Very few do. I think only two or three AGW believers here comprehend many of the points I make.
The answer to that question is:
It is impossible to answer that question. I cannot "think" anything, because I do not believe I have sufficient data or understanding to answer it.
Again, your question seems to be based on a misconception as to what AGW says.
It is hard to have a logical discussion about something without agreeing about what we are talking about.
Can you state, in your own words, what the theory is that you are criticising, so we can reach something mutually agreed on, please?
Again, that is a very un-scientific statement.
There are many scientists who claim there is.
The implication of your statement is that they are lying and committing outright fraud.
Do you have any evidence, such as admissions of outright fabricating of data?
or proof that data was outright faked?
This would not include errors that can reasonably attributed to honest mistakes, but would clearly have been fabricated. To make the claim, you really need a "smoking gun". Climategate emails do not meet that criteria.
I reject the assertion that it would "trash the global economy".
You have made a claim. It is now your burden to prove this assertion.
Link?
Isn't the consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century?
Yes, that is about right.
One important addition:
Underlying warming is taking place as well. I would recommend fully reading the IPCC report, if you have not done so already.
I just heard something interesting on GMA. Hurricane season ends at the end of this month. And, for the first time since records have been kept (since 1878), we have gone through 5 consecutive years without a hurricane hitting the east coast.
Interesting.
They did a study in California showing that veterans were dying at a rate HIGHER than the death rate from combat in Iraq/Afghanistan. This was mostly due to two factors. One was a high rate of suicide, it was *the* main cause of death, if memory serves. The other was motor vehicle accidents at a rate much higher than the same aged civilian population, suggesting risk-taking behavior.
How is that related to climate change? Hurricane frequency and intensity are supposedly related to AGW.
So we both can agree on this:
The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.
???
Let me know when/if you have read the full IPCC report. I guess we can discuss this without you having done so, but it would be better for the discussion, if the main report is something everybody has read, since it is central to a lot of the topic. I have read a good chunk of it, but will go back and re-read it.
Oh, I thought we were posting things we found interesting, rather than something to do with the subject at hand. Sorry about that.
Your post concerned the path of hurricanes, not the frequency or intensity of the storms, correct?
Yes, I am being something of a smart ass, but did so to prove a point.
I pretty much agree with Bjorn Lomborg on this issue. The scare mongers have oversold the message of climate change and we'd be much better off funding alll kinds of "green" energy research than implementing cap and trade schemes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_782409.html
I'm all for more research to better understand the truth. Those advocating Cap and Tax are just fools, or gaming the system for profit. There simply isn't any compelling evidence that AGW is as strong as the advocates say.
I think the doom and gloom scenarios on both sides are wildly exaggerated.So we both can agree on this:
The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.
???
In this I would agree with Mr. Lomborg as well.
Do you think that Yoni's "economic catastrophe" predicted due to cap and trade might be a *wee* bit of a similar exaggeration?
Darrin, we still need to come to a working agreement as to what the AGW people, as most fully represented by the IPCC report are saying.
Can we both agree that this is the working hypothesis?
The consensus theory of AGW that man-made CO2 emmissions have caused unprecedented warming in addition to an underlying warming trend in the 20th century and that by severely limiting CO2 emmissions, we can ameliorate the catastrophic climate changes that will take place because of the current warming rate of 1 degree per century.
???
Like Lomborg said, what's the point of spending a dollar to get a few cents benefit?
I agree that's the theory -- I just don't believe there will be "catastrophic climate changes".
THAT is a matter of considerable interpretation, i.e. nailing down the specific cost/benefits.
Given the winding down of fossil fuels is, by most accounts, upon us, and the implications thereof, I would assign converting now while energy is fairly cheap a good deal of "benefit", for reasons I have spelled out here repeatedly.
I can flesh that out here if you want, basically I think the cost of conversion will be LOT higher if we wait, and we will gain a good deal of benefit if we let the rest of the world deal with increased demand bidding for decreasing supplies.
Thank you.
I believe we don't know enough to really rule out that possiblity, nor do we know enough to really assign that a probability to any reasonable degree of certainty.
The possbility of our actions "flipping the switch" of some unknown tipping point, is enough to make me think the conservative, risk-avoiding approach is probably best, until we know more.
I'm amazed at your lack of faith in human ingenuity. When, in the history of mankind, have we not arrived at a fairly cost-effective solution to such problems?
Considering there is considerable disagreement over what are the costs and benefits of current environmental policy, I say we wait and see how mankind resolves this in the absence of government policies that -- so far -- have proven less than effective and more costly than advertised.
That is why cap and trade can be one of the better solutions. All it is designed to do is to make fossil fuels more expensive relative to renewables energy.
It doesn't pick the "winning" renewable energy source directly. Or at least it shouldn't.
I have a huge amount of faith in human ingenuity. Some "peak oil" proponents wave their hands talking about apocolyptic malthusian scenarios, and I am most certainly not one of those people. Our ingenuity will prevent that.
I just want to give that ingenuity a head start.
(edit: added a bit)
THAT said, I am not all that wedded to the idea. I really want what works. If cap and trade ain't it, and there is some indications that it isn't, based on the EU's limited try out, then try something else. The EU seems to fail more because implimentation than concept.
I am genuinely skeptical of complex government schemes. They often has some unintended consequences that bite you in the ass, and often get corrupted in the process. I would agree with you on that not always being the optimal solution.
BUT
I think we need to do *something*. Darrin has suggested research in green tech, and I am for federal funding for that.
Fertilize the ground, and let human ingenuity bloom.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-12-2010 at 02:37 PM. Reason: clarity
This all assumes "fossil fuels" are the boogey man the environmental crowd is making it out to be. Not everyone agrees.
Also, cap and trade is an onerous, heavy-handed, approach that will cause the loss of jobs in the oil and coal industries.
I'm in favor of letting the natural laws of economics drive the solution. Instead of getting government to monkey with supply and demand, why not allow the public to decide if they want to move to a more expensive fuel source?
Yoni prefers running out of energy before finding a new source.
On a related note:
A bad news week for AGW proponents
Fewer and fewer people are buying into this load of crap.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote