The Paris Climate Talks: Negotiating With the Atmosphere

Lasrick writes: The Paris climate change talks are in December, but what negotiators plan to propose will only be part of non-legally-binding pledges—and they represent only what is achievable without too much difficulty. 2009's Copenhagen Accord say 114 countries agree that global temperature increases should be held below 2 degrees Celsius. "Paradoxically, an accord that should have spurred the world to immediate action instead seemed to offer some breathing room. Two degrees was meant to be a ceiling, but repeated references to an internationally agreed-upon “threshold” led many people to believe that nothing really bad could happen below 2 degrees—or worse yet, that the number itself was negotiable." Dawn Stover writes about alternatives to the meaningless numbers and endless talks: 'The very idea that the Paris conference is a negotiation is ridiculous. You can't negotiate with the atmosphere."

Comments

What is there to 'negotiate'?

[fustakrakich]

Nobody cares about the climate, aside from the opportunities each disaster presents. In business, profit is the prime, if not the only, motive to be in business at all. Just make it more profitable to be clean.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[umafuckit]

Nobody cares about the climate, aside from the opportunities each disaster presents. In business, profit is the prime, if not the only, motive to be in business at all. Just make it more profitable to be clean.

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses. Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating. So instead they give us bullshit arguments about how regulation hurts our freedoms and nothing is done.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter at this point anyway. Stopping global warming is a lost cause. The only thing left is to adapt.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

And have mommy bring you more Doritos while you play WoW in the basement:

Grownups who actually hold jobs care about the climate. Each disaster represents wasted money, and causes loss of production and resources, especially food, potable land, and arable water. Many grownups and kids who *don't* have someone else paying for their little basement mancave and someone else paying all their bills while they spout Libertarian nonsense also care about the ecological devastation, which has moral ramifications, and its economic effects. The global warming is destroying harvests of foodstuffs, organic manufacturing materials, and medications.

The difficulty is that it's a longer-term economic problem: it's planning for next year or next decade's profits, not this quarter's profits, and that's exactly where the laissez faire "let the market handle it" approach enters the "tragedy of the commons" turf, and the public that used to use "the commons" freely gets very upset when they find a guard making them get licenses to use the limited commons.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Ferretman]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses. Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business". At least not to the level you seem to want.

What do you propose as a solution to the problem you are perceiving?

Secondarily you know of course that other nations don't have the restrictions the United States is fortunate to have. What's stopping them from taking those actions you believe they need "the balls" do do?

Feret

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business".

It does, actually, both through interstate commerce and the treaty clause.

Rick Perry may want to get rid of the EPA, pandering fool that he is, but an honest argument against it? Would never pass through a sane court.

Secondarily you know of course that other nations don't have the restrictions the United States is fortunate to have. What's stopping them from taking those actions you believe they need "the balls" do do?

You must have missed this bit:

Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

So that would be the things stopping them.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Crashmarik]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

If anybody actually wanted to live in a state where success and failure were decided by the government, who your friends were in government we could have just not fought the cold war.

Here's a little hint for the past 25 years "appropriate government" regulation has done nothing but increase.

The result smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality.

Good job

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[fustakrakich]

And have mommy bring you more Doritos while you play WoW in the basement:

Mommy is in another galaxy far far away, and I really don't have the talent to play anything more complex than Pong. And my house doesn't have a basement. I have to sit outside! On the patio! With a bunch of flowery plants and noisy animals flying around crapping on my keyboard, yuck! Do you have any idea what that's like?!

I have a simple message. Don't pollute. Hardly merits all the criticism it gets. But without a profit motive, it means shit. Business will always come first.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[ShanghaiBill]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation". So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[ColdWetDog]

While in "free market" Russia and China, the rising tide is lifting all boats, from the oligarch to the oil worker? Say what you like about excessive regulation in the US (which clearly exists and we should work on minimizing it), letting businessmen have free reign is anything but a panacea.

In fact, it's fucking disaster.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[umafuckit]

Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business". At least not to the level you seem to want.

Of course it has the ability. There are countless things that businesses can not do because they are against the law. New laws can be passed to limit what business can do. Businesses may not like it, but it s possible. The Glass-Steagall act is an example of restrictions placed on large businesses. It's also an example of what goes wrong when you take away the restrictions and allow said large businesses police themselves using the power of the so-called free market.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter at this point anyway. Stopping global warming is a lost cause. The only thing left is to adapt.

Is that you Harry Reid?

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

actually that's totally untrue. Much of the efficiency improvements were driven by collaborative approach between government and business

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Antique Geekmeister]

> So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation".

Look again, and look more carefully, please. The restrictions on building new coal fired plants with less pollution, coupled with many other factors, have raised electricity prices: that is one of the market forces" involved. Government support of the switch and numerous projects at every level of government have encouraged every one of those changes, including tax breaks on more energy efficient homes, the forced publication of fuel efficiency on home appliances to better _inform_ consumers of the efficiencies, and regulation on government funded construction.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Crashmarik]

The people in China would certainly disagree while Putin is hardly a free marketeer.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[kheldan]

'Appropriately regulating businesses' is a concept diametrically opposed to the way capitalism works, though, and the organism of the genus capitalism, like any life-form, will fight tooth and nail to it's dying breath trying to preserve itself -- and it doesn't care how much collateral damage it causes in the process. We'd have to do away with capitalism entirely. But doing that starts people pointing fingers and yelling 'socialism!' or 'communism!', which while they're not terrible concepts on paper, they, like most all things involving humans, overlooks a fundamental fact: Humans can't be trusted with the sort of power that leading a socialist or communist society gives them; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to evolve further as a race before many of the problems we have as a race will be solved. I fear that won't happen before it's too late, though.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[umafuckit]

So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

Exactly. Because they're for show, not real solutions.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[umafuckit]

