Global Warming. Let's do it again.

[Kimstu]

@GreyMatters

This is, in the end, about philosophies of action, not about science. […]
On the one side we have a group of countries and people supporting solutions to this problem wrapped in Socialist dogma. I believe that Socialism is an unviable political, economic and social philosophy. I believe that any solution to any problem using this philosophy is bad for humans.

(Emphasis added.) Now there’s dogma for you, complete with the dogmatist’s mantra “I believe” in front of it.

Tell us, GM, would you consider it a “socialist solution” for a government to rescue its citizens in an emergency situation, rather than letting them deal with the problem individually via free trade? For example, do you think that FEMA should have made arrangements to bus people out of pre-Katrina New Orleans who couldn’t afford to leave on their own? If not, do you believe that the New Orleans crisis was handled with the correct “philosophy of action”?

Rigid ideologues who refuse to address serious problems, even potentially catastrophic problems, simply because they don’t consider the proposed solutions “philosophically correct” remind me of the old-time Soviet apparatchiks who preferred to let people starve from food shortages rather than risk contaminating their glorious socialist economy with “capitalist exploitation” in the form of market mechanisms.

Ideological rigidity and absolutism in the face of practical emergencies tends to be a recipe for disaster, no matter what your ideology is. Personally, I’m not in favor of the prospect of getting drowned or cooked in a preventable climate catastrophe just to uphold the dogma of the glorious free market (or any other dogma for that matter).

[GreyMatters]

@Kimstu

(Emphasis added.) Now there’s dogma for you, complete with the dogmatist’s mantra “I believe” in front of it.

Tell us, GM, would you consider it a “socialist solution” for a government to rescue its citizens in an emergency situation, rather than letting them deal with the problem individually via free trade? For example, do you think that FEMA should have made arrangements to bus people out of pre-Katrina New Orleans who couldn’t afford to leave on their own? If not, do you believe that the New Orleans crisis was handled with the correct “philosophy of action”?

Rigid ideologues who refuse to address serious problems, even potentially catastrophic problems, simply because they don’t consider the proposed solutions “philosophically correct” remind me of the old-time Soviet apparatchiks who preferred to let people starve from food shortages rather than risk contaminating their glorious socialist economy with “capitalist exploitation” in the form of market mechanisms.

Ideological rigidity and absolutism in the face of practical emergencies tends to be a recipe for disaster, no matter what your ideology is. Personally, I’m not in favor of the prospect of getting drowned or cooked in a preventable climate catastrophe just to uphold the dogma of the glorious free market (or any other dogma for that matter).

Seriously, is this post a joke or something?

I never said my philosophical beliefs are even right much less NOT a belief. Give me a break. Just like everyone, I do believe they are right. Doesn’t make it so though. That reality does suck sometimes, BTW.

Your comments on Katrina and free trade is the most obtuse comparison in the history of forums. You should be ashamed of that paragraph. FYI, social programs do not equal Socialism.

I clearly argued that if in the end the doomsday is coming because of ACC then I would hope that my political and philosophical leanings would be able to come up with real world solutions. I don’t plan on being cooked or drowning just to uphold my philosophical beliefs so they better or I am getting new beliefs.

Do you enjoy the pretty lights your strawman is giving off as it burns, burns, burns?

[Kimstu]

@GreyMatters

Not according to a new peer-reviewed paper coming out. link

Not according to these scientists. link

Not according to Pielke Sr. link

AFAICT, two of those cites don’t actually support your claim that anthropogenic climate forcing isn’t significant. The link about the “new peer-reviewed paper” appears to be simply arguing that the range of likely climate sensitivity to anthropogenic atmospheric forcing may be narrower than previously thought. But it agrees with the consensus that the most plausible estimate for climate sensitivity to current forcing is about 3 degrees Celsius.

And the Pielke Research Group website also doesn’t disagree that there is significant anthropogenic climate forcing. What it argues is that CO2 increases are not the most significant part of anthropogenic climate forcing (or at least not as significant as currently thought). It also argues that significant climate change, including anthropogenically forced climate change, can occur without producing net global temperature change.

