposed to save round 3000 million metric tons (which in the scheme things is a really small number) of CD emissions by 2025. Most of this stuff has been delayed (hence the 2025 year) and the program is being eclipsed by the move of individual drivers away to alternative fuel cars and hybrids.

2) Renewable Fuel Standard Program: was supposed to reduce 138 metric tons, and cut imports (all this was before the fracking boom). The idea was that a portion of gas would contain renewables. A good idea with no impact on global warming. There have been real problems getting this program implemented.

3) Various carbon and greenhouse emission rules for power plants. For those of us with electric cars that live in certain areas of the country this would be important if it was not probably unconstitutional and illegal since the EPA missed the required deadlines to issue the rules. Assuming the rules are upheld, there is criticism that the technology doesn't exist to meet the standards and that the Feds will give everyone waivers in a few years, so this is really just feel good rule making to make a certain politician look good to his constituencies. A better way is what Cali does is to force energy retailers to use alternative energy sources that have smaller carbon footprints.

4) Greenhouse Gas Reporting System. This doesn't reduce any emissions and the Cal regulators I know think the reporting system is a burden and flawed.

5) Landfill Air Pollution Standards: This program hardly reduces any emissions (and could actually increase emissions), and imposes huge costs on state and local taxpayers. The irony is most landfills capture emissions, particularly methane, in power plants and produce recycled energy. This is one of those regs where we had Cal Tech and other scientists telling the Feds they were wrong and government attorneys saying they didn't care.

6) Oil and Natural Gas Standards: The big claim here is that the rules if upheld by the courts, "will reduce emissions from 95 percent reduction in VOC emissions from more than 11,000 new [e.g., future] hydraulically fractured gas wells each year." The rules will also reduce air toxics and emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The assumption here is that fracking would continue unabated despite the drop in oil prices, and the addition of these costs. These rules I assume will make for a safer work environment, but will have no impact on global warming. In fact, to the extent the rules legitimizes the use of fractured gas wells, it probably adds to the advancement of that industry and the evolution of the US as a fossil fuel exporter. Suffice to say this is not a popular rule with either blue or red state regulators.

7) Geologic Sequestration Rules. This sounds like a budget item, but is the process of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power plant, into a well thousands of feet underground and sequestering the CO2 underground indefinitely. With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of CO2. Again, this may be a good idea in the future if the technology works, but the emissions savings are negligible compared to world wide CO2 emissions. Also, this rule could usurp what a lot of states are doing.

The last issue raises a real big issue with the overall White House Climate Change Regulatory Initiative. It gets in the way of State regulatory schemes or approaches, especially states like Cali who are far ahead of the EPA on techniques to attack global warming. These rules take many big emitters out of the State scheme due to Federal supremacy and free to pollute way beyond State standards, and there are other technical issues which will put people to sleep. From the standpoint of environmentalists I know (its a small community), there appears to me to be two different perspectives. There is uniform consensus these rules could help with local air pollution situations, but have no real impact on global warming. One perspective is that this is a start, and hopefully will be a lead for the rest of the world to follow. Another view is these rules are highly cosmetic and aimed at making voters and others think the Feds are doing something on global warming, and will lead to less concern for global warming. I think most environmentalists would like to see a carbon tax on imports and most domestic products, but even that has a lot of issues.

---

That's the collectivist side of the story. I'll let you assess it.

Here's what one individual did on the private sector side - ME. We built a new house and chose an architect/gc who had built solar heated homes - low tech, stick built. It was an east/west ranch with a shed roof going to the rear. Under the eave of the shed roof in back (couldn't see it AT ALL from the road) was a full -length site-built array of solar panels 8 feet high and 60 feet long. The system was hot air and the home was built over a 4 foot deep foundation that had crushed stone in it. The panels were flat black painted corrugated steel roof panels behind insulated glass. It was operated with only one additional motor over a standard hot air heating/cooling system. The motor blew the hot air over the stones that retained the heat until needed. When there was not enough heat in the rocks and it was cloudy, a backup gas furnace kicked in automatically. It only cost us $15,000 over what the house would have cost us without it.

This thing worked like a charm. We lived in a cold climate where our average heating bill in our old house was $5,000 per year. In the 10 years we lived in the solar one, the worst year was $125 for the YEAR and the best was $75 (gas). We also burned 2 cords of wood in a woodstove. There was NO maintenance, except an annual tune-up and a little caulking.

The problem - despite meticulous records and demonstrations, no one was interested in buying it when it came time to sell. No one believed it. We had to discount it 25% to move it and we lost a bundle. The guy who bought it was a mechanical engineer and he knew exactly what he was looking at. He's still there and should double his investment when HE sells.

For the record, I also bought one of the first Honda Civics (an orange Tonka) and have had successful experience with geothermal. Finally, I'm involved with major energy projects for the public buildings in the town I now live in. We are going all solar and geothermal for the major town buildings and all schools. In the deal we cut with the power company, assisted by the major PRIVATE sector employers in town who kicked in capital in return for tax relief, after the first year, we will be NETTING $800,000 per year. That's profit over all expenses, including debt service.

So, while the public sector is all talk, smoke and mirrors, the private sector does offer opportunities. You have to take a risk and know where to look, as is true with all private sector endeavors. Nothing's guaranteed, but you can make it happen. LOTS of people could do this kind of thing - not the exact same, but figure it out, fer cryin' out loud.

Double post..

wifeisafurd;842487501 said:

---

The answer to question is yes, as discussed below.


Well good for you for making the effort (this is not sarcasm). Collective action is really the only way to go. And there is nothing wrong with clean air, even if we are not talking about global warming. In most cases, regulators look at clean air as a balance of industry (jobs) and emissions.

The most liberal guy I know who is also very vocal about the environment drives a Bentley and lives in a huge energy sucking house. However, he and his wife are celebrities so they should be exempt from any hypocrisy standards. But its interesting to see all these people drive around in gas sucking luxury cars and complain about global warming.

Since your now in my world, lets discuss the federal programs expressly aimed at global warming (you can even look them up in the propaganda put out by the Feds):

1) Standards for Gas Emissions and Fuel Use. This was supposed to save round 3000 million metric tons (which in the scheme things is a really small number) of CD emissions by 2025. Most of this stuff has been delayed (hence the 2025 year) and the program is being eclipsed by the move of individual drivers away to alternative fuel cars and hybrids.

This is why I asked you to define what would be a substantial impact. You seem to what a silver bullet solution when the source of the problem is very heterogeneous in nature. We can talk about fossil fuels and emissions, but they come in different forms and produced by different processes and certainly will require different solutions of varying impact.

2) Renewable Fuel Standard Program: was supposed to reduce 138 metric tons, and cut imports (all this was before the fracking boom). The idea was that a portion of gas would contain renewables. A good idea with no impact on global warming. There have been real problems getting this program implemented.

3) Various carbon and greenhouse emission rules for power plants. For those of us with electric cars that live in certain areas of the country this would be important if it was not probably unconstitutional and illegal since the EPA missed the required deadlines to issue the rules. Assuming the rules are upheld, there is criticism that the technology doesn't exist to meet the standards and that the Feds will give everyone waivers in a few years, so this is really just feel good rule making to make a certain politician look good to his constituencies. A better way is what Cali does is to force energy retailers to use alternative energy sources that have smaller carbon footprints.

So what your are saying is that power plant rules are constitutional and legal? I'm guessing that isn't what you are intending. What technology are you referring to here? The Clean Power Plan is mostly about retirement of the dirtiest power sources, replacing that capacity with cleaner fossil fuel options and either renewable energy or energy efficiency activities. The technology is very much here, it works and there is no question about its viability. This isn't nuclear fission we are talking about.