'Appropriately regulating businesses' is a concept diametrically opposed to the way capitalism works, though, and the organism of the genus capitalism,

Capitalism, like democracy, is not a single thing. There are different ways we can structure capitalism just like there are different ways we can structure democracies. The capitalism we have ended up with is is virulent, but it doesn't need to be that way. You don't need to resort to "communism" to achieve this. The cries of "communism" that we hear from right wingers is just a way of diverting the discussion.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[kheldan]

I'm not advocating socialism or communism, mind you, and I agree that capitalism, at least here in the United States, is running out of control at the moment. If I had all the answers I'd be running for public office myself, not just being a nigh-unto anonymous commenter on an obscure Internet website. Part of the problem is the world is effectively significantly smaller than it was even, say, 50 years ago, because fast tranport to the other side of the planet is relatively cheap, and even more so, instantaneous communications to pretty much anywhere on the planet costs almost nothing and is available to pretty much everyone. Like it or not, we've become a global community, with all the problems that brings with it.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you accept the lies already told us by the "scientists". They said if it was not stopped by the year 1996, it would be too late. And of course they also said that there would be no snow past the year 2000. They said NYC would be underwater by the year 2015 .... Eventually so many false predictions make you question their premise. Meanwhile the temperature in June was -135.4 degrees below zero. Cue 3 stooges music.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Just make it more profitable to be clean.

Since energy is probably the single largest input into most products, businesses already have a strong incentive to reduce energy usage, and have had that incentive since long before carbon taxes and government subsidies for "clean energy".

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

That's nonsense. Businesses already have a strong incentive for reducing energy consumption because energy is already expensive, even without regulation.

Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating. So instead they give us bullshit arguments about how regulation hurts our freedoms and nothing is done.

Given the regulatory binge that the US government has been on, that's a ridiculous statement. In fact, governments love regulating industry because it gives them power and money; in particular, it gives them the power to pay off corporations they like with favorable regulations, and punish corporations they don't like with unfavorable regulations. Nominally, they do that for our benefit, but in the end, politicians just do it for themselves; it's a massive form of corruption, and idiots like you are calling for more of it.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[FlyHelicopters]

Since energy is probably the single largest input into most products, businesses already have a strong incentive to reduce energy usage, and have had that incentive since long before carbon taxes and government subsidies for "clean energy".

Sure, but that usage isn't zero...

The trick is, clean energy costs more than dirty energy... that is what he was talking about...

I can get clean power for my business, but it costs about 3 cents more per kWh than dirty energy.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation".

You'd hate to know about the SEER standard then, or the tax breaks for insulation, or the amounts of money the government spent getting companies to invest in LED bulb production.

Or the pollution regulation that made coal less appealing.

So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

Until you learn about the billions corporations have taken in subsidies for the ones you already mentioned. Besides, shuttering nukes? With the possible exceptions of San Onofre and Fukushima, all of those that have closed down have done so because of the corporate decisions.

It wasn't worth the money for them.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The trick is, clean energy costs more than dirty energy.

Indeed, it does. And that's what I'm getting it. Fustakrakich said "Just make it more profitable to be clean.", as if everybody wins: businesses make more profits, we all get clean energy, and nothing else changes. But in reality, since you observe that "clean energy" is 3 cents more expensive per kWh, imposing the requirement to use "clean" energy through regulation raises prices, reduces demand, and probably reduces profits. It also reduces actual economic growth, and means that we can buy less for the money we earn. Regulations mandating the use of "clean" energy, as Fustakrakich so cheerily proposes, amounts to little more than a tax on consumption, and a tax whose effect is highly regressive.

Now, maybe you think that's a good thing to do anyway. But such policies shouldn't be hidden behind bullshit like "just make it more profitable to be clean".

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[umafuckit]

I agree, the global nature of the problem makes it all the more intractable.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[tsotha]

Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

That's only a tiny part of it. Public enthusiasm for CO2 reduction wilts pretty quickly when the public is asked to make sacrifices.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[tsotha]

Actually, the average Chinese guy is far wealthier today than he was before economic liberalization. It's come at a cost to the environment in China, to be sure, but that's sort of the natural progression developing countries go through. There used to be rivers in the US that would actually burn, and even as late as the mid '60s when you got up to go to work in Pittsburgh there would be a layer of coal dust on your car.

The older Chinese people still remember when the government ran everything. That's when 30 million of them starved to death.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[TapeCutter]

Dirty energy is 'cheap' because the environmental and social costs are all but ignored by traditional economists. The environment is the source of all our material wealth, degrading the free and fundamental services it provides to human economic activity to save 3c/kwh simply does not make sense, let alone economic sense.

The war in Syria is a contemporary example of those (admittedly difficult to quantify) costs. The unprecedented "once in 10,000 years" drought in the fertile crescent prior to the "arab spring" was "the straw that broke the camel's back", facebook was simply the most convenient communications method at hand. Climate change didn't 'cause' the drought, but it almost certainly had a hand in its record breaking ferocity. In Syria alone, two million farmers (10% of Syria's population) simply walked away from almost certain starvation in the rural dust bowl and headed for the cities and joined the food riots that swept the major cities of the ME and N Africa just prior to the uprisings. The dire "bread line" style situation was made worse by similar record breaking droughts in Russia and Australia that were simultaneously pushing international grain prices thru the roof

At 3c/hr, how long will it take to pay for dirty energy's role in all that? - Trick question because nobody expects them to pay, and that's the problem with "cheap and dirty" in a nutshell.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Dirty energy is 'cheap' because the environmental and social costs are all but ignored by traditional economists.

Traditional economists are quite aware that externalities exist; they are simply honest enough to admit that they can't quantify them or who is actually bearing those costs. Progressive economists delude themselves into believing that they can quantify these costs, but in the end, they just end up being crony capitalists, forcefully extracting money from the population and giving it to politically favored corporations and sectors.

Climate change didn't 'cause' the drought, but it almost certainly had a hand in its record breaking ferocity.

