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.

---

Very well stated

BearGoggles;842487692 said:

---

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.

---

+1,000,000,000.

You have stated exactly what so many "conservatives" think and are vilified for by progressives.

BearGoggles;842487692 said:

---

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.

---

Come on BearGoggles you are smarter than this.
The fact that you are hearing only about the worst scenario is because that is the scenario being reported by the Global Warming DENIERS.
It was cited by Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in his attempt to debunk the global warming arguments as was pointed out by TummyoftheGB.
Obviously some one is reading only his parties talking points.


This is the kind of argument that shows its own fallacy. But is so muddled and convoluted with so much other "flak" that it is an obvious attempt to confuse the argument.

As for your list of things that you worry about more than global warming. Most of the things listed are relatively short term.
Global Warming threatens serious long term adverse consequences.
It is OK since you and I will probably be dead before the US feels the worst effects of global warming.
Projections are on the conservative side sea level rise of 2.5 feet to 6.5 feet. worst case 23 feet by the year 2100 (i.e. 85 years from now)
The worst case would swamp the City of London.
The more conservative cases would just swamp Florida and Louisiana and maybe parts of the SF Bay Area (think -- Levi's Stadium)
But IMO worse than the sea level rise is the potential shutting down of the Gulf Stream conveyor in the Atlantic Ocean which keeps Northern Europe warmer than it might other be.

But what the heck. If you have no kids or grandkids, nothing to sweat about.

I remember the old joke.
A man falls from the top of a 200 story building.
As he passes floor 100, the people in the building say, "what can we do to help".
He says: "Not to worry. So far so good."

BerlinerBaer;842487585 said:

---

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.



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



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.

---

Berllner, if I sounded condescending, I apologize. I didn't mean to, unless my elephant leg metaphor was offensive...and, maybe, my reference to Chicken Little. OK, maybe you're right on that.

By historic end, I meant that the Holocene has lasted about as long as the Eemian did. And, it looks like we're in an interIceAge period the duration of which, historically, might be on the way out. I made no pretense at prediction, just that these factors hadn't been raised in the IPCC presentation.

Last I looked, the sun has been quiet for some months.

I said that greenhouse gas reflection of solar energy was what the "Cooling" advocates were saying in the '80's. Talk to them.

As I said, CO2 levels had been rising slowly from 320 ppm to as high as 406 in the last 50 years where they have more or less leveled off and, as of last week, were at 397. The suggestion by someone in this thread that they threaten to go to 800 is preposterous. And, even at that, we don't know what kind of impact that would have, if any, if the scientific method were adhered to.

You don't mean that "a cheap infrared spectrometer", is good enough to base the global CO2 discussion on, do you.

As to positive effects of CO2, isn't that what plants eat?

One of my problems is that the vast, vast, vast majority of the CC believers have no clue how science is conducted, what the scientific method is, and what values underlay the whole proposition. Yet, they continue to repeat the CC mantra without any thought to the accuracy of the whole process.

By the way, you seem like a reasonable person. The question was raised earlier about what any of the supporters of CC in these threads had done, personally, to reduce the man-made warming that they espouse. There was silence and even a mea culpa. I decided to tell what I, as a so-called skeptic and worse, have done. To date, there has been no response. Any idea why?

PS I noticed for the first time in my last post that you are Berlinerbaer and not Berlinerbear. Are there two of you, was there a change? That was why I included the "(?)." Just curious.

+1. Amen and well said.

GivemTheAxe;842487724 said:

---

Come on BearGoggles you are smarter than this.
The fact that you are hearing only about the worst scenario is because that is the scenario being reported by the Global Warming DENIERS.
It was cited by Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in his attempt to debunk the global warming arguments as was pointed out by TummyoftheGB.
Obviously some one is reading only his parties talking points.


This is the kind of argument that shows its own fallacy. But is so muddled and convoluted with so much other "flak" that it is an obvious attempt to confuse the argument.

As for your list of things that you worry about more than global warming. Most of the things listed are relatively short term.
Global Warming threatens serious long term adverse consequences.
It is OK since you and I will probably be dead before the US feels the worst effects of global warming.
Projections are on the conservative side sea level rise of 2.5 feet to 6.5 feet. worst case 23 feet by the year 2100 (i.e. 85 years from now)
The worst case would swamp the City of London.
The more conservative cases would just swamp Florida and Louisiana and maybe parts of the SF Bay Area (think -- Levi's Stadium)
But IMO worse than the sea level rise is the potential shutting down of the Gulf Stream conveyor in the Atlantic Ocean which keeps Northern Europe warmer than it might other be.

But what the heck. If you have no kids or grandkids, nothing to sweat about.

I remember the old joke.
A man falls from the top of a 200 story building.
As he passes floor 100, the people in the building say, "what can we do to help".
He says: "Not to worry. So far so good."

---

I was going to give this comment a RFLMAO, but no, I thought, don't be crude. So, I will just reply to the rising sea level speculation... from personal experience. I lived for 11 years on the coast of the place most vulnerable to rising sea level, maybe in the world. I vacationed there for maybe 15 years before and vacation there regularly in the 15 years since. The sea level hasn't risen more than an inch or two, IF AT ALL, in all that time. This is more grasping at straws.

But, wait, you might say, that's just in that place. It will be different in London...or Tokyo...or... Right. What was that saying we learned? Water seeks its own level. Somehow, I don't think variance in sea levels across the globe would remain over time. So, stow it.

As for the rest, I'll back up what BearGoggles and 78 say. And, add one more thing, as mentioned by someone in the Blob thread - Nuclear Power. Not a peep about that. If you claim that we'll be able to solve the monumental problems of going to wind, solar and geothermal, it should be duck soup to figure out the solutions to the nuclear alternative. Or, do you claim that the nuke industry is owned by the oil companies and THAT'S the reason?

sycasey;842487715 said:

---

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.

---

I guess you comprehend what you read to serve your interests. This "skeptics" (and thank you for finally calling me a skeptic as opposed to denier, which I am not) brought up Obamacare as a gov't. program that was passed all too quickly in the back rooms as Democrats saw their numbers in the House diminish and knew they must do something fast. This was a political solution, and as is turns out is fraught with tons of problems because it was not thought through in advance. You choose to assume I speak against government regulation, but I was talking about cleaning things up on the bill before serving it up as the end all. Similar to that of which we speak right now, eh? Now, if you wish to believe I am against much govt' regulation, you are correct, but that is not what I was addressing.

Skeptically, make carbon tax efforts (USA and maybe EU only) understandable to the broad population, and also try to understand that there is a broad base of people out there who are neither liberal or conservative, but moderate. I do realize those on the far right and left believe we are without principles but I would make a different case. Question, question, question.

OdontoBear66;842487736 said:

---

I guess you comprehend what you read to serve your interests. This "skeptics" (and thank you for finally calling me a skeptic as opposed to denier, which I am not) brought up Obamacare as a gov't. program that was passed all too quickly in the back rooms as Democrats saw their numbers in the House diminish and knew they must do something fast. This was a political solution, and as is turns out is fraught with tons of problems because it was not thought through in advance. You choose to assume I speak against government regulation, but I was talking about cleaning things up on the bill before serving it up as the end all. Similar to that of which we speak right now, eh? Now, if you wish to believe I am against much govt' regulation, you are correct, but that is not what I was addressing.

---

You know what? Your narrative about the ACA fits pretty well with Unit2's script about global warming "skeptics," which is that they will keep talking about needing further "discussion" on the issue, but the end result is that nothing gets done. When Congressional Republicans spoke of needing to "clean up" things in the bill, make no mistake, that's what they were doing: delay, delay, delay. They had no intention of passing any kind of health care legislation. Meanwhile, more people were losing insurance and costs were skyrocketing. Somebody needed to do something -- Obama and the Democrats did.

Every law is passed as a political solution (at least partially) and anything large like the ACA is going to have problems. That's not really an argument for getting rid of it. The question is, does it work? Does it make things better? If it does, it's a good law.

Rushinbear;842487730 said:

---

I was going to give this comment a RFLMAO, but no, I thought, don't be crude. So, I will just reply to the rising sea level speculation... from personal experience. I lived for 11 years on the coast of the place most vulnerable to rising sea level, maybe in the world. I vacationed there for maybe 15 years before and vacation there regularly in the 15 years since. The sea level hasn't risen more than an inch or two, IF AT ALL, in all that time. This is more grasping at straws.

But, wait, you might say, that's just in that place. It will be different in London...or Tokyo...or... Right. What was that saying we learned? Water seeks its own level. Somehow, I don't think variance in sea levels across the globe would remain over time. So, stow it.

As for the rest, I'll back up what BearGoggles and 78 say. And, add one more thing, as mentioned by someone in the Blob thread - Nuclear Power. Not a peep about that. If you claim that we'll be able to solve the monumental problems of going to wind, solar and geothermal, it should be duck soup to figure out the solutions to the nuclear alternative. Or, do you claim that the nuke industry is owned by the oil companies and THAT'S the reason?

---

Your arguments have been shot down time and time again in this thread and the Blob thread. Now we are to believe your own observations at a place where you vacation. Do you take your scientific measuring tools with you on vacation. Or do you just "eyeball" the situation when the spirit so moves you. And how often do you take these "measurements".

I too walk by the Bay more than just a few times a year and very often look at the Bay's water level. I wouldn't dream of citing my observations as support for any scientific argument other than to say that a 3 foot rise in the Bay's sea level would present a serious problem for the Bay Area.

(Why do I feel that I am arguing with Amy?)

Rushinbear;842487730 said:

---

I was going to give this comment a RFLMAO, but no, I thought, don't be crude. So, I will just reply to the rising sea level speculation... from personal experience. I lived for 11 years on the coast of the place most vulnerable to rising sea level, maybe in the world. I vacationed there for maybe 15 years before and vacation there regularly in the 15 years since. The sea level hasn't risen more than an inch or two, IF AT ALL, in all that time. This is more grasping at straws.

But, wait, you might say, that's just in that place. It will be different in London...or Tokyo...or... Right. What was that saying we learned? Water seeks its own level. Somehow, I don't think variance in sea levels across the globe would remain over time. So, stow it.

As for the rest, I'll back up what BearGoggles and 78 say. And, add one more thing, as mentioned by someone in the Blob thread - Nuclear Power. Not a peep about that. If you claim that we'll be able to solve the monumental problems of going to wind, solar and geothermal, it should be duck soup to figure out the solutions to the nuclear alternative. Or, do you claim that the nuke industry is owned by the oil companies and THAT'S the reason?

