Pissing in the wind, I know, but guys, don't feel compelled to opinion on the subject until you've listened to at least these two talks:

http://name99.org/blog99/?p=3
Covers Kyoto, why it's too little to be useful even if anyone were following it, which they are not. (from Google Tech Talks)

http://name99.org/blog99/?p=72
Covers the reality of the amount of energy we're currently using generated by fossile fuels, how it is growing, and how pretty much nothing short of nuclear will fill the gap, even though it obviously makes sense to use wind, solar, tidal etc where one can. (Here's a metric for how large the issue is --- if we wish to switch to nuclear to get CO2 to peak at about 500 ppm in 2050, which is about twice the pre-industrial revolution value, and may even be too high, we need to start constructing a nuclear power reactor every week till 2050!) Until you have an accurate idea of the real numbers involved in this subject, you are dangerously clueless. (This is Nate Lewis of CalTech talking at KITP.)

Early reporting on this study in this country, on both the left (Huffington Post) and the right (National Review) has focused not on the substance of the study, which is alarming in the extreme ("100 million climate refugees"..."40% of all species could become extinct"..."5-20% of GDP lost"..."large parts of the planet uninhabitable") and factual, but on the side note that one British politician has called on one American politician to be an advisor.

It's barely even mentioned in the BBC report!

Holy cow, is this frustrating. Ignorance isn't just bliss; on this issue, in this country, it seems to be mandated.

[url=http://www.hpvzl.com]尖锐湿疣[/url]
[url=http://www.cnkang.com]中国康网[/url]
[url=http://www.zgpqw.com]排铅[/url]
[url=http://www.jjzlw.com]尖锐湿疣[/url]
[url=http://www.cnkuaile.com]成人用品[/url]
[url=http://www.jjzlw.com/jjzl/yyzl/231803.htm]尖锐湿疣治疗[/url]
[url=http://www.cnaizheng.com]中国癌症网[/url]

尖锐湿疣
中国康网
尖锐湿疣
排铅
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗
中国癌症网

A new report released in Britan warns that climate change will be devastating to the world economy if we don't do something about it:

Hey, Kevin, this is the same Britain who's going to hire leftist sore loser Al Gore to promote their pro-socialist agenda on Global Warming.

Link

"Gordon Brown will today announce that Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, has agreed to become his international adviser on climate change. "

By hiring the know-nothing Al Gore, the British are shown to be clearly biased on the issue of global warming. Why should we even care what their biased Stern report says anyway then?

It's time for me to point out once again the brilliant lecture by Prof Al Bartlett. He is talking not about climate change but the consequences of exponential growth. At some point the two issues converge however.

The most recent psychological thinking on moral reasoning is concluding that the majority of humans are interested only in maintaining the facade of "morality"--in other words, "moral" people do immoral things, not because they haven't learned the proper standards, not because the situation forces them to do it, but because, in terms of winning big, the best strategy is to appear moral while cheating the suckers. So I am not confident that Sir Nicholas Stern's call to action will motivate many. Humans will always put off until tomorrow that which costs them something today.

We thought 9/11 was bad. We thought Katrina was terrible. How are we going to feel when 10% of the world's population die of starvation and another 25% are desperately trying to get to higher ground?

But... but... Republicans say we shouldn't do anything to stop Global Warming because it will hurt jobs in the short term.

So apparently Republicans aren't willing to shave a few percentage points off of the economy now, even if that means we avoid worldwide depression and possible even the end of our planet itself in the future.

I know, I know, it sounds crazy - but that is more or less the rationale behind our massive budget and trade deficits... no need to make tough budgetary decisions or raise taxes to pay for wasteful corporate pork... just pass the crippling debt burden on to the grandkids!

These people are literally becoming a threat not only to the survival of this nation, but the planet as a whole. Yes, literally.

and you report this as "news"?

Al, Not that piling on you is any real feat these days. Being married to an actual climate scientist, I'm going to feel free to say that when it comes to climate change.... you have no fecking clue what you are talking about. Sit down and shut up. And when you are willing to become educated on the subject, feel free to call on me, I'll be more than happy to offer up more info than you'd be willing to digest.

After seeing Gore's movie, which my wife was quite skeptical of how the info would be presented, she was stunned at how complete and up-to-date the data was. Not to mention, the complete suprise of Gore mentioning one of the keystones of the work that she has done.

Al, do you get paid by the post, or is it just a straight salary?

Fake Als are never as funny or insane as the real one.

Remember when the US government had to pay to move that town in Alaska? Well, there are more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/22/eveningnews/main1926055.shtml

It is too late to stop global warming, but we must do what we can ti slow and mitigate its effects.

Is Bush aware that Kennebunkport will be affected? Or is he thinking, like, "This is great - I'll be able to sail my yacht straight into Crawford!"

Let's think the unthinkable. Perhaps we ought to goad bin Laden, or anyone else who thinks we ought to return to the sort of life the prophet Mohammed led, to destroy the oil fields in the Persian Gulf. It would, of course, wreak havoc throughout the industrialized world, cause untold deaths, and set civilization back by decades, but it might give the planet some breathing space.

Perhaps in that aftermath we could re-mold the world in a more sustainable fashion. Unfortunately, we might not then have the means to do so, the usual problem with radical approaches.

Maybe if they only took out the Saudi oil fields? A big enough shock to double or triple oil prices, but with enough oil available in the near term to build the infrastructure of the future, but so expensive that not even American spendthrifts would use it to power their daddymobiles?

尖锐湿疣
中国康网
尖锐湿疣
排铅
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗
中国癌症网

Always thought it was interesting that the administration needed only 1% probability to do anything about the threat of terrorism, but 101% for global warming.

"When a person's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, it becomes hard for that person to understand it."

Actually, Zak, the administration needs 101% probability to kill off 1/2 our own population in the face of terrorism too. Question: are you in favor of constructing a nuclear power reactor every week till 2050?

Apparently the next step is for Tony Blair to persuade George Bush to help lead the world in a global effort to keep this from happening.

I think people outside America aren't so much waiting on Blair to persuade Bush (a likely prospect, the only thing Blair ever persuaded Bush of was that he'd do anything Bush told him to) as for Bush to to choke on a pretzel or be evicted from the White House. Or, I suppose, the Dems taking control of Congress again.

BUSH AIDE EDITED CLIMATE REPORTS

June 8, 2005, Wednesday

By ANDREW C. REVKIN (NYT); National Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 2, 1397 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Internal documents show that White House official Philip A Cooney, who once led oil industry fight against limits on greenhouse gases, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming; Cooney is now chief of staff for White House Council on Environmental Quality; dozens of wording changes convey air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust; examples of altered pages; Cooney, lawyer with no scientific training, was American Petroleum Institute lobbyist leading 'climate team' until 2001; documents were obtained by The New York Times from Government Accountability Project, which helps whistle-blowers and is representing Rick S Piltz, who resigned in March from government office that issued documents edited by Cooney; Piltz says White House editing and other actions threaten to taint effort to clarify climate issue.

former White House official Philip A Cooney now works for....

exxon mobil....

al-Qaeda is a gnat compared to the 800-lb. gorilla of global warming. Why we are spending $500 billion+ on a military to fight an enemy that doesn't own one tank or one ship is madness. The people is charge of this country are clearly unable to properly assess and measure risk. For that reason alone, they need to be removed. They are wasting resources we desperately need to develop alternative energy sources and to develop carbon sequestration techniques on a paper tiger. The goddamn fools!

Al Gore is so dumb, compared to my Al!

Re #1: In regards to Kyoto, when you consider that Kyoto is going to expire in IIRC 2012, it is not surprising that there would be little change 88 years after it expires. What Kyoto was intended to do was to start to direct our attention to other alternatives and methodologies.

About your second point, in fact there is a huge amount we can still do in regards to efficiency and alternatives. But until we can actually include a cost from climate change in the pricing of gasoline, we are using an artifically low priced fuel. Let it reflect the actual cost and we will see the market drive alternatives.

Kevin, those are big numbers, but compare them to the number of people living in absolute poverty today. And to those suffering malnutrition, or w/o access to clean water.

Just because we don't see them doesn't mean that there aren't many many more people suffering *right now* than under the worst Global Warming scenario.

Thanks Yelling.
It was a first step, an attempt to begin setting up a framework with an eye toward seeing what would work, and what could work.
The US petroleum lobby helped assure that the emitter of 25% of global annual emissions declined to participate. Add that to the increasing emissions of 3rd world nations, and it became apparent fairly quickly that signatories to Kyoto could achieve some slightly higher moral ground, but the impact would be negligible on the climate front, and negative on the economic front.

It would seem that nuclear power proponents are salivating over the possibilities.
I'd rather start a crash conservation course, and start emphasizing research into renewables, especially solar - after all, the more sunlight we convert into something besides heat, the less there is to be trapped in the atmosphere by rising levels of CO2, methane, etc.
Given the length of time necessary to actually get a nuclear power plant online, I suspect that we could make a great deal of progress on other fronts before the first new plant was even ready for testing.
Especially if the petroleum companies are required to invest in the research, and its executives, board, and major investors punished if there's no significant progress on a quarterly basis.
Spare the rod, and all that.