That's pure speculation. The Middle East had massive climate swings long before fossil fuel use. So, for that matter, did the Americas. Those climate swings caused famine and mass migrations. There is not a shred of evidence that AGW is making things worse. In fact, by historical standards, famine across the world is lower than it has been for as long as we have good data to make comparisons.

The unprecedented "once in 10,000 years" drought in the fertile crescent prior to the "arab spring" was "the straw that broke the camel's back"

Even if that weren't just fiction, it's irrelevant. Syria's problem is that it is a pariah state with few economic and political freedoms; as a result, its people live in poverty and the nation doesn't have anything to trade. If Syria was an economically and politically free country, food wouldn't be a problem even if its entire domestic food production failed.

I mean, what you are saying, in effect, is that the rest of the world should pay massive amounts of money so that economically incompetent dictators can stay in power. If climate change actually does destabilize dictatorships and centrally planned economies because they are incapable of adapting as well as free market economies, all the better as far as I'm concerned.

At 3c/hr, how long will it take to pay for dirty energy's role in all that?

According to the IPCC report itself, the cost of mitigation is about the same as the cost of adaptation to climate change. But that's under their unusually pessimistic analysis and it's neglecting the fact that money we spend now is more valuable than money we spend a hundred years from now. So, even according to the IPCC, it won't pay for itself.

But, in fact, it will probably do a lot of harm. By reducing economic growth, it will make many countries less able to adapt to climate change, and by effectively subsidizing costly and bad energy technologies it will delay the development of better energy technologies.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

If anybody actually wanted to live in a state where success and failure were decided by the government, who your friends were in government we could have just not fought the cold war.

Here's a little hint for the past 25 years "appropriate government" regulation has done nothing but increase.

The result smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality.

Good job

Nice try at obfuscation. Of course, we know that smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality have been on the increase SINCE YOUR BIRTH!!!! Don't try to palm responsibility off on "appropriate government" regulation. We know it's you.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

Actually, the average Chinese guy is far wealthier today than he was before economic liberalization. It's come at a cost to the environment in China, to be sure, but that's sort of the natural progression developing countries go through. There used to be rivers in the US that would actually burn, and even as late as the mid '60s when you got up to go to work in Pittsburgh there would be a layer of coal dust on your car.

The older Chinese people still remember when the government ran everything. That's when 30 million of them starved to death.

China still contains a billion subsistence farmers lurking underneath that thriving industrial revolution.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses.

So far the big reductions, such as the switch from coal to gas, LED lights, variable speed DC motors, more efficient HVAC, better insulation, have all been driven by the market, not "government regulation". So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

Abraham Lincoln was a big proponent of government backing high-speed rail, and that turned out pretty well for the country.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

actually that's totally untrue. Much of the efficiency improvements were driven by collaborative approach between government and business

The efficiency improvements in our vehicle fleet have been directly due to government demanding them, and have slacked off as soon as the government mandates relaxed.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

So far, government imposed "solutions" such as carbon credits, shuttering nukes, and subsidy schemes, have accomplished little, or been counter-productive.

Exactly. Because they're for show, not real solutions.

Because any party having the honesty to remove the direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels and adding a surcharge for the externalized costs (just include the adverse effects on health and agriculture) would be voted out instantly and never see the light of day again.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

'Appropriately regulating businesses' is a concept diametrically opposed to the way capitalism works, though, and the organism of the genus capitalism, like any life-form, will fight tooth and nail to it's dying breath trying to preserve itself -- and it doesn't care how much collateral damage it causes in the process. We'd have to do away with capitalism entirely. But doing that starts people pointing fingers and yelling 'socialism!' or 'communism!', which while they're not terrible concepts on paper, they, like most all things involving humans, overlooks a fundamental fact: Humans can't be trusted with the sort of power that leading a socialist or communist society gives them; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to evolve further as a race before many of the problems we have as a race will be solved. I fear that won't happen before it's too late, though.

there are plenty of european countries which have neither done away with capitalism entirely, nor become absolutely corrupt.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.

That's only a tiny part of it. Public enthusiasm for CO2 reduction wilts pretty quickly when the public is asked to make sacrifices.

that's why you point out to them after 9/11 that stopping our dependency on oil would get us out from being stuck with the Middle East, and they see that the "sacrifice" is worth it. Instead, in typical Republican fashion, we double down on the bad idea, recommit to fossil fuels, and send troops into the Middle East.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

Since energy is probably the single largest input into most products, businesses already have a strong incentive to reduce energy usage, and have had that incentive since long before carbon taxes and government subsidies for "clean energy".

Sure, but that usage isn't zero...

The trick is, clean energy costs more than dirty energy... that is what he was talking about...

I can get clean power for my business, but it costs about 3 cents more per kWh than dirty energy.

\ clean energy costs more, if you don't count the externalized costs of dirty energy. it's like saying crapping on my neighbor's lawn is cheaper than using my toilet and paying the water and sewer bills. if you count the costs of pollution simply on human health and agricultural production, the costs of coal in particular would make it prohibitive.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[FlyHelicopters]

clean energy costs more, if you don't count the externalized costs of dirty energy. it's like saying crapping on my neighbor's lawn is cheaper than using my toilet and paying the water and sewer bills. if you count the costs of pollution simply on human health and agricultural production, the costs of coal in particular would make it prohibitive.

That is a fair point, one that I don't actually have a big problem with.

What doesn't work is the "carbon credits" or "cap and trade" nonsense that just allows people to go on polluting and creating a marketplace for "carbon".

What DOES make sense is a straight carbon tax. You can burn all the gas, coal, and oil you want, but there is a cost to that, paid to the government in the form of taxes. This compensates everyone for the mess you're making.

