Well that’s just it- if we had them we’d already use them. But certainly there’s no reason in principle why it should be impossible eventually to eliminate using coal to generate electricity and petroleum to fuel vehicles. And we certainly should try to develop those technologies and implement them as soon as they’re competitive. Wind power has dropped dramatically in price for example. The problem is people demanding immediate carbon reduction at any price, even if it means tripling the real cost of producing energy. Or passing the carbon conservation equivalent of sumptuary laws, that restrict people’s freedoms. No free society is going to stand for that.
Well, we somehow did manage to control CFC and yes, free societies did manage.
It is true that it will be more of an effort with global warming gases, but I would prefer to see a gradual but strong change rather than a draconian one that I do fear will take place later once we begin to feel the effects of an increase of 3 degrees Celsius world wide.
So instead of doing nothing and having to pay a bigger price later we should investigate how to move away from fossil fuels and that does not mean that we automatically will restrict freedoms or progress.
Okay, so if people ignore evidence of global warming, they are ‘deniers’. Fine.
Now, how about you give me a rational, logical plan for how you expect Cap and Trade to have an effect on global warming greater than its cost. Explain to me exactly what steps you think can be taken to lower global CO2 emissions to the point where AGW can be slowed enough to make a significant difference, and how you expect to get Russia, China, and India to play nicely. If you can’t, explain to me how your Cap and Trade plan doesn’t wind up just being a wealth transfer from the U.S. to the countries who free ride on the global climate and eat America’s lunch in manufacturing.
Be warned: There will be math.
If you can’t do it, I’m going to start calling you all “mitigation deniers”. Because from what I can tell, this is the plan:
- Cap and Trade
- ???
- Paradise!
Warning: there will be condescension:
You are silly. 
I have not investigated all the issues and plans regarding cap-n-trade and I have been already on the record that I think that there are many unfair and abusive items in the current cap-n-trade plans.
Remember, the science behind AGW continues to tell us that the earth is warming and we are a big cause of the current warming. What to do about that warming has not been well thought out, or the political will is weak still.
Are you admitting that you’re ignoring evidence? Could this be a change in opinion?? No way! Not in these boards! Now, if we could only get GIGObot or whatever to see through the day light instead of posting 500 posts of nonsense…
The problem with Cap and Trade is that its a really weak solution/crap to the problem. We need to put our minds to solving this thing, and the whole denying thing is only delaying the whole process! Ultimately it will be probably be a very complicated solution, including:
- energy reform > moving away from mainly coal
- moving away from petroleum > bonus: no more buying oil from our pals in Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran
- green alternatives from agriculture to construction
- etc, etc
Could you be more specific?
Every time someone starts a global warming thread it snows. Knock it off, I’m ready for spring and I’ve put the shovel away.
Consider me to have condescended. 
I’m trying to decide if it’s worth having a GD on this:
“Is there any point arguing the merits of AGW science any further without first deciding if there is a remedy?”
If there is no remedy–or in your case, apparently, investigation of remedies–why all the passion around AGW? Is it just the thrill of hollering TEOTWAWKI is coming? Is it that, having persuaded everyone the problem is real, the hope is that a remedy will be found?
While I am personally [del]a skeptic[/del] a denier (by your standards, apparently), I must admit that my lassitude is contributed to by my observation that we always act within our narrow interests (the tragedy of the commons) and that no numbers I have seen (and no behaviours I have seen ((inc. the infamous A. Gore)) suggest to me that there is likely to be much mitigation of either AGW or its underlying cause, too damn many people. In a separate thread, I couldn’t even get Kimstu (who constantly beats the crap out of me for my idiocy) to recommend a single personal behavioural change to mitigate AGW. That surprised me.
In any case, I’m also surprised to learn that a pro-AGW devotee as passionate as yourself has not seen fit to explore the likelihood of successful mitigation of AGW before consuming so much time converting the [del]skeptics [/del] deniers. It seems roughly analogous to a missionary devoting his life spreading the message of impending hell to the heathen without first investigating whether or not there is a path to redemption, or an astronomer committing his life to get the message out that the sun is about to go supernova.
