The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends

FreeWilly

Oh dear Besty I'm trying to understand you - really.
Let's start again with your claim:
" even if the international scientific consensus is wrong. There is no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside...To further clarify I'm talking at a governmental, national and international scale”
You cite "The 2006 Stern Report's main conclusion" regarding Kyoto costs as support of this “no downside, significant upside” claim.
You then state:
In principle I'm not opposed to climate treaties but I fear their chances of achieving their aims are slim... compliance would be an endless fruitless task.
However you advocate:
“developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity.”
How do you expect anyone to listen to what you say if you cannot explain yourself coherently? You make no sense. You advocate an international effort with virtually no costs only benefits. Your only evidence is a study that implies a 20 to 1 benefit ratio for implementing Kyoto as an example of your claim. You advocate an multi-national effort but are "opposed to climate treaties". After I point out Kyoto's failure due to costs you then state this is "a position that I don't hold, which you are now asking me to further justify". Priceless.
QUESTION: Why would you cite as evidence a study projecting a 1% cost, 20% benefit of Kyoto implementation if this is a position you don't hold and do not want to justify?
Here is an international commitment by primarily developed countries to reduce GHG emissions. It is seemingly everything you would wish for were it not for the reality. The problem with Kyoto is NOT compliance, but cost. Cost is the basis of your “no downside” claim. Perhaps you would like to retract or modify your claim now? Since you failed to grasp this in my last post I will make it even more simple for you:
FACT Kyoto signatories are unable to meet their emmission reduction commitments due to exorbitant costs. [1][2][3]
Your “no downside, significant upside” claim is patently false and...naive. Why won't you just admit that so we can move on?
besty

You cite " The 2006 Stern Report's main conclusion" regarding Kyoto costs as support of this “no downside, significant upside” claim.
No I did not cite the Stern Report to support the costs of Kyoto or my 'no downside' comment - this is a figment of your imagination. You are trying (and failing) to conflate various phrases I have used to construct a strawman.
Let me re-post the context:
The measures I refer to would be for developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity. Where America et al lead, the rest will follow. A truly green America is worth Kyoto x 50.
If you'd like some homework to see why this is naive then perhaps you can research the relationship between economic effects of such proposed measures along with prosperity and its effects on the environment in developed and developing nations.
The 2006 Stern Report's main conclusion was that 1% of GDP invested now could be worth up to 20% GDP in the future. 700 pages - the most comprehensive and widely known economic report on climate change to date.
I cited the Stern Report in direct answer to your request for research on the economic effects of 'such measures' - the measures I refer to are clearly not Kyoto. Read the 1st sentence in the re-post above again please. Do you see Kyoto being held up by me as the be all and end all of green policy? No. In fact Stern 2006 and Stern 2008 and Garnaut 2008 all regard Kyoto as a first step with much more stringent measures being required.
Incidentally I hear what you are saying WRT Kyoto not working. Once again for the record, you raised Kyoto, presumably to subsequently knock it down.
Again, for your benefit, the measures I refer to would be for developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity. Where America et al lead, the rest will follow. A truly green America is worth Kyoto x 50.
Of course this requires investment. Do you equate investment with cost? Do you equate costs with downside? Example - the most recent review on the potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems suggests that $1B would be required to develop a commerical model over the next 10 years. Is there a downside to doing this? Is the $1B a cost or an investment? What are the potential upsides of widely available sustainable clean energy from EGS? Is that worth $1B to verify?
You advocate an international effort with virtually no costs only benefits.
Another few example of your strawman argument - where have I said 'no costs' or that I thought Kyoto was the answer? Make it easy for me and just re-post where I said that. I said 'no downside' and I said 'America should take the lead' and I stand by that.
After I point out Kyoto's failure due to costs you then state this is "a position that I don't hold, which you are now asking me to further justify". Priceless.
Factually incorrect FreeWilly. Sorry mate but you are clearly suffering from confirmation bias. You pointed out Kyoto's cost-based failure on 29 Sep 01:39. However I had already said on 28 Sep 22:17 that whilst not opposed to treaties I didn't hold out much hope for them.
Let me make it clear how you have tried (and failed) to create a strawman with one of your constructs:
You claim that there is "no downside to doing the right thing". My read of the context of your "right thing" is to employ rather large measures on "a governmental, national and international scale" to reduce CO2 emissions. (measures like Kyoto of course comes to mind, but feel free to enlighten)
You have taken my words of 'no downside', added my words of "international scale" and come up with YOUR conclusion that I can only mean a monetary cost-free Kyoto. <----- strawman. Of course it is then a relatively simple job for you to debunk a cost-free Kyoto - nobody would believe that could work right?
The whole theme of your argument is based on looking for something that doesn't exist, so before going any further I suggest you show me where I said Kyoto is the answer and best of all, its free of cost.
Incidentally its kinda rude not to answer a polite question, so before throwing your questions into the thread I'd like you to answer mine.
Where exactly do you stand on this issue?
FreeWilly

where have I said 'no costs' or that I thought Kyoto was the answer?
I'm not accusing you of claiming Kyoto is/was the answer. What I see is you distancing yourself from a know reality. And yes I am confronting you with that reality.
MY CLAIM: I said (and will continue to say) your statement of "no downside, significant upside" is naive. I repeated this in nearly every post of mine. The Stern Report is a theoretical economic model with the objective of reducing emmissions. Kyoto is an economic reality with the objective of reducing emmissions. What I see is you distancing yourself from a reality that clearly speaks to your theoretical claim. This embodies my usage of Kyoto and the Stern Report within my claim.
In fact Stern 2006 and Stern 2008 and Garnaut 2008 all regard Kyoto as a first step with much more stringent measures being required.
Precisely
I will reiterate my counter-claim
MY COUNTERCLAIM: There is a "downside" - it is economic cost.
Unless there's more beating of this horse to be done, lets move on....
Besty: Incidentally its kinda rude not to answer a polite question...... Where exactly do you stand on this issue?
Granted, although time is an issue and I have to get on an airplane soon.
My stand is that there are a number of challenges facing human kind. Fear, politics, and reliance on computer models seem to be propelling AGW to the top of that list. The sheer economic cost of is a major downside. When compared to the upside the benefits are negligible. We beat to death the real costs of Kyoto which would delay warming by 5 years if models are correct, yet you and others acknowledge that this is not even drastic enough. i.e it will cost a hell of a lot more to do more. If you view money is a fixed resource than what demands that the lion share of Earths spendable resources be applied to AGW over say Clean water or infectious diseases?
Fear - Catastrophe is often linked with the threat of AGW. In fact you alluded to it as well. Yet even the IPCC claims that there is not sufficient statistical information to support this notion as do many other sources (no time to link now). Nonetheless it is assumed and used as a scare tactic to elevate it's priority.
Politics- While the summary of the IPCC indicates a scientific body of one thought, the papers and statements of scientists behind the assesment are more cautious. (references to follow if desired)
Computer Models - Historically speaking, CO2 emmissions have lagged - not lead - temperature increase (see Vostok). CO2's new assumed role as climate driver is without historical precedent. They may indeed drive temperatures higher as computer models predict. However many of these models fail to even predict the past when applied.
At 380 ppm CO2 comprises less than 4/100'ths of a percent of all gasses present. As a Greenhouse Gas constituent it is a minor constituent, water vapor being by far the largest and greatest effect. Looking at Earth's climate history we note that at 380 ppm we are on the low end of the scale. We have had ice ages with 10x higher CO2 concentrations. An aweful lot of assumptions and amplification qualities are placed on this trace gas with the popular insistance that "the science is settled".
So my position is the idea that AGW counter-measures - namely CO2 emmision reuction - should garner a dibilitating level of resources due to it's presumed role as the gravest concern facing humankind is tenative at best.
besty