That is how you instantly make clean energy make sense, without trying to pick a winner (solar, wind, nuclear, etc.). What you're doing is picking the losers.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

People as stupid as you are proof that our education system is completely fucked. And it's also because so many people out there are stupid as you that our entire socioeconomic system is basically fucked beyond all redemption.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[dywolf]

wow.

that is Jane Q Public levels of bullshit, admitting the truth of things like "smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality" but completely missing the mark on their actual cause.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Crashmarik]

wow.

that is Jane Q Public levels of bullshit, admitting the truth of things like "smaller middle class, wage stagnation, greater concentration of wealth, and greater income inequality" but completely missing the mark on their actual cause.

Your carefully constructed reasoning is as always devastating in it's impact.
  Please call me a poopy head next, it saves me the trouble of taking apart thoughts other people have put in your head.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[tsotha]

A billion? No, more like 300k. But that's half the number you would have found a generation ago.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[gzuckier]

A billion? No, more like 300k. But that's half the number you would have found a generation ago.

OK, let's split the difference and call it 750k. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/C...

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[tsotha]

I guess it depends on where you draw the line. From here:

According to the rural poverty line of annual per capita net income of 2,300 yuan (at 2010 constant prices), the population in poverty in rural areas numbered 82.49 million at the end of the year, or 16.50 million less than that at the end of 2012.

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it depends on where you draw the line. From here:

According to the rural poverty line of annual per capita net income of 2,300 yuan (at 2010 constant prices), the population in poverty in rural areas numbered 82.49 million at the end of the year, or 16.50 million less than that at the end of 2012.

Well, how about drawing the line at not pretending that being a subsistence farmer is the same as being poor.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone does in fact believe it - of course belief is irrelevent when AGW is a fact.

There is so much inertia with the World's economy and the fact that people do not want to change their lifestyles and others want an overconsumption Western lifestyle.
The only way humanity is going to change is when there is a catastrophic climate change. When crops fail en mass. When coastal cities are flooded.

A person is smart. People are stupid.
So, I agree; it doesn't matter.
I am doing what I can. Lowering one's environmental and consumptive footprint saves A LOT of money. And I feel a part of the solution instead of an entitled bald ape.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't doing what you can. You are using a computer and the Internet for entertainment purposes. The Internet is a huge energy sink. What a joke. You are probably some suburban dweller who has a car and a big house.

Re:It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

US CO2 emissions are down.
Partly due to the switch to natural gas, and partly due to the bad economy (recession / depression that we are in).

The UN bureaucrat fest is just a part of the sustainability (that is a code word in UN speak for central control and wealth redistribution) push that will culminate this fall with the climate conference and Pope's visit.

Watch out for the freedom crushing proposals. Obama cannot make any commitments legally. A treaty requires senate ratification, which he won't get and spending in poor countries will need house approval for spending. But don't put past our executive order passing illegal action president from trying to push through his radical green agenda to further his control.

We are likely heading into a cooling period in the earths climate as the tendentious computer models drift farther and farther from the real earth's temperature. The surface temperature records are being heavily adjusted to create the appearance of more warming (cooling pas records, warming recent ones with fake adjustments and homogenization tricks).

Sea level rise is an old news (since the last ice age) and shows NO signs of acceleration.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet is a huge energy sink

Hardly. The biggest problems are Western agriculture, transportation and industry -- both outsourced and domestic. 80% of the CO2 released has come from the West. Want to help the world? Eat less, walk more, live where you were born. Just like most of the rest of the world is doing. And pay yourself for the cleanup of your ancestors' damage.

Commons Tragedy

[rmdingler]

I think, by and large, there is enough intelligence amongst World leaders that they are mostly for reducing anthropogenic contributions to climate change.

Unfortunately, like each nation that would like to see crude production restricted in OPEC, it would be better for them if the other members could make the sacrifice(s).

Re:Commons Tragedy

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Unfortunately, like each nation that would like to see crude production restricted in OPEC, it would be better for them if the other members could make the sacrifice(s).

Most politicians are at an age where AGW simply isn't an issue to them at all, since they are going to be long dead by the time it matters.

So, the questions they are asking are: (1) does this issue bring me votes (or political support in non-democratic nations), and (2) will history remember me for taking on this issue.

As far as (1) is concerned, only to the extent that they can credibly promise doing something without hurting the economy, which limits their options severely. As far as (2) is concerned, that's a weak and risky gamble to take, in particular if it interferes with (1).

Re:Commons Tragedy

[rmdingler]

Good point.

The lack of political will, the courage to do the right thing despite negative personal consequence, is the hallmark of the modern, career politician.

Don't you think term limits could fix that quite rapidly?

Re:Commons Tragedy

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The lack of political will, the courage to do the right thing despite negative personal consequence, is the hallmark of the modern, career politician. Don't you think term limits could fix that quite rapidly?

I don't see why. With term limits, politicians simply are going to shift their motivations from getting votes to getting cushy private sector jobs when they get out.

I'm almost a mile from the shoreline BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

only 3 feet above sea level. Imagine my property values if it rises, oh, say, 2.9 feet. I say, 2C, 3C, all right for me.

That's a lot of swimming pools!

Re:I'm almost a mile from the shoreline BUT

[PPH]

Imagine my property values

Um, no. That will become a saltwater swamp when the ground water rises.

Re:I'm almost a mile from the shoreline BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

As Glen Campbell used to sing, Galveston oh Galveston. Yes, your slum ghetto is the next Palm Beach. Property wise. Donald Trump will be knocking. You will be rich. Rich. RICH.

Politics Feh

[nefus]

I remember when nobody posted politics on Slashdot. You guys have ruined a perfectly good site by trying to turn it into a political evangelism site. Can we stick to technology related issues please? I'm sure a lot of you will vote me down for saying these things but how many people have stopped coming here because Slashdot isn't a great place to see cutting edge information any more. There is far too much political demagoguery here, it is depressing.

Re:Politics Feh

[Crashmarik]

Look at the name of the editor that posted this.