You all just don't get it! Anything the religious right can do to drive a stake in the heart of this evil world, they will do! Wars, Insolvency, Global Warming, Overpopulation, Starvation...you name it...this all helps bring Paradise sooner! Haven't you ever heard of the Rapture or the Second Coming? Who's worried about Islam..I'm checking the religious beliefs of my politicians before I vote!

I'd like to see a study on the environmental effect(s) of covering a large size desert with solar panels.

If minimal, could we then start thinking in terms of harvesting energy from the deserts? (I can imagine that removing the source of heat that creates a high pressure over desert areas, may, allow more moisture into that area, reducing efficiencies of pure solar/electricity conversions, among other unintended results.)

Also, do we know enough about climate to understand that by allowing our inputs to contribute to climate change, that we are basically subjecting the globe to an uncontained experiment, an experiment for which there will be no easy way to return to "standard"? That, in fact, the climate may actually stabilize at some heat/wx violence level that is unhealthy to human life?

I haven't seen the Al Gore movie, so forgive me if it already addresses these points.

Note how the lefties here start flapping their arms hysterically - kinda like the Brits - every time some pinhead thinks to offer his opinion. How about a little measure, folks? Looking out my window, things are the same as they ever was.

In the September issue of the British car magazine Jaguar World Monthly (a wonderful publication if you are interested in Jaguars (I'm rebuilding a '86 XJ6), there was a column on the issue of gobal warming.

The author (who takes the warnings of gobal warming very seriously and had previously written about it) used this example to get his point across to his auto enthusiasts readers:

"If you are harbouring doubts, look at it this way: if 1,000 expert engineers examined your Jaguar's braking system and 999 said that if it wasn't overhauled you would shortly suffer total brake failure, would you cheerfully adopt just the opinion of the odd one out and motor happily on at 70mph? No, you would make sure to take prudent precautions."

I have no problem with prudent precautions.

Sky-Ho, unfortunately this isn't a great place for an education on anthropogenic climate change. Try realclimate.org for paleoclimate, forward modelliing, natural variability, etc. You can plug engineered environments into models however you want, but some realistic economic assumptions have to be figured in if you plan to do more than have fun on a computer.

"unhealthy to human life": it's unlikely that we'll see anything very dramatic in terms of weather.

What you have to understand is the little things. For instance, slow steady sealevel rise adding to the potential risk of large hurricanes and storms. Precipitation and storm track changes increasing the potential for two week summer droughts over unirrigated farmland in the great plains and midwest. Increased frequency of red tide events that periodically wipe out fisheries. These are the types of events that have, in the past, wiped out cities and civilizations. It will at least make life difficult for us.

I vacillate on this issue because of items like this:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
and this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Can anybody respond to these scientists? Thanks.

Why does mother nature hate America?

How much goddam "proof" do we need? We just invaded a country and caused tens of thousands of deaths based on the flimsiest suspicion of WMD and ties to 9/11. But when it comes to saving our planet and the human race, we need 100 percent "proof" before we can think about doing anything. Even if there is only a ten percent chance that catastrophic warming will happen, that's too much risk to take. What we need to do to counter it is simply accept some mildly painful adjustments to our lifestyles, but we're not willing to do that without "proof." Future generations will, rightly, curse us for our selfishness.

With its incessant and continuing berating of our dear leader for invading Iraq on insufficient evidence, the left has no right to demand that the king act now on global warming, given that so many scientists at leading energy companies vehemently dispute Al Gore's distortions regarding impending climate change.

Adam Ennis,
"Looking out my window, things are the same as they ever was."

I guess you're not a farmer or a gardener then. In the US, anyone living north of Atlanta has seen a significant lengthening of the growing season over the last 20 years. The further north you go the bigger the change. Naturally, if you spend your life in an air conditioned office or apartment with your eyes glued to a TV or computer screen you have an excuse for your cluelessness.

Virginia,

The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto because it would have cost us 5 million jobs and $400 billion. You think those costs are simply "mildly painful adjustments to our lifestyles"?

gregor,

Our dear leader has no problem with prudent precautions.

Chuck - Even if that $400 billion figure were true (which I doubt), it's less than half what the Iraq fiasco will cost us.

'The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto because it would have cost us 5 million jobs and $400 billion. You think those costs are simply "mildly painful adjustments to our lifestyles"?'
Posted by: Chuck

And you suppose that the effects of global warming are merely going to be "mildly painful," Chuck? Don't tell me: You're willing to gamble that the scientists are wrong so you (and all the rest of us) can keep spending money on crap. Mammon is your king. That's appropriate for a Bushie.

1) It seems indisputable that the world is getting hotter, and that this rise in temperature is mostly because of human-induced C02 increases. But the remedy proposed, trying to get governments to cut the species' contribution of greenhouse gasses to the environment, may not work. So, there's a chance -- I'd say a non-trivial one -- that we could wreak havoc on the economy on a massive scale for naught.

2) Objection #1 comes partly from my suspicion that the climate models don't yet prove a feasible solution (even if they do prove what the problem is); but it also flows from the fact that there's also a non-trivial chance that even if said proposed solution (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) is technically feasible, it may be politically impossible to implement in a timely fashion. Without getting China and India on board, we could (so I understand) reach a point of no return no matter what the rich world does. It may make a lot more sense to start adjusting to a hotter earth rather than trying to stop it from becoming hotter.

3) Again, the case for a hotter earth caused by human greenhouse gas emissions is looking pretty impossible to deny, but another objection raised by many is the unknown effects of this phenomenon. Some parts of the earth are likely to get wetter, some dryer, some more productive agriculturally, some less so. Not only are we not sure we can stop it, we're not even sure its effects will be a net negative.

4) I think most of the enviroskepticism I've ready is pure hooey. But the one case I've heard made I'm not so inclined to brush off is the argument that there exist natural feedback mechanisms that may allow the climate to adjust. As I recall, those making this argument claim that there have been major changes in C02 levels before -- especially if you're willing to look back many millions of years -- and that the the earth's biosphere itself has adjusted (e.g., more C02 in the air benefits plants, which grow more robustly and consequently consume this excess C02, etc). Could those making such arguments be correct?

"look out my window and everything looks the same"

Er, no - Here in Portland, OR, we are moving on up - Not long ago, we were Zone 6, now we are Zone 7 and we are planting more and more plants meant for Zones 8 and 9. Mediterranean plants are adapting quickly. Gardens are no longer simply Rhodies and Roses.

However, Shrub is doing his best to control over population, especially in Iraq. Eighty three more died yesterday, including one of our Marines.

As I recall, those making this argument claim that there have been major changes in C02 levels before -- especially if you're willing to look back many millions of years -- and that the the earth's biosphere itself has adjusted

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has never changed as rapidly as it is changing now, in the entire history that we are able to measure using ice cores, going back millions and millions of years.

According to said ice core samples, the last time CO2 concentrations were as high as they're going to be by the end of next century (if we don't start reducing CO2 output), sea level was 80 feet higher than it is today.

With a little googling, you should be able to find maps showing you what the US coastline would look like if sea level were 80 feet higher. The usual quip is that by throwing the 2000 election to Bush, Katherine Harris ensured the elimination of her state.

This is to say nothing of what Holland or Venice or New York or London or Boston or LA or SF or Seattle or Sydney or Shanghai or Cape Town or Tel Aviv or Tokyo or St. Petersburg or Lagos would look like.

To put it mildly, it seems unlikely to me that a hypothetical marginally increased agricultural productivity in Canada (at a time when virtually all agricultural commodities are in surplus anyway) would compensate, in economic terms, for the drowning of all of the most valuable real estate on planet Earth.

Maynard, the idea that we need to construct a nuclear plant a week sounds incredibly difficult, but it's not really. Let's say that a nuclear power plant costs 2 billion US dollars to construct (that's what MIT estimated when they did a great study on the topic - the industry reckons it will get it down to somewhere around 1.5 billion in fairly short order once they start constructing new plants - if they were really constructing that many, the price would surely come down further). If that's the case, a plant a week works out to roughly 100 billion dollars a year. The United States' current GDP is about 13 trillion dollars a year. On that estimate, a plant a week would be 0.7% of GDP.

We can reduce carbon emissions as much as is necessary, and we can do it without destroying the economy or our way of life. It's just a matter of deciding to do so - except that the longer we wait to make the decision, the harder and more expensive it will be when we finally do.

This liberal is down for the nuke construction project. Especially after (hack, cough) breathing Hanoi traffic fumes all evening.

I'm fine spending $400 billion on nuclear reactors. Are you guys?

chuck..in your backyard first...

"look out my window and everything looks the same"

You should read the last chapter of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" in which he addresses exactly this point. One of the reasons civilizations have failed to foresee environmental catastrophes is simply the fact that the change cannot usually be easily perceived on a day-to-day basis.

It's basically pretty simple: what we need to do is to reduce our use of fossil fuels. We should to this not only in the hope of mitigating greenhouse effects but for many other very good reasons, such as reducing the geopolitical importance of the explosive Middle East. It's hard to think of a good reason for not reducing energy use. But thanks to our horrendous "leadership," we're taking almost no steps to reduce energy waste, and even seem to be encouraging it. Why are there no mileage standards for SUVs, for a starter? This is a no-brainer, folks.

