Skip to main content

View Diary: Not Nuclear, Again (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting video (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not going to as I said before play expert pissing match with you, but I'll say what I thought watching the video:

    If you'll give me that global temperatures and sunspot activity were in fact very closely related through all of Earth's history until 30 years ago, and the video appears to, I'll take that.

    This would negate this sentence that you wrote:

    Solar cycles and sun spots however have nothing at all to do with the long term warming we are seeing this century. That is all greenhouse gasses.

    Not true on two levels. One nobody says that anything about climate change is all greenhouse gases. Even the most diehard AGW alarmists acknowledges that there are other influences, the question is who strong. I've heard 85% being the figure at the upper end.

    But more importantly, it puts the lie to your statement that the warming trend over the past century (I assume by "this" you mean the 20th, because again, even though you don't want to acknowledge it for the purposes of this conversation, your own head AGW scientist Phil Jones, has acknowledged that there is insignificant cooling in the 21st century so far) is entirely caused by greenhouse gases. The video acknowledges the validity of that graph in the period leading up to the 1970's. Fantastic. We can now have a good discussion that takes as a baseline that the Earth's climate changes are mostly determined by sunspot activity in the 4.5 billion years before 1980. This is progress.

    So now we're talking about whether or not greenhouse gases could be the cause of the warming that occurred in the period 1980-2002. One answer is yes. The other option is to look for an alternative cause.

    One alternative explanation is corrupted data.

    There's corruption in the reported data, as it differs from the raw data.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/...

    But more importantly, though I don't have time to go into it right now, there is the problem of the raw data itself, which of course has been destroyed . . .

    From the link:

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

    Then there's the problem that many of the cold-weather temperature gauges were abandoned in the 1970's. And on and on. But to tell the truth, having acknowledged that temperature changes prior to 1980 were mostly due to solar sunspot changes, and that temperatures after 2000 have cooled, there's really not that much to discuss. A twenty-year period of warming does not a global crisis make.

    •  Um...what? (0+ / 0-)

      When did I, or the video, say that sunspots had any relation to climate?  I just posted a video saying they don't; before 1980 and after 1980. Yes there is some correlation through 1980 of sunspots to temperature, but you are making radical jumps from correlation to causation. There is no reason to believe sunspots would cause temperature increases. The argument is not based on forcing but entirely on correlation. Even this correlation argument is weak, as it completely breaks down after 1980. Sunspots do just as good a job predicting Republican gains:
      http://www.realclimate.org/...
      In addition, the rest of the video completely blows the idea that the sun would be the cause out of the water. Changes that we would expect to see with the sun as the cause aren't appearing, but what we would expect if greenhouse gasses are the cause are. To come up with the idea that sunspots are the cause of global warming is to be looking in a biased matter for anything else that could possibly correlate with global warming besides green house gasses, not fact based assessment. That's not how science is done.

      As for watts and so called corrupted data, He's just a weatherman full of shit:

      Back to experts. Again, would you say evolutionary biologists are just as credible as creationists when discussing evolution?

      •  Ahhh, correlation not causation? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm shocked that you would even bring that argument into play here. I means seriously, man, what do you think the chances are that the sun's activity just randomly happens to correlate to temperatures on Earth, but has not causative effect?! I mean I can't believe I even have to type that. The sun's activity correlates to temperatures on Earth but there's no reason to think there's a causative effect?!!! I'm trying to not to delve back into insults here, but do you recognize how ridiculous that sounds? Is there some third cause that could affect both the sunspot activity and the Earth's climate? Are you arguing that greenhouse gases cause sunspots?

        But the "correlation not causation" argument has been made with reference to CO2, and given that the CO2 warming mechanism is by definition a feedback-based system (i.e. CO2 amplifies solar energy), then it is in fact a reasonable question to ask as to which came first -- the increased solar variation or the increased CO2. One of the AGW skeptics' arguments is that in fact CO2 has over the millenia followed temporally variations in solar activity, as opposed to preceeding them.

        No comment from you on the destroyed raw data?

        I liked how your latest vid link talked about WMD alarmism being false, but somehow that's used to buttress the case because the "same people" told us about that who are now denying climate change. For the record I never believed that bullshit either, and I remember hearing the same kinds of arguments at the time about the "consensus" amongst the "experts" in the international intelligence community that there were WMD's, and how I needed to shut the fuck up because I had no basis on which to question them. Sound familiar?

        WRT your question, no I wouldn't say evolutionary biologists are just as credible as creationists when discussing evolution, but I'll tell you what else . . . I also would've preferred that evolutionary biology stay the hell away from political affairs for most of its early history:

        Blending social, intellectual, legal, medical, gender, and cultural history, Segregation's Science: Eugenics and Society in Virginia examines how eugenic theory and practice bolstered Virginia's various cultures of segregation--rich from poor, sick from well, able from disabled, male from female, and black from white and Native American. Famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson, ideas about biological inequalities among groups evolved throughout the nineteenth century. By the early twentieth century, proponents of eugenics--the "science" of racial improvement--melded evolutionary biology and incipient genetics with long-standing cultural racism. The resulting theories, taught to generations of Virginia high school, college, and medical students, became social policy as Virginia legislators passed eugenic marriage and sterilization statutes. The enforcement of these laws victimized men and women labeled "feebleminded," African Americans, and Native Americans for over forty years.