If that isn't a giant warning sign what is ?

Re:Politics Feh

[ShanghaiBill]

I remember when nobody posted politics on Slashdot.

No you don't. Slashdot has always had some articles with a political slant.

Re:Politics Feh

[ColdWetDog]

While the level of political discourse usually is just a tad better than on Fox News or Slate, it is probably a good idea that the technologically inclined start thinking about something more relevant than the next processor tick or the personal hygiene of free software zealots.

The real work is complicated and ugly, frustrating and annoying but it is there and most of us will have to deal with at some point.

Re:Politics Feh

[DNS-and-BIND]

And people have always complained about it and wished it didn't happen. Remember Jon Katz and his idiot stories? Look at the site, comments are down globally, it's not uncommon to have 20-50 comments when there used to be 150-300. You see the same damn people modded up everywhere, diversity of opinion is lost as other people get disgusted with the situation and leave. It's going to happen to me, too, one of these days, and I've been around since this site was a weblog, high userid notwithstanding.

Re:Politics Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

The right wing pro-fossil fuel tea party types and the anti-government libertarians made this political because they lost the science debate about it. And now will bitch and complain to delay anything that might curb their wasteful ways until they are dead. They don't care about future generations, both economically since the oil monopolies and family dynasties will be extremely powerful in 30-50 years, but also environmentally.

Some of us are using technology to do science. And climate science and understanding nature and humans impact on it is a legitimate role for a technology site.

Re:Politics Feh

[ShanghaiBill]

And people have always complained about it and wished it didn't happen.

Some people complain. Others have figured out that if an article doesn't interest them, they can NOT CLICK ON IT. Others, including me, think it is interesting to read about politics from a nerdy point of view.

it's not uncommon to have 20-50 comments when there used to be 150-300.

Slashdot is dying, but I am not sure that is because of "politics". Political stories tend to have the most comments.

Re:Politics Feh

[kheldan]

Ever notice how small children, playing with their toys, are just very simply happy, without a care in the world? That's because they're small children, living in their child-sized world, with mom and dad taking care of all the big, grown-up things and decisions for them. That's what you sound like: You want to go back to being a child, and just playing with your toys, and leaving all the big grown-up stuff to someone else to worry about. Honestly I don't blame you; I do things to escape being an adult when I can, for the sake of my sanity. Adults are boring! Being an adult is tedious! But the fact remains that we are adults now, and turning a blind eye to what's going on around us is a disservice to ourselves and to everyone else as well. I'm sorry that the toybox that was Slashdot has been taken away and replaced by an office desk, but it is what it is. I suggest you start reading science fiction and fantasy novels, if you aren't already, so that your inner child can still have playtime. It's what I've done for decades now, right before I go to sleep at night, and for what it's worth I think it works rather well.

Re:Politics Feh

[khelms]

It does seem that any article related to "global warming" tends to results in the same endless arguments by both sides being posted yet again - "the 10 hottest years in history were within the last 18 years", "there has been no warming trend over the last 20 years", "yeah, but, a lot of the heat is going into the ocean", etc., etc.

Everyone appears to have divided up into camps on this issue and no one is going to change their "beliefs" and switch sides, so any "discussion" is about on the level of 2 groups of monkeys screetching at each other and tossing their dung.

Re:Politics Feh

[DNS-and-BIND]

The endless drumbeat of politics stories, almost always carrying the same bias, acts to create disgust and drive people away. There used to be a whole lot less of them. The fact that some seem to like it now? It means the old users have all left and new asswipes have come in to establish the new normal. That's how it usually works in web forums.

Re:Politics Feh

[Oligonicella]

Ever notice how people wanting to hector other people think that arguing about politics/policies 24/7/everywhere wants everyone to think that's a grownup adult activity?

Re:Politics Feh

[kheldan]

Leaving politics up to politicians has created most of the messes we've all got to deal with now. It's like allowing marketing people to make engineering decisions: coming to a bad end is inevitable. Also, I'm not 'hectoring' anyone, I actually understand where that fellow is coming from and made a suggestion to give him some relief. However we do have a responsibility, unfortunately, to clean up the messes that politicians have made because we were actually stupid enough to trust them in the first place. It all starts with discussion.

Re: Politics Feh

[sonicmerlin]

Are you fracking kidding me? You're equating the group of people refuting the nonsensical anti-AGW claims with science ( "10 of the hottest years occured in the last 18", "oceeans are absorbing some of the heat") with the camp that trots out the same fracking tired arguments that have been refuted over and over again in every fracking thread? Science isn't a "camp", it's the conclusion you reach after looking at the data.

The problem with these threads is there are too many idiot trolls who think themselves oh so much smarter than the people who spend their entire lives studying the topic of climate.

Re: Politics Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here.

Re: Politics Feh

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot. Kettle.

Re: Politics Feh

[khelms]

No, I'm not equating the two arguments. I'm pointing out that neither side appears to be convincing anyone who believes otherwise and we just see the same points posted over and over again. I was not making any judgement about which side has the stronger case.

FFS - how much more 'climate change' bullshit here

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not rename it 'Climatedot' and have done with it?

There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', so they renamed it 'climate change', which means NOTHING, because the climate is ALWAYS changing. There has been no warming for 18 years!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Live where I was born? I tried, but when I turned 18 they kicked me out of the maternity ward.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have killed you instead. Damned Western humanism, shows no mercy.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Ferretman]

And he's right....which you seem to accept since you offered no counter arguments.

Ferret

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a lack of counter arguments offered define being right?

