Global warming?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Isn't the question important enough to make a definitive exploration of the subject?

That's precisely why the debate is not over.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's precisely why the debate is not over.

Bruce...you made the point earlier (#292) that "it's logical to conserve resources, try to keep the air and water healthy. And working on reducing our dependency on foreign interests is always the smartest thing to do."

IMO, that should be the focus of the debate. The impact on climate change will just be a plus if nearly all of the national and international scientific bodies in the world are correct in their overwhelming consensus and will certainly do no harm if they are wrong.

Should the focus be more on "drill, baby, drill" or developing cleaner technologies and improving energy efficiency? Or just do nothing while the climate change debate continues endlessly?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I stand by that statement 100%, always have. Deciding how to do that, we have to weigh the cost benefit ratio, and in many cases we don't know what that is. I'm not suggesting every project must have a direct monetary payback, but to try and weed out outrageous waste. So, while attempting to accomplish conservation and cleanliness, the investigation and debate about how we interact with the earth/climate, and it's effect, should continue.
There will probably always be more we don't know, than we do know. More knowledge is gooder.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... So, while attempting to accomplish conservation and cleanliness, the investigation and debate about how we interact with the earth/climate, and it's effect, should continue.
There will probably always be more we don't know, than we do know. More knowledge is gooder.

One thing we do know, with a very high degree of certainty and as near unanimity as can be achieved, is that spewing billions of metric tons of man-made CO2 (from autos and coal-fired power plants) into the environment every year has NO positive impact.

A very few credible scientists believe the impact is negligible and the overwhelming majority believe it has an adverse impact.

There is no reason not to act in an economically sustainable manner and in a manner that reduces dependency on an old (and finite - particularly if limited to US reserves) technology, stimulates new, cleaner energy technologies and improved energy efficiencies....other than the objections of the affected industries with an investment in the status quo.

I have yet to see an argument for not acting now, other than "lets debate it more" even though we know there is nothing positive that can said about the excessive man-made CO2 emissions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is no reason not to act in an economically sustainable manner and in way that stimulates new energy technologies and improved energy efficiencies....other than the objections of the affected industries with an investment in the status quo.

OK, but the rub, for me at least, is how much, how fast, at what cost?

Example with numbers pulled out of my ass: you want cut CO2 emissions.
To cut 50% costs X dollars and a little social change (suffering, in some people's view).

To cut 75% costs 5X dollars and significant social change.

To cut 90% costs 25X dollars and radical social change.

To cut 95 % costs 100X dollars and revamping our entire way of life.

To cut 98 % I don't even want to go there.

By all means lets get started with the relatively easy/cheap part, but keep on investigating the actual costs, benefits and impact, so we can make more intelligent decisions/plans.
We want to be flexible enough to change directions when new information becomes available, without careening like a pinball every time somebody comes up with a new theory... that's the hard part.

[SamIam]

Agree with Redux. We could forget the entire climate debate and begin to make the change over to renewable energy simply as a matter of national security. Look at the price in lives and money spent on wars in the Middle East so that we can have secure access to petroleum. Even if we manage to corner the market on every petroleum source in the world, oil is still a finite substance. There are no dinosaurs and giant ferns dying away somewhere and undergoing the geologic process that ends in an oil field. It is time for every last one of us to wake up. Look at it this way: If the climatologists are wrong and there's no such thing as global warming, but we go to alternative energy, we will be winners any way. If they are right and we do nothing, we are going to pay a terrible price down the road. Our children and grandchildren will curse us for the chaos we will bequeath to them.

People need to stop treating climate change as if it were an article of faith in some obscure religion. It is real; it is happening now, and we need to act to insure that the world continues to be habitable place for species other than cockroaches.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by SamIam

snip~ We could forget the entire climate debate and begin to make the change over to renewable energy simply as a matter of national security. Look at the price in lives and money spent on wars in the Middle East so that we can have secure access to petroleum. ~ snip

That's what I said, over and over and over...

Self-sufficiency is security, personally, locally and nationally.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

One thing we do know, with a very high degree of certainty and as near unanimity as can be achieved, is that spewing billions of metric tons of man-made CO2 (from autos and coal-fired power plants) into the environment every year has NO positive impact.

The positive impact is elsewhere in the equation: to allow us to live, in numbers, in comfort, and to move around as necessary to drive the economy and improve the standard of living of the entire world.

I have yet to see an argument for not acting now, other than "lets debate it more" even though we know there is nothing positive that can said about the excessive man-made CO2 emissions.

Here are two of them:

Weakening the economy could prevent the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence and will, that will be necessary to get China, India, and Russia to go along with the plan.

There may not be enough general political will to embrace an environmental project aimed at helping something highly abstract, especially during a recession with a deep budget deficit and other big budget items on the table.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The positive impact is elsewhere in the equation: to allow us to live, in numbers, in comfort, and to move around as necessary to drive the economy and improve the standard of living of the entire world.

And we can only accomplish that by a further reliance on fossil fuels and, if we want to be solely reliant on US oil, by drilling in sensitive environmental areas, which will still not meet US demand?

Weak argument, IMO. Not just weak, baseless.

Here are two of them:

Weakening the economy could prevent the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence and will, that will be necessary to get China, India, and Russia to go along with the plan.

There may not be enough general political will to embrace an environmental project aimed at helping something highly abstract, especially during a recession with a deep budget deficit and other big budget items on the table.

No one is suggestion cutting off all use of oil tomorrow or even within the next 5 years or 20 years. There is no evidence that reducing (not eliminating) our reliance on fossil fuels by reasonable amounts over a period of time (20+ yrs) would weaken the economy....unless you believe the "sky is falling" oil industry and free market crowd

Another weak argument....much like the arguments made decades ago about the tough environmental laws that were enacted (they cost too much, they will make the US less competitive....). In fact, the economy became more diverse and innovative and thus stronger.

As to "preventing the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence.....", my only response is "huh"?

Leading by example has served us well, at least until recently, when, in many cases, our examples have not been so positive and have weakened our influence. Becoming a leader in developing, then exporting (selling) energy efficient technologies to other countries would more likely have a positive impact.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

And we can only accomplish that by a further reliance on fossil fuels and, if we want to be solely reliant on US oil, by drilling in sensitive environmental areas, which will still not meet US demand?

Another day, another Redux straw man.

There is no evidence that reducing (not eliminating) our reliance on fossil fuels by reasonable amounts over a period of time (20+ yrs) would weaken the economy....unless you believe the "sky is falling" oil industry and free market crowd

Well I took Econ 101 so I understand that artificially limiting supply raises prices. If that means I'm part of the "free market crowd" then I guess I am outside the group of people whom you will listen to. Pity.

Another weak argument....much like the arguments made decades ago about the tough environmental laws that were enacted (they cost too much, they will make the US less competitive....). In fact, the economy became more diverse and innovative and thus stronger.

Can you see it now? This is productivity. The Clean Air Acts of 1963, 1970, 1977, the Clean Water Acts of 1972, 1977 and 1987 took their toll on it. I think these were positive, necessary steps. I think China is skipping a similar change so they can grow their economy at the most rapid rate. At some point energy will be cheaper to China than it is to the US. Since the Chinese population is four times the US,... how much ya want to hobble the US in dealing with them? Another two decades?

To also put this into perspective, if productivity growth is less than zero, your children will live a lower standard of living than you do.

[Henry]

Citing flat earth theory and other failed premises, or evolution and other successful premises, as synonymous to the AGW debate is a straw man argument - apples and oranges. These sorts of questions are scientific in nature and the debate did not conclude until the evidence was in. Long ago for flat earth theory (perhaps 5,000 years ago when the first mariner noticed the way the mast of a ship over the horizon emerges into view from top down), more recently for evolution, of course.

They fail at being representative corollaries because the AGW evidence is decidely not in, nor is the debate over. The debate may be over once a pro-AGW advocate is convinced, but others are not bound to his or her decision.

Citing consensus or citing the 'sheer numbers' of those who believe is a logical fallacy, that of the appeal to popularity, that if enough people believe a thing, that thing must be true. It brings an obvious question that illustrates why appeals to popularity lead inevitably to error - where is the tipping point? Is a premise untrue at 2,734,919 believers, but true at 2,734,920? True at 50.1% but not at 50%? It's absurd. That's not how reliable new knowledge is determined.

How then is it determined? By the scientific evidence, of course. With AGW the evidence depends entirely on one's faith in projective modeling, a decidedly unreliable methodology where the processes being modeled are complex, and very little exceeds global climate change in complexity. How to have faith, how to award belief, to a set of models that failed to predict global cooling over the past decade or so? Not to mention that if one speaks in terms of believing or not believing, one has ceased to speak in scientific terms.

Do not assume that because you hear so few voices speaking out against the 'fact' of AGW, that there are no such voices to be heard. Few can argue against the fact that to refuse to believe in AGW is to invite shout-downs of "denier! infidel! blasphemer!" and accusations of being pro-corporate fascist, capitalist pig, or any number of other belief-serving blind assumptions, nor is it any coincidence that this sort of reaction, just like the appeal to 'believe', is the stuff of religion, not science. One can imagine the appropriate AGW bumper sticker or tee shirt: "Gore said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

If not the evidence, then what convinces people of AGW? That question may only be answered by the individuals involved, but one look at the resultant implications if/were anthropogenic global warming true lends a clue. If AWG is a fact and at a precipitously calamitous level, then all sorts of responses arise. They happen to fall right in line with certain political agenda, and those groups have seized the moment.

