Cool links thanks for those. I do find the models really interesting, and I don't dismiss them out of hand. But they are still just models, and by their own words "there is often a tunable parameter or two that can be varied in order to improve the match to whatever observations exist."
Moreover, it's the assumption of the models' predictive accuracy I take the biggest issue with. On the last link there I see three different graphs with actual temperatures lower than modeled predictions over the last 7-8 years. "That's cherry picking!" you'll say. Ok, then let's collect some data for another 7-8 years, and another 7-8 after that, (the more the better) and then see how accurate it actually was.
I read it, and understood it.
Your whole 29% return hinges on the shipper spending 400 to get 800 off his fee from the government. That may or may not be possible. The fee could be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. If it's not, my taxes have to pay someone to discern the level of compliance with the regulation (also, opportunity for corruption there). And the total cost is more than the 1600 because the government is imposing and administering it. Taxes pay the extra EPA workers, IRS workers, Treasury dept. workers, Transportation dept. workers, etc. needed to enforce the law and hand out checks. And if it's reduced hospital fees instead of a check, it's essentially redistributing taxpayer money to whoever goes to the hospital the most, regardless of how much their sickness is due to the pollutant or their not taking care of themselves. (And if you want to try to determine that ratio, there's another slew of government workers and another opportunity for corruption). So if the 400 for 800 isn't possible, or isn't allowed, 1600 gets passed to the consumer, and I end up spending 1600 + ##00 to Uncle Sam so he can send money to some other guy, or give me back just 1600.
It's not a straw man if it's the major policy goal of people in government concerned about the "problem".
Who's negatively effected by the "social cost of carbon"? The whole planet? Do we all send ourselves $20? Or what if we just send a bunch of money to Fiji cuz we think we're making the seas rise. Is that what you want?
I'm seeing nothing out of the ordinary here, looks kinda flat over the last 2000 years. Combine that with this, and I'm not too keen on taxing the world or buying a prius.
The little ice age was significant, but not a catastrophe. Also I've mentioned before that it would seem to me that less things live where it's colder, and global cooling would be a bigger problem considering Earth's (geologically) recent history of real ice ages. The warming that got us out of the little ice age was natural, and a good thing. Even if we were to agree on what is significant, it could be natural, and it could be a good thing.
Tell me they were recording the number of tornadoes accurately 1000 years ago and you'll have a case.
Growing + transporting food - we're pretty good at that. Gets more expensive if the greenies make gas $10 a gallon. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to live in a desert.
The US does have the best health care in the world. You don't get that for cheap. Socialized medicine in other countries would be stagnant if not for R&D financed and accomplished by the US.
You've made me think. I like that. Also I apologize for the incoherency at the end there, finals and a 3mo old will do that to a guy.
Fastest and cheapest are words evidently outlawed in DC...
I don't see the the kind of bribery, collusion, or coercion it seems you're looking for. (maybe in order to label me a conspiracy nut?)
Here's how I see the motives of the players involved, and how they benefit: Politician: Holds the idea that he knows better than everyone else, and would be happy to tell the peons what kind of car they have to drive. Congratulates himself as a savior of mankind whenever he champions the fight for this kind of AGW stuff, thinks "I'm such a man of the people!". Appoints bureaucrats below him, only those that share his views. Benefits when government is bigger because he can tell people what to do more (which he likes), and direct funds to campaign donors, a way to perpetuate keeping his job. Bureaucrat: Appointed by the politician, this guy is usually really passionate about the views of the politician, including AGW. Highly unlikely to hire people for his department that disagree with him. If he's deciding grants, he'll pick the ones he likes - his job has nothing to do with efficiency as bureaucracy is efficiency's antithesis. If he's in the EPA, of course he supports AGW, it gives them a bigger budget, more policing to do, feeling more important. Bureaucrats benefit from a bigger government, otherwise their jobs would not exist. They want it even bigger because then they can be promoted to lead the new task force (which eventually becomes a department, that never dies) for the new "problem" bigger government is supposed to address.
-- bureaucrat repeats here for # levels because government is too damn big -- Scientist: Fits a line to 150 years of temperature data, says the Earth will boil soon, and calls it "science" because that's his job title. Or maybe he's a real scientist setting up a long term experiment and gets shunned by his colleagues as a denier if he voices any skepticism. But probably not, as I imagine at this point after a couple decades of politicization, only supporters enter this particular field of science anyways. Supports politician, because he wants to send more funds to research like his. Supports big government generally anyways, because he thinks it's government's role to fund all kinds of science. AGW believer: Actually cares about the Earth. Gives politician their vote, and free reign to do whatever it takes to fix the problem, damn the consequences (or more likely doesn't think about the economic/political consequences). Is either overly afraid of a theorized disaster in the future, or shares the politician's self-congratulating, or both. Wants a bigger government because they actually think government is the solution to their problems. Business Exec: Buddies with the politician, this guy's business is so big he can handle some extra regulations, and would love to see that since he knows his smaller competitors can't. Gets contracts with the government through the politician.