4) Greenhouse Gas Reporting System. This doesn't reduce any emissions and the Cal regulators I know think the reporting system is a burden and flawed.

This program was always more about measuring something so you can manage it better. Not sure what your point is regarding it not reducing emissions. Why would we restrict our government from measuring things that are within the government purview in order to manage them better, when every other part of our capitalist economy is afforded the same opportunity. Transparency in information leads to innovation and economic progress.

5) Landfill Air Pollution Standards: This program hardly reduces any emissions (and could actually increase emissions), and imposes huge costs on state and local taxpayers. The irony is most landfills capture emissions, particularly methane, in power plants and produce recycled energy. This is one of those regs where we had Cal Tech and other scientists telling the Feds they were wrong and government attorneys saying they didn't care.

You aren't being very specific about your criticism. What about methane destruction do you feel isn't a net benefit for reducing the impact of total emissions?

6) Oil and Natural Gas Standards: The big claim here is that the rules if upheld by the courts, "will reduce emissions from 95 percent reduction in VOC emissions from more than 11,000 new [e.g., future] hydraulically fractured gas wells each year." The rules will also reduce air toxics and emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The assumption here is that fracking would continue unabated despite the drop in oil prices, and the addition of these costs. These rules I assume will make for a safer work environment, but will have no impact on global warming. In fact, to the extent the rules legitimizes the use of fractured gas wells, it probably adds to the advancement of that industry and the evolution of the US as a fossil fuel exporter. Suffice to say this is not a popular rule with either blue or red state regulators.

Can you provide the authority that gives the feds to regulate hydraulic fracing? There is a reason why all the anti fracing legistlation is happening at the state level. I wouldn't blame the Federal government for not regulating when they haven't been given the proper authorities to do so.

7) Geologic Sequestration Rules. This sounds like a budget item, but is the process of injecting carbon dioxide (CO2) from a source, such as a coal-fired electric generating power plant, into a well thousands of feet underground and sequestering the CO2 underground indefinitely. With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of CO2. Again, this may be a good idea in the future if the technology works, but the emissions savings are negligible compared to world wide CO2 emissions. Also, this rule could usurp what a lot of states are doing.

The last issue raises a real big issue with the overall White House Climate Change Regulatory Initiative. It gets in the way of State regulatory schemes or approaches, especially states like Cali who are far ahead of the EPA on techniques to attack global warming. These rules take many big emitters out of the State scheme due to Federal supremacy and free to pollute way beyond State standards, and there are other technical issues which will put people to sleep. From the standpoint of environmentalists I know (its a small community), there appears to me to be two different perspectives. There is uniform consensus these rules could help with local air pollution situations, but have no real impact on global warming. One perspective is that this is a start, and hopefully will be a lead for the rest of the world to follow. Another view is these rules are highly cosmetic and aimed at making voters and others think the Feds are doing something on global warming, and will lead to less concern for global warming. I think most environmentalists would like to see a carbon tax on imports and most domestic products, but even that has a lot of issues.

---

Go bears!

The administration has pledged to cut emissions by 17% by 2020 with 2005 as a base year. What is less publicized is that by 2012 12% of this has already been achieved due to the boom in gas production and its replacement of coal and a crappy economy.

GB54;842487564 said:

---

The administration has pledged to cut emissions by 17% by 2020 with 2005 as a base year. What is less publicized is that by 2012 12% of this has already been achieved due to the boom in gas production and its replacement of coal and a crappy economy.

---

So what you're saying is that regulation should be more stringent and you are not satisfied with the current level of government action?

CALiforniALUM;842487565 said:

---

So what you're saying is that regulation should be more stringent and you are not satisfied with the current level of government action?

---

There is no government action but some of these things fix themself.

Rushinbear;842487423 said:

---

Berlinerbaer (?), finally, a ray of hope. My problem is that these factors appear not to be accounted for in the IPCC presentations, because either IPCC is unable to account for them, or the IPCC has done so, found them to be contrary to their objectives and, therefore, withheld their model from the public (which they have).

---

I'll forgive your condescension. As far as your factors go, I thought my post was clear as to why they are not seriously considered as causes of the recent warming trend. Their periodicities don't match the current warming period. Read again.

There is so much nonsense in your paragraph below that I need to comment on each sentence one at a time.

Rushinbear;842487423 said:

---

I'm more concerned about cooling. We are nearing the historic end of the Holocene (if the Eemian is any indication) and we are well into a lull between Ice Ages.

Historic end? Oxymoron? Well into a lull could easily mean we have another 5000 years or interglacial to go before we enter the cool cycle. Don't hold your breath.

The sun is quiet right now and there is no way to predict when its activity will resume.

The sun was quiet for awhile but I thought activity had resumed. I just read about a fairly large CME from the sun and a very active aurora lately.

In the 1980's, some of these same scientists were predicting a cooling (and the Green crowd, although they called themselves something else, did their Chicken Little act then, too) - based largely on greenhouse gases reflecting solar radiation.

Complete, utter stupidity. It's physically impossible for greenhouse gases to "reflect" solar radiation. They absorb. Always. They could possibly re-emit the energy gained by absorption if they could avoid a collision with a nearby gas molecule, but the atmosphere is too dense for that. The gained kinetic energy will be transferred to the atmosphere as a whole.

Since the earth's temps have been flat for the last 17 years or so, I wonder if something's going on.

---

You're clearly looking at fudged data if you honestly believe that.

Rushinbear;842487423 said:

---

All we have from the CC believers is that the temps are rising (they vastly overblow the CO2 increase and its effects, discounting its positive ones) and mankind must be responsible. That's like a doctor finding a patient's temp to be 99 over a few hours and putting him in an ice bath to bring it down. I wouldn't be paying THAT doctor to prescribe medication, if any was indicated.

---

It is extremely easy to measure CO2 concentrations. A cheap infrared spectrometer (costs about $20,000) is good enough. It would be very hard to publish bad data that could easily be refuted by university labs around the world. Furthermore, the increase corresponds exactly to the start and progress of industrialization globally.

You're last sentence tells me a lot about your inability to understand nuance and complexity. If the patient is suffering from heatstroke, the ice bath would be a great idea.

I'm curious as to what positive effects rising CO2 levels have. That's a new one.

I don't mean to be a dick, but you sound like somebody who is interested in science but without a higher science education. There are clearly either things you don't understand or are unable to adequately express without others misunderstanding. I'm interested to see how you further harm your credibility.

[SIZE=3][/SIZE]

dajo9;842487152 said:

---

I really disagree with the notion that MSNBC is on the level with Newsmax and Fox. Yes, MSNBC is liberal (except for three hours every weekday morning when a conservative republican hosts a show) but it displays its liberalness by covering material that is important or relevant to liberals. For example, it will give scrutiny to a conservative politician engaged in wrongdoing. However, MSNBC is not in the business of spreading lies and false misinformation, which is what Newsmax and Fox do all too often. That is a completely different level of partisanship.

---

LOL! :rollinglaugh:

Interesting thread. A few thoughts (honestly not trolling).

1. Anyone who suggests there are powerful money interests on only one side of this issue (big business/Koch) is either naive or disingenuous. There is an active pro-climate change lobby from Steyer (who only became an environmentalist after making massive wealth exploiting fossil fuels) to the lobbyists who have obtained all kinds of corporate welfare for "clean energy" companies (Solyndra being only the tip of the iceberg). Al Gore has become a wealthy man by virtue of his climate alarmism and political connections (all while maintaining a massive carbon footprint). After Obama's election, law firms and lobbyists formed "clean energy groups" and, with their clients, made billions off of the clean energy companies. There is big business both in fossil fuels and clean energy.