The only one of your three links that actually supports your contention that anthropogenic climate change is insignificant is the letter from a group of self-described “accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines” to the Financial Post, advocating political action but supplying no scientific data or references.

@Grey Matters

Your comments on Katrina and free trade is the most obtuse comparison in the history of forums. You should be ashamed of that paragraph. FYI, social programs do not equal Socialism.

How you figure? Spending taxpayer resources to get people out of a situation that they can’t afford to get themselves out of sure sounds like a redistribution of wealth to me.

And I notice you didn’t actually answer the question.

@Grey Matters

if in the end the doomsday is coming because of ACC then I would hope that my political and philosophical leanings would be able to come up with real world solutions. I don’t plan on being cooked or drowning just to uphold my philosophical beliefs so they better or I am getting new beliefs.

That’s good to know, because previously you said something different:

@Grey Matters

However, if I did think it was a problem then I would come up with solutions that don’t contradict my philosophies.

I’m glad to learn that you’d be willing to sacrifice your dogma to the requirements of practical necessity, rather than the other way around.

[jshore]

@GreyMatters

I am sorry to disagree but this does sound a lot like the application of the PP to me. link

Well, I suppose you could also define not jumping off the Empire State Building as being an application of the precautionary principle. After all, you might miraculously survive.

Seriously though, maybe it is an application of the precautionary principle but it is also just common sense. Those who rail against the precautionary principle usually characterize it as erring on the side of precaution no matter how little is known or how unlikely the bad consequences are deemed to be. If you are railing against taking any precautions because there is any amount of uncertainty then that seems like quite a different thing.

Global warming is well beyond the stage where we have no idea of what we are doing and what effects it might cause. Yes, there is still uncertainty…but we have a pretty good idea of the size of the perturbation we are putting on the system and of some range of the effects that will result.

Not according to a new peer-reviewed paper coming out. link

Not according to these scientists. link

Not according to Pielke Sr. link

As kimstu already pointed out, the first paper (which is just one peer-reviewed paper amid thousands at any rate) is far from concluding that the perturbation is minor. A 3 deg C sensitivity to doubling CO2 is the mid-range figure that has been quoted for years and almost noone on the “denier” side is willing to subscribe to the sensitivity being that high…probably because they know that the effects at that level are likely to be very significant. Annan (who I have read quite a bit from on the RealClimate website) would be amused (or peeved) to see his paper being used to argue that global warming isn’t something to be concerned about. Yes, he is saying that the most catastrophic scenarios don’t seem likely to him but he is also arguing that the most benign ones don’t either.

The last one is again just one scientist, who tends to be somewhat iconoclastic, but does not argue that anthropogenic climate change is not significant.

And, the middle one is just the “usual suspects” back making the same old tired arguments that have gotten nowhere in the scientific community but seem to gain more traction when they foist them on the public.

Given your broad definition of socialism, do you think it is still socialism if the U.S. decides on its own to implement the McCain-Lieberman climate Stewardship Act with its cap-and-trade system. And, if so, then do you think that Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative is socialism? And, if so, I would say that your definition is pretty ridiculous to classify anything that is not radical libertarianism as socialism.

[jshore]

Actually, on further reflection, I don’t think your point of view could even be characterized as “radical libertarianism” since I seem to recall that most libertarians are willing to concede the necessity of certain regulations to deal with externalities like pollution.

[GreyMatters]

@jshore

Actually, on further reflection, I don’t think your point of view could even be characterized as “radical libertarianism” since I seem to recall that most libertarians are willing to concede the necessity of certain regulations to deal with externalities like pollution.

As always, great posts jshore.

I have not said I don’t think there are situations where, in reality, regulations are never needed or useful. You continue to assume through default that I think there is a situation here that warrants it. I don’t.

It is a strawman to imply that because I don’t think CO2 regulation is necessary now that I don’t think regulation is never necessary.

Also, I was extremely clear where and why I think Kyoto is similar to if not the same as some parts of Socialist economics. I was not commenting on any other CO2 regulation proposal. You refuted none of the points. You proposed no alternative view of Kyoto. You built another strawman of my argument and lo and behold you killed the strawman.

