Need proof of Global Warming

Great Debates
221

[QUOTE=jshore]
I am not sure what you are looking for.
[/quote]

Duh. A specific proposal.

“putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions” is NOT a specific proposal.

“force the market to acknowledge there is a cost to emitting greenhouse gases” is NOT a specific proposal.

increasing retail gasoline taxes by $1.00 per gallon IS a specific proposal. (I am not advocating this, I am simply offering it as an example of a specific proposal.)

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that you can’t understand what I mean by “specific proposal.” I think you’re just being evasive.

Fine. Please tell me the specifics of the law you are proposing. Or give me the bill number and I will look it up. And please tell me by what percentage you expect world carbon emissions will drop if the law is enacted.

Is the IPCC saying that the main focus of policy efforts should be on adaptation?

222

jshore, as always, your comments are thought-provoking. You say:

[QUOTE=jshore]
Note that, admittedly with qualifiers and vagueness, they do however admit that “the risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant” and they don’t outright oppose “regulatory options to mitigate GHG emissions”. So, even ExxonMobil seems to be accepting that such policy actions are going to happen and are working to try to influence how they are applied instead of just opposing them altogether.
[/QUOTE]
Again I say, you need to learn to read these types of statements closely. They are easily as tricky and as cleverly crafted as many peer-reviewed climate studies. They are not saying what you think they are saying, which is exactly the purpose of the statements.

Risks from just about anything that you want to name “could prove to be significant”, so that statement says nothing. It is exactly as true as saying “the risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be insignificant”.

And in keeping with the “no-content” theme of the piece, they neither oppose nor support regulatory options. They just note that policymakers are considering them.

However, like any business, if they think regulatory actions are going to happen, they want to influence them.

I still don’t see where they have admitted, denied, opposed, or supported anything.

w.

PS - you say:

[QUOTE=jshore]
Clearly we are going to have to adapt because, practically speaking, we are already committed to a fair amount of climate change that we will not be able to avoid at this stage.
[/QUOTE]
No. You, and the AGW folks in general, keep trying to cast this as some kind of new problem that we are “going to” have to adapt to at some point in the future.

In fact, we have faced the identical problem (far too much in the way storms, droughts, floods, and the like) for centuries. We have to continue to adapt, as we have learned and adapted for centuries, because people are dying today from the vagaries of the climate. Whether or not we are “committed” to significant climate change is a separate question.

223

[QUOTE=intention]

Again I say, you need to learn to read these types of statements closely. They are easily as tricky and as cleverly crafted as many peer-reviewed climate studies. They are not saying what you think they are saying, which is exactly the purpose of the statements.
[/quote]

Actually, I have noticed these kinds of tactics in IPCC and related materials too. What used to be called “Clintonesque.”

But I agree that the press release says essentially nothing. Anyone who thinks that Exxon is “admitting” to anything at all is just fooling himself or herself.

224

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Duh. A specific proposal.

“putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions” is NOT a specific proposal.

“force the market to acknowledge there is a cost to emitting greenhouse gases” is NOT a specific proposal.

…

Fine. Please tell me the specifics of the law you are proposing. Or give me the bill number and I will look it up. And please tell me by what percentage you expect world carbon emissions will drop if the law is enacted.

[/quote]

Here is a comparison of some of the various bills in Congress. I haven’t looked closely enough to know which one I like the best, although I do get the impression that Bingaman-Specter is too watered down. However, any of them would be an improvement over business-as-usual.

Since these are all bills just for the U.S., one cannot predict the percentage drop in worldwide emissions without making assumptions about how other countries will respond to our taking some leadership on the issue. This is a collective problem that is going to be solved by collective action.

No…Because mitigation is very important also.

225

[QUOTE=jshore]
Here is a comparison of some of the various bills in Congress. I haven’t looked closely enough to know which one I like the best, although I do get the impression that Bingaman-Specter is too watered down. However, any of them would be an improvement over business-as-usual.
[/quote]

I feel pretty confident in saying that none of your proposed policies would have a significant impact on world CO2 levels. As you say, the proposed policies would only affect U.S. emissions. (Note that China is apparently now the leading emitter of CO2.)