You want to write everyone a check?
So I'm paying $1600 + who knows how much extra in costs passed on to consumers for goods and services due to taxes on businesses, just so I can get some fraction of that back as a check after cuts and transaction costs are taken out? Pretty dumb.
I'm all for clean air, and if LA wants to tackle their smog, go for it. Fine businesses for transgressions of a clean air act until it's economical for them to be clean.
It is quite another thing entirely to be doing something like cap and trade that was estimated to cost trillions, or to have energy policies like the president's where the goal is to have energy prices skyrocket to make people get on bikes or something. Especially when there is doubt in the external cost of global warming.
At least you're starting to do cost analysis, you just left out the "benefit" part.
Also (this might have been your pessimism speaking:-p) I utterly reject that it calls into question the survival of the human race. If in 100 years it is actually a ton warmer and things are actually dire, it will become necessary (and economical) to do something about it, and we will.
I just couldn't not reply to his sig.
I don't want to foist religion on anyone.
But an unborn child is another person, and I don't want infanticide to be legal.
Aside from stopping murder, I don't want the government big enough to be enforcing morality on you.
I think a lot of Tea Partiers agree on that - the focus is stopping the current fiscal insanity.
Yeah I jumped to the end of the slippery slope there, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight anything that moves in that direction.
Who determines the third parties injured by externalities? The government.
Who determines the cost of injuries to third parties, especially for something global like this? The government.
Who then would collect and distribute the tax to those parties (while taking their cut)? The government.
Sorry, but their record of "efficiency" gives me zero faith that they could carry this out, or that there would be no detrimental effect on the economy in the process.
Yeah maybe I wish more conservatives were like me, I never liked Rick Santorum.
I do join with them in detesting the immorality going on, and keeping traditions and institutions that made this country great.
I just don't think the government should be heavy-handed in doing all that by force.
But I also don't want them to go and legalize (read: encourage use of) drugs that are already illegal.
All that together is why I've called myself conservative.
Relevant part of fascism: "radical authoritarian nationalist... totalitarian single-party state"
bigger government --> bigger raises, promotions, staffs, budgets to play with for government workers. Again, not claiming conspiracy here, everyone's just working for their own self-interest, which coincides with bigger government.
Do scientists live off one grant? Where does their next one come from? Same place? oh...
Tenure or not, they're getting cash from Uncle Sam to do research, so are inclined to support bigger government. No bribes or "directed" research (or conspiracy) needed.
Do we cheer on the Black Plague in the 1300s then because it had been warming for a couple centuries? "Must've been those pesky human's fault. That's gotta be why it cooled for a couple centuries afterwards. Wait, there were more people in 1700 than 1300?"
Seems foolish to me to rule out alternative hypotheses on such a relatively short data set, and to assume it's humans' fault.
I would agree with you if we were talking about an ice age, since not much thrives on ice.
But you have no basis to know any of these would happen, that would not otherwise happen anyways: "Resource wars. Drought. Famine. Disease. More and more powerful typhoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes." And no apparent consideration for possible upsides, like growing food in Siberia, feeding millions that would have otherwise died.
If Cuba is so great, why don't you move there?
As soon as solar/wind/hydro is economical, I'm there with you. I'd love to use all three at my house and go off the grid.
I can't reply to all of that, but in general, I simply ascribe more doubt to each question than you do, and more downside to the proposed solutions.
I have more doubt because IT IS NOT SCIENCE when you don't make a prediction, validate the prediction, and get independent verification.
The number of questions are not superfluous because at any one of them if the answer is "no", then we shouldn't be doing things like cap+trade.
Sorry can't click on the link at the moment, but I have no problem with government regulations to handle negative externalities like polluting your neighbor.
I have a problem when government gets so big they can tell me and my neighbor what to do in any and every minutiae of daily life, and take half of what I earn or more.
Taxing to the hilt that by which all other goods and services are transported is more certain to have a detrimental effect on the economy than a potential creeping up of temperature.
People are arrogant to think they have the science perfectly right without validating models' predictions on more decades or more Earths.
Arrogant to think humans must be the only cause of problems.
Arrogant to think "woe is me/us"
Arrogant to think they know better than all those little people who disagree
Arrogant to think they know the solution
Arrogant to think their solution will have no flaws / side effects.
Point 1: That one is pretty near zero doubt: NASA data. There are other sources as well, and even anti-AGW folks usually acknowledge a rise.