---

I already made my thought known on the "blob" thread which run close to yours but I also agree there are many extreme right wingers who sound foolish or down right stupid on this subject as well, but I digress. I mentioned the nuclear power in that thread and that is what really burns me. I have gone to certain lengths to admit some/several/many on the right do fabricate/ignore science but it really isn't the majority. The majority are doing things for political reasons, but the same guys here who vilify the right ignore the hypocrisy of the left also. 65% of those same AAAS scientists who believe in AGW also say we should be building more nuclear plants. Even Obama wants more natural gas. Just over the weekend when I simpleton like me is still reading up on these things, I read several articles from enviros that don't want either nuclear OR natural gas....WTF?....I mean, now it is the psychology of nuclear power being bad and methane is almost as bad as CO2. This is what gets me.

I'm not nearly as smart on these issues and that is why I'm trying to learn even though I have other important things in life to worry about..but I do know, it will take decade(s) for renewable energy like solar/wind to have the proper infrastructure. In the mean time, we'd need a bridge fuel between coal and oil.....but NO, we now can't use natural gas OR nuclear, which a majority of scientists say we should.......who is ignoring science now....just like those folks who revile GMO's (Chipolte over the weekend stopped using any form) DON"T listen to the scientists on that matter....98% of AAAS scientists say GMO's are safe. So what I gather is that science is not always revered unless personal/political viewpoints are aligned. Of course, most true believers don't understand the psychology of group dynamics and when the line between science and politics is blurred.

I'm not arguing the merits of AGW right now, I just want to know WHICH fuels can we use NOW (solar/wind) aren't ready to power much of the U.S, if we also can't use Nuclear or natural gas. Please, I thought the issue was getting CO2 and pollution reduced big time....Nuclear and NG do that. If we can't use them either, then I honestly don't' want to listen anymore to the incessant whining about change....please. In other words, as a skeptic (yes GivetheAxe, there are real skeptics and I can link some good articles about skeptics vs deniers) I want to reduce the crap in the air....meet me half way or STFU cause then to me, it is just politics, and not solutions.

BearGoggles;842487599 said:

---

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.

---

Regarding "settled science":

Please provide examples of any global warming/climate change advocates who have used the term "settled science". According to Wiki:

"The science is settled" is a slogan attributed by opponents of the Kyoto Protocol and global warming theory to supporters notably in the Clinton administration. There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press, though some of the statements that were made have similar implications. The slogan itself has therefore become a detail in the political debate.


Regarding "official climate change records going back 25 years":

This article talks about records going back 125 and 150 years.....although written in 2006, my guess is that it the earth hasn't gotten any colder since then. Also read the bore hole analysis on global warming. Interesting stuff.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/



Regarding the change of the global warming to climate change:


Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:



'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. These projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change:



Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:



And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:



No Reason to Change the Term

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:


It's time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.

"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Summary

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

Ah, for simpler times...things are too complicated now.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4558[/ATTACH]

:beer:

Cal_Fan2;842487782 said:

---

I already made my thought known on the "blob" thread which run close to yours but I also agree there are many extreme right wingers who sound foolish or down right stupid on this subject as well, but I digress. I mentioned the nuclear power in that thread and that is what really burns me. I have gone to certain lengths to admit some/several/many on the right do fabricate/ignore science but it really isn't the majority. The majority are doing things for political reasons, but the same guys here who vilify the right ignore the hypocrisy of the left also. 65% of those same AAAS scientists who believe in AGW also say we should be building more nuclear plants. Even Obama wants more natural gas. Just over the weekend when I simpleton like me is still reading up on these things, I read several articles from enviros that don't want either nuclear OR natural gas....WTF?....I mean, now it is the psychology of nuclear power being bad and methane is almost as bad as CO2. This is what gets me.

I'm not nearly as smart on these issues and that is why I'm trying to learn even though I have other important things in life to worry about..but I do know, it will take decade(s) for renewable energy like solar/wind to have the proper infrastructure. In the mean time, we'd need a bridge fuel between coal and oil.....but NO, we now can't use natural gas OR nuclear, which a majority of scientists say we should.......who is ignoring science now....just like those folks who revile GMO's (Chipolte over the weekend stopped using any form) DON"T listen to the scientists on that matter....98% of AAAS scientists say GMO's are safe. So what I gather is that science is not always revered unless personal/political viewpoints are aligned. Of course, most true believers don't understand the psychology of group dynamics and when the line between science and politics is blurred.

I'm not arguing the merits of AGW right now, I just want to know WHICH fuels can we use NOW (solar/wind) aren't ready to power much of the U.S, if we also can't use Nuclear or natural gas. Please, I thought the issue was getting CO2 and pollution reduced big time....Nuclear and NG do that. If we can't use them either, then I honestly don't' want to listen anymore to the incessant whining about change....please. In other words, as a skeptic (yes GivetheAxe, there are real skeptics and I can link some good articles about skeptics vs deniers) I want to reduce the crap in the air....meet me half way or STFU cause then to me, it is just politics, and not solutions.

---

FWIW, I do think that any future of renewable energy will probably have to involve some form of nuclear power. I also agree that the hysteria over GMOs is unfounded. Companies like Monsanto do many evil things, but as far as I can tell (so far) GMOs are not one of them.

I place trust in the scientific consensus, both on those things and on global warming/climate change.

sycasey;842487746 said:

---

You know what? Your narrative about the ACA fits pretty well with Unit2's script about global warming "skeptics," which is that they will keep talking about needing further "discussion" on the issue, but the end result is that nothing gets done. When Congressional Republicans spoke of needing to "clean up" things in the bill, make no mistake, that's what they were doing: delay, delay, delay. They had no intention of passing any kind of health care legislation. Meanwhile, more people were losing insurance and costs were skyrocketing. Somebody needed to do something -- Obama and the Democrats did.