As I recall, those making this argument claim that there have been major changes in C02 levels before -- especially if you're willing to look back many millions of years -- and that the the earth's biosphere itself has adjusted

The earth's atmosphere may adjust itself back downwards, and you may see the benefits of that if you're willing to wait millions of years. Most humans, however, don't live that long.

Are you kidding? I'd spend like a trillion dollars on nuclear reactors. Let's dam ourselves some rivers, too. And we should divide Nevada into four equal parts. Quadrant one will be where we bury all our nuclear waste. Quadrant two we will cover with solar panels. Quadrant three will be a gi-nourmous bomb range for our air force. Quandrant four will be for gambling.

Damn. I love mitigating global warming!

And when the Hummers for Christ crowd comes on board...........

You'll have to pry my Humvie from my cold dead hand! so sayeth the Lord of Greed.

But the one case I've heard made I'm not so inclined to brush off is the argument that there exist natural feedback mechanisms that may allow the climate to adjust.

The central problem with this claim is that there's nothing inherent about any adjustment mechanisms that would cause the adjustment to return in a sufficient amount of time to a level comfortable for human beings.

The Earth itself is fairly value neutral when it comes to what form it takes -- it doesn't care whether it's a frozen ball of ice, a liquid ooze of molten magma, a barren arid desert, or covered completely in water. As humans, though, we do rather care about this. Any adjustment mechanism may take place over tens or hundreds of millions of years, at which point it will be rather too late for us.

Bob M:

Sure, I can respond to those links you gave.

The first is a newspaper article that reports a number of scientists that talk about Al Gore's movie An Inconvient Truth. I think that Tim Lambert over on Deltoid gives a good review of some of the issues that the newspaper raises. It is very instructive to note how outrageous some of the claims are, e.g. the mercator projection one. So I think that we can toss that article out, but if there are issues in it that you think are good points we can look at specific topics.

The second link is to the website A Chilling Perspective. I have spent some time reviewing this site and don;t think that it provides much in the way of strong science. As an obvious example take the section about 1/2 way down the page titled "Playing with Numbers" where they talk about the satellite showing little warming. The people who publish the satellite data have since found an error in their work and the results are now in line with warming predictions. Note how there is yet no correction on the site. Again if there are specific things I can address these.

Y.

GLOBAL WARMING....A new report released in Britan warns that climate change will be devastating to the world economy if we don't do something about it:
—Kevin Drum

Duh.

Maynard Handley,

You piss into the wind very well. I have pointed out the scope of the problem more than once on this blog, but there are few here that actually take it seriously.

A nuclear power plant per week is actually possible technically, but politically it is very, very difficult. Few people want to be near them, but you can't isolate them too far from the end users because of transmission losses.

For long-range planning for the day when fossil fuels will simply not be enough for further power generation, I favor a gradually escalating tax/rebate system (the form can be debated) on fossil fuels that encourages the utilization of alternatives that can, at least, decrease the rate of increase in fossil fuel use. However, at the present moment in time, only nuclear power and stop the increase in CO2 levels.

Kenga: I suspect that you are correct and if the US (and australia) had joined the results would have been much different. I will also note that currently the country that has been making the largest strides in becoming more fuel efficient is China. Yet they are not required to under Kyoto. In a couple of years their mileage requirements are going to surpass the US.

Simp wrote:

"Al, Not that piling on you is any real feat these days. Being married to an actual climate scientist, I'm going to feel free to say that when it comes to climate change.... you have no fecking clue what you are talking about. Sit down and shut up."
_____________________

Without comment on the accuracy of the report (aside to note that being factual is not the same thing as being correct), the attitude evident in the above note to Al is a handicap in the dialectic over global warming.

Believers tend to be very impatient with the unconvinced and the just plain stupid. That, in turn, leads to pushback and obstructionism. Then too, many people feel that any proposed solutions will be draconian, amounting to government control of too much private activity, both business and personal.

In a way, this subject dovetails neatly with Kevin's question about liberalism being more coercive than conservatism. From all the Sturm und Drang over what's necessary to hold off total climate disaster, one can suppose that many of the cognescenti want drastic government control over everything. That such control is necessary and the sooner the better.

Are liberals more willing to be coercive than conservatives in order to adequately face global warming? If so, just how coercive are we talking about?

That line that liberal celebreties should stop flying on jets, etc. is the worst kind of diversionary baloney. Right, conservatives can go anywhere they want but liberals shouldn't make use of transportation systems in order to promote thier message - very convenient!

I have no problem with "noblesse oblige." It's a hell of a lot better than the conservative version: "noblesse n'oblige pas."

I've never understood the attack on Kyoto's insufficiencies as a justification to do nothing. It's like giving up on your kid because he can't run a sub 10 second 100 yard dash at the age of 18months. Global climate measures, since they're global, have to begin small. Getting everyone pointed in the same direction.

But then I've never understood the transparent mendacity of the "skeptics". (Beyond the simple, "I've got mine" angle.)

Jasper:

Point #3, while there may be winners and losers, the overall will be net negative (and for the US probably very negative). We are set up to take advantage of a certain ecosystem. If there are changes to it we will have to change to take advantage of those. For example under a warmer earth there is good historical evidence that we will be much more drought in the west.

In regards to your point #4, the key think is that while CO2 has changed, there are other factors that change as well. Many millions of years ago, the sun was at a different stage of development and was somewhat cooler. Add to that continential drift etc, and things become quite different. I have yet to see any negative feedback system that can stand up to scientific peer review. The best is probably Lindzen's Iris effect but research has pretty well dismissed that. In regards to plants growing better under higher CO2, there are problems. The first is whether the plant is a C3 or a C4 type.

References provided upon request ;-)
Y.

A nuclear power plant per week is actually possible technically, but politically it is very, very difficult. . . Posted by: Yancey Ward

It needn't be only nuclear. I'll piss into the wind once more by lobbying for the entire desert SW and then some being converted to solar. It can be done, and would have cost less than our current debacle in the Iraqi desert.

I wish the International Criminal Court had the balls to indict every last motherfucking one of the Bush administration.

Even stronger noblesse n'oblige jamais.

I think nuclear would be much more efficient. BTW: I live less than 20 miles from a nuclear reactor already -- is that close enough to my "backyard", mr. irony?

As of 2006, Watts Bar 1, which came on-line in 1997, was the last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor to go on-line. Again, I have no problem greenlighting one nuclear reactor per week until 2050.

Three solid consortia to at least start the process have responded to the U.S. Department of Energy's solicitation under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program and were awarded matching funds -- the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized subsidies for up to six new reactors, and authorized the Department of Energy to build a reactor based on the Generation IV Very-High-Temperature Reactor concept to produce both electricity and hydrogen -- on September 22, 2005 it was announced that two sites in the U.S. had been selected to receive new power reactors (exclusive of the new power reactor scheduled for INL) -- see Nuclear Power 2010 Program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program

Advantages of nuclear power plants against other mainstream energy resources are:

No greenhouse gas emissions (during normal operation) - greenhouse gases are emitted only when the Emergency Diesel Generators are tested (the processes of uranium mining and of building and decommissioning power stations produce relatively small amounts)

Does not pollute the air - zero production of dangerous and polluting gases such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, aerosols, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulates or photochemical smog

Small solid waste generation (during normal operation)

Low fuel costs - because so little fuel is needed

Large fuel reserves - again, because so little fuel is needed

Nuclear batteries - (see SSTAR Program)

It is already too late. Global warming has already begun and nothing will be done to reverse its changes to the environment and consequently to the habitat of all living creatures, including our artificial economies that affect so many human lives material well being.

Move to higher ground.

The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto because it would have cost us 5 million jobs and $400 billion.

In point of fact, the US Senate never voted on Kyoto at all.

You think those costs are simply "mildly painful adjustments to our lifestyles"?

I think they and the various other scare numbers are false, and based on the faulty methodology of assuming that there are no effects on the economy from climate change in either the short or long-term, and then considering what the costs would be of implementing Kyoto in that context, rather than properly considering the rationally expected net costs of implementing Kyoto vs. the alternative.

I'm not convinced that even given those faulty premises they are calculated correctly, either, but that's something of a secondary concern.

Adam Ennis:"Note how the lefties here start flapping their arms hysterically - kinda like the Brits - every time some pinhead thinks to offer his opinion......looking out my window, things are the same as they ever was."

Ah - the voice of good sense and sweet reason and deep understanding from across the Atlantic bringing hope and calming influence to a panicking world. So not to worry that London has had hosepipe bans all year, and this was the warmest October here since records began some time back in the seventeenth century, and England has had its largest wine crop ever, and snow has not fallen in the capital for several years, and Mediterranean and Sahara birds have visited our village in the English Midlands, and there are nationwide water shortages in supposedly the wettest country in Europe(along with Ireland and Norway), and I shall still be mowing my lawn in Novwember and the leaves are still on the trees and there have not yet been frosts So I'll just ignore those pinko pinhead scientists ( those same ones who were ignored when they kept on kept warning about what just might happen if a mega hurricane ever hit New Orleans) who just talk out of their arseholes, and stop Il'l try not to flap my arms hysterically I'll and pay heed to the sound earthy wisdom of Adam and know that all is well....