And that is the reason why you are indeed insulting.
I do not believe, I trust on the evidence. History shows that it took a long time for the best scientists to arrive to the conclusion that if we do nothing, we are very likely to expect a rise of 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
Here you would get the clue why it is not a religious thing:
Scientists are just recommending solutions to that issue, but they have very little to say about plans like cap-n-trade. That is political territory. Scientists can only make calculations based on what in real life those plans to curb emissions do or not.
Which suggests to me an answer to Sam Stone’s question:
Step 2.: change human nature so no one is selfish and will sacrifice their self-interest for a non-local, long-term goal.
You’re comparing the managing of CFC with reducing CO2?
A replaceable material with a necessary product of most or our technology?
Dude, you have good AGW arguments, this one is not, it’s actually good ammo for the opposition.
You did not see the video uh?
And yet we’ve had more snow in the US, Europe and Russia this year than anything in recent years. At what point does common sense sink in and Gore is recognized as a profiteer and not a prophet. The world is not going to end tomorrow. We have been consistently improving energy technology and will continue to do so in spite of his Nobel Peace Prize.
The deniers are the people who think reducing CO2 is the end-all instrument to reducing temperature and are willing to spend endless amounts of other peoples money to make that happen regardless of the return on investment or financial consequences that could destroy tax base necessary to fund future technologies.
As one of the links reports (Yeah, those that you deftly ignored after the video: )
As for Gore:
I think I got it that if we do nothing we face TEOTWAWKI.
But (and especially if I am talking to a denier) what is the something that should be done? And if there is no answer, why any passion over whether or not someone denies the scientific evidence?
The “religious” part is not whether or not acceptance of a position is an article of faith or an examination of the science–i.e. it’s not about why position is taken–it’s the behaviour around what happens when a particular position is embraced.
So what I’m trying to get at is why you are passionate about defending your position and perhaps even gathering more souls for the flock if there is no solution to the problem.
Or is there a solution, and if so, what is it? I raise this in this thread because in my opinion the weakest part of the site was addressing a denier’s indolent indifference based upon his assumption the problem is insolvable even if it exists.
I never said the recent cold snaps were the end of global warming. If you actually read what I said you’d understand that. But you don’t. I made it clear that reducing CO2 is not an end-all solution to reducing temperature.
Well the solution is to educate the public, but denialists are producing a mess of FUD. Most of the solutions will eventually deal with politics; having an opposition that is producing disinformation and worse, depending on it, will not lead to proper solutions. In the end solutions (or in your case: non-solutions) to the problem will have to be based on research and evidence to show if the proposed solutions will be effective or not.
Early someone remarked as to why it seems I’m not offering solutions, well it is like the Health care issue, the opposition could get away with lies for a long time while the ones making the law were busy making changes and compromises. Only when the law was passed was then then we could talk about what it will do in detail and not with the general points.
Similarly only after politicians finally make clear what they will do with cap-n-trade or carbon taxes is that scientists then can check if the solution will hit the target or if new regulations and changes will need to be done to get to it.
As for your attempts to once again continuing to insult me by being an armchair psychologist… Meh.
You posted that:
“And yet we’ve had more snow in the US, Europe and Russia this year than anything in recent years. At what point does common sense sink in and Gore is recognized as a profiteer and not a prophet”
As it is getting common with you, you really would fool many by making them think otherwise with what you actually post.
That’s a pretty tough step!
An alternative is to sell the advantages of making the massive infrastructure shift to a non-fossil fuel economy. Go nuclear worldwide, use batteries as portable energy for vehicles and anhydrous ammonia or liquid hydrogen for aircraft and shipping. No more smog, no sulphate aerosols, reduced radioactive emmissions (from quitting coal mining), long term fuel reserves, reduced dependence on oversea oil reserves… it’s not an easy sell, but not an impossible one by any means.
Re the OP, it’s not a bad site and I say that as a very mild skeptic. The summary on the hockey stick for example is balanced, fair and honest, something exceptionally rare in advocacy sites whatever their point of view.