If Kyoto isn’t based on a Socialist mixed economy, then what type of economic philosophy/model is it based on, and why? I gave my reasons and cites. Give some of your own if you have an opinion or refute mine.

[sleestak]

I found an interesting article through Slashdot.

The article is lead by this statement:

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

The article was written by M. Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Slee

[jshore]

It is based on market economic principles…e.g, the idea that trading emissions credits is the most efficient way to implement regulations and the idea that solutions to problems not recognized by the market are best solved by forcing the market to internalize the externalized costs.

It is also based on international political and economic realities, which suggest that nothing will ever get done if the most industrial, wealthiest nations (with the most resources and responsible for most of the accumulated anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere) don’t start making cuts first. It is also based on the notion that different people might have different concepts of fairness. Some people say it is unfair we have to make cuts while the developing nations do not. However, looked at another way, why is it fair that the developing nations will…in the future (under the same framework under which Kyoto was agreed upon)…undoubtably be called upon to make cuts before they have achieved nearly the same emissions per capita as we have. I.e., who is to say that the fairest way is not to put caps on emissions per capita…something that would be horrendously more painful for the industrialized nations relative to the developing ones?!?

[jshore]

My last post was, of course, directed toward GreyMatters’s post.

@sleestak

I found an interesting article through Slashdot.

This op-ed is already being deconstructed at RealClimate.

Lindzen, by the way, is probably the most respectable of the so-called climate change skeptics in that he has proposed some real testable hypotheses in the peer-reviewed literature to try to back up his arguments that anthropogenic climate change is very insignificant. But, he does seem to be getting rather upset that his hypotheses keep getting shot down in that literature where they have been found simply to be incorrect. Still, I give him credit for trying.

He was, by the way, on the committee for the 2001 NAS report on climate change solicited by the questions from the Bush Administration. He presumably fought hard for many of the caveat and statement of uncertainty that did appear in the report. Nonetheless, he then turned around and wrote an op-ed (also in the WSJ) claiming that everyone was misreading what the report said and, for example, their statement basically supporting the conclusions of the IPCC was just professional courtesy.

[sunfish]

@GreyMatters

I am asking the impossible to point out that without evidence the doomsday scenarios are speculation. Not speculation just on the amount of ACC. Speculation on what will happen when even stipulating the worst case ACC projections.

I am unwilling to accept a Kyoto type “solution" to an event that is speculated on.

This is, in the end, about philosophies of action, not about science. Specifically, my personal disagreement with the Precautionary Principle (PP) as a viable philosophy of action on any subject. With PP being coupled with many other aspects of Liberal/Green/Environmentalist philosophies to “solve” this problem, it raises too many red flags that this issue is being used to push political agendas for me to just accept that 1) the assertation it will happen if nothing is done and 2) Kyoto is the correct course of action.

Aha. So really, as far as the science is concerned, you have essentially decided to stick your fingers in your ears and say “LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”

@GreyMatters

4. I provided many links to many scientists, some of whom are a part of the IPCC process, that do not agree with the statement “a serious risk to our way of life lies ahead if changes are not made, and soon.” Even Cecil Adams does not agree with this statement. I am of the crowd that thinks we need more time to gather more evidence so that the plausible outcomes of ACC are clearer before I support my philosophies dictated course of action.

jshore and Kimstu have already pointed out that your links do not support what you say they do.

And the last time I checked, Cecil Adams was not a climatologist. Or even a scientist, for that matter. He’s just a fictional character perpetuated by a newspaper editor. But his “word” means more to you because you can interpret it in a way that pleases you. How… interesting.

@GreyMatters

5. The scorn is there because, to me, this seems to be a very, very important philosophical and political fight. On the one side we have a group of countries and people supporting solutions to this problem wrapped in Socialist dogma. I believe that Socialism is an unviable political, economic and social philosophy. I believe that any solution to any problem using this philosophy is bad for humans.