Goodness gracious, it's gonna be 2 degrees waaama!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to suggest that global warming is no big deal, but before we do much more shocked swooning, let's compare this to the "existential crisis" fears of previous generations. That's a nice way to remind ourselves of the fact that never before in the history of humanity have our biggest problems been smaller. The levels of peace, prosperity, human health, human happiness, and every other measurable indicator are at historical highs. Yes, we will eventually need to build some new sea walls and levies, and we will have to get better at large-scale aquaculture, because we kinda fucked up the sea (overfishing contributed much more to this than CO2, but both are bad for oceanic ecosystems). But nobody thinks that for a society as rich as ours, solving these problems will be anywhere near as hard for us as it was to build the plumbing system of ancient Rome.

I do think we should make an effort to speed up the demise of coal mining/burning, and once we've done that, phase out the other fossil fuels as well. Accelerating this will cost money, but humans have never been as rich as we are. We can afford this and much more. But let's not forget that we can also afford all the mitigation steps necessary to negate the impact of whatever global warming we can't prevent. I have a hard time getting too worked up at politicians when they aren't running around like their hair is on fire. Our hair is not on fire. We have solvable problems, and we're gradually solving them.

Re:Science Feh

[swell]

There's too much science here. Who really cares about 2 degrees? Lots of predictions, statistical projections, meaningless numbers and scientific papers... I want blood and gore! I want great debates and powerful forces aligned with questionable business practices. Face it people, there is no life in science, the life is in the arguments that come after. More politics, please!

And no, facetious is not the same as feces.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

live where you were born.

Just because you don't like to leave the basement doesn't mean that the rest of us should shun travel. Sounds like you're the one who needs to get out and about a bit.

Controlling climate change and losing weight

[kheldan]

"You're right, doc, I really need to lose weight", someone will say. "I'll start on that tomorrow." Then they never do. It's called 'paying lip service' to something, and that's what most nations are doing. It's like they need glasses, or the prescription on their current glasses updated: They can't see past the end of their own noses. Something that's going to happen 100 years or more from now? Nah, that's too far off to worry about, after all they'll be out of office by then and likely dead, so why should they care? To be fair, while that's the way the average person also thinks, the average person (representing 99% of the population, mind you) really is rather busy making sure they have a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and enough food to eat, and all this high-concept science stuff is way over their heads, and why again should they care about what's happening halfway around the planet? Sadly short-sightedness on everyone's part is what's going to turn the Earth into a clone of what Venus looks like right now: a searing black calm, devoid of life.

I don't know what the hell to do about this any more than I have a solution for, say, the problem that the homeless represent here in the United States. What I do know is that the solutions to these problems has to come from the top, down, to start with, not from the bottom, up, but getting the people at the 'top' to give a damn enough to actually do something about it, while also getting people on down from there to go along with it, is tougher than herding caffeine-enhanced ferrets.

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sadly short-sightedness on everyone's part is what's going to turn the Earth into a clone of what Venus looks like right now: a searing black calm, devoid of life."

Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

The earth's has 1% the atmosphere of Venus. Where is that other 99% going to come from? I'm not saying your wrong, but if your theory requires additional matter to appear somewhere there should at least be speculation on where its coming from.

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[kheldan]

Sadly short-sightedness on everyone's part is what's going to turn the Earth into an approximation of what Venus looks like right now: a searing black calm, devoid of life.

There, is that better? Please, don't be pedantic. Nit-picking choice of single words is precisely that; the meaning being conveyed is what counts, k?

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[Anonymous Coward]

"There, is that better?"

No, it is worse. You've gone from a good testable scientific statement to something very vague. The new claim is more akin to astrology or fortune cookies.

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[Anonymous Coward]

"There, is that better?"

No, it is worse. You've gone from a good testable scientific statement to something very vague. The new claim is more akin to astrology or fortune cookies.

So you never bite the bullet, run the gauntlet or let a sleeping dog lie?

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[kheldan]

Look up 'pedantic' in a dictionary, buddy, I'm pretty sure they've put your picture there as an example of what 'pedantic' looks like. While you're at it look up 'argumentative', and 'obnoxious', I'm sure those definitions will sound real familiar to you. Do you live with someone? I know it's probably a long shot that you might, but if you do, you might want to have someone read your posts before you hit the 'submit' button, to help prevent you from being 'pedantic', 'argumentative', and 'obnoxious'.

Further replies from you will be ignored. Save yourself the time and don't bother; I am done with you.

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. I have trouble understanding how claiming something specific then weakening it to become more and more vague when challenged can be a positive contribution. Why not just say what you mean to begin with? Or, admit that, given this new information you have received, the earlier claim is no longer tenable?

Re:Controlling climate change and losing weight

[Anonymous Coward]

I just realized you may not even be aware that the temperature of gas in an atmosphere increases with pressure. Also, all planets with substantial atmospheres have their tropopause at around 100 mbar (http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6859), indicating the temperature/pressure relationship is due to some common physical law. So you really thought I was taking issue with the literal use of "clone"... that explains it.

Re: Controlling climate change and losing weight

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Kettle, Pot.

1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[huckamania]

About 1/3 of all CO2 produced by humans in all of history has occurred in the last 18 years and yet there is no statistical warming during that time. CO2 is logarithmically challenged, as discovered by Arrehnius, the demi-god of the AGW movement who first proposed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's funny that the AGW crowd only ever cites his first paper on the subject and its ridiculous sensitivity. It is tragic that after all these years of doom and gloom from the AGW crowd that they are finally bringing down that sensitivity to the levels that Arrehnius determined in his follow up work.

Most so-called deniers only deny that there is a run-away effect, that all feedbacks are positive, that you can retroactively alter the temperature records to compensate for time of day and siting issues, that you can splice one proxy temperature record with another and put it on the cover of an official IPCC document and that you can continue to cite models and studies based on those models when CO2 is following the worst case scenario and the actual temperature is below the best case scenario.