AGW justifies greenies wanting to move ASAP away from fossil fuels to renewables. AGW justifies those who would love to undermine the infrastructure of capitalism and western-style 'big bidness' sich as oil, coal, transportation, etc. AGW is extremely handy because of its global scope - one can use it to justify virtually anything with a little creative thinking.

Has the question of AGW been co-opted by assorted political factions in furtherance of their respective agenda? I don't think there's any doubt about that, nor that there's much doubt that most of these factions won little traction for their efforts before this latest round of global climate warnings. Logic dictates that AGW could be co-opted for political gain and also be true, but certification depends on solid, scientific evidence, not solidly done prospective models that nonetheless require faith in order to believe them accurate. A poorly executed scientific experiment or research teaches one nothing, for the results cannot be trusted. However, a well executed, well-controlled scientific experiment more often than not tells us our hypothesis was wrong than right, and this is a success. Too many pro-AGW advocates defend the scientific efficacy of the research and modeling as if that automatically translates into proof of AGW. That is nonsense. That jury remains faaaaar out.

I am old and recall the global cooling warnings of the 1970s, but more pertinently, I remember how assorted political factions attempted to co-opt global cooling for their agenda as well. Their efforts were short-lived and global cooling got little traction because (1) the science in support of it was scant, and (2) it was not claimed to be man-made, therefore held little political co-optive value.

If AGW were being co-opted politically, exaggerated in an effort to grab traction for pet political positions, what observations would that hypothesis produce?

1. First of all, you'd see dire predictions implying need of immediate actions.

2. Those immediately needed actions will coincide with the long-stated desires of a fairly narrow region of the political spectrum, most of which were sought before AGW came along.

3. Those dire predictions would remain always in the near-distant future, but not so distant as to lose their immediacy. Everything is just twenty years away. Twenty years from now, if AGW is not as advertised, everything will remain just twenty years away.

4. People who don't know how to interpret the scientific data will pretend they do, or will accept the interpretations of those who do know how - they will extend faith, once removed, and have no way to know if these trusted scientific believers are correct or not. Advocates will cite 'science' but think and behave decidedly unscientifically, relying on fallacies of logic, unscientific reasoning, and other pathways known to lead to error.

5. Propagandic practices will emerge if AGW is being co-opted for political gain. The crux of the biscuit is The Debate: Is Man Causing Global Warming And Is It Catastrophic? Political c0-option means the debate must be ended. However, the science and research is far from reliable, far from completed. What to do? Why, you simply declare there is no debate and move on. This makes it necessary to behave with obvious incongruency though - you'd have to simultaneously claim there is no debate even while the actual scientists continue to debate. However, if AGW is simply a political co-option, propagandic practices dictate you must declare the debate over and shout down anyone who says otherwise. Concoct negative labels like "deniers", which brings a tinge of evil resonance because of genuine labels from other debates, like 'Holocaust deniers'. If the infidel still resists, tie his refusal to believe negatively to his citizenship, his patriotism, or his morality. Keep it up until you find the irrelevancy that finally sticks. Eventually you'll wear him down anyway.

6. The truth of AGW lies along a continuum somewhere between (a) an as yet scientifically unproved hypothesis at best, and (b) an utter myth with no basis in reality at worst. However, if it is being co-opted to further socio-political goals, the discussion and 'debate' will proceed not on the acceptance of scientific evidence so strong it becomes unreasonable and illogical, not to accept it, but on calls to faith, on emotional appeals to believe for the good of __________ [fill in the political goal(s)], with castigations foisted upon the good citizenship, sincerity, patriotism, intelligence, and morality of any denier with the temerity to refuse to join the faith-based movement.

These are the sort of observations we'd expect to make if there were people using AGW to promote socio-political agenda. I'll leave it to the individual reader to decide if any of these are in evidence.

The amount of evidence for AGW is huge, literally mountains of data. However, far too much of it is speculative to say the least and emits from models of dubious efficacy. I would liken it to weak tea, too weak to 'drink' (accept as fact). One may pour a million gallons of weak tea into a huge vat, but in the end you still only have weak tea. The volume is irrelevant. In the same way, a premise is not established because a large number of people believe it.

As for me, I resist the call to 'believe' in AGW. I consider it a scientific question, one of potentially huge import, and certainly too important to leave to the vagaries of simple 'belief'. I have zero problem adhering to the fact of things concerning AGW - I don't know. And neither do you. Believe, yes. Know, no.

I don't want to believe - any idiot can simply believe a thing to be true. I want to know.