Every law is passed as a political solution (at least partially) and anything large like the ACA is going to have problems. That's not really an argument for getting rid of it. The question is, does it work? Does it make things better? If it does, it's a good law.

---

Finally, some much-needed action.Congressional appropriations bill contains targeted cuts to climate change research at the National Science Foundation. Because, you know, the U.S. Reps are not scientists, but they know junk science when they hear about it through reliable sources (such as the Bearinsider Forum). What's especially ironic is that almost none of my climate science colleagues are especially political--we're not, as a discipline, advocating any particular solution. Some of us favor nuclear, some favor sequestration, some favor (rapid) conversion to solar, some favor emphasis on efficiency. But I guess the messenger must be shot, regardless.

By the way, I don't have the time and energy to correct all the complete and utter falsehoods that are being thrown out by the OP and those that have agreed in this thread. I guess that's what they're hoping for. I will say that they are on the tin foil hat level of "we staged the moon landing".

sycasey;842487799 said:

---

FWIW, I do think that any future of renewable energy will probably have to involve some form of nuclear power. I also agree that the hysteria over GMOs is unfounded. Companies like Monsanto do many evil things, but as far as I can tell (so far) GMOs are not one of them.

I place trust in the scientific consensus, both on those things and on global warming/climate change.

---

I know YOU do, and I agree with YOU about moving forward on renewables regardless of who is right or how fast climate change is progressing. But I wasn't writing to you sycasey, I'm writing to all the posters who are bashing others for their beliefs. Fine, bash away, but answer my question (not you sycasey) about what fuels we can use now or use as a bridge. I'd like them to address what many on the left say about these issues since they seem to want to speak for everyone on the right....count me in as one of the ones that want to make changes with YOU sycasey towards a cleaner and vibrant tomorrow....

TummyoftheGB;842487800 said:

---

Finally, some much-needed action.Congressional appropriations bill contains targeted cuts to climate change research at the National Science Foundation. Because, you know, the U.S. Reps are not scientists, but they know junk science when they hear about it through reliable sources (such as the Bearinsider Forum). What's especially ironic is that almost none of my climate science colleagues are especially political--we're not, as a discipline, advocating any particular solution. Some of us favor nuclear, some favor sequestration, some favor (rapid) conversion to solar, some favor emphasis on efficiency. But I guess the messenger must be shot, regardless.

By the way, I don't have the time and energy to correct all the complete and utter falsehoods that are being thrown out by the OP and those that have agreed in this thread. I guess that's what they're hoping for. I will say that they are on the tin foil hat level of "we staged the moon landing".

---

I've just been lurking because I don't have any expertise on the subject, but I wanted to thank you for what you've already contributed to these threads, Tummy. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating an actual expert in the field weighing in on this topic.

CALiforniALUM;842487562 said:

---

Go bears!

---

I like it, a good skeptic. My response is limited by space and time.

Frist, for the nut jobs (not you Calalum) that say there is no federal program, your wrong. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant'" and thus the EPA must determine whether these gases endanger public health and welfare. If such an endangerment finding was made, the EPA would be required to issue regulations. The "Obama EPA" (not my wording) has used this case as a platform to issue several regulatory programs which are set forth in my post above. There are significant to the extent they go after major polluters. Read about them. In 2014, U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out with a widely quoted report which claimed that the regulations "will result in an average loss of 224,000 jobs every year and a sustained lower standard of living", and trillions (with a T) dollar loss in GDP. People can read that report for what it is worth - I am skeptical at least at its magnitude. The best known response I aware of is from liberal economist Krugman who used a $50 billion a year number. So for those that don't think there is large federal regulatory scheme on global warming out there, get you heads out of the sand.

Second, legality of the regulations. I'm not sure where to begin there is so much litigation out there. Initially, 12 states sued over the greenhouse rules. Now just Texas has over 30 pending lawsuits against the rules. Yale Law Review has a June 2014 article documents well over a hundred law suits. Since then the number of suits has climbed so exponentially that its joke among environmental litigation attorneys (everyone has a piece of the action). I would be an utter fool to predict how this litigation will turn out and you can read in the myriad of law review articles about what others think. If a Republican is elected President the issue could be moot as the cases work their way through the federal courts. I never represented the Air Board or other clients on franking so I don't know the much about the law in this area. From a legal standpoint, my personal experience is it can be a real issue of what happens to state regulation when the Feds enter an area. Please don't ask me about specifics since I don't want to post a treatise. I know there is a New York Times op-ed that states will be free to come up with their own plans, but the Times obviously never talked to the Feds I did who are implementing the rules. (Both Boxer an Feinstein are trying to change the Fed approach).

Third, impact on global warming from regulatory scheme. The same May 27, 2014 NT Times editorial admits that the rules will have no impact on global warming unless the rules spur international action. Why? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (the guys that do the studies for the UN, etc.) estimates that the earth’s average temperature will increase somewhere between 1.1C and 6.4C over the 21st century, depending on the assumed pathway of anthropogenic emissions (both greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the actual (but unknown) climate sensitivity. In other words, how much of the IPCC’s projected 1.1C to 6.4C of warming will the U.S. be responsible for in the next century? The answer is about 0.08C of the low end estimate and about 0.35C of the high end estimate (according to an IPCC-like analysis*). Using the IPCC’s mid-range scenario, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. contribute about 0.19C of the total 2.96C average predicted global temperature rise. There findings are the basis for the UN Report that the damage is already done. The report talks about managing global warming with stringent world wide mitigation efforts. Read the report.