Finally, quoting the 97% consensus is just plain stupid. It's either made up from whole cloth or based on a severely flawed study. You can't scream anti-science at people and ignore the mountains of bad science published in the name of AGW every year.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most so-called deniers only deny"

There is another problem, with the 33 C/K strength of greenhouse effect and the related 255 K effective radiating temperature calculations. They assume an evenly illuminated surface rather than a half illuminated sphere when calculating the temperature. Because temperature is related to the 4th root of irradiance, the distribution of energy from the sun over the surface matters. T~mean(S^.025) is different than T~(mean(S))^.025. Presuming the S-B law is applicable at all, there are other factors (not being monitored) that cause ~100 K of warming over the blackbody sphere.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts disagree with your first statement. The 10 hottest years in history (since record keeping began in 1880) have occurred in the last 18 years. 2015 will break all of those records.

Even if you ignore history. Even if you ignore science. Even if you ignore the facts. Ask anyone over the age of 40 about the heat this summer.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[Schmorgluck]

You are aware that there are CO2 recapture mechanisms at play, right? The problem is we are overloading them.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[riverat1]

Most so-called deniers only deny that there is a run-away effect, that all feedbacks are positive, that you can retroactively alter the temperature records to compensate for time of day and siting issues, that you can splice one proxy temperature record with another and put it on the cover of an official IPCC document and that you can continue to cite models and studies based on those models when CO2 is following the worst case scenario and the actual temperature is below the best case scenario.

Most scientists would not say there is a run-away effect (at least not in the way you mean it) or that all of the feedbacks are positive. The temperature records are what they are. You can't go back and redo them in a more ideal manner. If you have actual scientific objections to the compensations they make for less than ideal data publish your paper.

As far as temperatures "below the best case scenario" the 10 hottest years in the record have all been since 1998 and 2015 is easily going to be a new hottest on record.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[TapeCutter]

there is no statistical warming during that time

You have been misled. Also it was Fourier who predicted CO2 GHG properties in 1824, Arrehnius was the first to suggest human CO2 emissions could be warming the Earth (1890's). The climate sensitivity number of 3degC for a doubling of CO2 commonly used today was determined during the 1970's and has changed very little since then,it was derived from geological evidence and has nothing to do with Arrehnius.

You can't scream anti-science at people

I for one don't think you are anti-science, but it obvious your sources are.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on admittedly doctored data. They come right out and say they are "adjusting" the data and then claim, "Wow, hottest year evvvvver!".

On top of that, the whole fucking "science" is based in statistics and not one of these people is a real statistician.

It's like a bunch of Chiropractors running around telling people that surgery is a going to lead to bad medical outcomes.

oh, wait...the AGW fans probably believe in Chiropractors

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ask anyone over the age of 40 about the heat this summer"

OK, since you asked. This summer had TWO WEEKS of excessive (but not unprecedented) temperatures. As a resident of the southwest I remember much longer, hotter duration's when I was much younger, and I'm 47. Moreover the two summers before this one in their entirely were quite mild.

For the record, those of us not on the shrinking AGW bandwagon aren't ignoring anything, especially where the loudest proponents get their grant money from.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[Anonymous Coward]

I live near the equator. (OK, about 600k away).
Until about 5 years ago, temperature was about 27C year round. Max of 36C on a cloudless summer afternoon, maybe 3-4 days of the year.
For decades, at least. (Yes I'm older than you, young man). Every year for the past 5 years, the summer has got hotter and hotter. Winter also hotter, and wetter.
This year it's been hitting 40-42C the past month. We are also running out of water due to increased evaporation, for the first time in my life, we have water turned off about 10 hours a day. Winter was about 30C most days. this year. Rained like mad. Collapsed part of my roof. (OK, maybe it was old).
In the past, the bomberos attended about a dozen small forest fires a year near my city.
I can't give absolutes, but forest fires are growing larger, and this year a large proportion of the country is currently burning. I should look it up, but this year it's hit close to FIVE HUNDRED local fires. That's just in my valley. At the top of the fucking Andes! Never in my life, nor my parents, nor my grandparents.

Anecdotes aside, if it's not hotter, why is evaporation up? Grant money? Love to see your paper on that. Come on, do it. Tell us all how grant money affects water levels. Especially in a poor country where ther is no grant money. Oh, you can't? You know why?

Talking out your fucking arse, that's why.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[ebvwfbw]

Hottest decade for the 20th century was the 1930s. That break all of those models. Nice try though.

Hint - CO2 isn't causing it. It's a symptom.

Re:1/3 of all CO2, but no warming

[dywolf]

all things you said have been disproven several times already.
please do try to be original.

Re:FFS - how much more 'climate change' bullshit h

[Parallelo]

Why not rename it 'Climatedot' and have done with it?

There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', .... There has been no warming for 18 years!

I keep seeing that same response posted as AC to climate stories - here on "stuff that matters". Complete with a link for further info:

http://www.climatedepot.com...

Which is partially funded by the ExxonMobil foundation http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

Maybe this would be a lot easier if we went back to a dialogue on "pollution", which more folks could easily see value in limiting.

Global warming discussions attract maggots

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming discussions are the worst.
 
It attracts maggots, name callers --- the least intelligent people talk the most.

The reality of the situation...

[FlyHelicopters]

negotiators plan to propose will only be part of non-legally-binding pledgesâ"and they represent only what is achievable without too much difficulty.

^ This right here is the key point to take away from all this...

For all the hot air our "leaders" are giving this issue, the reality is they don't intend to do anything about it. Notice the "without too much difficulty" part of that.

Non-binding, not too hard, not too expensive...

To actually stop the rise of CO2, we need to take drastic measures, and the fact is, while people SAY they care about global warming, what they really mean is "I care about global warming so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle".

Re:The reality of the situation...

[cbeaudry]

Its simple.

They don't actually believe its a problem.
Not many people do.
They just follow the bandwagon, because its the IN thing to do now, and say "Oh that climate change thing, baaaaad! We should do something about it."

No one likes being the odd one out at the table, so they lie.