2. I am not a scientist. Like most people, I have very little understanding of the technical climate data and/or scientific mechanisms of climate and weather. I admit that. Sadly, most people do not. In terms of the notion that it is "settled science," I can't help but be deeply suspicious of that, for several reasons. Most significantly, I think its pretty clear that the human understanding of climate (and for that matter, weather) is very limited. That really cannot be disputed - all of the “official” climate change models from the past 25+ years (from the UN and other so called experts) have proven wildly inaccurate – almost always overstated in how “bad” things will be. In fact, they had to change the term "global warming" to "climate change" precisely because the predictive models were wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that, similar to macro-economics, there are too many poorly understood variables and assumptions underlying these models to make correct predictions. In sum, it seems pretty reasonable for me to think that humans are affecting climate, but I don't think anyone understands how (or to what extent) and whether these effects are permanent/significant. Given how wrong their models and predictions have been, the so called expert scientists don’t seem to have answers. Certainly not answers that are beyond dispute.

3. I’m deeply suspicious of scientists who hide their data and methodology while at the same time plotting, in advance, to prevent legitimate scrutiny from people with opposing views. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ That is a clear indication that politics is driving the science – or perhaps that the scientists have set out with a predetermined conclusion in mind.

4 I’m even more suspicious of attempts by scientists and partisans to foreclose further debate by declaring the matter “settled”. As noted above, the so called settled science has been terribly inaccurate in its prediction models. More generally, it is very odd for scientists to take the position that their conclusions (already shown to not be particularly accurate) are beyond question. It is not just a scientific debate – pro-climate change forces have attempted to silence and intimidate scientists that they disagree with. If they are so sure of their conclusions, why the gestapo tactics?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/science/lawmakers-seek-information-on-funding-for-climate-change-critics.html

5. As noted above in this thread, the temperature measurement methodology is suspect – on both sides. Simply put, we do not have accurate records of temperatures going back a long enough. I suspect that is one reason the models have been so inaccurate.

6. More recently, climate change proponents have taken to wrongfully conflating weather and climate when it suits their needs – and they know better. This seems to be an indication that they can’t formulate better arguments, which is a pretty big indictment. If we have a bad hurricane or tornado season (which happens from time to time), it is because of climate change. When we don’t (i.e., past few years of relatively few hurricanes), we hear nothing. More recently, Governor Brown and others are now blaming the California drought on climate change. California (particularly Southern) has been a dessert forever – it was only irrigation projects that made living here possible. Since I was a child, California has experienced droughts. There is absolutely no scientific basis (yet) for concluding the drought – or any current example of weather - is a symptom of human induced climate change.

7. Even if the human causes of climate change are not overstated, what can be done about it? The US cannot alone implement enough changes to have a real effect (i.e., China and other developing countries are adding pollution faster than we can reduce it). Simply put, I don’t believe anyone has a solution to the problem.

I have no reason to doubt that human behavior impacts climate. Even if no one knows exactly how or to what extent, I think that’s reason enough to change behaviors. However, from my perspective the alarmists don’t want to engage in any cost-benefit analysis or any real discussion of what effect, if any, their proposals will have. The truth is, they don’t know – which is why they try to foreclose any discussion of these issues.

BearGoggles;842487599 said:

---

Interesting thread. A few thoughts (honestly not trolling).

1. Anyone who suggests there are powerful money interests on only one side of this issue (big business/Koch) is either naive or disingenuous. There is an active pro-climate change lobby from Steyer (who only became an environmentalist after making massive wealth exploiting fossil fuels) to the lobbyists who have obtained all kinds of corporate welfare for "clean energy" companies (Solyndra being only the tip of the iceberg). Al Gore has become a wealthy man by virtue of his climate alarmism and political connections (all while maintaining a massive carbon footprint). After Obama's election, law firms and lobbyists formed "clean energy groups" and, with their clients, made billions off of the clean energy companies. There is big business both in fossil fuels and clean energy.

2. I am not a scientist. Like most people, I have very little understanding of the technical climate data and/or scientific mechanisms of climate and weather. I admit that. Sadly, most people do not. In terms of the notion that it is "settled science," I can't help but be deeply suspicious of that, for several reasons. Most significantly, I think its pretty clear that the human understanding of climate (and for that matter, weather) is very limited. That really cannot be disputed - all of the "official" climate change models from the past 25+ years (from the UN and other so called experts) have proven wildly inaccurate almost always overstated in how "bad" things will be. In fact, they had to change the term "global warming" to "climate change" precisely because the predictive models were wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that, similar to macro-economics, there are too many poorly understood variables and assumptions underlying these models to make correct predictions. In sum, it seems pretty reasonable for me to think that humans are affecting climate, but I don't think anyone understands how (or to what extent) and whether these effects are permanent/significant. Given how wrong their models and predictions have been, the so called expert scientists don't seem to have answers. Certainly not answers that are beyond dispute.

3. I'm deeply suspicious of scientists who hide their data and methodology while at the same time plotting, in advance, to prevent legitimate scrutiny from people with opposing views. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ That is a clear indication that politics is driving the science or perhaps that the scientists have set out with a predetermined conclusion in mind.

4 I'm even more suspicious of attempts by scientists and partisans to foreclose further debate by declaring the matter "settled". As noted above, the so called settled science has been terribly inaccurate in its prediction models. More generally, it is very odd for scientists to take the position that their conclusions (already shown to not be particularly accurate) are beyond question. It is not just a scientific debate pro-climate change forces have attempted to silence and intimidate scientists that they disagree with. If they are so sure of their conclusions, why the gestapo tactics?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/science/lawmakers-seek-information-on-funding-for-climate-change-critics.html

5. As noted above in this thread, the temperature measurement methodology is suspect on both sides. Simply put, we do not have accurate records of temperatures going back a long enough. I suspect that is one reason the models have been so inaccurate.

6. More recently, climate change proponents have taken to wrongfully conflating weather and climate when it suits their needs and they know better. This seems to be an indication that they can't formulate better arguments, which is a pretty big indictment. If we have a bad hurricane or tornado season (which happens from time to time), it is because of climate change. When we don't (i.e., past few years of relatively few hurricanes), we hear nothing. More recently, Governor Brown and others are now blaming the California drought on climate change. California (particularly Southern) has been a dessert forever it was only irrigation projects that made living here possible. Since I was a child, California has experienced droughts. There is absolutely no scientific basis (yet) for concluding the drought or any current example of weather - is a symptom of human induced climate change.

7. Even if the human causes of climate change are not overstated, what can be done about it? The US cannot alone implement enough changes to have a real effect (i.e., China and other developing countries are adding pollution faster than we can reduce it). Simply put, I don't believe anyone has a solution to the problem.

I have no reason to doubt that human behavior impacts climate. Even if no one knows exactly how or to what extent, I think that's reason enough to change behaviors. However, from my perspective the alarmists don't want to engage in any cost-benefit analysis or any real discussion of what effect, if any, their proposals will have. The truth is, they don't know which is why they try to foreclose any discussion of these issues.

---

Yes, very well said but none of your points ever acknowledged by any progressive, after all Obama said it is settled.

BearGoggles;842487599 said:

---

Interesting thread. A few thoughts (honestly not trolling).

