Anthropogenic Global Warming . . . again

I'd like to emphasize that there are other interesting things at the NCSE website

NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.

Not for me to speculate on why they decided to bundle these particular two science literacy topics. There are many areas where we could hope to upgrade the general population.

 

Its called a rider because it can't stand on its own.

 

With so many anti-climate change lobbyist in the DC area - it's almost a mantra to many here in the Washington DC Area to deny global climate change as part of an Al-Gorean-Liberal Conspiracy. Even if a Nobel Prize scientist in physics AND 99.9999% of all climate scientist say global warming is a fact and is here today - the nay sayers will point to some Know-it-all Congressman or a Fox News commentators with absolutely zero scientific training or experience as authority to justify denying climate change. Most here in the DC Area are in self induced cognitive coma when it comes to climate change because it really is an inconvenient truth. Our economy is based on cheap and abundant fossil fuels so many things that are a part of our lifestyle and economic existence is based on cheap energy, but addressing Climate Change means using less fossil fuel and paying more for energy .. that's a harsh wedgie in our economic overalls. . . So our government energy policy is one of default - Supply side economics - as the price of energy gets more expensive less people will be able to afford it and use it. The reduction of the use of energy will be followed by a cooling down of the US economy. Cheap energy makes arbitrage easier - leveraging regional market price differentials to make a profit. As energy becomes more expensive - outsourcing/arbitrage and long range import-export trade becomes less cost effective.

 

There were 5 climate scientists that gore had in front of congress all those years ago, that said he mis-characterized what the consensus was.

It is now been objectively shown after climate gate the counting of percentages was desparately inflated. Here in this post you have exaggerated even more. It now has been popular to make any objection to exageration a political item. If you disagree with a guy who got Cs in science class, you must be a denier.

There is a broad consensus that the earth is warming and humans have a part in that. When you get to the mythology of 6 meter sea level rises in the near future or more huricanes there is strong disagreement in peer reviewed science.

I've got to agree there, but these are comas in the climate change politicians that often personally use as much energy as entire villages in china, then propose legislation that will reward there big coal utility friends. Did you read the cap and tax plan. It was full of hundred million dollar giveaways to special interests, and very little reduction in fuel use.

This is most definitely not true. The 350.org folks block keystone pipeline, while the Duke coal pak ensures lots of coal power plants can avoid environmental regulation. Democrats and Republicans taking bribes to give us the best energy policy money can buy.

Here is your special interest talking. Why should most of us drop energy use so much that it kills the economy. How about a gore tax, anyone that uses half the energy of al gore pays $1000/ton of CO2 they use. If al wants people to use less all he needs to do is cut down. How about sensable pollution standards that get rid of grandfathering coal. It doesn't need to kill the economy. That is the sequester thinking talking, its hard to compromise and do the right thing, so we are going to try to kill the economy.

 

Everyone has a special interest including you. I am not affiliated or am I acting as an agent advocating any energy policy or economic group. However, I live in the Washington DC Area which is full of very powerful and rich holier than thou types blaming so and so for such and such. For the average joe like me there is nothing I can do to influence them. I use less energy now because not because I'm of a political stripe but because it help my budget. I'm not trying to save the world - I just hoping to save myself. For the record - I didn't care much for the cap-n-trade stuff but only because I thought it was flawed and could be manipulated via insider trading and speculators in much the same way oil future contracts and mortgages have been manipulated by speculation, fraud, and insider trading.

I'm +50 years old and over the course of my life I've seen cost of energy is going up and up while the paycheck of the average worker stay pretty much the same. Strangely, having money in energy stocks won't help one recover any of this windfall profit in energy since most of the money is made in commodity futures market not the stock market! Our current economic-political system is designed so the average person has no influence or control over the economy. All the really big money is being made in a much smaller insider market when contracts and IPO are initially made that guarantee a return - so this money thingy you are referring to is basically a Battle the Titans - and is far removed from the average Joe -regardless of what or who is behind it.

 

Definitely agree that there is little you can do. You and I can point out the hypocracy, and try to act locally. My local acts are to get more wind and less coal. I thought you were agreeing with the group of lobbyists that wanted to make energy more expensive haphazardly. If you are not, I am glad.

I use less and hope to influence others to use less, but I fly around a lot for work, and rent cars, and work with big wasteful companies. Its a tough slog.

My big winners in the stock market have been tesla and whole foods. They have more than doubled and trippled in a fairly short period of time. Energy companies are not the ones that benefit the most with changes. These two are the move to organic and electrified transportation. Windfall profits are for apple I got out before it peaked but higher than the big drop. People want to complain about the energy companies. I complain about the energy policy. Exxon and Chevron will make money no matter what the regulations are. The big coal producers and utilities are like a vampire sucking at the public pocket.

That sounds like some mighty sour grapes. We don't have very much influence, but if you understand the rules there is money to be made in the markets, it does take some risk. The bad stuff is when we subsidize a duke or a fisker, there's some greased palms.

 

The entire world is mostly made up of "average joes". Think of how much effect your decisions have twenty years from now. What you buy conditions some amount of the market to provide what you need. Buy an auto that gets great mpg....the auto companies pay attention. GM would never have bothered with the Volt had it not been for the Prius and Tesla examples shoved in their face. Same with some folks who pay a little extra for green energy. It is hard to profit off those folks if the utilities have "nothing" to market....so they bite the bullet and make a market. It's a market that is growing fast. I cannot stress enough that while energy lobbies are powerful, they will never be as powerful as the cumulative effect of millions of average joe wallets.

The key here is to become a smart joe. Sunshine is free....connect the dots and engage in long term planing. Manufactured Energy is going to be costly, so figure out how to minimize paying for it and maximize the free energy distributed to you from above every day.