You keep using the word “Socialist,” because the UN is supposed to oversee Kyoto? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

You say you are a Libertarian. Since you appear to trust Wikipedia as a reference, let me point you toward this page for a moment:

For libertarians who do acknowledge a need for the state, they believe it should merely serve the role of a night-watchman intervening only to adjudicate disputes and stop aggressions against individual liberty. They generally define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one’s behavior begins to interfere with another’s person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom, which is generally consistent with the basis for criminal law in most modern democratic societies.

Substitute “an individual country” for “individual” in the above paragraph and “UN” for “state”, and you have the current UN situation described pretty well in a nutshell. The UN hasn’t the power to do anything other than be the “night-watchman” as described above. And the right of any one country to emit CO2 ends at the point that those emissions contribute to a negative impact on all their neighbors. So as far as I can see, the overall goal of reduction in CO2 emissions doesn’t have to be objectionable to a libertarian viewpoint. If you don’t like Kyoto, you come up with an alternative that we can all discuss. Otherwise, you are only being argumentative and not contributing anything constructive.

In any event, since duffer started this thread to ostensibly discuss the science of global warming, I will be happy to continue talking about the science. I haven’t the time nor the inclination to get drawn into a filibuster with someone whose thinking has apparently already ossified.

[Kimstu]

@sunfish

In any event, since duffer started this thread to ostensibly discuss the science of global warming, I will be happy to continue talking about the science.

Good idea. Let’s lay out the basics once again:

Industrial-era humans are rapidly and drastically increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, in the atmosphere. Therefore, if climate activity is vulnerable to these atmospheric changes, we are headed for trouble.

The questions of exactly how much trouble we’re headed for, exactly when we’re going to get there, and exactly how much of the trouble we could avoid by changing our behavior are all still very controversial. But the basic statements above are not in dispute. It is incontrovertible that humans over the last couple centuries have been significantly changing the composition of the atmosphere with our emissions, and that our current resource-use policies, if continued, will change the atmosphere even more significantly in the future.

Therefore, there are only three even remotely realistic possible outcomes for the global climate situation:

Scenario 1. Climate systems will unexpectedly turn out to be astonishingly insensitive to atmospheric changes. Consequently, our accumulated emissions, even if they do massively alter the atmospheric composition, end up having only a negligible impact on global climate.

Scenario 2. Climate systems are significantly affected by atmospheric changes, but we massively reduce our emissions within the next few decades, so that further anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere are eliminated or at least dramatically diminished. Consequently, we end up with some alteration in the global climate as a result of the anthropogenic changes that have already happened, but not very much.

Scenario 3. Climate systems are significantly affected by atmospheric changes, but we continue our emissions activities unchecked, ultimately causing massive anthropogenic alterations in the atmospheric composition. Consequently, we end up with drastically modified climate systems.

Scenario 1 would save our butts without our having to lift a finger—wouldn’t that be great! Unfortunately, the vast majority of the current evidence indicates that Scenario 1 is highly implausible, if not downright impossible. We are seeing recent changes in global climate factors that do seem to be linked to anthropogenic changes in the atmosphere. It is simply not scientifically warranted to expect, as the OP futilely insists, that we will be able to go on changing the atmosphere indefinitely without producing any non-negligible effects on climate systems. It might turn out to be true, but it would be a hell of a surprise, and it certainly doesn’t look like a good bet.

The current scientific consensus is that we are headed either for Scenario 2 or Scenario 3, or some combination of them. There’s a lot about these scenarios that we still don’t know, though, and probably won’t know for a long time yet.

However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have the luxury of waiting until we know for certain what’s going to happen before we need to bother trying to avert it. It may very well be that we’re engaged in the environmental-policy equivalent of driving a car towards the edge of a cliff. By the time you have 100% certainty that you’re in serious trouble, it may be too late to do anything about it. It makes more sense to stop or back up the car before you’re absolutely certain that you’re dangerously close to the cliff edge.

[GreyMatters]

@jshore

It is based on market economic principles…e.g, the idea that trading emissions credits is the most efficient way to implement regulations and the idea that solutions to problems not recognized by the market are best solved by forcing the market to internalize the externalized costs.