Yup, that's a given, but you have to start somewhere, and temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998.
Point 2: Too vague to answer usefully, because "significant" is not defined. That means that a pro-AGW and an anti-AGW will see the same data and come to opposite conclusions about whether it's significant.
Exactly - it's a valid point of debate, that also feeds into discussion of 6, 7, 8 (as opposed to dogma of pro-AGW folks). There is a point, (e.g. 10C/yr) where it's simply fact, but we're not there.
Point 3: Probably yes -... this is a reasonably accurate hypothesis. This is about as close as we'll be able to come to a definitive yes without a couple more planet Earths and a few centuries to test things out more thoroughly.
My point exactly. It's reasonable, but there's a lot of reasonable doubt here without more Earths and more centuries, and certainly not a validated scientific truth.
Point 4: Probably yes (see point 3), but even if not this isn't entirely relevant. If it's caused by something else (cow farts, volcanos, etc), we still need to clean up the mess if we're going to survive.
It goes to #5 - if it's orbital fluctuations, we probably can't fix it.
Point 5: Almost definitely no. The reason is that those with the power to do something about it have a vested interest in not doing anything. In other words, the problem is politics, not science.
There are many politicians who would love to do something about it, because it gives them more tax dollars, greater authority, and reinforces that feeling that they know better than the peons.
Point 6: Most studies on the theorized effects of global climate change on economies give this one a definite yes. Although the sea level thing is the one that's entered popular culture, the problems include desertification of farm land, water shortages, increased number and strength of tropical storms / hurricanes / monsoons, and the political fallout from all of those (starving homeless people tend to do desperate things like start wars).
It seems to be popular culture these days to theorize on the disasters that could befall mankind. The point is there could be upsides, like perhaps farming in Siberia and Canada that could feed millions. I for one am not arrogant enough to assume that the optimal temperature of Earth is what it was in 19XX.
Point 7: All of your listed actions are pretty much fantasy. What most governments are actually talking about is regulating the emission of CO2 in much the same way that they've regulated the emission of SO2.
Cap and Trade would cost trillions... why do you say I am dreaming?
Point 8: Fairly high, for the reasons laid out in point 5.
Yup - another reason not to monkey with things we don't fully understand.
Basically, the way I see it, there's a problem, and we're absolutely screwed because those who might be able to do something effective about it don't want to. There's just too much short-term gain in doing nothing for anyone to really do something.
Well you've acknowledged (admirably) that there is doubt in some of these things, so I say if there's doubt in the existence of the problem, doubt in the extent of the problem, doubt if it's even a bad thing, doubt in how to "fix" it, and doubt in whether or not or fix would make things worse, I doubt we should be doing anything drastic about it.
#6 was intended to invite us to think about the possibility of it actually being a good thing, and what the optimal temperature of Earth is, irrespective of political consequences.
I contest that spending power has gone up due to free markets, the more government interferes, the slower this goes up.
Good moral argument about Spaceship Earth - I agree we can't be screwing it up irretrievably. I don't think we are doing so. While Earth isn't a 100% closed system, it's not like we're bleeding off our atmosphere into space - the carbon will still be here in 500 years in the air or in the ground. If it becomes economical to sequester it at that time, then future peoples will do so.
Powerful Statist governments killed >100 million people in the last century. I see this as a more immediate and real threat to us, our children, our grandchildren and theirs, so I fight anything that moves in that direction (left).
1. & 2. are settled science. There's always some "doubt" in science, but not in the way you use the term. People like you, or more accurately the people who tell you what to think, profit from muddying the waters. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt... it's not just for software anymore!
No one tells me what to think. I give you that the planet has warmed is fact, but it's been roughly flat since 1998. #2, it's debatable whether the temperature rise is significant, or alarming.
3. & 4. are irrelevant. Who cares whose fault it is? If it's going to disrupt our lifestyles, we should try to stop it. This is just some religious fundie bullshit. "Oh, there's no way humans could affect God's plan!"
They go to #5. If you assume 1+2, you have to ask whether it's part of Earth's natural climate fluctuations, because if it is, then burying every Hummer isn't going to do squat. Nothing religious at all here, don't know where you got that.
6. Yes, if you believe the science, the consequences would be severe. Not the end of the world, but a drastic reduction in quality of life for billions of people. But instead you've chosen to believe that all the scientists are in a big globe spanning conspiracy.
You're putting words in my mouth, I assume no such global conspiracy. I only ask that there be a rational debate where the pros of a warmer earth be considered also. Could we feed millions more if the tundra were arable? A large chunk of the total dry land is near the poles.
Billions poorer, governments richer Bullshit!... your statement should have been "oil execs poorer, working class richer".