The report warns unless the world moves to cut green house gases it is heading for a "catastrophic climate change" which would create the worst global recession ever seen.....The review says failure to act early could end up costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP...

That's supposed to be catastrophic? "We're all gonna die" is catastrophic. Suffering only a 20% decline in global GDP sounds like good news to me.

However, at the present moment in time, only nuclear power and stop the increase in CO2 levels.

That's either false because, looked at narrowly, nuclear will not acheive that "at the present time", or false because, looked at more broadly, other technologies other than nuclear exist at the present time that, if applied properly, could reduce the level of CO2 output below the current levels, though implementing them to a degree that would acheive that would take time, and require adjustments in the pace, pattern, and distribution of growth (as would doing the same with nuclear power.)

In any case, though, it false.

That's not to say a sensible policy response to global warming won't include nuclear in the mix; it certainly might. But your presentation is either overly pessimistic on everything else, or overly optimistic on nuclear, depending on how narrowly one reads "at the present time".

Hostile,

I agree with you there's nothing we can do, but at least let's get cleaner energy on-line and start cutting our dependency on foreign oil.

cmdicely,

I am not going to argue with you are to which numbers are correct on a treaty that was obviously DOA before it ever got to the Senate, which is why the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for formal ratification (see below). Technically, however, the United States is a signatory to the protocol, but that is non-binding (thank God).

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". That counts as a "vote" in my book.

Your tag line was just what I was thinking as I read this post. "Good luck with that, Tony."

The Shrub is an "oil man." True, he's a failed oil man, but that just cemented in his heart his love for Big Oil.

President Cheney is an oil man, bought and paid for.

Nothin' is going to happen on global warming until they leave the White House.

In point of fact, the US Senate never voted on Kyoto at all.

It's generally unlike you to be so deceptive. Quite right the Senate never voted directly on the bill. And you know why. Because they took a sense of the senate vote BEFORE Clinton signed it and voted down the version he signed by 95-0. They voted all right and you know they voted.

This is why libs lose so often these days. Cmdicely would have been quite comfortable in 1986 making that point knowing few would know any better. In 2006 he and other libs are relegated to liberal blogs for making dumb points. That's why GW is all the rage in Europe and it's not a top 15 election issue in the USA. We know junk science when we see it. This is total nonsense just as anything led by Al gore would have to be.

The world is not going to cut its use of fossil fuels. Oh, the US could do so. But, how do we convince all people in the developing countries in the world not to get automobiles and electric applicances? We can't.

Global warming may well be caused by greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, the solution will have to be some yet-to-be-developed approach to reducing the earth's temperature. Greenhouse gases are going to continue to increase worldwide.

The world economy?

We're working on wiping out all life on this planet, and they're worried about the fucking economy?

Talk about "Unlcear on the concept."

cmdicely,

I see the point you are making, but I mean that only nuclear power has the capacity to actually replace the fossil fuel use of today along with the increases in energy consumption that are certain to occur in the next 50 years. A mix makes sense, but if nuclear is not in that mix (such that its fraction of energy production does not increase), then fossil fuel use will continue to increase going forward and will not stop until the fuels themselves can longer be produced in increasing amounts.

Large fuel reserves - again, because so little fuel is needed

Actually, at current prices and consumption, world uranium reserves aren't all that much better than world fossil fuel reserves; there's been a short-term glut in supply because of drawdowns of excess commercial inventory and downblending of enriched uranium from decommissioned weapons, but that's not going to be significant much longer. Increasing prices (likely if nuclear power became a major focus) would make more reserves economically accessible (though, of course, mitigating your cost advantage), as likely will new technologies that are expected to be commercializable in the relatively near future.

Of course, few of the advantages you list are advantages against any renewable energy resource, they are mostly advantages of nuclear compared to other extracted, limited-resource fuels (heck, many of them make no sense except in the context of limited-resource fuels.)

A big part of the problem is that, while it's easy to say "the entire world needs to get on this", in practice that is simply not going to happen. Any attempt to convince China or India not to industrialize further is doomed to fail; not only that, but it would condemn a huge segment of the earth's population to, essentially, perpetual poverty. The Western world can work like hell to reduce its emissions, but if that just moves energy-intensive industries into these countries, the net effect is going to be pretty damned small.

Our best bet is to work towards technological improvements that give us a reduction in CO2 emissions without requiring us to stop economic activity in order to do so. This isn't impossible - we've certainly managed to reduce industrial pollutants without crippling our entire economy. However, it's not something that you can just mandate - we can fund research into emissions-amelioration and alternative energies, but that doesn't mean that they'll end up producing the technologies that we may need.

In the meantime, the best thing we can do is put up those fission plants. It's the one technology that we have that can take a big hydrocarbon-burning power plant offline and replace it with practically zip in the way of carbon emissions. Problematic waste issues, sure, but they're the kind of waste issues that are dealt with in small boxes and not "the Earth's atmosphere".

I'll point out that putting solar panels over an entire desert is probably counterproductive - they're not THAT efficient, and the energy that's not converted into electricity is mostly released as heat. In other words, you'd turn a big patch of desert into a big patch of BLACK and probably cause more warming than the CO2 that you're not generating from the solar energy. If you want solar to work, you need to stick it in orbit and beam the power down...

Alternatively, it may be easier to just affect the problem rather than the root cause. There are things we can do to affect the earth's albedo, after all, that don't involve power generation. Painting roofs white is one. Hell, we could always kick up a bunch of dust into the atmosphere (a little at a time or with a few nukes, your call).

rdw: I keenly await to see your supporting work for stating that "This is total nonsense". I only hope that if you support some typical skeptical "junk" you are prepared to defend it.

Yancey Ward: Few people want to be near them [nuclear power plants], but you can't isolate them too far from the end users because of transmission losses.

Long distance power transmission isn't that big a problem. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC

China, for example, has a 3GW 940km line from the Three Gorges dam to Guangdong. Similiarly, power from the 35GW (no typo - 3.5e10W) Hydro Quebec is shipped to much of the northeastern US.

I see the point you are making, but I mean that only nuclear power has the capacity to actually replace the fossil fuel use of today along with the increases in energy consumption that are certain to occur in the next 50 years.

I think you are mistaken "projected, based on invalid ceteris paribus assumptions" for "certain".

Absent something being effectively done about several environmental crises resulting from current unsustainable economic practices, the current trend of population and economic growth that is driving energy use projections may well come to a catastrophic end within the next 50 years.

Global warming is one of these, but not the only one: crises in fresh water supplies, exhaustion of minable phosphates used in fertilizers are also part of the mix: all three directly threaten (among other things) agriculture and the ability to feed people.

The best thing we could do right now with our power is to put it towards the Millennium Development Goals. I think that addresssing these 8 huge goals would earn worldwide respect and bring about an amazing outcome. Ending world hunger and extreme poverty, universal education, vaccines for preventable diseases ie TB, Malaria and finding cures to HIV/AIDS, not to mention promoting sustainable development, etc. If we put our political will towards these ends, the world would be safer, more stable, more economically powerful, and environmentally friendly. The Borgen Project is working towards achieving these goals by encouraging our leaders to take action!

Quite right the Senate never voted directly on the bill.

Kyoto isn't a bill.

And you know why. Because they took a sense of the senate vote BEFORE Clinton signed it and voted down the version he signed by 95-0.

No, that's not true either. They voted a generic sense of the Senate vote against any environmental treaty with certain economic costs. While, no doubt, the belief of some Senators that Kyoto would have such costs was part of the reason they voted for it, its quite clear that the opponents of the Kyoto process pushed for that kind of vote as a propaganda effort to taint Kyoto with the impression that it would have those costs without actually having a debate and vote on Kyoto per se, where people on the other side would vote on the merits of Kyoto, rather than on the strawman of "environment vs. economy".

Yancey Ward,

As of September, 2006, the United States obtains 19% of our electricity from nuclear reactors -- France obtains 79% by comparison -- yet there is only ONE nuclear reactor under construction in the U.S. and TWO in the planning stage. China is building FIVE currently, with THIRTEEN more in the planning stage:

http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm

rdw: We know junk science when we see it. This is total nonsense just as anything led by Al gore would have to be.

Shhh. Don't tell Big John.

Chuck: the United States obtains 19% of our electricity from nuclear reactors -- France obtains 79% by comparison -- yet there is only ONE nuclear reactor under construction in the U.S. and TWO in the planning stage. China is building FIVE currently, with THIRTEEN more in the planning stage

And what else do France and China have in common? Oh right, state owned power companies!

Parsing the history and terms of Kyoto is not really the point. The point is that the Bush administration has completely abandoned any U.S. moral, scientific,or economic leadership on climate change. In effect,we told the world to stuff it and took our ball and went home.

We've chosen to accept not an iota of reduction in our personal pleasure and convenience, even in the face of a serious threat to the well-being of all the generations that come after us. It's a pathetic performance, and we should be damned ashamed of ourselves.

And what else do France and China have in common? Oh right, state owned power companies! Posted by: alex

Lucky bastards!

In case anyone is interested, the originals of the Stern Review report can be found here.

Wow, do you mean that some Publican Senators voted for Kyoto before they voted against it.

Hmmmmm, there is a word for that, is there not?

state owned power companies!

Many electric utility companies are owned by the communities they serve.