1. Anyone who suggests there are powerful money interests on only one side of this issue (big business/Koch) is either naive or disingenuous. There is an active pro-climate change lobby from Steyer (who only became an environmentalist after making massive wealth exploiting fossil fuels) to the lobbyists who have obtained all kinds of corporate welfare for "clean energy" companies (Solyndra being only the tip of the iceberg). Al Gore has become a wealthy man by virtue of his climate alarmism and political connections (all while maintaining a massive carbon footprint). After Obama's election, law firms and lobbyists formed "clean energy groups" and, with their clients, made billions off of the clean energy companies. There is big business both in fossil fuels and clean energy.

2. I am not a scientist. Like most people, I have very little understanding of the technical climate data and/or scientific mechanisms of climate and weather. I admit that. Sadly, most people do not. In terms of the notion that it is "settled science," I can't help but be deeply suspicious of that, for several reasons. Most significantly, I think its pretty clear that the human understanding of climate (and for that matter, weather) is very limited. That really cannot be disputed - all of the “official” climate change models from the past 25+ years (from the UN and other so called experts) have proven wildly inaccurate – almost always overstated in how “bad” things will be. In fact, they had to change the term "global warming" to "climate change" precisely because the predictive models were wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that, similar to macro-economics, there are too many poorly understood variables and assumptions underlying these models to make correct predictions. In sum, it seems pretty reasonable for me to think that humans are affecting climate, but I don't think anyone understands how (or to what extent) and whether these effects are permanent/significant. Given how wrong their models and predictions have been, the so called expert scientists don’t seem to have answers. Certainly not answers that are beyond dispute.

3. I’m deeply suspicious of scientists who hide their data and methodology while at the same time plotting, in advance, to prevent legitimate scrutiny from people with opposing views. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ That is a clear indication that politics is driving the science – or perhaps that the scientists have set out with a predetermined conclusion in mind.

4 I’m even more suspicious of attempts by scientists and partisans to foreclose further debate by declaring the matter “settled”. As noted above, the so called settled science has been terribly inaccurate in its prediction models. More generally, it is very odd for scientists to take the position that their conclusions (already shown to not be particularly accurate) are beyond question. It is not just a scientific debate – pro-climate change forces have attempted to silence and intimidate scientists that they disagree with. If they are so sure of their conclusions, why the gestapo tactics?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/science/lawmakers-seek-information-on-funding-for-climate-change-critics.html

5. As noted above in this thread, the temperature measurement methodology is suspect – on both sides. Simply put, we do not have accurate records of temperatures going back a long enough. I suspect that is one reason the models have been so inaccurate.

6. More recently, climate change proponents have taken to wrongfully conflating weather and climate when it suits their needs – and they know better. This seems to be an indication that they can’t formulate better arguments, which is a pretty big indictment. If we have a bad hurricane or tornado season (which happens from time to time), it is because of climate change. When we don’t (i.e., past few years of relatively few hurricanes), we hear nothing. More recently, Governor Brown and others are now blaming the California drought on climate change. California (particularly Southern) has been a dessert forever – it was only irrigation projects that made living here possible. Since I was a child, California has experienced droughts. There is absolutely no scientific basis (yet) for concluding the drought – or any current example of weather - is a symptom of human induced climate change.

7. Even if the human causes of climate change are not overstated, what can be done about it? The US cannot alone implement enough changes to have a real effect (i.e., China and other developing countries are adding pollution faster than we can reduce it). Simply put, I don’t believe anyone has a solution to the problem.

I have no reason to doubt that human behavior impacts climate. Even if no one knows exactly how or to what extent, I think that’s reason enough to change behaviors. However, from my perspective the alarmists don’t want to engage in any cost-benefit analysis or any real discussion of what effect, if any, their proposals will have. The truth is, they don’t know – which is why they try to foreclose any discussion of these issues.

---

What a voice of reason. Thank you for your post. We can all do everything we can to reduce the effects of man while exploring and finding more firmness in scientific modeling. Little of what you said could be construed as words of a "denier", but most assuredly will be taken that way by CC settled science proponents. Being for man's reduction of his/her effects on the earth, I at the same time am most fiscally pragmatic and conservative. No one has explained to any degree of satisfaction why we should go ahead with strangulating economic consequences while the rest of mother earth is allowed to spew out its cr*p. Just does not make sense, with a lot of other pro stances. Again, thanks for a well reasoned stance on this whole complex issue.

OdontoBear66;842487608 said:

---

No one has explained to any degree of satisfaction why we should go ahead with strangulating economic consequences while the rest of mother earth is allowed to spew out its cr*p.

---

Why do you assume a move to renewable energy and less reliance on fossil fuels would have strangulating economic consequences? Seems to me that in the long run we would be better off doing that: getting out of the mess that is the Middle East, ability to grow infrastructure more quickly without worrying about negative environmental effects, probably a number of new jobs created by this new industry. It really sounds like a win-win to me.

That's in the long run, though. There might be some short-term pain, but as fossil fuels are finite resources that's going to happen at some point anyway. Why not start doing something about it now?

I think we're at the point now where people are just re-posting from last week's thread. As I mentioned last week, what we've established is that conservatives seem to be coalescing around the following: (i) there is no climate change or (ii) if there is, humans aren't a material cause, or (ii) even if there is climate change and we are a material cause, there's nothing we can do because CHINA!!!! BearGoggles wrote it well, but the reasoning still befuddles me - unless you are predicating your argument based on the outcome you want to achieve, how can your argument be based on 3 alternate scenarios?

It's also laughable that conservatives are saying that no cost-benefit analysis is contemplated and that we're talking about spending trillions, but well, there you have it.

Unit2Sucks;842487632 said:

---

I think we're at the point now where people are just re-posting from last week's thread. As I mentioned last week, what we've established is that conservatives seem to be coalescing around the following: (i) there is no climate change or (ii) if there is, humans aren't a material cause, or (ii) even if there is climate change and we are a material cause, there's nothing we can do because CHINA!!!! BearGoggles wrote it well, but the reasoning still befuddles me - unless you are predicating your argument based on the outcome you want to achieve, how can your argument be based on 3 alternate scenarios?

It's also laughable that conservatives are saying that no cost-benefit analysis is contemplated and that we're talking about spending trillions, but well, there you have it.

---

So you are saying a cost-benefit analysis will be done and the total cost won't be a trillion dollars? Is that what you are saying?

Unit2Sucks;842487632 said:

---

I think we're at the point now where people are just re-posting from last week's thread. As I mentioned last week, what we've established is that conservatives seem to be coalescing around the following: (i) there is no climate change or (ii) if there is, humans aren't a material cause, or (ii) even if there is climate change and we are a material cause, there's nothing we can do because CHINA!!!! BearGoggles wrote it well, but the reasoning still befuddles me - unless you are predicating your argument based on the outcome you want to achieve, how can your argument be based on 3 alternate scenarios?

It's also laughable that conservatives are saying that no cost-benefit analysis is contemplated and that we're talking about spending trillions, but well, there you have it.

---

I didn't see another thread on this in the past few weeks, so perhaps I've repeated something someone else said.

Unit2, you usually are pretty reasonable and rational, but you are clearly choosing not to read what I said and/or demagogue. I'm not making either of the first two arguments you suggest.

Definitionally, climate changes - that is a total red herring. It would change, with or without humans.

The question is how and why climate changes. To be succinct, I'm saying that I don't know and, to this point, it seems apparent that no one really understands or knows (including you and the so called alarmist experts who have been wrong with every dire prediction). So given that no one knows, why should one side (the alarmists) get to set the agenda, silence people who disagree, and demand complete adherence to their point of view?