Do you not understand economics? Oil execs set the price of gas. You pay for gas. Higher taxes means higher prices for working stiffs like you and me. The governments won't mint gold necklaces, but they will take a cut, and distribute the rest to who they see fit, giving them more influence and power.
8. "Wind turbines causing warming." That story was revealed to be bullshit in the comments of Slashdot.
Sorry I didn't have time to read those comments. I'll take you at your word. No rebuttal for all the other government disasters?
I don't mean to speak for the parent poster, but here's my 2 cents:
"Tell me who benefits from "bigger government" as a completely abstract concept." - Government employees, government funded researchers, politicians, and the businesses they write earmarks for, etc. Pretty simple really...
"possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates." - We can acknowledge this without accepting with 100% certainty that current models that statistically fit old data can accurately predict future temperatures. We can also disagree about the potential effects, and politically what to do about it.
"How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?" - They're funding most of them. Not bribes per se, but grants flow to those the government approves of.
I believe most of the scientists (and most of the believers or "shills") are not part of a conspiracy, or getting paid by the government to create propaganda. But they are "jumping straight to" the "easy conclusion" that because the Earth has warmed for a couple decades, "it's all humans fault, and we need to tax somebody right now to avoid Armageddon".
Conservatives are not what you say they are - I like to think of us as practical libertarians
We want less government, but not anarchy.
We want lower taxes, but everyone to pay their fair share (e.g. flat tax)
We want people to live moral lives, but we don't want a powerful state to force them to do so.
We want government to be as local and accountable as possible, with the federal government much smaller.
Fascists are Communists are both Totalitarian Statists. Only the rhetoric is different. Fascists are nationalist and say they don't own the businesses, while Communists are populist and say "the people" own the businesses, but in both cases the state controls everything.
Conservatives want a small state, exactly the opposite of your fallacious cry of "fascists!"
Does it mean millions dead?
Are you a fortune teller? How do you know?
I for one can outrun a sea level rise of 3mm / year.
And don't give me crap about hurricanes and flooding. As long as people want to live right on the ocean, they will be killed by bad weather no matter where the shoreline is, or what the temperature is.
And you're missing the point - which is that it could be exactly the opposite, perhaps millions more could be fed if the tundra became arable land.
The economic part is not to be dismissed either. The richer someplace is, the better off the poor are. Just look at the poor in the US with TVs and cars vs. Ethiopia. If we have global taxes and environmental regulations depressing the world economy, that means billions are worse off (and maybe dead, but I won't be as arrogant as you to assert that as definitive).
They're going about it the wrong way.
You don't want people asking themselves why they care whether the Unabomber believed in AGW.
You want them asking the right questions:
1. Is the planet warming?
2. If yes, by a significant amount?
3. If yes, is it human caused?
4. If yes, by a significant amount? (say >=30%)
5. If yes, can we reverse it?
6. If yes, should we reverse it?
7. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh:
- taxing your breath
- crippling the world economy
- billions of people poorer, governments richer
- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result
8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?
There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism), enough that there's not good reason for any politician to even look at #7.
Only 1-5 are actually science/engineering. The rest are political questions.
Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO".
And for #8, here I cite the Aral Sea, the tire reef, solyndra, and the recent article about wind turbines causing warming as examples of wonderful government environmental "successes".
P.S. If you're taking 1-6 as truth with zero doubt, you've got a religion.
"For whatever the reason(and we both fully well know the reason)" - I hope you don't mean racism, I hope you mean that we have a Marxist for a president.
And I hope your denigration of "extremist" "nutcases" isn't aimed at the Tea Party, because they tend to be rational, hardworking taxpayers that just want some fiscal sanity. (Ever been to one of the rallies?)
Your main thrust against the "far right" and Ron Paul seems to be the idea that they want to eliminate all regulations. I know of no one who wants to do that. The recent rhetoric during primary season etc. about reducing regulations is in reaction to the administration's extending federal power and bureaucracy (via regulations) that strangles businesses and taxpayers. One example (to bring it back to climate) is the EPA labeling CO2 a pollutant. Another would be them blocking the Keystone pipeline.
In short, the conservative position is not "Rape the Earth - have at it!"
I'll respond here since the one where you just copy the Scientific Method and assert "Done" after each step isn't worth responding to.
Show me one model made in the 1970s or earlier that has accurately predicted the temperature and sea level for the last 40+ years, and you might have something.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool links thanks for those. I do find the models really interesting, and I don't dismiss them out of hand. But they are still just models, and by their own words "there is often a tunable parameter or two that can be varied in order to improve the match to whatever observations exist."