Thus, the sum total of US contribution to “global warming” this century will amount to the neighborhood of about 0.2C. Not five degrees. Not even one degrees. But about two-tenths of a degree Celsius. And even this number may be on the high side if the climate sensitivity is lower than about 3C (there are many reports you can go on line to read concerning the climate sensitivity as its a hot topic). SO IF YOU ELIMINATED ALL US POLLUTION YOU WOULD IMPACT GLOBAL WARMING BY 0.2C. Suffice to say the new rules are much more modest and do not come close to eliminating all US pollution. In fact environmental critics such as the Center of Bio Diversituy question the rules will eliminate hardly any pollution (once again I am skeptical). I am not really aware of anyone that challenges the IPCC numbers. Another way to approach this is that per the EPA, US currently consumes 16.6% of the world annual consumption of most fossil fuels, a percentage that continues to drop. If the new rules, arguendo, drop emissions 10%, the means annual world consumption would drop a mere 1.6%, which over time means little to global warming. And that includes a faulty assumption that the rest of the worlds consumption rates would stay the same. The mantra of developing countries is that a developing economy should not be forced to take carbon-cutting actions given that developed economies have exploited fossil fuels to develop their economies already (there is a long economic justice argument you can read about in the UN Report). Yet another way to approach the lack of impact is by economics. A 2009 survey of top U.S. economists from New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity found that the vast majority of economists agree that "any effort to combat climate change must put a price on carbon. That is why serious environmentalists and liberal economists like Krugman are calling for a worldwide "carbon tax" rather than the EPA rules. Again, I am skeptical and one can read the criticisms of this tax is countless articles on line. Then there is my conversations with experts in the area. No with really thinks that the global warming regs by themselves, will do anything to impact global warming, unless the rest of the world follows, and the regulations are made much more onerous. So all the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions restriction tactics—EPA regulations, cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes, efficiency programs, guilt-inducing ad campaigns, etc.—are aimed at chipping away at this already tiny 0.2C. When considering any of these options, you have to ask how much are you willing to pay—in dollars or inconvenience, or both—to avert some portion of this 0.2C of global temperature increase and its accompanying inconsequential and impossible to measure climate change. That is why individual decisions, worldwide agreements, and mitigation impacts (see Nevada's post) will have to be the answer, assuming people take individuals action and the world agrees to come together and enforce much more stringent emissions rules. Again, I am skeptical.

BearGoggles;842487599 said:

---

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.

---

I don't think anybody suggests powerful money interests are only one side of this issue. But it's nave to think that green energy companies are as powerful as the traditional energy companies in oil, gas, coal and nuclear or even close. My guess but I would bet that Exxon's market cap exceeds the market cap of the top 100 green energy companies in the world today. The Koch Industries is the 2nd largest privately held company in America with revenues of about 115 billion. I would bet, again, that the revenues of Koch Industries probably exceeds that of the top 10 green energy companies combined.

As far as Solyndra receiving corporate welfare, I thought they received loans from the DOE for something less than 600 million which weren't paid back. Is this really corporate welfare? I believe most of the loans from the DOE that funded green energy companies are still good and are being repaid. The number of failures from these green energy loans were about 8%.

Please provide more details on "clean energy groups" and how they made billions off of the clean energy companies. This doesn't sound plausible to me since most green energy companies probably don't have the financial means to be paying off billions to lobbyists and green energy group "clients".

sycasey;842487746 said:

---

You know what? Your narrative about the ACA fits pretty well with Unit2's script about global warming "skeptics," which is that they will keep talking about needing further "discussion" on the issue, but the end result is that nothing gets done. When Congressional Republicans spoke of needing to "clean up" things in the bill, make no mistake, that's what they were doing: delay, delay, delay. They had no intention of passing any kind of health care legislation. Meanwhile, more people were losing insurance and costs were skyrocketing. Somebody needed to do something -- Obama and the Democrats did.

Every law is passed as a political solution (at least partially) and anything large like the ACA is going to have problems. That's not really an argument for getting rid of it. The question is, does it work? Does it make things better? If it does, it's a good law.

---

I think it was a poster aligned with CC who cited the ACA as an example of what happens when "deniers" just try to frustrate and undermine progressive solutions. But, in doing so, he reminded us of what happens when someone tries to change a big, complex system all at once.

Obama called it radical transformation in his 08 campaign, but Soros or Dean or Carville or somebody ordered a survey and focus groups and learned that using that phrase won't sell anything going forward. What to say instead? Why, "comprehensive" of course.

So, the ACA is "comprehensive health care reform." And, alien entry bills are to be called "comprehensive immigration reform." And, cap and trade bills are to be called "comprehensive energy reform." Yeah, that's the ticket.

The problem is that any of these systems is so complex that we have NO chance of foreseeing the unanticipated consequences. Thus, yes, more poor people have some form of health insurance now than before, but it took throwing more than that number off their existing health insurance to do it and, since those were known to be buyers of such insurance, their numbers bolstered the total getting insurance under the law. And, there are several million who STILL don't have health insurance (do they have a right to not want it and, therefore, not buy it? Is that where we want to go?) And, it cost a ton more and one of the best health systems in the world has been thrown into turmoil and people can't keep their insurance or their doctor or their hospital, etc. And, we are subsidizing all the newcomers to the hilt. Oh yes, and young people can stay on their parents' coverage a few more years.