So to summarise:
You claim that Kyotos failure (IYHO) is proof that Stern economics are flawed.
You also claim that the economic cost of climate change is too large a barrier to overcome - Kyoto's failure being proof.
You further claim that because of fear-mongering, uncertain scientists and uncertain science that anthropogenic global warming has the capacity to consume a disproportionate amount of resource, with the clear implication that it is wasting money to fix a problem that likely doesn't exist.
Are we ageed on your claims?
FreeWilly

You claim that Kyotos failure (IYHO) is proof that Stern economics are flawed.
No claims here. The Stern report is an economic model. Kyoto is an economic reality. I have use one to shed light on the other. The Stern report is not an assesment of Kyoto. It is a projection that you apparently have/had some affinity to.
You also claim that the economic cost of climate change is too large a barrier to overcome - Kyoto's failure being proof.
The issue is cost vs. benefit. Particularly when weighed against other challenges facing humanity. A claim, if you need one, is the benefits of massive AGW countermeasures do not justify the costs they require.
You further claim that because of fear-mongering, uncertain scientists and uncertain science that anthropogenic global warming has the capacity to consume a disproportionate amount of resource, with the clear implication that it is wasting money to fix a problem that likely doesn't exist.
Yes, Yes and No. The objection is to "with the clear implication that it is wasting money to fix a problem that likely doesn't exist." It is cear that GHG do have an warming effect. To what degree and to what detriment is questionable.
besty
Just a final (I promise) brief word on treaties and science if you will indulge me :-)
Kyoto was the first Protocol for actioning the mandate of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which was adopted in 1992 during the George HW Bush administration and ratified in 1994. The purpose of the UNFCC was to stabilize GHG concentrations and prevent manmade climate change.
However, Clinton never sent the first Protocol - Kyoto - for ratification and Bush Jnr rejected it out of hand immediately. American politicians could not stomach the idea of doing something tangible about global warming without the backing of the Non-Annex 1 developing nations. With 5% of the global population and 25% of the emissions the worlds wealthiest country refused to start on emissions control until the countries suffering from poverty, drought, malaria and famine played their part. A hypocritical denial of responsibility if ever there was one, perhaps eclipsed only by Bush Jnr denying, for fully fifteen years, the climate change science his father had endorsed in 1992.
As well as the goal of reducing manmade CO2 emissions Kyoto also served the purpose of providing an international framework for discussing climate change. The fact that countries such as China, India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia did not have targets to meet but still committed to collecting data and reporting their position is not insignificant. Why would they do that against their apparent superficial economic interest? Even Russia joined with commitments to reduce CO2. In fact all major oil producing nations, with one notable exception, ratified Kyoto.
A major accomplishment of Kyoto has been the establishment in Europe at least of a market trading system placing a price on carbon.
Post 2012, iterations of the Protocol will build on this initial work and must include commitments from the developing world and as the reality of climate change becomes ever more apparent to all but the most entrenched deniers I expect public opinion will take up the scientific consensus and force their governments to meet their treaty commitments.
Unless of course the pre-eminent global (ab)user of hydrocarbons would take a leadership position rather than waiting on treaties, which I mentioned at the outset of this thread were of limited value. Organisations like GROCC sponsored by Columbia University are taking a leadership position, perhaps in the vacuum created by the Bush administration. That's a hallmark of leadership. Just take action, assume responsibility and others will follow. Hence GROCC's impressive member list.
And now to science. Some of the key findings of the IPCC AR4 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers were as follows:
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. WE AGREE ON THIS
- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (at least 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS?
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS?
- Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS?
AR4 was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments, including the Bush administration.
I accept your point that there will be controversy and disagreement over scientific details and detractors will point these out as evidence for delay in action. Much the same way creationists point to disagreements amongst evolutionists as evidence for creation. You do not have to look beyond JW’s to see the contorted thinking arising from denial of the scientific consensus. *wink*
In the interests of fairness lets give a Brit scientist and an American politician the last word on IPCC:
Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society, said, "This report makes it clear, more convincingly than ever before, that human actions are writ large on the changes we are seeing, and will see, to our climate. The IPCC strongly emphasises that substantial climate change is inevitable, and we will have to adapt to this. This should compel all of us - world leaders, businesses and individuals - towards action rather than the paralysis of fear. We need both to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases and to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Those who would claim otherwise can no longer use science as a basis for their argument."
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the report was "sound science" and “human activity is contributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."
My apologies FreeWilly – I’m sure you are nice person but I trust Lord Rees on this one. And when even the Bush administration gives a somewhat grudging acknowledgment of the science….where else is there to go? :-)
I understand your position - denying that anthropogenic climate change is a major problem ( FreeWilly v IPCC) makes it prudent to delay any steps towards a solution (FreeWilly v Kyoto) and to decry any estimations of the economic impact going forward (FreeWilly v Stern, Garnaut, Jeffrey Sachs et al).
Deny, delay and deride. Not a new set of tools and always accompanied by the other bedfellow - lack of alternative ideas.
In the event Sarah Palin is leading America towards energy independence there will be fresh hope for new ideas - the drill baby "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." according to McCain. Once she has straightened out the difference between 'energy' and 'oil' and Alaska producing '20%' or is it '7.4%' of America's energy, or is it oil, darn right she'll be fine.
Its comforting to know that the next Administration - gawsh, maybe Sarah - will inherit a military budget in excess of $600 billion dollars – that’s more than the rest of the world combined – and a $14 billion dollar budget for development and humanitarian needs.
Do you see any problem with these figures given your statement about there being more important problems facing the world than anthropogenic global warming? America has an investment choice to make. It could take Pentagon spending for one day and provide 5 years worth of antimalarial bednet protection for every sleeping site in Africa.
Or it could spend that sum on - erm – more military to kick ass with. Or maybe 5.38% of GDP to the Pentagon still isn’t enough?
Perhaps if international development spending was more balanced with military spending America wouldn’t be in a ‘war on terror’, which incidentally is so asymmetric they can never hope to win it by conventional means. Would I suggest the American presence in Iraq (21,000,000 barrels of oil per month export to the USA) and absence in Sudan (erm.....zero million barrels per month export to the USA) is somehow oil supply related?
You see FreeWilly, Sudan is a microcosm of the future - 1 billion people enjoy our lifestyle, 2 billion are working on getting it, 3 billion are dreaming about turning on their own light bulb on a regular basis and another 3 billion are going to be born into countries least equipped to support them.
Hence my suggestion that it is better for all concerned for America to take a leadership position in clean energy – military leadership is a very expensive dead end. I didn;t see your comments on my questions:
Of course this requires investment. Do you equate investment with cost? Do you equate costs with downside? Example - the most recent review on the potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems suggests that $1B would be required to develop a commerical model over the next 10 years. Is there a downside to doing this? Is the $1B a cost or an investment? What are the potential upsides of widely available sustainable clean energy from EGS? Is that worth $1B to verify?
Is EGS evaluation worth 1/2 day of Pentagon spending?
When time permits I will expand on my ‘no downside’ comment.
I hope your flight was safe and successful – you can offset your emissions here
zagor