It is dangerous to over generalize, but there clearly is a contingent of "no fossil fuel" proponents who don't care what the economic consequence is of their proposals. Opposing the keystone pipeline extension is a great example - the sole purpose of the opponents is to punish the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, at least for now, clean energy is more expensive the fossil fuels (particularly if you take away government subsidies), so they want to make fossil fuels more expensive by any means necessary.


Sycasey above seems to not understand (or be wiling to admit) that higher energy costs have a huge impact on the long and short term economy (everything from gas prices to manufacturing). In a worldwide economy, comparative energy costs matter. Companies make long term decisions based on energy costs (among other costs). He's also ignoring that thanks to fracking, the US could be energy independent if it wanted to. Also, the jobs argument is bogus. Limiting fossil fuel use hurts american jobs (coal minors and domestic drilling) and trades those for solar panels made in China (with the use of cheap dirty energy I might add). Its a pretty mixed bag.

What I've said in this thread is not conservative dogma. Its intellectual honesty and yes, a healthy bit of skepticism. However, that is what is required as part of the scientific method.. And it should continue until you or someone else can provide a climate change model that: (i) accurately explains past climate changes and ACCURATELY predicts future changes; and (ii) accurately quantifies how humans are contributing to that change. We are no where close to that and until we are, the alarmists are the modern day chicken littles.

BearGoggles;842487639 said:

---

I didn't see another thread on this in the past few weeks, so perhaps I've repeated something someone else said.

Unit2, you usually are pretty reasonable and rational, but you are clearly choosing not to read what I said and/or demagogue. I'm not making either of the first two arguments you suggest.

Definitionally, climate changes - that is a total red herring. It would change, with or without humans.

The question is how and why climate changes. To be succinct, I'm saying that I don't know and, to this point, it seems apparent that no one really understands or knows (including you and the so called alarmist experts who have been wrong with every dire prediction). So given that no one knows, why should one side (the alarmists) get to set the agenda, silence people who disagree, and demand complete adherence to their point of view?

It is dangerous to over generalize, but there clearly is a contingent of "no fossil fuel" proponents who don't care what the economic consequence is of their proposals. Opposing the keystone pipeline extension is a great example - the sole purpose of the opponents is to punish the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, at least for now, clean energy is more expensive the fossil fuels (particularly if you take away government subsidies), so they want to make fossil fuels more expensive by any means necessary.


Sycasey above seems to not understand (or be wiling to admit) that higher energy costs have a huge impact on the long and short term economy (everything from gas prices to manufacturing). In a worldwide economy, comparative energy costs matter. Companies make long term decisions based on energy costs (among other costs). He's also ignoring that thanks to fracking, the US could be energy independent if it wanted to. Also, the jobs argument is bogus. Limiting fossil fuel use hurts american jobs (coal minors and domestic drilling) and trades those for solar panels made in China (with the use of cheap dirty energy I might add). Its a pretty mixed bag.

What I've said in this thread is not conservative dogma. Its intellectual honesty and yes, a healthy bit of skepticism. However, that is what is required as part of the scientific method.. And it should continue until you or someone else can provide a climate change model that: (i) accurately explains past climate changes and ACCURATELY predicts future changes; and (ii) accurately quantifies how humans are contributing to that change. We are no where close to that and until we are, the alarmists are the modern day chicken littles.

---

Again well stated. Thank you.

BearGoggles;842487639 said:

---

Sycasey above seems to not understand (or be wiling to admit) that higher energy costs have a huge impact on the long and short term economy (everything from gas prices to manufacturing). In a worldwide economy, comparative energy costs matter. Companies make long term decisions based on energy costs (among other costs). He's also ignoring that thanks to fracking, the US could be energy independent if it wanted to. Also, the jobs argument is bogus. Limiting fossil fuel use hurts american jobs (coal minors and domestic drilling) and trades those for solar panels made in China (with the use of cheap dirty energy I might add). Its a pretty mixed bag.

---

I'd be willing to admit it if it were actually demonstrated. What I see so far is a lot of assertions that regulations on carbon emissions would definitely result in "trillions of dollars" lost from the US economy and precious little evidence for it. I find it ironic that the "skeptics" claim that science hasn't proven enough to them about global warming but then will throw out these doomsday scenarios about government regulations destroying our economy without any real backing.

One thing I am most certainly not wrong about is that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and that at some point we will need to have something else. Given that, I'm not sure why anyone would be against putting resources towards finding alternative energy sources. If it also helps to slow down or stop global warming, even better.

NVGolfingBear;842487637 said:

---

So you are saying a cost-benefit analysis will be done and the total cost won't be a trillion dollars? Is that what you are saying?

---

Sure - everything involves a cost-benefit analysis. No one is calling for the extermination of humans and all of our associated enterprises. If we wanted to protect the environment with no cost-benefit analysis, that's what we would do. Obviously no one is calling for that (well maybe some wack jobs somewhere, but not the hated progressives you target). So the question is how do you perform the analysis and how rigorous is it. I don't have the answer there, because obviously the global response is heterogeneous. Second, I think the total cost of hot dogs eaten at cal games will be a trillion dollars if you take a long enough view. What time horizon are we discussing? Are you taking into account the economic benefits of the green economy or whatever you want to call it in saying that we're going to spend "trillions"? You are the one who said there would be trillion dollar programs, so I was responding to that.

BearGoggles;842487639 said:

---

I didn't see another thread on this in the past few weeks, so perhaps I've repeated something someone else said.

Unit2, you usually are pretty reasonable and rational, but you are clearly choosing not to read what I said and/or demagogue. I'm not making either of the first two arguments you suggest.

---

I thank you for your contributions and I am not intending to demagogue you, but you do fit the description of what I said (though not of a demagogue). You don't seem to challenge the notion of climate change itself although you are challenging its significance and its impact on us - are you not? Please let me know if you think that you are in agreement regarding the impact of climate change or if you think that the 97% of scientists who are in consensus (wherever that number comes from) are overstating the impact.

Second, you by your own words acknowledged that of course humans impact our climate, because it's a complicated system but that no one knows how we're impacting the system and whether the impact is significant and/or permanent. So if that's not denying the materiality of our impact, please let me know.

Third - in your point 7 in your previous response, you said even if human contributions are not overstated, you didn't know what could be done to change things for the better and that the US alone cannot be an agent of change. Please let me know if I'm mis-stating your position.

So it sure does seem to me that you fit the pattern I've described multiple times. You might be writing it better and couching your words more carefully, but the outcome is the same.

Like you, I don't pretend to be a climate scientists and I don't feel the need to argue about the IPCC models. I would point out that IPCC outlined several possible outcomes, just like corporate management often come up with multiple sets of projections. In the Duke study, they determined that at this point we are not on track for the most severe model outlined by IPCC, and the conservatives trumpeted that as saying all projections were wrong and no one has any idea what's going on. They want that to be the answer so they will do whatever it takes to make that claim.

I don't stand to make money from the green economy (as far as I can tell right now - can't read the future), so I can confidently say that I'm not doing this out of rent-seeking or pure economic self-interest. To the extent I'm doing this out of self-interest it's because I want my children to be able to enjoy the world the way it has been for us. I worry that my kids won't be able to see the snows on Kilimanjaro that I experienced and that they'll never enjoy skiing the way I was able to.

I think the biggest problem with your position is that you say the answers are unclear, but you don't seem to want people to find out the truth. The Koch brothers are spending trillions (hey if they live long enough it will be true) funding the heritage foundation to run a propaganda campaign and all it does is delay the inevitable.

sycasey;842487662 said:

---

I'd be willing to admit it if it were actually demonstrated. What I see so far is a lot of assertions that regulations on carbon emissions would definitely result in "trillions of dollars" lost from the US economy and precious little evidence for it. I find it ironic that the "skeptics" claim that science hasn't proven enough to them about global warming but then will throw out these doomsday scenarios about government regulations destroying our economy without any real backing.