How about a war on global warming? I won't believe it is a crucial issue until some greenhouse-gas-producing country gets invaded.

cmdicely,

Ok, using the assumption that the population of the planet actually starts falling due to some catastrophe, then, yes, we may not need nuclear at all. Indeed, we may not even have to worry about alternatives at all since the fossil fuels used may not then add net CO2 to the atmosphere.
However, in making a realistic assessment of what energy is going to be needed going forward, one must discount such scenarios you outlined, including the scenario of our using less energy going forward

The history of our age tells us that energy consumption goes up on a per capita basis, even with increases in efficiency. With a lot of the developing world's industrialization and advancement, it is a near certainty that, in 2050, total energy usage will be much higher than today. I don't doubt that solar and wind power will contribute to the production, but it is unrealistic to expect them to even supply even the actual increases in usage.

. . . exhaustion of minable phosphates used in fertilizers are also part of the mix: Posted by: cmdicely

Are you kidding? This, along with decline of petroleum derived fertilizers, would be one of the best things that could happen to the environment. Run off from both is a major, in some areas, the major source of water pollution.

In any case, the decline of phosphate based fertilizers wouldn't affect agriculture in the ever "developing world," as they can't afford them for the most part.

alex,

The HVDC transmission looks OK to me. It may be a partial solution to the siting problem of nuclear plants.

Are you kidding? This, along with decline of petroleum derived fertilizers, would be one of the best things that could happen to the environment.

Maybe in some abstract sense where the "environment" is taken as some kind of independent good unrelated to humanity.

If it happens prior to major changes (which will take significantly lead time) in agricultural practice, its going to be one of the worst things that happens to actual people, particularly (as usual) the less than wealthy kind of people, as food surprise will sharply drop and food prices compared to labor hours sharply rise.

In any case, the decline of phosphate based fertilizers wouldn't affect agriculture in the ever "developing world," as they can't afford them for the most part.

So? For the most part, the developing world isn't agriculturally self-sufficient (the parts that are are also the parts that shell outfor phosphate fertilizer because their economies are driven by agricultural exports.)

As for the supply of uranium, here is a pretty good link with references that discusses the economics of uranium along with the geologic supply. The short version of it is that uranium would not run out in 50 or ever 500 years.

That should have read "even 500 years".

I'm sure cmdicely meant "food supplies" rather than "food surprise" too.

The history of our age tells us that energy consumption goes up on a per capita basis, even with increases in efficiency. With a lot of the developing world's industrialization and advancement, it is a near certainty that, in 2050, total energy usage will be much higher than today.

With a lot of the trends in resources and the environment, its pretty clear that the current pattersn of economic development and population can not be sustained indefinitely.

Indeed, we may not even have to worry about alternatives at all since the fossil fuels used may not then add net CO2 to the atmosphere.

We certainly need to worry about alternatives if we want to reduce the risk of catastrophe, both from global warming and otherwise. What I'm saying is that part of our understanding of the response has to be not to pretend that, if we do nothing, there will be no effect on present trends that our understanding of the problems tell us are unsustainable.

However, in making a realistic assessment of what energy is going to be needed going forward, one must discount such scenarios you outlined, including the scenario of our using less energy going forward

No, see, the problem isn't that you are wrong about what we have to do in assessing "what energy is going to be needed going forward", but even earlier by taking "what energy is going to be needed going forward" as an independent determination that precedes formulating a coherent response.

What energy is going to be used depends on the response and how the crises which are already evident are managed. If we go, say, with unrestrained use of fossil fuels, we can expect several of the catastrophes resulting from unsustainable practices to be sooner and more severe than in other scenarios.

Energy use is not an independent variable, here, and the very reason we are having a discussion about alternatives to fossil fuels is that we have evidence that the present trends in development and growth are not sustainable into the future; the question has to be "what is the best we can do that is, ultimately, likely to be sustainable" (perhaps with some reliance on continuous technology increase), not "how do we continue the current trends while making things slightly more sustainable."

Wow. I haven't been here for a while--just couldn't take it anymore, not even for comdedic purposes. Say what one will, you folks don't disappoint. This might be the single most unhinged, overwrought nonsense I have ever read here, and that is saying a lot. Well, I dipped my toe in the fever swamps. Now, it's back to reality, and maybe a penicillin dose. Alas, poor Earth, I knew him well.

Maybe in some abstract sense where the "environment" is taken as some kind of independent good unrelated to humanity.

WTF? That's the germ of this thread. You can have all the humanity you'd like to have (though we have about 4 billion too much of it already), but it doesn't survive too well in the absence of clean air and water. Then again, perhaps aspiring lawyers (now there's an endangered species that would benefit all) see some disconnect between global warming and environmental stewardship.

You introduced clean water as a crucial issue. Again, in many parts of the world, developed or otherwise, poor agricultural practices, often as not linked to excessive use of chemical fertilizers, are a major part of water problems, particularly down stream as it comes to affect the health of lakes and ocean estuaries.

So? For the most part, the developing world isn't agriculturally self-sufficient (the parts that are are also the parts that shell outfor phosphate fertilizer because their economies are driven by agricultural exports.) Posted by: cmdicely

The developed world doen't need synthetic fertilizer either.

Why does mother nature hate America?

damn! Neal beat me to it!

Why does American hate me?

cmdicely,

You need to slow down just a bit. I am assuming we will do something, not "pretending we will do nothing" about the use of fossil fuels. Now the question is what can we realistically do given the trends of energy consumption, trends we must assume will continue absent the catastrophe you and others fear? In other words, it is completely unrealistic to expect energy use to decline voluntarily. I suspect that this is where we are really disagreeing.

All I am saying is that more nuclear power generation must be part of the mix, or fossil fuel use will continue to increase, until they are no longer economically viable- either due to depletion or to the predicted global warming catastrophe. As for other catastrophes due to "unsustainable" trends in resource use or population, I was not addressing those, only the issue of replacing fossil fuels to some extent- a problem for which we do have a fairly long-term and technically feasible solution at hand.

World Ends; Poor Hardest Hit

I can't decide if Kevin Drum is parody or tragedy.
Perhaps a tragi-coma-paro-dy?

WTF? That's the germ of this thread.

Yes, so? I'm not saying the thread is wrong, I was saying you were.

You can have all the humanity you'd like to have (though we have about 4 billion too much of it already), but it doesn't survive too well in the absence of clean air and water.

It also doesn't survive that well in the absence of food.

You introduced clean water as a crucial issue.

No, I mentioned the exhaustion of fresh water reserves as one of many issues. "Fresh water" and "clean water" are two different things.

Again, in many parts of the world, developed or otherwise, poor agricultural practices, often as not linked to excessive use of chemical fertilizers, are a major part of water problems, particularly down stream as it comes to affect the health of lakes and ocean estuaries.

Yes, they are. That doesn't change the fact that many of those areas wouldn't be farmable at all, or as productively, without those fertilizers. Sure, polluted water is a threat to people, so is not having food. The fact that some threats are enhanced by action that mitigates others is not new, and part of why comprehensive solutions are needed when many interlocking threats exists.

Exhaustion, or large "natural" price increases, of minable fertilizers now is not a good thing for humanity, even though would be a good thing if people would transition away from practices which used them (which would render exhaustion moot.)

The developed world doen't need synthetic fertilizer either.

That depends on your definition of "need". Yes, the developed could, and ought to anyway, spend the time and effort to change agricultural practices to not require synthetic fertilizers. Its not a free and instant transition, nor is it without negative consequences in the short run. While it would best to entirely get off synthetic fertlizers for lots of reasons, it would not be ideal for that to be compelled by severe supply shocks.

I am assuming we will do something, not "pretending we will do nothing" about the use of fossil fuels.

Nor did I make any reference to you doing so, so I don't understand what you think you are rebutting, and I especially don't understand your presentation of something that I not only did not say, but said nothing resembling, as a direct quote.

Now the question is what can we realistically do given the trends of energy consumption,

No, see, my whole argument is that that's the wrong question; if you had been paying attention to what I wrote instead of inventing things you'd like to argue against, you would be defending (or abandoning) this point, rather than merely repeating it. People will clearly consume only that energy which is produced, and (equally clearly) will consume, for all environmentally relevant purposes, all of the energy that is produced. How much, as well as how, energy is produced (and consumed) is part of the response.

trends we must assume will continue absent the catastrophe you and others fear?

If it was reasonable to assume the trends could continue, there would be no need to have this discussion.

In other words, it is completely unrealistic to expect energy use to decline voluntarily. I suspect that this is where we are really disagreeing.

I think the disagreement can be summarized thus (and these two points aren't really independent, but different ways of looking at the same thing):

1) You think that we must assume that any policy response must be constrained, first and foremost, by the requirement that it must maintain the trends whose unsustainability is the reason the debate exists in the first place, and

2) You think that we ought to eliminate courses of action as "unacceptable" prior to determining the costs and benefits of different courses of action.

As for other catastrophes due to "unsustainable" trends in resource use or population, I was not addressing those

Yes, I know you were pretending that no other constraints on present growth trends existed.

That was part of what I was saying was an error in your approach. (Note that I'm not talking about correcting them, either, but merely assuming that trends unsustainable in light of them would can and ought to continue into the future, and that our response to global warming must be constrained by concern for maintaining those trends.)