Re:The reality of the situation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon as the people claiming as you do start doing something about it, the rest of us might start to listen. However, what I see is Gore using more electricity than 10 normal homes, always in private jets, and making money like crazy off the schemes he suggests meanwhile his people are calling me "flat earthers" for pointing out his hypocrisy.

When you fail to show how important it is, and rely on name calling, of course we are going to ignore you. Its really that simple.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe an uninformed partisan bigot like you will at least take the information right from the EPA web site?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

Of course, carbon emissions aren't down because of all the money the Obama administration wasted on "alternative energy", they are down because of fracking.

Re:FFS - how much more 'climate change' bullshit h

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts don't matter to the brainwashed. They literally will not hear you if you tell them 100% of global warming predictions are false. Never tell them that the "scientists" (ooo they like the sound of that) said that if global warming was not stopped by the year 1996 it would be too late. Don't remind them that the Hadley Climate Research Center said there would be no snow past the year 2000. And whatever you do don't let them know that the temperature in June of this year was -135.4 degrees below 0.

Re: It doesn't matter

[FlyHelicopters]

There is so much inertia with the World's economy and the fact that people do not want to change their lifestyles and others want an overconsumption Western lifestyle.

People love to say "I care about the environment and global warming".

But what they really mean is, "I care about the environment and global warming so long as it doesn't impact my way of life".

The fact is, world leaders aren't stupid, they are aware that we can't stop this without drastic change that will be unacceptable to the population as a whole. Not at least until "bad things" happen. Then people will accept change.

Re:It doesn't matter

[penguinoid]

I dunno, it all seems like a bunch of hot air to me.

Re: It doesn't matter

[PopeRatzo]

And he's right....which you seem to accept since you offered no counter arguments.

No, he's not right. CO2 emissions aren't down because of the switch to natural gas. They're down because of the recession.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

Why is this crap on slashdot all the time?

[bhlowe]

The last thing I want to read about on a technology web site is politics and global warming nonsense. I personally am carbon negative with my solar panels and electric car. That doesn't mean I want to read about every idiot's plan to tax and spend and go technologically backwards to "fix" an already paused state of global warming. Lets keep slashdot to nerd-worthy stories...

Re:Why is this crap on slashdot all the time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn trolls, I wonder how many are the same ones that defending against the myths that smoking and lead in petrol were harmful.

Re:Why is this crap on slashdot all the time?

[rail2rail]

> an already paused state of global warming I've got bad news for you: http://www.theguardian.com/env... âoeThere is no slowdown in warming, there is no hiatus,â

For comparison

[purplie]

For comparison, the Little Ice Age --- frozen rivers, advancing glaciers, and famine --- was a cooling of less than 1 degree C (if you can believe Wikipedia).

Re: For comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming this is true, there is a big difference between freezing and just warming. Zero degrees is a demarcation line, where crossing it changes the structure of water. The effects are profound. The same does not apply if New York goes from a high of 34C to 36C in the summer.

Re: It doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Vapid talking points aren't worth arguing - especially on an online peanut gallery like this. It gets tiring having to argue and post facts against arguments that are based on coal industry propaganda.

The GP is totally full of shit and so are you for stocking up for him.

UN plot

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you think there is a UN plot, don't you.

Another dipshit Fox News viewer.

Familiar headline

[CompunctiousCucumber]

Old man yells at cloud.

Limits on hot air from diplomats?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems contrary to their nature.

The politicising of scientific terms

[Anonymous Coward]

"Global warming" is a political term - not a scientific term.
"Climate change" is an alternative political term to "global warming" - its not a scientific term. Science says climate always changes. And "climate change" is used instead of global warming because "global warming" pseudo science fell into steep disrepute and so politicians had to come up with an alternative name.
"CO2" is a political term - the scientific term is Atmospheric trace gas CO2 which takes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.

etc etc etc lardidah!

Probably no point in trying to educate the meme infused illiterate climate trolls who have learned their mumbo jumbo but have never question the trolls that they fell for.

Re: It doesn't matter

[tsotha]

Partly due to the switch to natural gas, and partly due to the bad economy (recession / depression that we are in).

Which is exactly what the linked article says.

Re:It doesn't matter

[riverat1]

We are likely heading into a cooling period in the earths climate as the tendentious computer models drift farther and farther from the real earth's temperature. The surface temperature records are being heavily adjusted to create the appearance of more warming (cooling pas records, warming recent ones with fake adjustments and homogenization tricks).

Actually adjustments to the surface temperature records do the opposite of what you say. In general before about 1960 the adjusted data is warmer than the raw data.

Graph

Less than 2 degrees C? No problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything less than 2 degrees C is not a problem then let's just save all those trips to Paris.

A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

Here are some inconvenient FACTS that show that CO2 does NOT control the temperature:

1) Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
2) Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 C per century.
3) The oceans, according to the 3600+ ARGO buoys, are warming at a rate of just 0.02 C per decade, equivalent to 0.23 C per century, or 1 C in 430 years.
4) The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 C per century.

Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.

Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).

Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.

If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university. The bottom part of it was his post here on Slashdot to correct some misguided individuals.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/

Re:What is there to 'negotiate'? Industrialization

[Anonymous Coward]

The economic liberalization is the result of technology adoption.
China has had an industrial revolution.
The reason old Chinese people know the government ran everything because most old civilizations have an authoritarian structure.

How to fix the problems

[Keith Henson]

What we need is for someone to invent an energy source that is cheaper than coal and can scale to tens of TW (current use is around 15 TW).

Power satellites will certainly scale to that size, and at a high rate of production it looks like they could undercut coal.

But the powers that be have forgotten what engineers are good for.

Warming versus Warm

[huckamania]

Dictionary would come in handy, I'm thinking.

Other words you might want to look up:
Logarithmic
Inter-Glacial
Ice Age

"Even if you ignore the facts. Ask anyone over the age of 40 about the heat this summer."

Pretty mild summer here. I heard it is hot in Mumbai.