To top it off, the other major change - turning employer sponsored insurance upside down - has been delayed by Obama until after the '16 elections because he knows that this will cause unimaginable chaos, thus hampering his party in the elections.

So, writing a bill for "comprehensive energy reform" SHOULD be scrutinized and held up if it doesn't wash. And, it doesn't - cap and trade or carbon taxes merely enable the further misuse of the planet at the gain of the federal government and the comfort of those who misuse it. Grants, loans and direct subsidies, awarded to big money campaign donors, gain nothing but the transfer of wealth from the little guy into the pockets of the already stinkin' rich trend manipulators (I've got a long list of them).

Granted, little progress was made by the Republicans on either health insurance (there are ways to do it other than the ACA) or energy, but to gallop off a cliff once the Dems get the bit in their teeth makes matters worse. For energy, start by withdrawing all grants to advocate non-profits - they just exacerbate the fomenting of ignorance. Instead, let's give it to professional scientists subject to peer review. Let's open the debate to all sources of alternative energy and tell the truth about each one. Let's stop the secrecy and face reality - there's too much prostitution of data, of models, of analysis, and of solutions. In the meantime, better to stand there than do something that will make our world worse.

jyamada;842487821 said:

---

As far as Solyndra receiving corporate welfare, I thought they received loans from the DOE for something less than 600 million which weren't paid back. Is this really corporate welfare? I believe most of the loans from the DOE that funded green energy companies are still good and are being repaid. The number of failures from these green energy loans were about 8%.

---

Solyndra is a smokescreen of a controversy. Out of many different companies the government invested in, this one failed. Do we say that venture capital firm is wasting money if one of the startups they invested in fails? No, we expect that some of them will fail. The firm doesn't need every startup to hit in order to be a success; it just needs enough of them to turn a profit.

Cal_Fan2;842487782 said:

---

I already made my thought known on the "blob" thread which run close to yours but I also agree there are many extreme right wingers who sound foolish or down right stupid on this subject as well, but I digress. I mentioned the nuclear power in that thread and that is what really burns me. I have gone to certain lengths to admit some/several/many on the right do fabricate/ignore science but it really isn't the majority. The majority are doing things for political reasons, but the same guys here who vilify the right ignore the hypocrisy of the left also. 65% of those same AAAS scientists who believe in AGW also say we should be building more nuclear plants. Even Obama wants more natural gas. Just over the weekend when I simpleton like me is still reading up on these things, I read several articles from enviros that don't want either nuclear OR natural gas....WTF?....I mean, now it is the psychology of nuclear power being bad and methane is almost as bad as CO2. This is what gets me.

I'm not nearly as smart on these issues and that is why I'm trying to learn even though I have other important things in life to worry about..but I do know, it will take decade(s) for renewable energy like solar/wind to have the proper infrastructure. In the mean time, we'd need a bridge fuel between coal and oil.....but NO, we now can't use natural gas OR nuclear, which a majority of scientists say we should.......who is ignoring science now....just like those folks who revile GMO's (Chipolte over the weekend stopped using any form) DON"T listen to the scientists on that matter....98% of AAAS scientists say GMO's are safe. So what I gather is that science is not always revered unless personal/political viewpoints are aligned. Of course, most true believers don't understand the psychology of group dynamics and when the line between science and politics is blurred.

I'm not arguing the merits of AGW right now, I just want to know WHICH fuels can we use NOW (solar/wind) aren't ready to power much of the U.S, if we also can't use Nuclear or natural gas. Please, I thought the issue was getting CO2 and pollution reduced big time....Nuclear and NG do that. If we can't use them either, then I honestly don't' want to listen anymore to the incessant whining about change....please. In other words, as a skeptic (yes GivetheAxe, there are real skeptics and I can link some good articles about skeptics vs deniers) I want to reduce the crap in the air....meet me half way or STFU cause then to me, it is just politics, and not solutions.

---

Where were you when I was taking Sub A years ago. Needed you badly to compose my thoughts. Very well said, and very reasonable---of which I see too little in this thread. Political philosophy and power clouds so much.

LACalFan;842487815 said:

---

I've just been lurking because I don't have any expertise on the subject, but I wanted to thank you for what you've already contributed to these threads, Tummy. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating an actual expert in the field weighing in on this topic.

---

I totally agree with the above. Tummy is the only actual climate scientist to post on this topic (as far as I can tell) and it's refreshing to read his/her opinions considering the circle jerk of opinions from the denier/skeptic crowd - who if I'm not mistaken, are not actual climate scientists but just play one on tv. As if reading one more "this is an amazing post" is going to convince us all that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong on this issue - just because ... they say so and their friends all agree, so they must be right.

Cal_Fan2;842487801 said:

---

I know YOU do, and I agree with YOU about moving forward on renewables regardless of who is right or how fast climate change is progressing. But I wasn't writing to you sycasey, I'm writing to all the posters who are bashing others for their beliefs. Fine, bash away, but answer my question (not you sycasey) about what fuels we can use now or use as a bridge. I'd like them to address what many on the left say about these issues since they seem to want to speak for everyone on the right....count me in as one of the ones that want to make changes with YOU sycasey towards a cleaner and vibrant tomorrow....