It is also based on international political and economic realities, which suggest that nothing will ever get done if the most industrial, wealthiest nations (with the most resources and responsible for most of the accumulated anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere) don’t start making cuts first. It is also based on the notion that different people might have different concepts of fairness. Some people say it is unfair we have to make cuts while the developing nations do not. However, looked at another way, why is it fair that the developing nations will…in the future (under the same framework under which Kyoto was agreed upon)…undoubtably be called upon to make cuts before they have achieved nearly the same emissions per capita as we have. I.e., who is to say that the fairest way is not to put caps on emissions per capita…something that would be horrendously more painful for the industrialized nations relative to the developing ones?!?

While I can’t disagree with you that it appears to be a market, I don’t think it actually is a market.

The commodity of the market is carbon credits. These credits, and the supply of them, are arbitrary and do not behave like a true commodity.

The truth is a carbon credit is really nothing. The rich nations are paying the non-rich nations for doing nothing. Even worse the amount of money the nothing is worth is based on ESTIMATES of the CO2 released by the rich nations.

The only actual action that is happening is money being transferred, at an artificially induced supply and demand based on one country doing nothing.

That doesn’t sound like a true market to me.

[GreyMatters]

@sunfish

Aha. So really, as far as the science is concerned, you have essentially decided to stick your fingers in your ears and say “LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”

jshore and Kimstu have already pointed out that your links do not support what you say they do.

Lol. You do love to mischaracterize and give false witness, now don’t you.

Those links were in response to jshore’s comment: “And, we also know that what are doing to it amounts to much more than just a gentle prodding.”

Your moronic attempt to make it seem like I am trying to say ACC does not exist is just that, moronic.

I can hear you screaming, frothing zealots just fine. I don’t agree that the “science” you pray to is as solid as your prayers want them to be, thank you very much.

@sunfish

And the last time I checked, Cecil Adams was not a climatologist. Or even a scientist, for that matter. He’s just a fictional character perpetuated by a newspaper editor. But his “word” means more to you because you can interpret it in a way that pleases you. How… interesting.

The hilarity of hypocracy you have is astounding. On and On and On about a consensus your crowd wails day in and day out. But, andt dessenter, critic or non-believer is, without merit or logic, cast aside. From my perspective, it is your crowd that is walking around with a shiny, new, wool head covering, being duped to change your way of life based on inconclusive scientific evidence.

@sunfish

You keep using the word “Socialist,” because the UN is supposed to oversee Kyoto? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Wow, your obtuse debating techniques just keep coming don’t they.

I have specifically, in detail and with cites pointed out why I think the Kyoto protocol is based, or seems to be based, on a Socialist economy. Your opinion that I don’t know what Socialist means is kindergarten debating. Try again when you have something to say.

I see you want to “debate” the science some more. Lmao, yeah I am sure a “debate” is what will happen with you involved.

[jshore]

@GreyMatters

The commodity of the market is carbon credits. These credits, and the supply of them, are arbitrary and do not behave like a true commodity.

Well, yes, a certain amount of arbitrariness is involved…but then again, such arbitrariness exists in real life too. It is arbitrary that certain people end up starting out with more or less of other commodities too. Why do the South Africans have all the diamonds and the Saudis so much oil?

What this system is doing is using market economics to put a cost on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that then allows for the most flexible and efficient (i.e., low cost) reduction in those emissions. As I said, Bush sings the praises of such cap-and-trade systems when they suit his purpose…and in fact I think in the U.S. at least there is a general bipartisan belief that it is a good way in principle to reduce emissions of various pollutants. So, you are welcome to call it “not really a market” or “socialism” or what have you, but I think you will be hard-pressed to get that many adherents to your point-of-view.

[GreyMatters]

@sunfish

Substitute “an individual country” for “individual” in the above paragraph and “UN” for “state”, and you have the current UN situation described pretty well in a nutshell. The UN hasn’t the power to do anything other than be the “night-watchman” as described above. And the right of any one country to emit CO2 ends at the point that those emissions contribute to a negative impact on all their neighbors. So as far as I can see, the overall goal of reduction in CO2 emissions doesn’t have to be objectionable to a libertarian viewpoint. If you don’t like Kyoto, you come up with an alternative that we can all discuss. Otherwise, you are only being argumentative and not contributing anything constructive.