Further, if CO2 emissions are limited in the US, it will result in the outsourcing of CO2 intensive industry to other countries. So it’s possible that world CO2 emissions (as well as pollution) could actually increase.

Right. I don’t speak for intention, but I think his point was that the focus should be on adaptation. The no regrets option.

226

[QUOTE=brazil84]

Right. I don’t speak for intention, but I think his point was that the focus should be on adaptation. The no regrets option.
[/QUOTE]

By the way, I’m not agreeing that mitigation is very important. Simply that the intention approach is very different from the alarmist approach.

227

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I feel pretty confident in saying that none of your proposed policies would have a significant impact on world CO2 levels. As you say, the proposed policies would only affect U.S. emissions. (Note that China is apparently now the leading emitter of CO2.)
[/quote]

Well, obviously this is a global problem that is going to need a global solution. However, if noone is willing to start taking actions to reverse the trends then we will all suffer together.

Well, this is only a “no regrets” option if most of the scientific community is wrong. Otherwise, it is a huge regrets option.

It also seems to be a “no regrets option” if you are, say, the CEO of a big coal conglomerate. It seems strange to me that the interests of the entire world just happen to align so strongly with the interests of the coal industry!

228

[QUOTE=jshore]
Well, obviously this is a global problem that is going to need a global solution. However, if noone is willing to start taking actions to reverse the trends then we will all suffer together.
[/quote]

Assuming that it really is a problem (which it isn’t), so what? It doesn’t change the fact that your proposal will accomplish nothing of any consequence.

Do you have any proposals that will have a realistic chance of accomplishing anything? Because if not, futile attempts at mitigation are a waste of time.

I don’t think it’s strange at all. The people in the developed world depend on cheap energy. The coal industry wants to sell it to us. The people in the developing world want cheap energy. Coal can provide it to them. So there’s a huge allignment of interests.

229

[QUOTE=jshore]
It also seems to be a “no regrets option” if you are, say, the CEO of a big coal conglomerate. It seems strange to me that the interests of the entire world just happen to align so strongly with the interests of the coal industry!
[/QUOTE]

What a strange thing to say! There are big winners and big losers on both sides of this debate. It also seems strange that the interests of the entire AGW movement just happen to align so strongly with the interests of the anti-capitalists! (If you think that last sentence is stupid, then you can understand my response to your last sentence)

230

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Assuming that it really is a problem (which it isn’t), so what? It doesn’t change the fact that your proposal will accomplish nothing of any consequence.

Do you have any proposals that will have a realistic chance of accomplishing anything? Because if not, futile attempts at mitigation are a waste of time.
[/quote]

First of all, the U.S. currently emits between 20 and 25% of the greenhouse gases, so significantly cutting U.S. emissions would make a noticeable dent. Secondly, your argument could be applied to show lots of different things that involve collective actions are a waste of time. For example, voting is a waste of time since your vote hardly ever is enough to determine the outcome of the election. Thirdly, the point of cutting emissions is not just to cut emissions but to the develop the technologies that will allow the transition to a post-carbon economy. Once those technologies are available, they can be applied throughout the world…and, in fact, the companies in countries that take the early steps will have an advantage in this regard.

Except that scientists are telling us ways in which the interests are not well-aligned. (And, even before the problems with greenhouse gases, there have been lots of other environmental and health issues associated with coal mining and use of coal.

231

[QUOTE=flex727]
What a strange thing to say! There are big winners and big losers on both sides of this debate. It also seems strange that the interests of the entire AGW movement just happen to align so strongly with the interests of the anti-capitalists! (If you think that last sentence is stupid, then you can understand my response to your last sentence)
[/QUOTE]

I would argue that it is not realistic in ways that my sentence is not. First of all, explain how a cap-and-trade system is “anticapitalist”. Second of all, one has to look at the whole picture. If some environmentalists were claiming that coal use was turning people into pink unicorns and the National Academy of Sciences weighed in saying that this was ridiculous then, yes, it would make sense to be aligned with the coal industry on this. However, we are not in such a situation.