Moreover, it's the assumption of the models' predictive accuracy I take the biggest issue with. On the last link there I see three different graphs with actual temperatures lower than modeled predictions over the last 7-8 years. "That's cherry picking!" you'll say. Ok, then let's collect some data for another 7-8 years, and another 7-8 after that, (the more the better) and then see how accurate it actually was.
I read it, and understood it.
Your whole 29% return hinges on the shipper spending 400 to get 800 off his fee from the government. That may or may not be possible. The fee could be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. If it's not, my taxes have to pay someone to discern the level of compliance with the regulation (also, opportunity for corruption there). And the total cost is more than the 1600 because the government is imposing and administering it. Taxes pay the extra EPA workers, IRS workers, Treasury dept. workers, Transportation dept. workers, etc. needed to enforce the law and hand out checks. And if it's reduced hospital fees instead of a check, it's essentially redistributing taxpayer money to whoever goes to the hospital the most, regardless of how much their sickness is due to the pollutant or their not taking care of themselves. (And if you want to try to determine that ratio, there's another slew of government workers and another opportunity for corruption). So if the 400 for 800 isn't possible, or isn't allowed, 1600 gets passed to the consumer, and I end up spending 1600 + ##00 to Uncle Sam so he can send money to some other guy, or give me back just 1600.
It's not a straw man if it's the major policy goal of people in government concerned about the "problem".
Who's negatively effected by the "social cost of carbon"? The whole planet? Do we all send ourselves $20? Or what if we just send a bunch of money to Fiji cuz we think we're making the seas rise. Is that what you want?
I'm seeing nothing out of the ordinary here, looks kinda flat over the last 2000 years. Combine that with this, and I'm not too keen on taxing the world or buying a prius.
The little ice age was significant, but not a catastrophe. Also I've mentioned before that it would seem to me that less things live where it's colder, and global cooling would be a bigger problem considering Earth's (geologically) recent history of real ice ages. The warming that got us out of the little ice age was natural, and a good thing. Even if we were to agree on what is significant, it could be natural, and it could be a good thing.
Tell me they were recording the number of tornadoes accurately 1000 years ago and you'll have a case.
Growing + transporting food - we're pretty good at that. Gets more expensive if the greenies make gas $10 a gallon. I have no sympathy for someone who chooses to live in a desert.
The US does have the best health care in the world. You don't get that for cheap. Socialized medicine in other countries would be stagnant if not for R&D financed and accomplished by the US.
You've made me think. I like that. Also I apologize for the incoherency at the end there, finals and a 3mo old will do that to a guy.
Fastest and cheapest are words evidently outlawed in DC...
I don't see the the kind of bribery, collusion, or coercion it seems you're looking for. (maybe in order to label me a conspiracy nut?)
Here's how I see the motives of the players involved, and how they benefit:
Politician: Holds the idea that he knows better than everyone else, and would be happy to tell the peons what kind of car they have to drive. Congratulates himself as a savior of mankind whenever he champions the fight for this kind of AGW stuff, thinks "I'm such a man of the people!". Appoints bureaucrats below him, only those that share his views. Benefits when government is bigger because he can tell people what to do more (which he likes), and direct funds to campaign donors, a way to perpetuate keeping his job.
Bureaucrat: Appointed by the politician, this guy is usually really passionate about the views of the politician, including AGW. Highly unlikely to hire people for his department that disagree with him. If he's deciding grants, he'll pick the ones he likes - his job has nothing to do with efficiency as bureaucracy is efficiency's antithesis. If he's in the EPA, of course he supports AGW, it gives them a bigger budget, more policing to do, feeling more important. Bureaucrats benefit from a bigger government, otherwise their jobs would not exist. They want it even bigger because then they can be promoted to lead the new task force (which eventually becomes a department, that never dies) for the new "problem" bigger government is supposed to address.
-- bureaucrat repeats here for # levels because government is too damn big --
Scientist: Fits a line to 150 years of temperature data, says the Earth will boil soon, and calls it "science" because that's his job title. Or maybe he's a real scientist setting up a long term experiment and gets shunned by his colleagues as a denier if he voices any skepticism. But probably not, as I imagine at this point after a couple decades of politicization, only supporters enter this particular field of science anyways. Supports politician, because he wants to send more funds to research like his. Supports big government generally anyways, because he thinks it's government's role to fund all kinds of science.
AGW believer: Actually cares about the Earth. Gives politician their vote, and free reign to do whatever it takes to fix the problem, damn the consequences (or more likely doesn't think about the economic/political consequences). Is either overly afraid of a theorized disaster in the future, or shares the politician's self-congratulating, or both. Wants a bigger government because they actually think government is the solution to their problems.
Business Exec: Buddies with the politician, this guy's business is so big he can handle some extra regulations, and would love to see that since he knows his smaller competitors can't. Gets contracts with the government through the politician.