It took me a while to stop laughing after I read this before I could comment. Sorry for the delay.

You accuse me of not knowing what Socialism is and then attempt to make up a Libertarian UN. You are a commedian aren’t you? Stop this debating stuff cause HBO is calling right now for your one man special.

Read the following sentence over and over and over until you GET IT, please.

I do not think ACC is anything to worry about and therefore have absolutely no reason to propose solutions to a problem I don’t think exists.

Your attempt to bully me into silence because I don’t think ACC is potentially life’s destroyer and have no proposals to solve it is ANOTHER strawman. Go back to wikipedia, look up strawman, contemplate it for a while and then come back here and try debating without using that technique.

You are right about one thing though. Libertarians philosophy would not object to limitting CO2 if there was something wrong with the CO2 being emitted.

[Kimstu]

@GreyMatters

Your moronic attempt to make it seem like I am trying to say ACC does not exist

You clearly are saying that you don’t think that any ACC problem exists. For example:

@Grey Matters

I am not worried about this issue so why would I think of solutions to a problem I don’t think exists? […]
I do not think ACC is anything to worry about and therefore have absolutely no reason to propose solutions to a problem I don’t think exists.

And what jshore, sunfish and I have pointed out is that you haven’t succeeded in backing up your claim that ACC is not a problem. Even some of the links you yourself have cited in an attempt to support your position don’t actually agree with you.

If you want people to take your arguments more seriously, I think you need to (1) find better evidence to support them, and (2) stop being so emotional and aggressive in your debating rhetoric. Take a look at some of the expressions you’ve been using in this thread:

@Grey Matters

Now can all you fearmongering, “environmentalists” take a chill pill […] go on with all your soap-box screaming […] ACC fanbois […] Flame on […] Wow, if that doesn’t hit the nail on the head then, well, you must be blind […] Haven’t you been paying attention? […] Seriously, is this post a joke or something? […] Give me a break […] You should be ashamed of that paragraph […] Do you enjoy the pretty lights your strawman is giving off as it burns, burns, burns? […] You do love to mischaracterize and give false witness, now don’t you […] Your moronic attempt […] I can hear you screaming, frothing zealots […] The hilarity of hypocracy you have is astounding […] Wow, your obtuse debating techniques just keep coming […] Lmao, yeah I am sure a “debate” is what will happen with you involved […] It took me a while to stop laughing after I read this […] Read the following sentence over and over and over until you GET IT, please […] Your attempt to bully me into silence […]

This kind of hysterical belligerence isn’t likely to convince anybody that your arguments are worthwhile.

[GreyMatters]

@Kimstu

You clearly are saying that you don’t think that any ACC problem exists. For example:

And what jshore, sunfish and I have pointed out is that you haven’t succeeded in backing up your claim that ACC is not a problem. Even some of the links you yourself have cited in an attempt to support your position don’t actually agree with you.

If you want people to take your arguments more seriously, I think you need to (1) find better evidence to support them, and (2) stop being so emotional and aggressive in your debating rhetoric. Take a look at some of the expressions you’ve been using in this thread:

This kind of hysterical belligerence isn’t likely to convince anybody that your arguments are worthwhile.

How many times must I cite, reference and say that those three links were in response to something specific that jshore said? It is not ALL the cites or evidence I have given to support my BELIEF that ACC is not a problem. You have given a strawman. Deal with it or at least stop using it.

I completely stipulate that the vast majority of scientific literature says there will be significant ACC caused by CO2 released by humans. I think the evidence that does not support this is small but growing, not shrinking. Also, I think the methods used in the modelling that all the “science” speculations on the future extent of ACC is based on is inconclusive, not because of bias in the scientist, necessarily, but because the methods are far from perfect and a true scientific test is not possible in this situation. I stipulate that I do not have as much evidence to support my view. However, the amount of pages is not scientific proof of anything.

This board is all about snide, comedic responses, bordering on insult. Incorporating emotional aspects is dangerous and can backfire, but can be a powerful tool in this regard. I do not claim I am master of this craft. I am only trying to be a part of the forum.