        . . .

        Of interest to historians, educators, biologists, physicians, and social workers, this study reminds readers that science is socially constructed; the syllogism "Science is objective; objective things are moral; therefore science is moral" remains as potentially dangerous and misleading today as it was in the past.

        http://www.upress.virginia.edu/...

        •  As I have been saying for while (0+ / 0-)

          Changes in the sun are minimal compared to the forcings of greenhouse gasses and have nothing to do with the long term increases in temperature. I could site an article that I found mentioning how climate scientists have said that sun spots causing climate change is bull, but apparently to you climate scientists aren't a credible source on climate, at least they aren't unless their making some cherry pickable quote. For me, what climate scientists say is far more credible than what weathermen and organizations funded by oil companies have to say. Again; we could go on and on citing sources, but regardless of who is right; you and your weathermen, or me and my climate scientists, if neither of us accepts the other source as valid, than we aren't going to go anywhere here.

          We know the CO2 came first because we know we have been pumping it into the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

          I just gave you a video showing that the guy behind the data claim is full of shit, so what do you mean nothing about raw data?

          I see you have leapt on one 2 second part of the video and ignored the rest. I think the video demolished any validity to the claim that the data is invalid in any way. So are you still standing by this claim?

          I don't see how Bush and company hiding intelligence and lying to the world about WMD has any similarities between every prestigious scientific organization except for one, which is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry acknowledging that we are causing climate change.

          True, people can not always separate themselves from their biases, scientists included, and the culture we are in can have an effect on conclusions drawn. However, if you're talking about the least biased professionals, the only one I can think of less biased than qualified scientists are mathematicians.

          If you can except biologists should be taken more seriously than creationists, why should the same not be true of climate scientists? What is the difference? Even if you don't accept climate scientists to be completely reliable, wouldn't you say their opinion adds weight to the debate? Wouldn't you at least agree that a consensus among climate scientists on a view on climate would make that view at least 50% likely to be correct?

          •  Another patently wrong statement (0+ / 0-)

            We know the CO2 came first because we know we have been pumping it into the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

            Of course we have not being pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for hundreds of years. First of all, nobody thinks that AGW has been going on for hundreds of years. Second, the CO2 increases came about with the Industrial Revolution which was not hundreds of years ago.

            I could site an article that I found mentioning how climate scientists have said that sun spots causing climate change is bull

            Sunspot activity reflects increases and decreases in solar activity and nobody doubt that increases and decreases in solar activity do affect the climate -- the question is by how much. AGW says not that much; skeptics say more than they think.

            I think the video demolished any validity to the claim that the data is invalid in any way

            That's another statement that cannot be true. No scientist would ever make that claim that no part of their data could've been corrupted "in any way". Claims like that just reflect badly on your own credibility. There are always problems with data, and the AGW scientific community has attempted to adjust and correct for those problems. There's nothing wrong with that, but the adjustments and corrections are always up for questioning, and that process isn't helped with the original data sets are somehow "lost".

            I don't see how Bush and company hiding intelligence and lying to the world about WMD has any similarities between every prestigious scientific organization except for one, which is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry acknowledging that we are causing climate change.

            You should really go back and listen to the speeches from Democrats at the time:

            "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status."
            Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
            -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

            "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
            -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

            "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
            -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

            "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
            -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

            "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
            -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

            "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
            -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

            "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
            -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

            http://www.davidstuff.com/...

            There was a bipartisan "consensus" that Iraq had WMD's. We launched an incredibly destructive war based on this consensus, hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily. Without that "consensus" it's clear that we would not have gone to war with Iraq.

            To go back to the basics of this debate, what I'm simply trying to get at is the old doctor's adage that has been the first principle of most environmental movements: "First, do no harm".

            If we ratchet down the extremism and alarmism that says that anything is justified because of climate change concerns, then we can get back to that basic principle of environmentalism, which is not to do things that in and of themselves harm the Earth in order to supposedly avoid some greater harm.

            Nuclear power, carbon sequestration and emissions trading schemes are in and of themselves harmful to the Earth and to humanity. They are only justified in order to prevent a greater harm. I do not believe that there is enough certainty about both the probability and severity of AGW to warrant violating this fundamental principle.

            •  Yes we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere (0+ / 0-)

              for hundreds of years. We've been burning coal since the 1700's. We starting polluting a lot more in the 1800's, and way more in the 1900's and are continuing to pollute more in the 2000's.

              Again, sun spots do not account for the warming. We know that CO2 causes warming and that we have been rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Temperatures became relatively stable mid century because of aerosols. The increasing amounts of CO2 we have been pumping into the atmosphere have caught up with us and caused accelerating warming in recent decades. This makes perfect sense with greenhouse gases as the cause. There is no need for sun spots to explain any of this. Sun spots at the cause make things enormously more complicated. Why did sun spots suddenly stop having an effect in 1980? Where did the greenhouse gas forcing go?