One thing I am most certainly not wrong about is that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and that at some point we will need to have something else. Given that, I'm not sure why anyone would be against putting resources towards finding alternative energy sources. If it also helps to slow down or stop global warming, even better.

---

I never said trillions. Maybe someone else did. I can't quantify it, though I'm pretty confident in saying that eventually, the regulations will cost a lot (possibly trillions). Keep in mind, the point of the regulations is to make carbon fuels more expensive so that the more expensive clean energy can compete. Or in the case of California, they simply required that utilities purchase and sell more expensive clean energy (i.e., made energy more expensive for everyone). See here. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/

People have been predicting an end to fossil fuel resources since the 1970s. With current proven reserves, that won't happen for many more decades though history shows that new discoveries have outpaced depletion (fracking). However, I do agree there is nothing wrong with investing in clean technologies, though I prefer private investment to government crony investments. For me, its both, not one or the other.

sycasey;842487616 said:

---

Why do you assume a move to renewable energy and less reliance on fossil fuels would have strangulating economic consequences? Seems to me that in the long run we would be better off doing that: getting out of the mess that is the Middle East, ability to grow infrastructure more quickly without worrying about negative environmental effects, probably a number of new jobs created by this new industry. It really sounds like a win-win to me.

That's in the long run, though. There might be some short-term pain, but as fossil fuels are finite resources that's going to happen at some point anyway. Why not start doing something about it now?

---

All the CC stuff government promotes amounts to a "tax" on energy. More importantly all the money spent on things that don't make any difference could be spent in a million better ways such as improving the standard of living in third world countries.

sycasey;842487616 said:

---

Why do you assume a move to renewable energy and less reliance on fossil fuels would have strangulating economic consequences? Seems to me that in the long run we would be better off doing that: getting out of the mess that is the Middle East, ability to grow infrastructure more quickly without worrying about negative environmental effects, probably a number of new jobs created by this new industry. It really sounds like a win-win to me.

That's in the long run, though. There might be some short-term pain, but as fossil fuels are finite resources that's going to happen at some point anyway. Why not start doing something about it now?

---

Well, there are a lot of people entering this conversation, and I certainly don't expect you to recall any of what I have written, but nothing you have to say is in disagreement. If you did not get the implication it was toward carbon taxes in the USA with the exception of China, India, and the rest of the third world. That to me is the joke.

But then let me cynically ask if you are for "less reliance" on fossil fuels or "no" reliance on same. I would differ on that. It is impractical currently, but maybe not in the future. But tossing our economy down the tubes with carbon taxes while the rest of mother earth goes free is beyond absurd to me.

There is nothing I have said that implies I am against "doing something about it now". In this country we have been for years. Easiest example is a look at LA in the seventies and currently with smog. And we could go on to waterways, etc., etc., etc. The populace, me included, has been and is doing something. The important concept is that we do not do the "wrong" thing. And the momentum of the "settled science" proponents suggests just that. Much like Obamacare being written and pushed through in one month before the Demo House was lost a few years back. Read it later. And you think that philosophy is not scary.

BearGoggles;842487678 said:

---

I never said trillions. Maybe someone else did. I can't quantify it, though I'm pretty confident in saying that eventually, the regulations will cost a lot (possibly trillions). Keep in mind, the point of the regulations is to make carbon fuels more expensive so that the more expensive clean energy can compete. Or in the case of California, they simply required that utilities purchase and sell more expensive clean energy (i.e., made energy more expensive for everyone). See here. http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/

---

Given that we know fossil fuels are a finite resource that will eventually run out, and that burning of fossil fuels MAY be the primary driver for global warming (I actually think this is pretty definite, but I think everyone here can acknowledge there is at least SOME evidence that they are), then frankly I don't see this as a bad policy at all. It's a way of weaning people off of the polluting and vanishing energy source and driving behavior towards cleaner energy sources, without directly prohibiting use of either. Sounds like pretty responsible governance to me.

For now it can be both and not one or the other, but some day it will have to be one, because the other will run out. May as well start getting people used to the idea now.

Unit2Sucks;842487670 said:

---

I thank you for your contributions and I am not intending to demagogue you, but you do fit the description of what I said (though not of a demagogue). You don't seem to challenge the notion of climate change itself although you are challenging its significance and its impact on us - are you not? Please let me know if you think that you are in agreement regarding the impact of climate change or if you think that the 97% of scientists who are in consensus (wherever that number comes from) are overstating the impact.

Second, you by your own words acknowledged that of course humans impact our climate, because it's a complicated system but that no one knows how we're impacting the system and whether the impact is significant and/or permanent. So if that's not denying the materiality of our impact, please let me know.

Third - in your point 7 in your previous response, you said even if human contributions are not overstated, you didn't know what could be done to change things for the better and that the US alone cannot be an agent of change. Please let me know if I'm mis-stating your position.

So it sure does seem to me that you fit the pattern I've described multiple times. You might be writing it better and couching your words more carefully, but the outcome is the same.

Like you, I don't pretend to be a climate scientists and I don't feel the need to argue about the IPCC models. I would point out that IPCC outlined several possible outcomes, just like corporate management often come up with multiple sets of projections. In the Duke study, they determined that at this point we are not on track for the most severe model outlined by IPCC, and the conservatives trumpeted that as saying all projections were wrong and no one has any idea what's going on. They want that to be the answer so they will do whatever it takes to make that claim.

I don't stand to make money from the green economy (as far as I can tell right now - can't read the future), so I can confidently say that I'm not doing this out of rent-seeking or pure economic self-interest. To the extent I'm doing this out of self-interest it's because I want my children to be able to enjoy the world the way it has been for us. I worry that my kids won't be able to see the snows on Kilimanjaro that I experienced and that they'll never enjoy skiing the way I was able to.

I think the biggest problem with your position is that you say the answers are unclear, but you don't seem to want people to find out the truth. The Koch brothers are spending trillions (hey if they live long enough it will be true) funding the heritage foundation to run a propaganda campaign and all it does is delay the inevitable.

---

You really discredit yourself by quoting the 97% figure that has been thrown out there in a very misleading way. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
There is absolutely no consensus - much less scientific proof - of the amount of human contributions to climate change or even the amount of climate change itself (due to data disagreements).

If as you say the IPCC outlined several possible outcomes (I believe you), why did we only hear about one of them? The very worst one? This is the chicken little syndrome I referred to. It is no longer science, but advocacy. And that is a big part of the problem. Let's discuss all the possibilities, rather than only very worst one. Instead, we're told that we must accept the very worst outcome (unsupported by prior predictions) as settled. Of course, the very worst outcome also supports the need for more government $$ for these very same "scientists" - they have a financial and political stake too.

I have no idea how or why you can claim I don't want to know the truth. Just because I don't blindly accept "your truth" - which you must admit is not based on a proven scientific model - that doesn't mean I don't want to know the answer (i.e., to what extent humans are causing climate change and what that means for future climate). Unlike you, I don't pretend to know. The reason (some) conservatives jumped on the duke study is because of people who claim the matter is 97% "settled" and beyond discussion or debate.

I have kids and, like you, care about their future (yes, non-progressives love our children too and even think about their future. We also think about humanity in general.). Here are things that concern me far more than global warning (in no particular order).