You want to write everyone a check?
So I'm paying $1600 + who knows how much extra in costs passed on to consumers for goods and services due to taxes on businesses, just so I can get some fraction of that back as a check after cuts and transaction costs are taken out? Pretty dumb.
I'm all for clean air, and if LA wants to tackle their smog, go for it. Fine businesses for transgressions of a clean air act until it's economical for them to be clean.
It is quite another thing entirely to be doing something like cap and trade that was estimated to cost trillions, or to have energy policies like the president's where the goal is to have energy prices skyrocket to make people get on bikes or something. Especially when there is doubt in the external cost of global warming.
At least you're starting to do cost analysis, you just left out the "benefit" part.
:-p) I utterly reject that it calls into question the survival of the human race. If in 100 years it is actually a ton warmer and things are actually dire, it will become necessary (and economical) to do something about it, and we will.
Also (this might have been your pessimism speaking
I just couldn't not reply to his sig.
I don't want to foist religion on anyone.
But an unborn child is another person, and I don't want infanticide to be legal.
Aside from stopping murder, I don't want the government big enough to be enforcing morality on you.
I think a lot of Tea Partiers agree on that - the focus is stopping the current fiscal insanity.
Yeah I jumped to the end of the slippery slope there, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight anything that moves in that direction.
Who determines the third parties injured by externalities? The government.
Who determines the cost of injuries to third parties, especially for something global like this? The government.
Who then would collect and distribute the tax to those parties (while taking their cut)? The government.
Sorry, but their record of "efficiency" gives me zero faith that they could carry this out, or that there would be no detrimental effect on the economy in the process.
That's what the Tea Party is about. The RINOs of the past 12+ years must be cast out.
Jesus knew you in the womb. He is not a liberal.
Yeah maybe I wish more conservatives were like me, I never liked Rick Santorum.
... totalitarian single-party state"
I do join with them in detesting the immorality going on, and keeping traditions and institutions that made this country great.
I just don't think the government should be heavy-handed in doing all that by force.
But I also don't want them to go and legalize (read: encourage use of) drugs that are already illegal. All that together is why I've called myself conservative.
Relevant part of fascism: "radical authoritarian nationalist
bigger government --> bigger raises, promotions, staffs, budgets to play with for government workers. Again, not claiming conspiracy here, everyone's just working for their own self-interest, which coincides with bigger government.
Do scientists live off one grant? Where does their next one come from? Same place? oh...
Tenure or not, they're getting cash from Uncle Sam to do research, so are inclined to support bigger government. No bribes or "directed" research (or conspiracy) needed.
Do we cheer on the Black Plague in the 1300s then because it had been warming for a couple centuries? "Must've been those pesky human's fault. That's gotta be why it cooled for a couple centuries afterwards. Wait, there were more people in 1700 than 1300?"
Seems foolish to me to rule out alternative hypotheses on such a relatively short data set, and to assume it's humans' fault.
I would agree with you if we were talking about an ice age, since not much thrives on ice.
But you have no basis to know any of these would happen, that would not otherwise happen anyways: "Resource wars. Drought. Famine. Disease. More and more powerful typhoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes." And no apparent consideration for possible upsides, like growing food in Siberia, feeding millions that would have otherwise died.
If Cuba is so great, why don't you move there?
As soon as solar/wind/hydro is economical, I'm there with you. I'd love to use all three at my house and go off the grid.
I can't reply to all of that, but in general, I simply ascribe more doubt to each question than you do, and more downside to the proposed solutions.
I have more doubt because IT IS NOT SCIENCE when you don't make a prediction, validate the prediction, and get independent verification.
The number of questions are not superfluous because at any one of them if the answer is "no", then we shouldn't be doing things like cap+trade.
Sorry can't click on the link at the moment, but I have no problem with government regulations to handle negative externalities like polluting your neighbor.
I have a problem when government gets so big they can tell me and my neighbor what to do in any and every minutiae of daily life, and take half of what I earn or more.
Taxing to the hilt that by which all other goods and services are transported is more certain to have a detrimental effect on the economy than a potential creeping up of temperature.
People are arrogant to think they have the science perfectly right without validating models' predictions on more decades or more Earths.
Arrogant to think humans must be the only cause of problems.
Arrogant to think "woe is me/us"
Arrogant to think they know better than all those little people who disagree
Arrogant to think they know the solution
Arrogant to think their solution will have no flaws / side effects.
Point 1: That one is pretty near zero doubt: NASA data. There are other sources as well, and even anti-AGW folks usually acknowledge a rise.
Yup, that's a given, but you have to start somewhere, and temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998.