[GreyMatters]

@jshore

Well, yes, a certain amount of arbitrariness is involved…but then again, such arbitrariness exists in real life too. It is arbitrary that certain people end up starting out with more or less of other commodities too. Why do the South Africans have all the diamonds and the Saudis so much oil?

What this system is doing is using market economics to put a cost on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that then allows for the most flexible and efficient (i.e., low cost) reduction in those emissions. As I said, Bush sings the praises of such cap-and-trade systems when they suit his purpose…and in fact I think in the U.S. at least there is a general bipartisan belief that it is a good way in principle to reduce emissions of various pollutants. So, you are welcome to call it “not really a market” or “socialism” or what have you, but I think you will be hard-pressed to get that many adherents to your point-of-view.

Very interesting. I will continue to learn about this part of the issue. Thank you for your insightful comments.

[Kimstu]

@GreyMatters

How many times must I cite, reference and say that those three links were in response to something specific that jshore said?

We know that. The point is that two of your three links did not support your response. Namely, jshore said that anthropogenic climate forcing “amounts to much more than just a gentle prodding”—i.e., that ACC is a significant problem—and you posted three links that you claimed disagreed with that position. But you were wrong about two of them.

@GreyMatters

It is not ALL the cites or evidence I have given to support my BELIEF that ACC is not a problem.

In fact, those three links are all the cites you have given in this thread in support of your belief that ACC is not a problem, except for a link to Cecil’s column on the subject in your post #22. You have also cited a few sources on socialism and the precautionary principle, but those don’t say anything about the issue of ACC.

@GreyMatters

However, the amount of pages is not scientific proof of anything.

No, but the amount+quality of pages tends to be a pretty good indicator. So far, you have provided exactly one cite that actually supports your claim that ACC is not a problem: namely, the letter written by some scientists to the Financial Post, which contains no actual scientific data or references. (The Cecil Adams column is inconclusive on the subject, citing Essenhigh’s position that ACC is not significant but also remarking that “one might raise scientific objections to this reasoning”.)

[GreyMatters]

@Kimstu

We know that. The point is that two of your three links did not support your response. Namely, jshore said that anthropogenic climate forcing “amounts to much more than just a gentle prodding”—i.e., that ACC is a significant problem—and you posted three links that you claimed disagreed with that position. But you were wrong about two of them.

In fact, those three links are all the cites you have given in this thread in support of your belief that ACC is not a problem, except for a link to Cecil’s column on the subject in your post #22. You have also cited a few sources on socialism and the precautionary principle, but those don’t say anything about the issue of ACC.

No, but the amount+quality of pages tends to be a pretty good indicator. So far, you have provided exactly one cite that actually supports your claim that ACC is not a problem: namely, the letter written by some scientists to the Financial Post, which contains no actual scientific data or references. (The Cecil Adams column is inconclusive on the subject, citing Essenhigh’s position that ACC is not significant but also remarking that “one might raise scientific objections to this reasoning”.)

1. It is jshore’s opinion of what prodding means that matters here. He weighed in and stated that those support his view. While I think a 3C ACC, though not proven, is not that big of a prod, he does. OK, so what is your point again. Oh yeah, this somehow proves my opinon that ACC is not a big influence or deal, yeah whatever.

2. As jshore knows, I have been debating this for a long time here. (I have learned a lot from jshore btw, thanks.) I am really only debating with jshore because he is the only one who wants to debate this issue and not harrass the desenters. I have given jshore plenty of cites over the years. None of which he didn’t already know already. If you are slow on the uptake, it is not my fault. Also, this is a crossover from another thread, a continuation if you will, and there I also provided more links. Again, if you are just catching up, that is your problem.

3. My linking to Cecil’s column was only to point out another source of dissent with the IPCC fanboi’s rhetoric. Nothing more. I have not, nor will I, claim it is proof that ACC is not happening, or will happen, or be bad. You seem to read, incorrectly, into everything, so twist that into me claiming ACC doesn’t exist if you want, but again you will be wrong.