1. Poverty - domestic and worldwide. Cheap energy helps mitigate this by the way. http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/07/08/climate_change_isnt_worlds_biggest_problem_106585.html
2. Healthcare - quality and cost, not just universal coverage
3. The mounting national debt and generational theft that is taking money from my children as we speak. What happens when bond interest rates return to historical norms?
4. The rising cost of higher education.
5. The lagging economy, particularly poor job growth and wage stagnation.
6. Our country's decaying infrastructure.
7. Chinese expansionism.
8. Cancer
9. Instability in Pakistan
10.Iran with a nuclear weapon.
11. Iran's expansionism in the middle east
12. Russian aggression and expansionism.

Each of the problems above is a far greater threat (if not actuality) than global warming. Yet progressives are obsessed with fossil fuels. Yes - I know we can multi-task. But the climate alarmism - which is not supported by current scientific understanding - receives disproportionate attention. I'm sure you do care about your children - and I submit that the above are far more threatening to them than climate change.

BearGoggles;842487599 said:

---

Interesting thread. A few thoughts (honestly not trolling).

2. I am not a scientist. Like most people, I have very little understanding of the technical climate data and/or scientific mechanisms of climate and weather. I admit that. Sadly, most people do not. In terms of the notion that it is "settled science," I can't help but be deeply suspicious of that, for several reasons. Most significantly, I think its pretty clear that the human understanding of climate (and for that matter, weather) is very limited. That really cannot be disputed - all of the "official" climate change models from the past 25+ years (from the UN and other so called experts) have proven wildly inaccurate almost always overstated in how "bad" things will be. In fact, they had to change the term "global warming" to "climate change" precisely because the predictive models were wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that, similar to macro-economics, there are too many poorly understood variables and assumptions underlying these models to make correct predictions. In sum, it seems pretty reasonable for me to think that humans are affecting climate, but I don't think anyone understands how (or to what extent) and whether these effects are permanent/significant. Given how wrong their models and predictions have been, the so called expert scientists don't seem to have answers. Certainly not answers that are beyond dispute.

3. I'm deeply suspicious of scientists who hide their data and methodology while at the same time plotting, in advance, to prevent legitimate scrutiny from people with opposing views. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ That is a clear indication that politics is driving the science or perhaps that the scientists have set out with a predetermined conclusion in mind.

4 I'm even more suspicious of attempts by scientists and partisans to foreclose further debate by declaring the matter "settled". As noted above, the so called settled science has been terribly inaccurate in its prediction models. More generally, it is very odd for scientists to take the position that their conclusions (already shown to not be particularly accurate) are beyond question. It is not just a scientific debate pro-climate change forces have attempted to silence and intimidate scientists that they disagree with. If they are so sure of their conclusions, why the gestapo tactics?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/science/lawmakers-seek-information-on-funding-for-climate-change-critics.html


I have no reason to doubt that human behavior impacts climate. Even if no one knows exactly how or to what extent, I think that's reason enough to change behaviors. However, from my perspective the alarmists don't want to engage in any cost-benefit analysis or any real discussion of what effect, if any, their proposals will have. The truth is, they don't know which is why they try to foreclose any discussion of these issues.

---

I get a kick from the present "skeptics"/deniers. I have heard it all before.
Back in the 1960's I remember the Evolution "Skeptics" were making similar objections to the claims of the academics who were espousing the "secularist" gospel of Human Evolution. They said they were not scientists but did not see why the Secularists were not willing to have a rational debate about human evolution.
They pointed out that the "Theory" of Human Evolution from the ape family was based upon faulty and incomplete data in the fossil record. A few fossils "mandibles" "femurs" "hip bones" a few pieces of skull and a few teeth. There was too much conjecture they said. Maybe evolution existed but not the evolution of man from apes.

They said what was needed to prove human evolution was a complete skeleton that showed the level of evolution from apes (i.e. the "missing link").

Then Lucy was discovered in the early 1970's -- A complete skeleton of a pre-adolescent female Australopithecus afarensis approximately 3 million years old. the Skeptics denied that she was human or prehuman. And said that Lucy was not the "missing link". They needed more evidence.

As time went on, more and more discoveries were made of fossils that showed pre-humans who were more and more human and less and less ape-like.

But each time the "Skeptics" kept denying that the newest discovery was the elusive "missing link" that they needed to see before they would accept the theory of human evolution from apes. There still are a few that are clinging to their guns and refusing to admit that humans evolved from apes. But most have given up the fight.

The situation was similar to the current "global warming" deniers" they have not seen enough evidence even though all credible deniers have been convinced. Now the skeptics rely on (i) distortions of research from credible scientists or (ii) research from non-credible scientists or (iii) made up information.

Fortunately little harm came from the human evolution deniers. However much harm can come from the global warming deniers; harm to them and harm to all other people on Earth. Now the deniers are changing the focus of their argument and say that there is no reliable evidence showing how severe that harm from global warming will be. But IMO they have already lost their first argument, that there was no climate change. So why should we believe that this time they will be right on their conclusion about the global warming will not be very severe.

OdontoBear66;842487687 said:

---

There is nothing I have said that implies I am against "doing something about it now". In this country we have been for years. Easiest example is a look at LA in the seventies and currently with smog. And we could go on to waterways, etc., etc., etc. The populace, me included, has been and is doing something. The important concept is that we do not do the "wrong" thing. And the momentum of the "settled science" proponents suggests just that. Much like Obamacare being written and pushed through in one month before the Demo House was lost a few years back. Read it later. And you think that philosophy is not scary.

---

Let's see, government regulations worked to improve Southern California's air. Currently all indications are that Obamacare is actually succeeding at its stated goals (more people are insured and the rise in health costs is slowing, all while the economy does not appear to have cratered). Seems like government regulations can actually work sometimes, so I think they can work for carbon taxes, etc., also without tossing our economy down the toilet.

I am not enough of an expert to say exactly where the "sweet spot" is between encouraging use of renewable energy and keeping the economy afloat in the short term while the transition is made, but I think it can be done. As I have repeated several times on this topic, "Let's do nothing" is not a solution. Let's have solutions rather than reasons to keep the unsustainable status quo.

As for the China and India point, I'm finding that site jyamada linked us to quite useful.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-should-the-us-join-kyoto-when-china-and-india-havent/

sycasey;842487696 said:

---

Let's see, government regulations worked to improve Southern California's air. Currently all indications are that Obamacare is actually succeeding at its stated goals (more people are insured and the rise in health costs is slowing, all while the economy does not appear to have cratered). Seems like government regulations can actually work sometimes, so I think they can work for carbon taxes, etc., also without tossing our economy down the toilet.

I am not enough of an expert to say exactly where the "sweet spot" is between encouraging use of renewable energy and keeping the economy afloat in the short term while the transition is made, but I think it can be done. As I have repeated several times on this topic, "Let's do nothing" is not a solution. Let's have solutions rather than reasons to keep the unsustainable status quo.

As for the China and India point, I'm finding that site jyamada linked us to quite useful.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-should-the-us-join-kyoto-when-china-and-india-havent/

---

That link is from 2007. More recent data shows (assuming Wikipedia is correct on this one) that China actually outproduces the US in CO2 emissions. The related issue is that many don't feel the US should compete according to a different standard - unless of course those countries are willing to pay their works US wages and otherwise compete evenly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2010_CO2_emissions

Interestingly, California's air quality improved long before the adoption of clean energy. It was other measures - unleaded gas, catalytic converters, manufacturing controls - that cleaned that up. I'm guessing clean energy helps (unless you're a bird or desert turtle), but that is not the reason air improved.