---

Honestly? I think you are just as quick to throw those on "the left" in one bucket as some people here are to those on "the right." Neither is helpful. Perhaps we should just engage with ideas on the merits?

I do consider myself aligned with "the left" most of the time, but not because I like being part of a political party -- it's just the more I look into an issue I find that the left usually (not always) has the better grasp on it.

OdontoBear66;842487834 said:

---

Where were you when I was taking Sub A years ago. Needed you badly to compose my thoughts. Very well said, and very reasonable---of which I see too little in this thread. Political philosophy and power clouds so much.

---

LOL....my identical twin who posts here as DaveTDDS is, after many years of practice, a Professor of Dentistry at UOP in S.F. That part must have rubbed off on me when I agree with your well written responses.

sycasey;842487838 said:

---

Honestly? I think you are just as quick to throw those on "the left" in one bucket as some people here are to those on "the right." Neither is helpful. Perhaps we should just engage with ideas on the merits?

I do consider myself aligned with "the left" most of the time, but not because I like being part of a political party -- it's just the more I look into an issue I find that the left usually (not always) has the better grasp on it.

---

Maybe I didn't express properly but I don't generalize to an entire population like that...what I wanted to say is that is some here are gonna put everyone in a bucket, then maybe I can do the same and have them answer for all the ones on the left who won't even give clean sources a chance. If you even see me generalize to an entire population from small or incomplete or non- statistically adjusted samples, yes, call me out on it because I rarely do that only because it has been drilled into me not to. I just think that certain people on BOTH sides make it hard for others to get through to each other. Probably didn't say that correctly either, I've never said there isn't stupidity/ignorance on the right, I simply chime in it usually exists just as much on the left but NEITHER side tends to acknowledge the extremes...on certain subjects it leans more one way, on other subjects, it leans more the other way.

Can somebody summarize what the climate-change deniers in this thread's key points are? It boggles my mind that anyone with even the slightest understanding of science, from either side, can deny what the vast majority of scientist have already concluded. The question is not a matter of "is it happening" or "is it caused/exacerbated" by man, but rather "to what extent" and "what policies should we (or must we) implement".

wifeisafurd;842487820 said:

---

I am not really aware of anyone that challenges the IPCC numbers.

---

First let me say that apparently you are unaware of a number of skeptics who've posted on this thread.

Second, I thought your last post was great. Once we get past denial into acceptance (not saying you are in denial), we have some really difficult issues to navigate to actually make a difference. Clearly, we need to make smart choices that don't handcuff our economy vis-a-vis the rest of the world, and ones that will actually make a difference.

The one quibble/question I have with what you wrote is that you said that we would have to eliminate all US pollution to impact global warming by 0.2c. Are you sure about that? It would surprise me if the answer was that we had go to back to pre-industrial revolution levels of emissions. I also want to say that 3 degrees celsius sounds like a catastrophic increase over the next 85 years and we will need collectivist action to solve it, if that's even possible.

Maybe the answer is that we need to plant bushes on all of our rooftops to increase our CO2 conversion to oxygen (joking) but we clearly need a comprehensive solution (thanks to Rushlimbear for inspiring use of this phrase).

In terms of small things we can do that I think will be more or less neutral (other than requiring a small sacrifice from consumers) is to massively increase the gas guzzler tax. I wouldn't do it through CAFE regulations but would handle it like China. $5k tax on engines above 2l in size. $10k above 3l, etc. Exceptions where warranted for commercial use but it would operate much faster to increase fuel economy.

sycasey;842487714 said:

---

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



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.



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.



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.

---

Now now don't be so cynical of the "denier-skeptics" good faith efforts to find a solution. You are so cynical that probably even doubted the good faith of OJ Simpson when he said he would never stop seaching for the murderer who killed his ex-wife.

wifeisafurd;842487820 said:

---

So all the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions restriction tacticsEPA regulations, cap and trade schemes, carbon taxes, efficiency programs, guilt-inducing ad campaigns, etc.are aimed at chipping away at this already tiny 0.2C. When considering any of these options, you have to ask how much are you willing to payin dollars or inconvenience, or bothto avert some portion of this 0.2C of global temperature increase and its accompanying inconsequential and impossible to measure climate change. That is why individual decisions, worldwide agreements, and mitigation impacts (see Nevada's post) will have to be the answer, assuming people take individuals action and the world agrees to come together and enforce much more stringent emissions rules. Again, I am skeptical.

---

Firstly, let me say that I agree with you on the political realities involved--getting China, India and the U.S. to move in the same direction is never going to be easy. However, I'd like to point out that even a 0.2 degree shift in global average temperature is not "already tiny" in terms of the climate system. Keep in mind that the global average over the 20th century was "only" about 13.8 degrees C! Also keep in mind that global average temperature is an abstract concept--after all, no person, living organism, or spot on earth ever feels global average temperature--so, while it's a convenient metric to use for the effect of CO2 on the earth's surface, it's not a good metric to think about the potential costs of warming.

jyamada;842487783 said:

---

Regarding "settled science":

Please provide examples of any global warming/climate change advocates who have used the term "settled science". According to Wiki:

"The science is settled" is a slogan attributed by opponents of the Kyoto Protocol and global warming theory to supporters notably in the Clinton administration. There are no known examples of its use outside the skeptic press, though some of the statements that were made have similar implications. The slogan itself has therefore become a detail in the political debate.