Yes, they are. That doesn't change the fact that many of those areas wouldn't be farmable at all, or as productively, without those fertilizers.

The very fact that these areas "wouldn't be farmable at all" pretty much admits that they aren't areas suitable for agriculture regardless. However, if it's simply marginal land, using synthetic chemical fertilizers makes the land even less productive in a short period of time by salinating the soil.

Marginal areas can only be made more productive through the introduction of organic matter, which can be had only in the form of composted manure or organic matter and/or growing certain crops in rotation, plowing that crop under, and then allowing the land to be fallow for a season.

While it would best to entirely get off synthetic fertlizers for lots of reasons, it would not be ideal for that to be compelled by severe supply shocks. Posted by: cmdicely

What do you think will happen in about twenty years anyway when the supply of oil begins to be severely limited?

Lefties see global warming as a threat to the world. As little as they mention islamic expansion and terrorism, I can only conclude lefties believe there is nothing to worry about. Talk about inverted priorities.

Lefties see global warming as a threat to the world. As little as they mention islamic expansion and terrorism, I can only conclude lefties believe there is nothing to worry about. Talk about inverted priorities.

Islamic expansionism? Didn't Charles Martel do something about that one?

cmdicely,

It is really tedious, at times, trying to follow the things you write and the arguments you make.

Either energy use increases in the future or it does not. The best available evidence suggests that it will. I really don't see what other policy considerations I am ignoring by stating that nuclear power will have to take a larger place in our generation of energy if we really want to reduce CO2 emissions.

M, we only got one planet. It's not like we'll have another one to migrate to if we render this one uninhabitable.

And once a system as large as the Earth moves to a different environmental equilibrium point, it's going to be very very difficult to move it back.

Well, stupidity will hurt in the long run. It looks like a lot of us are going to learn that lesson really really painfully.

Either energy use increases in the future or it does not.

Duh.

The problem, again, is that you treat the answer to whether and how much it increases as independent of policy, particularly policy choices about energy production and other responses to global warming, rather than dependent on such choices.

"And once a system as large as the Earth moves to a different environmental equilibrium point, it's going to be very very difficult to move it back."

Yes, and once a head swollen with self-importance moves so far up one's ass, it is going to be very difficult to extract it.

Billy Bob:

I didn't respond to your comment since it seemed that you were leaving. However since you still seem to be hovering around I will repeat my offer to you.

If you are able to make such strong statements you must know something about the science so please let me know what you think the strongest argument against anthropogenic global warming is.

I will note that I have made this offer several times here to others who express opinions, but when it gets down to actually defending a position they all seem to go away. Hopefully you are different.

Y.

cmdicely,

It pretty much is independent of policy, in my opinion. As I wrote before, it seems we disagree on whether or not energy use can be decreased in the future on a voluntary basis. I certainly think a range of politically feasible policies can buy time by decreasing the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, but that is all I think you can do absent a significant switchover to nuclear power generation.

I realize that you think that increasing energy consumption is unsustainable, and you may even be correct about that, but I think it pointless to even debate policies that actually try to decrease energy use on an absolute basis since such a policy would require a complete course change of civilization and a significant drop in the population.

In any case, I have travelled far enough down this particular rabbit hole. You can have the last word if you wish.

It is really tedious, at times, trying to follow the things you write and the arguments you make.
Posted by: Yancey Ward

He's in law school, what do you expect? When you cross him up his responses are usually along the line of "I didn't say that," ala Martin Short's chain-smoking character from SNL days, Nathan Thurm.

The first cigarette man.

a complete course change of civilization and a significant drop in the population.

It's coming, dudes.

I'm not going to enjoy it, and neither are you. Your (surviving) grandchildren will look back at this time and say; "You knew about finite resources in the 70's. You knew about climate change in the 80's. So, in the 90's you went on a n SUV-buying spree, and started moving into houses 3 times as big as what you needed. Thanks a lot."

Love,
Mom

It pretty much is independent of policy, in my opinion.

Then, clearly, you don't actually believe that global warming with environmental consequences exists. Clearly, though, if global warming didn't have environmental consequences that affected how many people survive and how they live, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all. You seem to be discussing the issue from a premise which implies that there is no reason to discuss the issue; given that, the rational conclusion is we don't need nuclear power, either.

As I wrote before, it seems we disagree on whether or not energy use can be decreased in the future on a voluntary basis.

If by "voluntary" you mean that no one is coerced either by their own government or by foreign actors, I don't work from the premise that any such reduction would necessarily need to be "voluntary". Of course, voluntary reductions are, all other things being equal, preferable, but the relative costs and benefits may make coercively-applied policy justified.

I realize that you think that increasing energy consumption is unsustainable, and you may even be correct about that

No, I said the current patterns of development that drive the level of increase you seem to think is inevitable are unsustainable (and, therefore, that continued increase is not only not inevitable, but in fact doomed to stop itself.)

Clearly, one expects that technological advances alone will make some average increase in consumption over time sustainable.

but I think it pointless to even debate policies that actually try to decrease energy use on an absolute basis since such a policy would require a complete course change of civilization and a significant drop in the population.

It would certainly require substantial changes to the course and pattern of development, though it wouldn't require any drop in the population (it, of course, would require one or more of a reduction in the aggregate global rate of economic growth, an increase in the rate of development of technology that promotes efficiency, or a decrease in the population.)

Further, the idea that the belief that such policies would require "a complete course change of civilization and a significant drop in the population", even if a justified belief, would warrant not considering those possibilities relies implicitly on the premise that not adopting policies in the excluded set will not also result in an involuntary "complete course change of civilization and a significant drop in the population", which I think is a hasty assumption, at best.

My belief is you examine the range of policy options and the costs and benefits associated with the choices first, and then, when you have justified evaluations of the relative sacrifices, decide what options are acceptable and what are not.

Otherwise, you risk not considering a policy because you assume it would have an unacceptable cost, and thereby end up taking a course of action that in the end results in an even worse cost.

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频

They voted a generic sense of the Senate vote against any environmental treaty with certain economic costs. While, no doubt, the belief of some Senators that Kyoto would have such costs was part of the reason they voted for it, its quite clear that the opponents of the Kyoto process pushed for that kind of vote as a propaganda effort to taint Kyoto with the impression that it would have those costs without actually having a debate and vote on Kyoto per se

Cmdicely is a total fraud.

But that's a good thing and explains one great reason why Kyoto is so routinely mocked in this country and others where there is an alternative press. We know CM is a laughable fraud.

Another reason it because Kyoto is the adsolute dumbest treaty ever negotiated but that's another issues.

The sense of the Senate vote was based on the ACTUAL treaty with the exception of minor last minute changes. Slick Willie was at and remains at his sleezy best on this measure. He signed it knowing he would NEVER submit it to the Senate. For him is was never about serious negotiations or what was best for the USA. It was always about what was best for Slick Willie.

He tours the world telling everyone, "I sighed it. I tried. I don't know what's wrong with those Americans". The worlds biggest ego requires constant attention don't you know! That's fine. The Europeans and liberals still adore him and still believe every word he says. Everyone should be loved. And it isn't like Europe matters anyway.

Chris we had our debate on Kyoto. That's why it lost 95-0. It was exposed early and often as a piece of crap. Even you must agree 95-0 is a stunning rebuke. You supporters didn't get a SINGLE VOTE. That was not accidental. That was not a misunderstanding. That was not from a lack of education. The issues were well vettedand well understood.

Think about it. We had the two greatest minds in American politics since FDR support and campaignnig for Kyoto in Bill Clinton and Al Gore. And you STILL could not get a single vote.

There may eventually be a Kyoto. But after the humiliation of current version the new one won't be anything like this one. You couldn't sell that trash a decade ago before Fox and the Blogs. You've got no chance now.

cmdicely,

How bad was it last week watching the environmental angst in the USA with the passing of the 300M mark in population? For someone like youself with memories of the start of the environmental movment and the widespread angst over passing 200M this had to be devastating.

If anything it was a celebration.

All is not lost. Consider the zero population folks. Tell me they are not the perfect affirmation of Darwins theories? People this stupid are exactly the people we need to eliminate from the gene pool and we got them to do it willingly. It's the perfect movement!

This of course also ties into your prior point about the birth rate issue being essentially 'solved'. As we know Europe, Russia, China and most of the secular world has collapsing birth rates and decreasing, or very soon to be decreasing populations. It's a fact that 150 years from now there will be at most 1/3 as many Russians, Greeks, Italians, Spanards, Germans, Japanese and 1/2 as many of another 3 dozen ethnicities.

America will of course still be growing and a veritable eden.

We know this because of your record since we pased 200M which we can all see with our own eyes. Speaking as a resident of the Delaware rive basin I know for the fact the air, water and land are dramatically cleaner now compared to 1967 or 1917 or 1867 or 1817 or 1767. The progress has been dramatic and is continuing at a rapid pace.

Imagine that. We have 50% more people since 1967 yet we're 200% cleaner.

The best part of all this is it's so obvious. There's no amount of MSM/Liberal propaganda that can change the facts we all see in front of our eyes.