Point 2: Too vague to answer usefully, because "significant" is not defined. That means that a pro-AGW and an anti-AGW will see the same data and come to opposite conclusions about whether it's significant.
Exactly - it's a valid point of debate, that also feeds into discussion of 6, 7, 8 (as opposed to dogma of pro-AGW folks). There is a point, (e.g. 10C/yr) where it's simply fact, but we're not there.
Point 3: Probably yes - ... this is a reasonably accurate hypothesis. This is about as close as we'll be able to come to a definitive yes without a couple more planet Earths and a few centuries to test things out more thoroughly.
My point exactly. It's reasonable, but there's a lot of reasonable doubt here without more Earths and more centuries, and certainly not a validated scientific truth.
Point 4: Probably yes (see point 3), but even if not this isn't entirely relevant. If it's caused by something else (cow farts, volcanos, etc), we still need to clean up the mess if we're going to survive.
It goes to #5 - if it's orbital fluctuations, we probably can't fix it.
Point 5: Almost definitely no. The reason is that those with the power to do something about it have a vested interest in not doing anything. In other words, the problem is politics, not science.
There are many politicians who would love to do something about it, because it gives them more tax dollars, greater authority, and reinforces that feeling that they know better than the peons.
Point 6: Most studies on the theorized effects of global climate change on economies give this one a definite yes. Although the sea level thing is the one that's entered popular culture, the problems include desertification of farm land, water shortages, increased number and strength of tropical storms / hurricanes / monsoons, and the political fallout from all of those (starving homeless people tend to do desperate things like start wars).
It seems to be popular culture these days to theorize on the disasters that could befall mankind. The point is there could be upsides, like perhaps farming in Siberia and Canada that could feed millions. I for one am not arrogant enough to assume that the optimal temperature of Earth is what it was in 19XX.
Point 7: All of your listed actions are pretty much fantasy. What most governments are actually talking about is regulating the emission of CO2 in much the same way that they've regulated the emission of SO2.
Cap and Trade would cost trillions... why do you say I am dreaming?
Point 8: Fairly high, for the reasons laid out in point 5.
Yup - another reason not to monkey with things we don't fully understand.
Basically, the way I see it, there's a problem, and we're absolutely screwed because those who might be able to do something effective about it don't want to. There's just too much short-term gain in doing nothing for anyone to really do something.
Well you've acknowledged (admirably) that there is doubt in some of these things, so I say if there's doubt in the existence of the problem, doubt in the extent of the problem, doubt if it's even a bad thing, doubt in how to "fix" it, and doubt in whether or not or fix would make things worse, I doubt we should be doing anything drastic about it.
#6 was intended to invite us to think about the possibility of it actually being a good thing, and what the optimal temperature of Earth is, irrespective of political consequences.
I contest that spending power has gone up due to free markets, the more government interferes, the slower this goes up.
Good moral argument about Spaceship Earth - I agree we can't be screwing it up irretrievably. I don't think we are doing so. While Earth isn't a 100% closed system, it's not like we're bleeding off our atmosphere into space - the carbon will still be here in 500 years in the air or in the ground. If it becomes economical to sequester it at that time, then future peoples will do so.
Powerful Statist governments killed >100 million people in the last century. I see this as a more immediate and real threat to us, our children, our grandchildren and theirs, so I fight anything that moves in that direction (left).
1. & 2. are settled science. There's always some "doubt" in science, but not in the way you use the term. People like you, or more accurately the people who tell you what to think, profit from muddying the waters. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt... it's not just for software anymore!
No one tells me what to think. I give you that the planet has warmed is fact, but it's been roughly flat since 1998. #2, it's debatable whether the temperature rise is significant, or alarming.
3. & 4. are irrelevant. Who cares whose fault it is? If it's going to disrupt our lifestyles, we should try to stop it. This is just some religious fundie bullshit. "Oh, there's no way humans could affect God's plan!"
They go to #5. If you assume 1+2, you have to ask whether it's part of Earth's natural climate fluctuations, because if it is, then burying every Hummer isn't going to do squat. Nothing religious at all here, don't know where you got that.
6. Yes, if you believe the science, the consequences would be severe. Not the end of the world, but a drastic reduction in quality of life for billions of people. But instead you've chosen to believe that all the scientists are in a big globe spanning conspiracy.
You're putting words in my mouth, I assume no such global conspiracy. I only ask that there be a rational debate where the pros of a warmer earth be considered also. Could we feed millions more if the tundra were arable? A large chunk of the total dry land is near the poles.
Billions poorer, governments richer Bullshit! ... your statement should have been "oil execs poorer, working class richer".