              Invalid as in a data set that shouldn't be trusted. Yes I think the video demolished that. There is no reason why climate data in particular is untrustworthy.

              Yeah Democrats capitulated, who's arguing that never happened? Politicians aren't the experts on gathering intelligence; Bush was actively covering up intelligence that showed Iraq likely did not have WMDs. Second of all, the biggest reason the lack of WMDs is not like climate is because intelligence is not a science. It's comparing apples and oranges.

              First do no harm. Fine, but by burning fossil fuels we are doing harm; burning fossil fuels is not natural. Even if you don't except climate science, you should still be in favor of nuclear power over coal. Pollution from coal causes hundreds of thousands of deaths per year not including the climate consequences.

              •  It's not about "nuclear power over coal" (0+ / 0-)

                It's about what do progressives and environmentalists stand for in terms of public policy. I'm in favor of replacing dirty fuel with cleaner fuels wherever and whenever practicable. I don't consider nuclear power to be a clean fuel. Twenty years ago I'd have gotten no arguments from anyone in the environmental movement.

                Now, all of the sudden, it's a "clean fuel" because it doesn't produce greenhouse gas emissions. Well I'm not buying that.

                I wonder if they've talked to the Navajo people about whether nuclear fuel is clean:

                In the Navajo creation story, there is mention of uranium. Uranium - called "cledge" - is from the underworld, and is to be left in the ground. According to the creation story, the Navajo were given a choice between yellow corn pollen and uranium. In Navajo belief, the yellow corn pollen possesses the positive elements of life. The pollen is prayed for and carried in medicine bags. Uranium was thought of as an element of the underworld that should remain in the earth. When uranium was released from the ground, Navajos believed it would become a serpent. Evil, death and destruction were seen as the problems the Navajo would face. These problems have become reality to the Navajo since mining began. Many Navajo see themselves on the brink of disaster as removal of uranium suggests will occur to those people.

                http://www.umich.edu/...

                Or other indigenous people around the world:

                http://www.wise-uranium.org/...

                Uranium is indeed a substance that should be left in the ground. We don't don't have to speculate about global temperature trends to understand the toxicity of uranium and other aspects of the nuclear power industry. We know the issues with mining it, with transporting it, with preventing it from falling into the hands of terrorists and despots, with finding water to cool the reactors, with leading power plants, with transporting the waste, with storing the waste. At every step along the way there are major problems, and I'm supposed to sign off on all of this because "science" says that we might be facing catastrophic climate change in coming decades?

                And then there's this cap and trade scam. Europe enacted this in 2005:

                Much of the cost of the European system is being paid by the public in the price of goods and services, including higher electricity bills, but whether the money is doing any good is an open question. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by plants and factories participating in the system has not fallen. Their emissions rose 0.4 percent in 2006 and another 0.7 percent in 2007.

                http://www.nytimes.com/...

                Lovely, so poor people can choose heat or food, yet the emissions continue to rise, at an increasing rate at that. Bodes well for us . . .

                Let's not get started on the environmental effects and outlandish costs associated with pumping billions of pounds of carbon dioxide into the Earth.

                You ever heard of the cure being worse than the disease?

                •  Sure nuclear power has problems (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rei

                  I don't like it nearly as much as solar or wind. But the problems are far less than coal. You still don't accept climate change, but even if we calculated the chance of dangerous climate change at 0%, coal is still worse than Nuclear Power. Does Nuclear power kill hundreds of thousands of people a year?

                  •  Cars kill hundreds of thousands of people per (0+ / 0-)

                    year also. Are you proposing to do away with those. Cigarettes also kill hundreds of thousands of people per year. Should they be illegal? Malaria kills millions -- should we bring back DDT?

                    •  Clearly I want to do away with carbon emissions (0+ / 0-)

                      because of dangerous climate change which you deny even a significant possibility of existing.

                      However; I am making the case now that even with your denial, you should prefer nuclear power to coal because even without climate change coal kills far more people per year than nuclear power would.

                      •  I don't "deny even a significant possibility" (0+ / 0-)

                        of catastrophic human-caused climate change existing. I don't think we're sure enough about it to warrant doing things that we otherwise wouldn't do.

                        If you asked me, OK, we're going to build a new power plant, should it be coal-fired or nuclear? I would probably say, neither, renewable is better, first solar, then wind, then thermal, after that natural gas if all else fails. But nuclear? Never.

                        •  When I asked you for a percentage of 1 billion (0+ / 0-)

                          lives lost, you gave me 1%. I don't consider that as very significant, and a billion is a light estimate for what catastrophic human caused climate change could cause. Do you still stand by your 1% figure?

                          If the choice were between nuclear and coal, which would you choose? This could very well be the choice we are facing.

                          •  This is the crux of the argument (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't support taxpayer funding for nuclear or coal. I do understand why you would support taxpayer funding for nuclear given your belief in the potential for catastrophic climate change from greenhouse gases.

                            I believe that human beings will be able to adapt to whatever the Earth throws at us. It's just water, either too much of it, or too little. We're technologically not that many years away from solar desalination, which would mean unlimited fresh water forever. We might have to abandon certain places, but other new places will open up.

                            Will some people die during the transition. Most certainly, yes, but people are dying right now of climate causes issues, and they have been for all of human history. And whether we try to stop it or not, lots of people will die from climate-related causes far into the future. The Earth's climate is not stable, or hazard-free, and it never has been.

                            Again, none of that is to say that I don't support doing those things that make sense with or without climate change. Renewable energy research and development. Energy and water conservation. Re-forestation and/or rainforest protection. Anti-sprawl measures. Alternative transportation.

                            Radioactive waste though, that's something that we can't ever adjust to once it gets away from us. We're talking destruction on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. That has the capacity to render places on the Earth unlivable for the foreseeable future.

                            The only reason why we are even talking about "coal or nuclear" is because of this AGW extremist alarmism, and I'm just not buying it.

                          •  You still didn't answer my question about (0+ / 0-)

                            percentages. A couple posts ago you said you did not deny a significant chance of dangerous human caused climate change. What is this significant chance you envision? Why don't you give me what you think the chance is that Human caused climate change will result in at least 1,000,000,000 deaths, the chance for at least 3,000,000,000 deaths, and the chance of a runaway greenhouse effect which we will say for this risk calculation means 7,000,000,000 deaths. We can ignore all values lower than 1,000,000,000 or between the measures I listed to make this calculation easier.

                          •  Ok, let's go with (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Michael91

                            5, 3 and 1.

                          •  Even with the odds you select I still think (0+ / 0-)

                            it is our best interest to spend massive amounts of resources, say 2% of World GDP, to get off fossil fuels. Those odds get us:
                            .02*1,000,000,000=20,000,000
                            .02*3,000,000,000=60,000,000
                            .01*7,000,000,000=70,000,000
                            Total=150,000,000 lives
                            Don't you think that's worth sacrificing around 2% of World GDP for? After all that's more than twice as many people as those who died in World War II.

                          •  OK, but let's compare: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Michael91

                            For comparison purposes, let's talk about how many people will die unnecessarily because of poverty.

                            We know for a fact that poverty reduces life expectancy. As of 2001, life expectancy in Africa was 54 years vs. 77 years for the U.S. Although there are a number of different causes, the most salient is clearly poverty. The mechanisms are pretty well established -- malnutrition, dirty water, lack of access to medical care, lack of ability to get away from natural hazards, crime, hopelessness, disease, malaria, etc. There's no need to engage in much debate about causal links or probabilities there. Those are things that we know happen everyday, and that directly cause people to die prematurely.

                            So, you do the math: taking into account population growth, what is the probability that 1, 3, or 5 billion people in the world will die because of poverty over the next 100 years?

                            Even with a back of the napkin exercise, the number of lives worldwide that will be cut short by poverty in the next 100 years goes easily into the billions.

                            And what would be the cost of ending poverty?

                            According to this source, it could be done for $40-60 billion annually worldwide -- significantly less than the 1-2% of world GDP (which works out to $650 billion to 1.3 trillion).

                            We know for a fact that poverty will cut short the lives of billions of people in the next 100 years and we could end it for less than we are contemplating spending to combat AGW, which might costs the lives of more or probably less than the same number of people. We could also do so without having to do environmentally destructive things such as nuclear power, carbon sequestration and emissions trading schemes. We could also do so without raising the price of the very energy sources that people in povery often rely upon for their basic sustenance.

                            If it's about saving lives on a global basis over a period of 100 years, why not do that?

                          •  I'm all for ending global poverty (0+ / 0-)

                            You've got no argument for me there. There is no reason why as you mention we should not be spending this kind of money to wipe out world poverty. We can both agree this is a travesty. I feel that climate change is an even higher priority because I put the estimates of death loss at much much higher percentages than you do, and feel that climate change would greatly increase world poverty. Clearly you don't but theses are separate issues.

                            We both know that money not spent on dealing with climate change will not be spent on wiping out world poverty. That's because this country is full of nationalists who won't spend a bit of our money to reduce the suffering of billions. Of course we're almost assuredly not going to take action on climate change for similar reasons.

                            But these two are not opposing causes. If it is worth the cost for both curbing climate change and for ending world poverty, than we can both work for both of these causes even if we disagree over which is the higher priority. They are not in competition with each other.

                          •  Everything that we as a society (0+ / 0-)

                            decide to devote resources to is in competition with everything else. That's what I'm trying to get people to recognize. It's mushy-headed to just be in favor of everything "good" without considering what are the trade-offs.

                            I serve on a Board in the City of Los Angeles. We face a budget crisis. You could raise taxes, but people and businesses move freely, so you can actually end up losing revenue when you raise the rate. You could cut pay -- but that means going to war against unions representing policeman, fireman, engineers, gardeners, etc. You can cut services, but that means that disabled people will no longer get rides to health clinics, that 911 emergencies will be responded to twice as slowly, that local at-risk youth will no longer have recreational programs in the afternoons and summers.

                            You can shout all you want about the rights of the disabled, of city workers and of the need to have th rich pay their fair share, but it's not going to solve the problem. You have to make hard decisions that involve trade-offs if you are to actually have an impact on anything.

                            The same is true for climate change. When you elevate the issue to the greatest threat facing mankind, where anything is justified if it will stop it, then of course other priorities including fighting poverty are going to fall by the wayside. To fail to recognize that is to fail to be serious about engaging with these issues.

                          •  Yes to an extent devoting resources to climate (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Rei

                            change would take away resources from combating poverty not caused by climate change, just as devoting resources to anything we do would. Let's take food stamps for example. Food stamps can help the poor in America but the money spent on food stamps would save more lives if it were used to combat poverty abroad where less money can do more good. Every dollar we don't spend on food stamps here has a chance of going towards ending global poverty, not high but a chance. So given your reason stated above for opposing using resources to tackle climate change, do you oppose food stamps?

                          •  I would oppose food stamps if it was presented (0+ / 0-)

                            as the most important use of government and societal resources, that any amount of money spent on food stamps is justified because PEOPLE WILL DIE if we fail to do so, that anyone who questions plans to spend all of our available resources on food stamps is akin to a Holocaust denier who might as well be signing the death warrants of poor people who will starve to death, if because food was expensive, we decided that all laws and regulations dealing with food safety, organics, GMO's etc., need to be immediately eliminated in order to facilitate our ability to confront by far THE GREATEST THREAT TO MANKIND. Yeah, I would be opposed to that.

                            But if we are to take a look at the needs, at other priorities, at the costs involved, and make a rational, reasoned decision about how much resources should be given to food stamps, then by all means, I'm in support.

                          •  I'm talking about spending around 2% of world GDP (0+ / 0-)

                            to shift the world's energy use to non-carbon fuels. This would involve heavy spending on non-carbon energy sources some sort of carbon tax or similar system, moratoriums on further coal plants etc. Given that by your own estimates climate change would cost at least an average of 150,000,000 lives, are you in favor of this?

                          •  It depends (0+ / 0-)

                            First, I gave you those figures in order to move the discussion. Before I signed on to that I'd have to be convinced that catastrophic climate change is enough of a threat to warrant those kinds of resources. As mentioned above, far more people die of poverty, we can predict this with 100% certainty, and we could stop it for more like .5% of world GDP, yet we don't do that, so why should we do this?

                            Second, if we are to engage in such an effort, you'd have to promise me no nukes, no carbon sequestration, no traders getting rich buying and selling emissions credits raising prices for everyone, while having no effect on greenhouse gas emission increases, and any other environmentally and economically destructive side schemes and that any impacts on poor people in terms of increased food and energy costs will be fully offset by subsidies, and that whatever plan is put into place will actually stabilize greenhouse gases (unlike Kyoto and Cap and Trade Version 1.0 E.U. both of which failed to do so). If I can be sure of those things, then sure, I'd consider spending some significant resources to shift to non-carbon fuels.

                            But the fact is that you can't even begin to give me any of those assurances, so it's a moot point.

                          •  As I mentioned earlier, you shouldn't compare (0+ / 0-)

                            Climate change to poverty reduction and deem global poverty reduction a more worthy cause as reason to abandon climate change if you aren't doing the same for other spending like food stamps and the like. Why is climate change so different?

                            You are never going to have that, that's why it's a cost. You could never get similar assurances when tackling global poverty either. Dealing with climate change will have costs; as I mentioned around 2% of GDP. The question is, are they worth it for the problems that climate change could cause. There are also benefits such as getting on renewable resources. I think that we will likely face losses of billions and have a significant possibility of destroying all life on earth so the cost is certainly worth it to me. Earlier you gave probabilities which gave an average of 150,000,000 lives lost. In that scenario I still feel 2% of GDP is worth it. Are you now backtracking from even those very low percentages you gave? If not, would you say it is worth the 2% for the 150,000,000 lives?

                          •  But I am . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            you aren't doing the same for other spending like food stamps and the like

                            . . . that's the whole point of my previous post which you seem to have just dismissed. I'm not an extremist about global poverty, food stamps or climate change. I think they are all significant issues that should be looked at rationally and addressed in the context of competing priorities and available data.

                            See, I don't need to be certain that climate change will not catastrophic. I can entertain the possibility that climate change is something that needs to be addressed, avoided, planned for, whatever the case may be without certainty. If I'm not certain about climate change then I can support measures to combat it that make sense because they are things that are good ideas on their own aside from climate change, and I can remain concerned about other things besides of climate change and make decisions about what the priority should be. It's only those who are certain about climate change who advocate for things that they wouldn't otherwise advocate for and who prioritize that issue above all others.

                            As I said, whether I would support a program to combat climate change has little to do with the particular percent of GDP involved. It has much more to do with whether climate change is being used as a cover to do these things that I'm opposed to: nuclear power; carbon sequestration; cap and trade. If you bring me a climate change proposal that doesn't do those things and does make sure that the poor are made whole for any additional food and energy costs, and that will actually do the job it's intended to do, then I might be able to support it. But that is not on the table, so it's moot.