I think we can agree. As a political issue the environment is useless. It is absolutely wonderful to consider the fact that Albert Gore, the worlds biggest dickhead, has come to represent the quintessential intellectual among liberals. You've got him leading this parade globally yet he'll never be anything more than a punchline in the USA. He's perfect.

BTW: Those collapsing birthrates. They are almost entirely among secularists. Darwin nailed it.

Kyoto has nothing to do with the environment, that much was exposed when such huge polluters as India, China and Mexico were exempted.

The real reasoning behind Kyoto is guilt-ridden white socialists wanting to force wealthy, mostly majority white countries (the US in particular) to give to poor, majority non-white countries. Europe is absolutely incensed that the US doesn't give more aid to Africa. The sanctions Kyoto would impose (and be administered by said poor, many of them African countries) would back door $$ to these countries.

One "minor" correction though -- I believe AL GORE signed Kyoto for the U.S. which is actually a better fit into your "punchline" point -- so perhaps Clinton tours the world telling everyone, "WE signed it"?

You under-estimate his slickness. Slick Willie tailor's his message for his audience. For the kool-aid drinkers he says he signed it. Of course you are still correct regarding Al Gore's signature but Bill reminds his audience, "He signed on MY orders". That's of course 'true' because as we know the VP has no power under the constitution.

If the audience is more mainstream America he'll tell them he didn't sign Kyoto. That's of course 'true' because that's Al Gore's signature on it not his.

We have the perfect definition of Clintonian. Bill can and will tell you he did not sign Kyoto or he did sign Kyoto and in each example know in his heart of hearts he's being 100% truthful.

It's his gift!

Europe is absolutely incensed that the US doesn't give more aid to Africa

Forget Europe. The US gives tons more aid to Africa than they and because so much of it is private it's far more effective.

Europe is in a desperate position. All they have is their voices and the only place they can speak is at the UN and within the MSM. The UN is dead. The MSM us dying. Africa is coming to France and they're setting it on fire.

Africa is coming to the USA and doing what all immigrants do. They are assimilating and succeeding. There was a great story in Philly last week about Bartram Hgh School giving the public schools it's 1st strong soccer program in over a decade. They have a core of African immigrants that not only excel at athletics but scholastically as well. They're looking forward to Division One scholarships. Only in America.

RDW: I asked you earlier to justify your comment that "We know junk science when we see it. This is total nonsense ..." (made at 12:29 above).

I am still waiting! Or can we agree that it is a statement without anything to back it up?

Regards,
Y.

Mr. Chuck and Mr. Rdw:

As global warming continues to turn arable land in Africa into desert, soon sending aid there will no longer be sufficient because Africans won't have enough water or the ability to grow their own food food. They will lack the environmental conditions to survive on their own. While the Western world has prospered greatly from industrialization, unfortunately one of the costs of our emissions has been the increasing desertification of the African continent.

Aid agencies like ours are looking for generous American volunteers like yourselves to rescue African families and take them into their homes to live with them. Keep in mind, this is different from adopting an orphan who is a child; we're talking about entire families who are in need, taking in adult men and women and their children. Our family relocation program will literally save the lives of many African people who are becoming victims of global climate change, and will help rectify the situation to which our great country has inadvertently contributed.

Mr. Chuck and Mr. Rdw, you both seem to care a lot about the plight of our poor African brothers. Would you make the noble sacrifice of having an African family come live with you, share your joys, your holidays, your family gatherings? If you have a large home or live in a wealthy area, won't you please consider taking in a family? It could be the greatest thing you ever do.

victimsofclimatechange.com

Y,

I didn't see your post but it's too bizarre to respond to anyway. We know there's no science behind the claims because studies are never cited. The grand claim is always "Scientists says" or a "a consensus of scientists" day.....
That's how you know immediately it's all crap.

It's actually become humorous.

You do know how often the NYTs and the MSM are often mocked for the common headline, "World to end tomorrow. Women and the poor harderst hit".

How's that match up with: costing between 5% and 20% of global GDP and render large parts of the planet uninhabitable with poor nations hit first and hardest.

You people mock yourselves.

If there was any real evidence Americans would be convinced. We have a competitive press however and we know the evidence cited to-date is weak and often moronic. There's a reason the US Senate knocked down Kyoto be a stunning 95 - 0.

One other point. The sky is falling tactics never work with Americans. We are optimists and doers. We don't do with big government programs. We use the market and small govt programs. Kyoto NEVER has a prayer.

Do yourself a favor and do a search on the Delaware Basin Watershed. You'll fine a nice complation of the tremendous progress and success in cleaning up the entire watershed including the Delaware bay and coastal Atlantic waters. It's cleaner that it's been in at least the last 200 years and gets cleaner every year.

The states of PA, NJ and DE have all done a fabulous job incenting private partnerships and individual land-owners to preserve open spaces forever and in providing support for reclaiming former environmental hazzards.

I live in SE PA and fish in the Delaware and Atlantic. The region is beautiful and clean. It's gets cleaner and more beautiful all the time. You can't sell, 'the sky is falling' in this environmental. It's pure nonsense.

While the Western world has prospered greatly from industrialization, unfortunately one of the costs of our emissions has been the increasing desertification of the African continent.

Except Africa was experiencing increasing desertification long before industrialization and more recent problems are of it's own making. Africa is a mess because Africans are messy. The Europeans share some blame but even that is exaggerated. Our wealth did not make them poor. They are poor because they are backward.

For someone like youself with memories of the start of the environmental movment and the widespread angst over passing 200M this had to be devastating.

I love it when you make stupid stuff up when you are making wild, unjustified assumptions pretending you know me. The start of the environmental movement and the US crossing the 200 million mark were both well before I was born.

Sure, I've made reference to events and predictions from around those times, but that is because I have knowledge gained through the magic of books. I have as much memory of the US reaching a population of 200 million as I have of the signing of the Magna Carta.

All is not lost. Consider the zero population folks.

What "zero population" folks? I know of "zero population growth" folks, but you seem to confuse a measure with its own first derivative.

Tell me they are not the perfect affirmation of Darwins theories?

Which theory, specifically?

People this stupid are exactly the people we need to eliminate from the gene pool and we got them to do it willingly.

Many ZPG advocates have kids, though there would certainly be arguably some hypocrisy if they had more than 2.

This of course also ties into your prior point about the birth rate issue being essentially 'solved'. As we know Europe, Russia, China and most of the secular world has collapsing birth rates and decreasing, or very soon to be decreasing populations.

Actually, we know that most of the developed world has dropping birth rates, and, in broad strokes, the more developed and the stronger the social safety net, the lower the birth rates; we also know that some areas have what appear to be short-term drops in rates for other reasons. This trend has been observed for quite some time, although the turn of large areas to negative natural growth is new and not as clear that it will be sustained.

It's a fact that 150 years from now there will be at most 1/3 as many Russians, Greeks, Italians, Spanards, Germans, Japanese and 1/2 as many of another 3 dozen ethnicities.

Er, no, its not a "fact". Its a foolishly naive projection of current natural growth on a straight line, even though that doesn't reflect their past history.

Imagine that. We have 50% more people since 1967 yet we're 200% cleaner.

"200% cleaner" doesn't even make sense.

BTW: Those collapsing birthrates. They are almost entirely among secularists. Darwin nailed it.

And yet, both the absolute number and the proportion of the population that are secularists keep increasing. Its too bad for your ideas that genes don't narrowly determine memes.

And yet, both the absolute number and the proportion of the population that are secularists keep increasing. Its too bad for your ideas that genes don't narrowly determine memes.

Not in America. We're doing just fine reproducing and practicing our various religions.

In Europe that's quite true although it's pretty much topped. Christianity can't shrink much further while Islam is growing quite rapidly. Meanwhile every nation in Europe is now shrinking or will start within the decade and the pace of the shrinkage will increase for the next 30 years. This we know for certain based on the birth stats of the last 30 years.

Joining Europe will be Russia, possibly in the most dire position of all, as well as Japan and China among others.

It's also true that the children of religious parents tend to be religious while the children of secularists tend to be secular. They also tend quite clearly to be quite fewer.

As far as the Zero population movement it was a great deal more than just zero growth. Many were also dedicated to having NO kids. Having just two was a good place to start but given the dire state of Mother Earth the elites had to show the way by offsetting those having more than two by having less than two.

A very minor point of fact is the replacement rate isn't 2.0 but 2.1. A far more important point of fact is no society with a birth rate below 1.4 is known to have survived long. Spain, Italy and Greece are 3 of 3 dozen below 1.4. They've shown no sign of reversing trends either. Expectations of a return to 2.1 are baseless and probably too little too late.

What "zero population" folks? I know of "zero population growth" folks, but you seem to confuse a measure with its own first derivative.

Tell me they are not the perfect affirmation of Darwins theories?
Which theory, specifically?

Survival of the fittest. The gene pool improves if the dumbest among us volunteer to keep their genes from further polluting the pool. The next generation will by definition be more intelligent. Anyone dumb enough to believe in this crap should not pass their genes on.

However, when a population achieves replacement-level fertility, that population will continue to grow for several generations, approximately 50 to 200 years.

Much depends on what happens when the rate hits 2.1. The above is true only if the birth rate stabilizes at 2.1 for an extended period. In the European, Russian, Japanese example this is not true. Rates dropped below 2.1 30 years ago and continued to drop. There is no evidence Birth rates have yet to stabilize in any of those nations with rates below 1.8 and there's much evidence the rates for ethnic Europeans in each state are actually lower when the birth data for immigrants is removed from the data.