If I understand correctly, the "concensus" that is being referred to here is the belief that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years has anthropogenic causes, not the belief that the warming has anything at all to do with human activity (just to clarify). And so, 45% of the papers either explicity or implicity agree that half+ of the warming is due to human activity, and 48% are neutral to this claim.
LOL that was funniest thing I've read in a while. Anthropogenic in fact, refers to byproducts of human activity!! Sometimes is better to use simple everyday English than make a use of resounding terms just to make it look pretty, cause you can easily get stuck...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic
zagor

besty, not a bad run down mate.
I think there is a very little doubt that human activity is causing increase in so called Green House gasses. Research over the last 100 or so years has proven it time and time again. In fact, if something else had been proved so convincingly, something that can be cashed off the hip, most people (businesses) would have embraced the idea long time ago. So it is more to do with what motivates us to take or not take action than any science behind GW.
As far as public opinion is concerned it is mostly due to efforts such people as controversial “Marshall Institute” and alike that stirred the waters of controversy thereby leaving impression in public’s mind that science is questionable, while nothing could be further from the truth. The thing about public opinion is that it is easily maneuvered by fear. And fear everyone immediately feels is that of loss of a job, house etc, i.e. failing economy. At times like these it is very easy to pass very controversial idea into the public consciousness where they tend to reside there for a very long time despite all the signs pointing in another direction. For instance, we are told if we don’t do certain things, our kids will live like “those people in the third world countries, do you really want to do that?”
Well in doing so they appeal on two things, one is fear and another is prejudice about “those people”. And both of these are to do with touching dark side in us that instantly rejects alternative no mater how much better it is. We are blinded by what we see immediately in front of us, a mirage created by “well meaning leaders and people” in our community and fail to see way brighter future that does not depend on old way of doing things.
The thing is, liabilities of our old technologies are becoming so great that kids we are so worried about are actually going to bear the brunt of it in few decades. So we urgently need new ways of doing things, and you know what? We already have them, many developed into great details.
For example, nature can and does teach us how to make our technologies way better, how to improve our housing, insulation, how to reduce consumption of energy and it had been worked out in many instances into a fine art, i.e. the field of Nature Inspired Engineering or biomimicary, which is one of my specialties, so if you want to know more, by all means contact me.
Nature had several billions of years to perfect things whereas we had been perfecting most of ours for less than 100 years (but these are the things that make cash flow at the moment)
We can create way better technologies and in fact we already have them in research labs all over the world, I wonder how come things like that are hardly ever in public consciousness but unreasonable doubts about GW are, now why is that?
Nature teaches us how to make our own designs better, NOT how to return into cave living some of modern leaders so fondly like to refer to. We can make lives of our kids better than any other generation that had ever lived on this planet before, or we can do nothing and let them deal with consequences of our lack of motivation, which sadly has been maneuvered by those businesses who find it way easier to do things old way than to even try giving it a shot to something new. As result we are not even paying the full price for it yet, our kids will.
besty

We can make lives of our kids better than any other generation that had ever lived on this planet before, or we can do nothing and let them deal with consequences of our lack of motivation, which sadly has been maneuvered by those businesses who find it way easier to do things old way than to even try giving it a shot to something new
Its a great point Zagor - we have choices to make and I really hope that the full weight of America gets behind the clean energy problem. Already they are losing ground to the Europeans, Chinese and Japanese in solar technology and deployment for example. Germany's long term feed-in tarriff has been an outstanding success. China's seventh richest man, billionaire naturally, has made his money from solar technology.
What gives me hope are companies like First Solar and the recent initiative announced between Google and GE to promote a new smart grid for electricity distribution.
Oh ye - and the prospect of a new Administration that gets it.
DanTheMan

If I understand correctly, the "concensus" that is being referred to here is the belief that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years has anthropogenic causes, not the belief that the warming has anything at all to do with human activity (just to clarify). And so, 45% of the papers either explicity or implicity agree that half+ of the warming is due to human activity, and 48% are neutral to this claim.
LOL that was funniest thing I've read in a while. Anthropogenic in fact, refers to byproducts of human activity!! Sometimes is better to use simple everyday English than make a use of resounding terms just to make it look pretty, cause you can easily get stuck...
Zagor, I think you must be misunderstanding what I wrote - by "anthropogenic" I did mean "by-products of human activity". My point was this: the concensus that the politician was referring to in the 539 published papers is in regards to the belief that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years is related to human activity, but was presented as if the concensus was on the issue of whether human activity has had anything at all to do with it. Does that make more sense? I think we're on the same side of the issue here.

The new Ice Age Cometh!

Share this