                            I would only support those plans that are on the table if I was certain that catastrophic climate change will occur and that we won't be able to adapt and that it's the greatest of all the threats and problems facing mankind today. And I'm far from certain of any of those things.

                          •  That doesn't make much sense to me (0+ / 0-)

                            given the average, 150,000,000 deaths your % estimates produce. I would think this kind of cost in lives would warrant other costs paid to prevent it. Why should a cost such as this be dismissed as not worth any sacrifices to prevent?

                          •  I think you're confusing average with (0+ / 0-)

                            probability. There maybe a 1% chance of the Earth being destroyed by a meteor in the next 100 years; that does not mean that an average of 60 million people are going to die of meteor strikes over the same period.

                            But you're not really addressing my point. I said very clearly that it's not a matter of the money in my book. It's a question of whether the threat of catastrophic climate change is real enough to warrant doing things that we wouldn't otherwise do, such as publicly-subsidize nuclear power, carbon sequestration and emissions trading schemes.

                            The costs really follow that discussion. If it's a big enough threat to warrant potentially ruining parts of the Earth for (functionally) ever, then I suppose, yeah, you're right, any cost is justified. I don't buy that it's a big enough threat to warrant taking the chance with nuclear, and therefore I also think that any potential measures should have to compete with other economic, environmental and social priorities for priority in terms of commitments of public resources.

                          •  There is way less than a 1% chance of earth (0+ / 0-)

                            being hit by a large meteor in the next 100 years, but that's besides the point. Yes in that situation 60 million is the average if you are figuring a population of 6,000,000,000. That doesn't mean 60 million die every time, but that's not what an average is. An average is the total divided by the number of terms. Since this is in percentage terms that would be 99 trials where no one dies, and one trial where 6,000,000,000 die. The total of the 100 trials is 6,000,000,000. Divided by 100, that is 60,000,000, the average. Maybe you're thinking of a median. That is the middle term, which in that case would be 0.

                            You don't have to talk about climate in particular. For a situation in which an average of 150,000,000 would die, would you be willing to make these sacrifices? If not, why?

                          •  $40-60B? (0+ / 0-)

                            Under ten dollars per person per year?  To eliminate poverty worldwide?  Now how does that work?

                            We know for a fact that poverty will cut short the lives of billions of people in the next 100 years

                            We also know what AGW will do to them.  What do you think loss of coral reefs does to the food supply of people who depend on them?  What do you think the loss of a large percent of the amazon rainforest from the reduction in tropical rainfall will do to local populations?  What do you think the spread of Dengue Fever will do?  I could go on and on.

                            We could also do so without having to do environmentally destructive things such as nuclear power, carbon sequestration and emissions trading schemes.

                            Emissions trading is "environmentally destructive"?  Oh please.

                          •  Yeah, emissions trading is environmentally (0+ / 0-)

                            destructive, at least as it was applied in Europe:

                            Much of the cost of the European system is being paid by the public in the price of goods and services, including higher electricity bills, but whether the money is doing any good is an open question. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted by plants and factories participating in the system has not fallen. Their emissions rose 0.4 percent in 2006 and another 0.7 percent in 2007.

                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                            I don't know the validity of the numbers cited by that particular campaign to end world poverty that I linked to. It could be off. I do know that the Grameen Bank has lifted people out of poverty by the thousands with $100 microloans that are paid back at rates that would put to shame the U.S. mortgage market. $40-60 billion recycled through that kind of a system could probably go a long ways.

                            We don't know for a fact what AGW will do. There are projects and models and anecdotes here and there, but we don't know for sure. There are those who argue that the increased CO2 has actually helped stave off hunger by providing fertilizer for agriculture. Who knows? The point is that the causes of poverty-related deaths are ongoing and not in question whatsoever.

                          •  I already refuted that elsewhere. (0+ / 0-)

                            And since when is a fractional-percent rise worse than business-as-usual?

                            As for microloans, that needs capital -- clearly something different, and doesn't make sense in the context of a recurring basis.

                            We don't know for a fact what AGW will do.

                            We don't know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.  But I don't plan to gouge out my eyes and try to join the mole people.

                            There are those who argue that the increased CO2 has actually helped stave off hunger by providing fertilizer for agriculture.

                            There are those who argue that the moon landing was faked.  That doesn't make them right.  Some plants respond positively to increased CO2, while others respond negatively.  CO2 is generally not a limitation to plant growth except in tightly sealed greenhouses in the winter.  Growth constraints are generally either sunlight, water, or mineral.

                          •  What plants respond negatively to CO2? (0+ / 0-)

                            We do know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. Even the most committed AGW scientist is going to acknowledge that these are modeled projections, and that there are always unexpected things that happen in the universe, far more likely than the sun not rising.

                            The loans are made on a revolving basis, so it is a recurring cost.

                          •  Loans (0+ / 0-)

                            The whole point of a loan is that it gets paid back.  To loan money, you need money upfront, but not recurring funds.

                            We do know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

                            Really?  Prove it.

                            Even the most committed AGW scientist is going to acknowledge that these are modeled projections

                            They are not "modeled projections".  Models are just one part of climate science.  Just to pick a random example, there's historical responses to different forcings.

                          •  I can't believe you're arguing this point (0+ / 0-)

                            on the anti-poverty loans. If you had 40-60 billion a year, you could start the first year and loan out say half of that amount and use the rest for other projects. Many of the Grameen loans have pretty short terms, and their are paid back at very high rates. So, year two, you take half of the next batch of money and make new loans, the other half against to the micro-loans. Except this time, half the loans from the first year are paid back. So, now instead of a 60 billion dollar program, now you have a 75 billion dollar program. Sweet. Rinse and repeat until you end poverty world wide.

                            Proving the sun will rise tomorrow? Yeah, it could be done, because we have satellites, and so even though it's dark, we know for a fact that the sun is still shining and the Earth is still spinning.

                            Historical responses to different forcings? What do you think the models are based on?

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            So, now instead of a 60 billion dollar program, now you have a 75 billion dollar program.

                            Then why wouldn't you just want all of the money upfront?  What is the point of spreading it out over multiple years?  There's no reason why a loan program should have a constant recurring cost associated with it.  That's why they're called loans; they get paid back, and you loan the money to other people.

                            Proving the sun will rise tomorrow? Yeah, it could be done, because we have satellites, and so even though it's dark, we know for a fact that the sun is still shining and the Earth is still spinning.

                            How do you know 100% that you're interpreting the data correctly?  Or that there's not a roving black hole entering our solar system?  Or that the Large Hadron Collider isn't about to turn the Earth into a black hole or a ball of self-expanding Strange matter?  How do you know for a fact that our world isn't a gigantic alien Truman show, or some extradimensional child's computer simulation ant farm?

                            Nothing is known 100%.  Which is my point.  But once you get to a high enough standard of evidence, you quit treating it like a mere hypothesis and start acting on it.

                            What do you think the models are based on?

                            First Principles.  I've seen the code.  What did you think the models are based on?

                          •  Hmm . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            I would think that the models would be based on . . .

                            historical responses to different forcings

                            among other things.

                            WRT ending poverty for $40-60 billion per year, I see no point in arguing back and forth about the exact methodology. It doesn't affect our argument. If there are credible advocates arguing that, then it's reasonable to assume that it would be easily done for 10-20 times that (1-2 percent of world GDP), which is what is being proposed to be spent on preventing global warming.

                            Yes, I suppose it's true that we don't know at 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, so I would agree that we can make decisions on less than 100% certainty. Ultimately we have to make some kind of societal determination about the likelihood of catastrophic global warming. I understand where you guys are coming from -- if I was 99% sure that we were ALL GOING TO DIE if we don't stop emitting greenhouse gases RIGHT NOW, I would support doing ANYTHING to stop it also.

                            I just think the degree of certainty is nowhere near there at this point.

                          •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                            I would think that the models would be based on historical responses to different forcings among other things.

                            They're not.  They're based on first principles; do you know what that means?  If not, I can get you some reading material on the subject.

                            The models are validated against historical data, but the calculations are almost entirely first principles.  There are a few statistical models in there for things that don't simulate well (namely, cloud formation response, which is a chaotic process); those are the primary source of uncertainty in the models.  But you can swing cloud formation in either direction, and the general results are still the same.

                            I just think the degree of certainty is nowhere near there at this point.

                            The experts in the field overwhelmingly disagree with you on the cost/benefit curve.  You're certainly free to disappear with the experts if you choose.

                          •  Wow, so according to you (0+ / 0-)

                            we've mathematically deduced from "first principles" AGW, with no need to actually consult the historical record other than to "validate" our deductions. That really makes me feel a lot more certain about things. Not.

                            The "experts" in the field do not agree about anything with respect to the cost/benefit curve. Science is usually agnostic about political choices, as it should be.

                          •  Are you even reading what I'm writing? (0+ / 0-)

                            we've mathematically deduced from "first principles" AGW, with no need to actually consult the historical record other than to "validate" our deductions. That really makes me feel a lot more certain about things. Not.

                            Are you even reading what I'm writing?  I pointed out that the models are just one line of evidence -- which is why I brought up comparing planetary responses to natural forcings as an example of another (out of many).

                            And why the hell don't you want historical validation of the models?  Don't get upset because you misunderstood how they work.

                            And lastly, what is your problem with first principles physics models?  Is your argument that our very understanding of the laws of physics is in error?

                            The "experts" in the field do not agree about anything with respect to the cost/benefit curve. Science is usually agnostic about political choices, as it should be.

                            IPCC WG3.  Read it.  Or at least look at the author list.  It's a mix of scientists and economists.