The actual situation is that nearly everybody except a group that includes some of the fossil fuel interests (particularly the most carbon-intensive ones such as coal) and some conservatives / libertarians seems to be recognizing the need for certain policies. So, when a policy proposal is made that looks like it is the right option if you are in the coal industry but doesn’t really look like the right option according to most of the scientific community and even many in the industrial sector, it should give one pause, should it not?

At some point, one has to be willing to abandon policies that cater to a certain special interest in light of what seems to be recognized by a large body of intelligent and informed people as the larger good.

232

I hope you don’t mind me jumping into this discussion rather late, but (unbelievable, I know) I do not have an agenda and truly want to understand the issues involved. I will say that I will not accept arguments, on either side, without some considerable skepticism.

I will admit that I have some leaning based on my opinion of our true understanding of the global climate system. I have yet to be convinced that we have the necessary understanding to warrant spending billions of dollars or slowing economic growth in an attempt to avoid CAGW. We don’t have a sufficiently sophisticated understanding of the US economy to even set the fed funds interest rate correctly, how could we possibly have sufficient understanding of the global climate system that is many orders of magnitude more complex?

[QUOTE=jshore]
Thirdly, the point of cutting emissions is not just to cut emissions but to the develop the technologies that will allow the transition to a post-carbon economy. Once those technologies are available, they can be applied throughout the world…and, in fact, the companies in countries that take the early steps will have an advantage in this regard.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, what the heck is a “post-carbon economy”? Are you trying to say that we’ll have Mr. Fusion ™ machines available in time to prevent CAGW? Do you really think we’ll transition away from fossil fuels within the next 50 years, because I certainly don’t. But even if you do, you must be saying that this (these) alternative energy source(s) will only be available at a much higher cost than fossil fuel sources (otherwise you wouldn’t need government involvement), which would be damaging to economic prosperity. Relatively cheap energy fuels the global economic engine. To eliminate (or dramatically reduce) CO2 is to eliminate (or dramatically reduce) the world economy. There is no getting around that. Poverty kills - and I don’t mean that figuratively - and when CAGW proponents fail to comprehend that, they are condemning many, many people all over the world to miserable lives and early death. The bottom line is that when you make energy more expensive you hurt the poorest most and it is they that I am concerned about.

233

jshore, thanks for continuing the discussion. You say:

[QUOTE=jshore]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Assuming that it really is a problem (which it isn’t), so what? It doesn’t change the fact that your proposal will accomplish nothing of any consequence.

Do you have any proposals that will have a realistic chance of accomplishing anything? Because if not, futile attempts at mitigation are a waste of time.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, the U.S. currently emits between 20 and 25% of the greenhouse gases, so significantly cutting U.S. emissions would make a noticeable dent.
[/quote]
The plan to cut European emissions (the Kyoto Protocol) is worth considering in this regard. While they had a plan to cut emissions, they were unable to do so (except in a couple of special situations). By and large, the results were trivial, with no effect on temperatures. So although “significantly cutting emissions” makes a great sound bite, the problem is that no one has figured out how to do it without impoverishing the world.

[QUOTE=jshore]
Secondly, your argument could be applied to show lots of different things that involve collective actions are a waste of time. For example, voting is a waste of time since your vote hardly ever is enough to determine the outcome of the election.
[/QUOTE]
This is a straw man. brazil84 actually made a very different argument. He said that “futile attempts at mitigation” are a waste of time. Again, Kyoto is a good example.

[QUOTE=jshore]
Thirdly, the point of cutting emissions is not just to cut emissions but to the develop the technologies that will allow the transition to a post-carbon economy. Once those technologies are available, they can be applied throughout the world…and, in fact, the companies in countries that take the early steps will have an advantage in this regard.
[/QUOTE]
And of course you have an example or a citation showing that the Kyoto protocol has somehow produced at least one of these new “post-carbon” technologies?

w.

234

[QUOTE=jshore]
Well, this is only a “no regrets” option if most of the scientific community is wrong. Otherwise, it is a huge regrets option.

It also seems to be a “no regrets option” if you are, say, the CEO of a big coal conglomerate. It seems strange to me that the interests of the entire world just happen to align so strongly with the interests of the coal industry!
[/QUOTE]

This right here is why I don’t trust pro-AGW arguments. They seem to come down to overly strong statements like “most of the scientific community is wrong” or point out that and industry is interested in certain studies.