Regarding "official climate change records going back 25 years":

This article talks about records going back 125 and 150 years.....although written in 2006, my guess is that it the earth hasn't gotten any colder since then. Also read the bore hole analysis on global warming. Interesting stuff.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/



Regarding the change of the global warming to climate change:


Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:
".

---

1. Examples of global warming advocates claiming the debate over climate change is "settled"
President Obama in the state of the union: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/196757-obama-climate-change-is-a-fact
Read this a great article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

Are you suggesting that saying the "debate is settled" is different than saying the science is settled? If that is your assertion, than tell me what the point of stifling the debate is? There is no doubt that there is an active agenda to silence those who question the extent that humans clause climate change.

2. You need to learn to quote accurately. My exact words: "all of the "official" climate change models from the past 25+ years (from the UN and other so called experts) have proven wildly inaccurate" I said "models" not "records". My indisputable point was that the models have been wrong (perhaps because records dating back only 150 years are not all that accurate).

3. "Global warming" became "climate change" when the alarmists couldn't explain the fact that the earth had stopped warming (at least temporarily). http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

The fact that the models can't explain the pause and that there is no clear explanation for it (yet) underscores my point. Human understanding of climate is rudimentary at best and the "science" of modeling is wildly speculative. The science (or if you prefer "debate") cannot be settled given that clear reality.

TummyoftheGB;842487855 said:

---

Firstly, let me say that I agree with you on the political realities involved--getting China, India and the U.S. to move in the same direction is never going to be easy. However, I'd like to point out that even a 0.2 degree shift in global average temperature is not "already tiny" in terms of the climate system. Keep in mind that the global average over the 20th century was "only" about 13.8 degrees C! Also keep in mind that global average temperature is an abstract concept--after all, no person, living organism, or spot on earth ever feels global average temperature--so, while it's a convenient metric to use for the effect of CO2 on the earth's surface, it's not a good metric to think about the potential costs of warming.

---

Your misread the number. The .2 is based on all domestic emissions. That means, for example, I take away your computer since it runs on electricity, I close all schools, I take away all sporting events, all travel, anything that runs on power derived from fossil fuels, likely your job, and I could go on. What your not getting is what is being proposed by the Feds will have just a marginal impact at best of that .2 The concept that the earth getting warm in not a good measure for global warning makes me even more skeptical of an agenda. If you want to say carbon emissions in the environment are unhealthy, that is another thing all together. I get that, but than becomes from a regulatory standpoint a balancing act, and is real different from global warming.

The concept of abstraction is interesting since the whole concept of global warming is based on abstracts and modeling with assumptions. The scientists look at today's world trends and predict. That is why you see such a wide variance in predicted temperatures. Your dismissing the IPCC is going where I don't know any scientist that believes in global warming goes - these are the big names in the area. To now dismiss their work as an abstraction strikes me as dismissing essentially all the science out there. No one knows exactly what the impact of global warming will be, and to insist upon that strikes me as something I expect out of non-believers, not skeptics or believers.

In terms of global emissions, i know people like to point at China and the US because they are the two biggest emitters, but what about the other 2/3 of the world emissions? You gonna get a treaty with Russia, whose primary resource is oil and kill their economy?

sycasey;842487831 said:

---

Solyndra is a smokescreen of a controversy. Out of many different companies the government invested in, this one failed. Do we say that venture capital firm is wasting money if one of the startups they invested in fails? No, we expect that some of them will fail. The firm doesn't need every startup to hit in order to be a success; it just needs enough of them to turn a profit.

---

good point. Lest we forget while a number of posters on this board are wringing their hands over Solyndra, China is going full bore on solar energy. They are throwing buckets of money into becoming the world leader in solar and alternate energy. Why? Are the leaders of China just plain fools? NO! They will control the economy of tomorrow. The US will control the economy of yesterday. Guess which one will win.

I for one do not want the US to concede the alternate energy market to China. We need to develop the technologies and the markets to keep the US relevant in the new economy.

China is not timid about investing in this technology since they know that it will be profitable in the long run.

Okay, what I really meant is no one who believes in global warming attacks the IPCC. Not even most skeptics. Its like saying Jack Clark doesn't know rugby. But yes, non-believers don't agree with them and the IPCC has been crucified in conservative media for having such a wide range in predicted temperatures, being tools of big green, etc.

I am not sure about any number because I am a dumb attorney. Attorneys calculating numbers is malpractice. But everyone I know in the air emissions industry agrees the new rules (by themselves) will not impact overall global warming. The .02 is an abstraction taken from averages of the IPCC study numbers by the IPCC. Candidly, reading anything from the IPCC is just plain morbid -we are all doomed. I hope they are wrong (call me a skeptic) and choose to do what I can do to lower my emissions because my view is that air pollution is bad for my health.

68great;842487868 said:

---

good point. Lest we forget while a number of posters on this board are wringing their hands over Solyndra, China is going full bore on solar energy. They are throwing buckets of money into becoming the world leader in solar and alternate energy. Why? Are the leaders of China just plain fools? NO! They will control the economy of tomorrow. The US will control the economy of yesterday. Guess which one will win

I for one do not want the US to concede the alternate energy market to China. We need to develop the technologies and the markets to keep the US relevant in the new economy.

---

China derives 1% of its energy from renewables; 69% from coal, 18% from oil. Full bore is mostly a Potemkin village at this stage

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ch

WIAF, for what it is worth the Real Estate market doesn't believe Al Gore's or the IPCC's claim of a rapid increase in sea level either, with beachfront property in Miami and property in Manhattan selling for record prices.