                          •  OK, I guess we have a semantic dispute (0+ / 0-)

                            between "models" and "projections". The original point was that no matter how you cut it catastrophic climate change is a (very) educated guess about the future, as opposed to death from poverty, which is a guaranteed occurrence both now and into the future. Same thing with the mechanisms -- we can theorize that because the temperature goes up by X, that this will mean that this or that geographic area will experience drought and/or famine, which will result on Y numbers of people dying, but it's ultimately still a prediction. It has not come to pass, and just as other dire predictions that seemed inevitable at one time -- the "Population Bomb" for example -- never came to pass, it's entirely possible that the dire predictions associated with climate change will never come to pass, whether or not we act (and vice-versa, it's possible that it will all come to pass even if we act).

                            I stand corrected that the predictions of catastrophic change are not just based on models, but also on other kinds of information and analysis. It was a semantic error on my part, because I was in my mind using "models" as a shorthand for predictions.

                            You are wrong about the role of IPCC on political/policy questions:

                            [The IPCC's] role as defined in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work" is "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

                            IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

                            http://www.ipcc.ch/...

                          •  The IPCC reports don't advocate a particular (0+ / 0-)

                            policy.  But they do state what the consequences of each given policy will be, and the margins of error and understanding on each of them.  That's the reason why economists were retained for it.

                          •  "The earth's climate is not stable" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Michael91

                            Yes, the earth's climate has always changed.  What's different this time is the rate.  Species evolve and adapt when changes occur on the scale of tens of thousands of years, not hundreds or even tens of years.

                          •  We've already dismissed that in this thread (0+ / 0-)

                            Abrupt climate changes are all over the geological and climatological record, some that took place within just a few years. Nobody disputes this on either side.

                            I have a lot of trouble believing that a species as technologically advanced as ours, that lives in every climate zone on Earth from the Arctic to the tropics, would not be able to adjust even to a reversion out of the current ice age (given that our species got its start before the present ice age, it would be familiar to us).

                        •  Possibilities (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Michael91

                          of catastrophic human-caused climate change existing. I don't think we're sure enough about it to warrant doing things that we otherwise wouldn't do.

                          Approximately 97% of the scientific community is (Doran, 2009).  You're free to disagree with the experts in the field if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.  If 97% of cardiologists told you that you had developed a major heart murmur and would likely die if you didn't have it treated soon, and the other 3% said you were fine, would you say "The jury is still out" and ignore it?

                          •  If you check back earlier in the discussion (0+ / 0-)

                            Pragprogress has said he doesn't take expert opinion into account on climate science for whatever reason, so I don't think this argument is going to work. I tried using similar analogies, but to no avail.

                •  Europe was the first to institute a cap&trade (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Michael91

                  system.  As a consequence, it was rather poorly designed.  Any US system would be based on learning the lessons of the European system.  In particular, Europe's big problems were the grandfathering in of existing industry, which generally meant that those companies with the best political connections benefited.

                  As for prices, you may remember that energy prices spiked worldwide during the same timeframe.  So crediting that to cap & trade is more than a little dishonest.  The largest price increase occurred from March to December of 2007, when the credits were available for nearly free.

                  As for emissions levels, 2005 levels were 3-4% below projected without the cap.  The article then gives numbers for 2006 and 2007, but they don't list others.  Emissions dropped 3% in 2008.  This was largely due to an increasing shift in use of natural gas for power due to the cost of credits for coal power.  If that's not results, what is?

                  You ever heard of the cure being worse than the disease?

                  I'm not really sure you understand what the disease we're speaking of is like.  Let's use a few examples.

                  1. The goal of the Copenhagen conference was to limit the world to a 2C temperature rise.  Judging from the past glacials, a mere 2C temperature rise corresponds to an equilibrium sea level rise of 6-9 meters.  That takes hundreds of years to reach equilibrium, and we're only looking at ~1 meter over the course of the next century if we limit the rise (rates of sea level rise increase over time).  But a few hundred years from now, you're looking at 6-9 meters.  That's enough to put a third of Florida underwater.  Even 1 meter sea level rise is like adding a meter to the storm surge of every hurricane that hits.
                  1. Nature has done this experiment before.  It was known as the PETM -- the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.  For reasons still debated, the planet emitted large quantities of carbon dioxide and methane in a relatively short period of time, of a scale similar to what humans are doing today.  This caused a rapid spike in temperatures, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.  The effects on the planet were profound, almost impossible to overstate; it left the world such a different place that we give the era a new name (the Eocene).  
                  1. Like corals?  What would you feel about the destruction of 97% of the planet's corals?  That's what a 3.7 degree average temperature rise in the Earth's oceans would do; corals are extremely sensitive to temperature.  What used to be the two most common corals in the Gulf of Mexico (the Staghorn and Elkhorn corals) are now threatened species after a massive dieoff during the super-hot waters of 2005.  The twin threats of warming and pollution have practically nuked Gulf coral reefs; it's tragic to compare before and after shots of what are now huge coral graveyards.

                  AGW affects so many different things it's almost impossible to overstate it's long-term effects if we don't act.  "Acting" doesn't necessarily mean nuclear.  There are lots of options.  But sitting around and doing nothing isn't one of them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site