I may be wrong, but I’ve had the idea that climatology was a relatively small scientific group compared to the whole of the scientific community.

There is a huge industry built around being pro-AGW. Is it strange that pro-AGW industries are promoting pro-AGW practices and policies? Does this make the pro-AGW science more or less legit?

235

[QUOTE=intention]
This is a straw man. brazil84 actually made a very different argument. He said that “futile attempts at mitigation” are a waste of time. Again, Kyoto is a good example.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think Kyoto is a waste of time, but it assumes that developed nations are willing to let their countries’ economies fall behind that of developing countries not only on an absolute basis, which is already happening, but on a per capita basis.

Hey, at least we wouldn’t be polluting as much. If that’s what our priority is, then so be it, even though the former developing countries would be benefitting from our sacrifice.

I’d prefer to only agree to the reduction when “developing” countries are included. I predict that if we do only the minimal amount of greenhouse-reduction that the American public on average wants, and the Chinese continue along the same veins (but replace “big businessmen” for “average Chinese citizen”,) they will within 25 years not only be the largest polluter on an absolute basis, which they already are, but the largest polluter on a per capita basis.

Then we’ll see how much stock they have in international treaties.

236

[QUOTE=jshore]
First of all, the U.S. currently emits between 20 and 25% of the greenhouse gases, so significantly cutting U.S. emissions would make a noticeable dent. Secondly, your argument could be applied to show lots of different things that involve collective actions are a waste of time. For example, voting is a waste of time since your vote hardly ever is enough to determine the outcome of the election. Thirdly, the point of cutting emissions is not just to cut emissions but to the develop the technologies that will allow the transition to a post-carbon economy. Once those technologies are available, they can be applied throughout the world…and, in fact, the companies in countries that take the early steps will have an advantage in this regard.
[/quote]

intention responded pretty well to this, but I would add that as far as U.S. emissions go, there are plenty of countries ready and willing to step in and pick up our slack.

And there is good reason to be skeptical of what some of these scientists are saying. Or seem to be saying.

237

Hmmm… What about what this guy has to say?

Global warming is about as likely as global cooling, and an ice age, apparently.

238

[QUOTE=Leaffan]
Hmmm… What about what this guy has to say?

Global warming is about as likely as global cooling, and an ice age, apparently.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you read everything you read. Why exactly do you believe he is correct and most of the rest of the scientific community is wrong? Also, did you notice that your website on the guy also links to this debunking of his opinion piece. The Australian, the paper in which that opinion piece is published has a history of publishing lots of pseudoscience in its pages.

239

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
I don’t think Kyoto is a waste of time, but it assumes that developed nations are willing to let their countries’ economies fall behind that of developing countries not only on an absolute basis, which is already happening, but on a per capita basis.
[/quote]

Do you have a cite showing that developed countries are likely to fall behind developing countries on a per capita basis and that Kyoto is likely to cause this?

And, this prediction is based on what exactly?

240

[QUOTE=Eben]

I may be wrong, but I’ve had the idea that climatology was a relatively small scientific group compared to the whole of the scientific community.
[/quote]

The scientific community has weighed in unambiguously on the issue, be it the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the editors of the prestigious journals such as Nature and Science, the councils of organizations such as the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, … This wikipedia page has a more complete list.

Well, the claim that there are these huge pro-AGW industries seems to conflict somewhat with the claim (which I don’t really dispute, by the way) that addressing climate change will involve a pretty large change in the way we produce and use energy. It sort of follows from that that the bigger players in terms of their current clout would be those in the current energy economy rather than those who will be the big winners under the new low-carbon economy.

At any rate, the difference between the two cases is that the companies that are fighting against addressing AGW are clearly ones that ought to be fighting against it for their own reasons; I can understand why a coal industry executive doesn’t want the government to start regulating CO2 emissions. The more interesting question is why many of the companies that one would expect to be in the same camp with the coal industry (e.g., BP, Shell, Ford, Dupont, …) have over the past decade or so shifted sides and decided to accept the science, leaving the Global Science Coalition defunct.