Re Obamacare. it is not working as promised (not covering the promised number of previously uninsured people, not controlling costs, and not providing patient doctor choice). There have been some improvements in some areas (obviously, some additional people have been covered), but again at what cost? Also, people covered on exchanges are not particularly happy with their networks (can't find doctors) and HIGH deductibles. The really bad changes to corporate plans that most people have coverage under have yet to be implemented - (Obama unilaterally deferred those until after the election). I think its very much an open book.

I agree - the let's due nothing approach doesn't make sense for any problem. I'll also go further and say not all government regulations are bad. However, lots of them are and, unfortunately, too often there is not a discussion of the costs.

BearGoggles - that was an extremely long response to my question when all you needed to say was that you don't agree that humans are a material cause of climate change. Or at least that you don't accept that there is consensus and you are keeping an open mind until you are satisfied. That very clearly fits within the three part climate skeptic narrative I have outlined more than a few times now.

As for all the other stuff - yeah I would agree those things are bad and I would love if they were addressed. It's like NVBear78 says - we should start spending our money fixing the standard of living in third world countries. I am positive that is on the republican agenda of only we weren't spending trillions on climate change.

Oh and for the 97% - I thought I was clear that I said I was using that number without any verification. I don't know if the real number is 94%, 90% or something else. The fact that not even the skeptics acknowledge they are in a minority position tells me it's a high degree of consensus.

GivemTheAxe;842487694 said:

---

I get a kick from the present "skeptics"/deniers. I have heard it all before.
Back in the 1960's I remember the Evolution "Skeptics" were making similar objections to the claims of the academics who were espousing the "secularist" gospel of Human Evolution. They said they were not scientists but did not see why the Secularists were not willing to have a rational debate about human evolution.
They pointed out that the "Theory" of Human Evolution from the ape family was based upon faulty and incomplete data in the fossil record. A few fossils "mandibles" "femurs" "hip bones" a few pieces of skull and a few teeth. There was too much conjecture they said. Maybe evolution existed but not the evolution of man from apes.

They said what was needed to prove human evolution was a complete skeleton that showed the level of evolution from apes (i.e. the "missing link").

Then Lucy was discovered in the early 1970's -- A complete skeleton of a pre-adolescent female Australopithecus afarensis approximately 3 million years old. the Skeptics denied that she was human or prehuman. And said that Lucy was not the "missing link". They needed more evidence.

As time went on, more and more discoveries were made of fossils that showed pre-humans who were more and more human and less and less ape-like.

But each time the "Skeptics" kept denying that the newest discovery was the elusive "missing link" that they needed to see before they would accept the theory of human evolution from apes. There still are a few that are clinging to their guns and refusing to admit that humans evolved from apes. But most have given up the fight.

The situation was similar to the current "global warming" deniers" they have not seen enough evidence even though all credible deniers have been convinced. Now the skeptics rely on (i) distortions of research from credible scientists or (ii) research from non-credible scientists or (iii) made up information.

Fortunately little harm came from the human evolution deniers. However much harm can come from the global warming deniers; harm to them and harm to all other people on Earth. Now the deniers are changing the focus of their argument and say that there is no reliable evidence showing how severe that harm from global warming will be. But IMO they have already lost their first argument, that there was no climate change. So why should we believe that this time they will be right on their conclusion about the global warming will not be very severe.

---

Please show me the scientific model that accurately explains climate, quantifies human affects thereon, and predicts climate change in a remotely accurate way. Once you have that, then you can make analogies to the proof of evolution. In fact, please show me a model that does any one of those things accurately and I'd be on board. This is not a case of moral relativism - either the models correctly predict things or they do not. So far, they do not.

Right now, your position is akin to those who claimed the world was flat or the earth was the center of the solar system - things that were "settled" in their time. Every dire prediction of the consequences of global warming - such as the one in your post - has proven false:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19069-al-gore-s-climate-calculations-prove-wrong-again

The polar Ice cap: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

Unit2Sucks;842487706 said:

---

BearGoggles - that was an extremely long response to my question when all you needed to say was that you don't agree that humans are a material cause of climate change. Or at least that you don't accept that there is consensus and you are keeping an open mind until you are satisfied. That very clearly fits within the three part climate skeptic narrative I have outlined more than a few times now.

As for all the other stuff - yeah I would agree those things are bad and I would love if they were addressed. It's like NVBear78 says - we should start spending our money fixing the standard of living in third world countries. I am positive that is on the republican agenda of only we weren't spending trillions on climate change.

Oh and for the 97% - I thought I was clear that I said I was using that number without any verification. I don't know if the real number is 94%, 90% or something else. The fact that not even the skeptics acknowledge they are in a minority position tells me it's a high degree of consensus.

---

To answer your question, which I thought was clear in my original post, I assume our behavior does affect the climate, at least to some extent. I don't know to what extent humans contribute to climate change or, for that matter, if the changes are necessarily bad in their totality. The climate has always changed. More to my point, no one knows. Even the scientist who claim they know have been wrong and can't produce a correct (or even close) model.

1) we'll have alternative resources prior to fossil fuels running out, especially because they will be developed when the price of those fuels rises with scarcity. It is called supply and demand.

2) the evolution story is a cute story with little relevance.

3) the slowing of the rising healthcare costs reminds me of the slowing of our football suckiness under Dykes. But, just like Dykes, I'll ride this out and hope it works. Why are we talking ACA?

BearGoggles;842487705 said:

---

That link is from 2007. More recent data shows (assuming Wikipedia is correct on this one) that China actually outproduces the US in CO2 emissions.

---

The US is still well in the lead per capita. I'm going to say the general point still stands.

BearGoggles;842487705 said:

---

Interestingly, California's air quality improved long before the adoption of clean energy. It was other measures - unleaded gas, catalytic converters, manufacturing controls - that cleaned that up. I'm guessing clean energy helps (unless you're a bird or desert turtle), but that is not the reason air improved.

---

I didn't say California's air improved because of clean energy. I said the improvement was driven in large part by government regulation. Reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels is likely to be driven by same.

BearGoggles;842487705 said:

---

Re Obamacare. it is not working as promised (not covering the promised number of previously uninsured people, not controlling costs, and not providing patient doctor choice). There have been some improvements in some areas (obviously, some additional people have been covered), but again at what cost? Also, people covered on exchanges are not particularly happy with their networks (can't find doctors) and HIGH deductibles. The really bad changes to corporate plans that most people have coverage under have yet to be implemented - (Obama unilaterally deferred those until after the election). I think its very much an open book.

---

I can only go by what has happened so far. The number of insured has risen and the inflation of health care costs has slowed. At what cost? So far I don't see much of one. If something major emerges we can revisit. I suspect I'll be waiting a while.

BearGoggles;842487705 said:

---

I agree - the let's due nothing approach doesn't make sense for any problem. I'll also go further and say not all government regulations are bad. However, lots of them are and, unfortunately, too often there is not a discussion of the costs.

---

I eagerly await the day that climate change skeptics bring their brilliant alternative plan for a solution to the issue of vanishing fossil fuels. Again, I suspect I'll be waiting a while.

oski003;842487709 said:

---

3) the slowing of the rising healthcare costs reminds me of the slowing of our football suckiness under Dykes. But, just like Dykes, I'll ride this out and hope it works. Why are we talking ACA?

---

One of our resident global warming "skeptics" decided to bring up the ACA as an example of a government program that doesn't work. I pointed out why that was a bad example.

I agree, this is currently only evidence of improvement, not an end goal in and of itself. Still, something is better than nothing. The alternative to the ACA was nothing.