Do you not understand economics? Oil execs set the price of gas. You pay for gas. Higher taxes means higher prices for working stiffs like you and me. The governments won't mint gold necklaces, but they will take a cut, and distribute the rest to who they see fit, giving them more influence and power.
8. "Wind turbines causing warming." That story was revealed to be bullshit in the comments of Slashdot.
Sorry I didn't have time to read those comments. I'll take you at your word. No rebuttal for all the other government disasters?
I don't mean to speak for the parent poster, but here's my 2 cents:
"Tell me who benefits from "bigger government" as a completely abstract concept." - Government employees, government funded researchers, politicians, and the businesses they write earmarks for, etc. Pretty simple really...
"possibility that atmospheric composition affects planetary cooling rates." - We can acknowledge this without accepting with 100% certainty that current models that statistically fit old data can accurately predict future temperatures. We can also disagree about the potential effects, and politically what to do about it.
"How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?" - They're funding most of them. Not bribes per se, but grants flow to those the government approves of.
I believe most of the scientists (and most of the believers or "shills") are not part of a conspiracy, or getting paid by the government to create propaganda. But they are "jumping straight to" the "easy conclusion" that because the Earth has warmed for a couple decades, "it's all humans fault, and we need to tax somebody right now to avoid Armageddon".
Conservatives are not what you say they are - I like to think of us as practical libertarians
We want less government, but not anarchy.
We want lower taxes, but everyone to pay their fair share (e.g. flat tax)
We want people to live moral lives, but we don't want a powerful state to force them to do so.
We want government to be as local and accountable as possible, with the federal government much smaller.
Fascists are Communists are both Totalitarian Statists. Only the rhetoric is different. Fascists are nationalist and say they don't own the businesses, while Communists are populist and say "the people" own the businesses, but in both cases the state controls everything.
Conservatives want a small state, exactly the opposite of your fallacious cry of "fascists!"
Does it mean millions dead?
Are you a fortune teller? How do you know?
I for one can outrun a sea level rise of 3mm / year.
And don't give me crap about hurricanes and flooding. As long as people want to live right on the ocean, they will be killed by bad weather no matter where the shoreline is, or what the temperature is.
And you're missing the point - which is that it could be exactly the opposite, perhaps millions more could be fed if the tundra became arable land.
The economic part is not to be dismissed either. The richer someplace is, the better off the poor are. Just look at the poor in the US with TVs and cars vs. Ethiopia. If we have global taxes and environmental regulations depressing the world economy, that means billions are worse off (and maybe dead, but I won't be as arrogant as you to assert that as definitive).
They're going about it the wrong way.
You don't want people asking themselves why they care whether the Unabomber believed in AGW.
You want them asking the right questions:
1. Is the planet warming?
2. If yes, by a significant amount?
3. If yes, is it human caused?
4. If yes, by a significant amount? (say >=30%)
5. If yes, can we reverse it?
6. If yes, should we reverse it?
7. If yes, do the risks of not reversing it outweigh:
- taxing your breath
- crippling the world economy
- billions of people poorer, governments richer
- any and all other power grabs and loss of freedom that result
8. If yes, what are the chances we'll make it worse by trying to fix it?
There is a lot of doubt added for each of 1-6 (especially if you're a good scientist/engineer with healthy skepticism), enough that there's not good reason for any politician to even look at #7.
Only 1-5 are actually science/engineering. The rest are political questions.
Anti-AGW people like myself just like to point out that there is uncertainty in 1-6, and even if there wasn't, the answer to #7 is most certainly "NO".
And for #8, here I cite the Aral Sea, the tire reef, solyndra, and the recent article about wind turbines causing warming as examples of wonderful government environmental "successes".
P.S. If you're taking 1-6 as truth with zero doubt, you've got a religion.
"For whatever the reason(and we both fully well know the reason)" - I hope you don't mean racism, I hope you mean that we have a Marxist for a president.
And I hope your denigration of "extremist" "nutcases" isn't aimed at the Tea Party, because they tend to be rational, hardworking taxpayers that just want some fiscal sanity. (Ever been to one of the rallies?)
Your main thrust against the "far right" and Ron Paul seems to be the idea that they want to eliminate all regulations. I know of no one who wants to do that. The recent rhetoric during primary season etc. about reducing regulations is in reaction to the administration's extending federal power and bureaucracy (via regulations) that strangles businesses and taxpayers. One example (to bring it back to climate) is the EPA labeling CO2 a pollutant. Another would be them blocking the Keystone pipeline.
In short, the conservative position is not "Rape the Earth - have at it!"
I'll respond here since the one where you just copy the Scientific Method and assert "Done" after each step isn't worth responding to.
Show me one model made in the 1970s or earlier that has accurately predicted the temperature and sea level for the last 40+ years, and you might have something.