 

Over twenty years ago - I was a misinformed average joe and I made many mistakes based on misinformation by the mass media, politicians, and even our educational system. I remember when 100% gasoline was sold in my area and when gasoline was 49 cents per gallon while bread was 29 cents a loaf. The big difference from when I was a misinformed lad and the currently skeptical me is that the Internet acts as a catalyst for finding out the truth. If one persists the internet can be a valuable tool. I'm not so much a green energy advocate as a energy efficiency advocate since higher energy efficiency is easier and it has fast payback - I have probably less than 15 years of life left in me so looking beyond 2030 isn't going to have much meaning for me. The younger set do need to be smarter than me ... I'm laying out everything I think relevant and useful... however, if it sounds like muck - Yeah - I'm open to constructive criticism - and I'll see what I can do to accomodate u.

So far - I don't see the USA doing a quick transition to *ecologically sustainable* energy production because the currently powers that be aren't committed to change. The USA has too much money invested in its current *legacy* energy system. Old money tends to chase old markets. New money tends to chase new markets. Why? Because markets are interconnected like a jigsaw puzzle or a lego toy - Changing one market it has a ripple effect on other interconnected markets - that kind of disruption from that kind of change tends to bring shivers up a capitalist's spine. Hence, Newly up and coming China is more likely to have a *ecologically sustainable* energy production industry-market before the USA. Not because China has an authoritarian government but because China is still developing its economy.

 

This study is bogus.
Every day is a bigger lie from your team.
Gets headlines but never a retraction.



This is funny as hell.
Richard Tol is a warmer, telling Nucetelli his study and methods are "CRAP"
"Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented."

"Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4."


Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with Richard Tol over that 97% consensus paper | Watts Up With That?

The 97% consensus paper is starting to fall apart | Watts Up With That?

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

All of Richard Tol's papers are here


Academy of Europe: Publications


In case anyone wants to classify them.

Here is the abstract from one recent one

Economic costs of ocean acidification: a look into the impacts on global shellfish production - Springer

I read him as being not optimistic about ocean acidification.

One would probably want to read others before concluding something like "the consensus is falling apart". Perhaps I misunderstand the point.

 

lol. I would think that if we are asking whether Tol's paper endorsed the "consensus" that internet blogger Cook has, I would think it would be quite simple. Ask Tol. That is unless Cook doesn't wan't the answer. And Tol says clearly the paper does not. It deals with carbon dioxide, and he personally disagrees with Cook. He does not anywhere in his paper say that the majority of heat found since xxx year was caused by human's burning fossil fuel, and does not agree with that statement. Now the proper thing would be for the publisher of the paper, to email the authors and find out if they disagree with his including them in agreeing to his conclusion. That conclusion should be spelled out. I doubt that Cook simply was too lazy to collect accurate data though. And that is a problem if he expects to be believed. The authors can get on the internet and complain about him doing a poor job. He then has the choice of updating his statistics, or fighting with them on web sites. It appears right now the authors of said paper seem to prefer fighting on websites. That drives traffic to their blog, which is likely their goal, but clearly makes the study unscientific. It likely drives traffic to watts blog also. Neither site seems to want to accurately portray science or truth, only to increase the number of hits from the faithful.

I do not see that paper as attributing man to AGW. Even though I agree with the consensus, I don't think we can assume that the majority additional carbonic acid came from A) Man's buring fossil fuel, and if it did that B) the carbonic acid is a finger print saying heat was caused by man buring fossil fuel.

 

The economy based on cheap fossil fuels is already dead. We are seeing its death throes right now. If we want any prosperous economy, let's start making one now based on principles that are capable of providing comfort and prosperity into the foreseeable future. The transition to a new economy can be smooth or rough based on how soon we start.

 

What are you talking about? Natural gas and electricity are quite affordable in most of the country, and should be able to remain so. Companies that use a great deal of natural gas are coming back to the US, instead of manufacturing overseas. No reason to artificially make them expensive.

Now the days of cheap coal without pollution controls, and cheap oil are numbered. We can do things to ease the transition to natural gas and renewables without killing the economy. If that is what you mean, I absolutely agree. We don't need to push as fast as germany, but we should be pushing faster than we are now.

 

We are artificially making them cheap. If you are willing to admit that we shouldn't be doing that either, then I suspect we both end up in the same place.

 

I don't think you will find a post where I am encouraging subsidies for fossil fuel. I feel quite the opposite. I am also against the quite visible hand of government regulating to increase pollution or cost. I think your disagreements with me here are more regional.

 

I wasn't talking about subsidizing fossil fuels (which, yes, we shouldn't do) . I was talking about allowing externalities, which we have to pay for.

 

That all depends on how you define them. An externality of California AB32 is an increase in mercury, SO2, NOx and other harmful pollutants. That is because it penalizes natural gas so much for carbon dioxide that it provides incentives to keep old coal plants running. A company can offset their ghg by chopping down old growth and creating tree farms. Awful way to account for externalities.

Give a coherant set, and I may agree. If it simply is a tax on oil sands that creates more demand for lybian oil, then its a fail.

You could slap a $50/bbl of oil tax, and reduce medicare payroll taxes, and that would be fairly neutral, paying for roads and healthcare with oil taxes. You could reduce the the mercury, SO2, NOx, and particulates caps and grandfathering, then use the auction prices to pay towards health care.

If the money instead goes to build nuclear plants and line politicians pockets nnd utility executives, then no that would be a bad way to account for externalizes.

 

Do you have anything that supports this assertion austin?

 

Which assertion? If you tell me which part, I'll back it up.