Spain, Italy and Greece are facing disasters. There is no example of a culture surviving with birthrates below 1.4 and they are below 1.2 and still falling.

we also know that some areas have what appear to be short-term drops in rates for other reasons.

There is no suggestion these are short term drops. Nor is there yet a suggestion the drops have stabilized. We have further to drop as Norther Europe catches up with Southern Europe.

speaking of dumb, I find it interesting when people who aren't intelligent enough to write any real analysis or contribute to the conversation just post huge chunks of text from wikipedia.

That's genius!

Imagine that. We have 50% more people since 1967 yet we're 200% cleaner.

"200% cleaner" doesn't even make sense.

Ok, there's no way to quantify as the experience varies. We know from the data collected in the Delaware watershed fish counts are up dramatically, oxygen levels are up dramatically and pollutants are down dramatically and we're getting better at managing the process.

The point I was making, we are dramatically better off environmentally since increasing our population by 50%, destoys all arguments regarding sustainability. One has to be a fool to try making it.

and we're getting better at managing the process.

by hugely regulating the waste and emissions from the industries along the river -- just like Kyoto would do!

not only do environmental regulations work, they rock! businesses don't go bankrupt, repubs still have money -- that's big of you to give the environementall movement it's due, buddy! expect a thnak you card from the Sierra club in the mail.

thank you and good night everybody, you've been fantastic!

RDW: That is a new approach! Instead of denying that there is no anthropogenic global warming, deny that there are no papers that show there is anthropogenic global warming. Rather timely as well since Pieser has just admited that in fact he was able to find no papers that challenge the view that anthropogenic factors are causing the warming.

However looking at some specific papers, here are some that I find interesting.

1) Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
In this paper they measured the additional IR radiation caused by additional CO2.

2) Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States
A look at what climate change could bring to the west.

2) Solar variability and climate
change: is there a link?
A look at solar influence on climate.

There are three papers from different areas of science, each contributing a part to the whole. I am interested to see why they either a) do not exist as you seem to think or b) are not valid.

Y.

by hugely regulating the waste and emissions from the industries along the river -- just like Kyoto would do!

We've been regulating river wastes since at least the 60's and Kyoto has zero to do with it. Where Kyoto have been an advantage is companies became aware there would never be a threat from Kyoto in China, India, Brazil or anywhere in the 3rd world and manufacturing migrated at an accelerated pace from the USA overseas.

Another very significant improvement has resulted in better management of residential wastes which in the past were often dumped directly into streams, rivers, coastal waters, etc., without treatment. Now these wastes are processed and actually often reused as fertilizer and or strip mine reclamation. None of this has zero to do with Kyoto.

USA manufacturing was already migrating to the 3rd world. Kyoto merely accelerated the process. America is clearner because Americans believe in leaving the land cleaner than they found it and once we set out minds to it we excel at everything we do.

I enjoy fishing off the Jersey coast and the improvements in less than 3 decades have been stunning. The water quality of the heavily traffic'd Delaware River is the best it's been in 200 years with 96% of the river maintaining high oxygen levels year round. The remaining 4% is naturally brackish water serving it's own environmental niche. Virtually all fish species have multiplied with the most significant remaining barrier being not water quality but dams designed for flood control.

Again, if you want an uplifting website visit the official Delaware River Watershed site to read about and see the tremendous progress made so far and what's to come. In fact the state of PA also has a great site tracking the health of our forests. If you didn't know they are about to reintroduce disease resistant species of the famous Elm's and Chestnut trees previously all but wiped out by blights.

Regarding each of these trees there are numerous test sites (40+) spread thought the state with saplings now up to 10 years old. Should they continue to prove their resistance they would quickly be reintroduced in large numbers throughtout the Northest improving the diversity and health of our forest which are now larger than at anytime in the last 200 years.

You've got to agree. America works. With our great wealth and seemingly limitless ability to innovate we find solutions Europeans can only dream about. Everything gets better all the time.

That is a new approach! Instead of denying that there is no anthropogenic global warming,

I have not denied there is warming nor have I denied there are countless papers on the subject. What I will deny that what we have come to know as GW, man-made GW, is crap and the vast amount of studies are also crap in that they do not prove what people like you say they prove. At a minimum Al Gore is a moron and totally full of crap.

The more important point of which I am far more certain is that Kyoto was and is a total disaster and it make the problem far worse than it had to be. Forget GW for the sake of this discussion and lets agree we should be as clean as possible and strive to leave the place cleaner that we found it with cleaner air, water and land. These are goals the boy scouts have been promoting for 100 years and we should observe regardless of GW.

We have now ended up with far more manufacturing being done in the 3rd world than would otherwise have happened and the 3rd world has aggressively advertised the fact Kyoto will NEVER be observed. Thereby ensuring this trend will continue. It was an absolutely braindead treaty.

Further, Liberals and Europeans have made it so political it will NEVER be ratified in the USA. Conservatives don't want the US to even talk to the UN about it. This 'rift' is going to get much worse as it becomes clear Europe and Canada have done next to nothing about Kyoto. The only nations comnig close to the agreement were those nations already Guarranteed such as Germany which benefitted from the collapse of East German coal based manufacturing and a general shift to natural gas from Russia. These events had nothing to do with Kyoto.

There isn't a single example of a Kyoto success and this will become much clearer each year. The USA will continue to ignore Kyoto and continue to restore it's environment.

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far.

Exactly how does someone confirm a prediction BEFORE it happens. This is the kind of crap I am talking about. There's no here, here. It's nonsense.

Thank you, Y. Interesting debate in the link you gave me, which gave me a sense of context I was lacking.

Here is a link on something you may have missed on the lack of ice in "Canadian" (disputed seas) north now:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/10/31/amundsen-ice.html

I am still cautious on the issue, but the Denialists, as I see they are called, are not as sound as I thought.

rdw: I can't see any reasoning in your statement. The IPCC has indeed determined that concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing due to anthropogenic causes. Also, from satellite measurements from space they have determined that there is a change of EM radiation at the frequencies that the you would expect from increased greenhouse gases. What has not been shown before is that you can measure these changes at the ground (which is a very tricky business due to various technical reasons).

So what I see as crap is not the study but your lack of context to put the study in. Now, do you actually have anything substantive to say about the papers or can we agree that you are wrong.

Bob M: Thanks for reading the articles. In science caution and skepticism are good things so I would encourage you to review things with this mindset.

What I tend to object to are the people like rdw who feel that they are so much smarter than the scientists that they don't need to understand the science.

Also, thanks for the link. I had not read it but it is interesting for me since I spent several years working at some pretty remote sites in the arctic when I was younger.

Regards,
Y.

Cheap Flights, Hotels, Airline Tickets, Car Hire & Holiday Packages
cheap flights to sydney
cheap flights to johannesburg
cheap flights to bangkok
cheap flights to beijing
cheap flight to thailand
discounted last minute flight
cheap international flight ticket
business class flight
cheap flights new zealand
cheap poland flight
cheap flights to dubai
cheap flights to prague
cheap flights to russia
cheap flights to japan
cheap flights to china
cheap flights thailand
cheap flights to riga
cheap flights to johannesburg
cheap flights to romania
Robots Cheep Flights
Robots Airline Flights
flights to anywhere
manali travel

Recepies Recipes Collection
Recipes Cookbook Holiday Recipes Crock Pot Recipes
Crock Pot recepies Chicken recepies Slow Cooker recepies
pork chop chicken dinner cookie recepies
Recipies Cookbooks Recipes Cookbooks
seafood chili thanksgiving recipies Cookbooks
meatloaf recipie salsa tapas pot roast recepies

The IPCC has indeed determined that concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing due to anthropogenic causes

They've done no such thing. They have tons of these useless studies which showed something happened and then we saw soem warming. There's never a connection between the two events. Quite often the attempted connections have been proven silly.

This is the problem now with the entire conversation. There are no minds to be made up. Some people will believe anything a labcoat says. Some people won't believe anything a labcoat says, especially on this subject where there's been too much junk science. Because the topic is so heavily funded by Govt money and GW is so PC no scientist working in this field can make a living unless they support GW.

They're tainted. They're not working to understanf the climate. They're working to prove GW and we all know it. Thus they're by definition totally compromised and cannot be relied on.

You have this bizarre conundrum of your own making. You've got tremendous funding going into GW rather than practical research to prove something no one save the Al Gore flakes will ever believe. Worse is it can never lead to anything. The goal of this Liberal-European consortium is the creation of a global monolith under their control to 'manage' all climate issues.

This obviously goes against everything sane Americans believe. Kyoto was dead the day it was 1st mentioned. Americans believe in the Boy Scouts. Each of us has to work to make the place cleaner than we found it. Fortunately America has the wealth and intelligence to make major progress quickly. All those predicting doom in the 60s' and 70's have been provem to be fools. That was the theme of the coverage of passing 300M and the look back to 200M in 1967.

The scaremongers got everything wrong, every single thing! Thanks to conservatives and our use of private-public partnerships amazing progress has been made and the systems are in place to continue the improvements. As usual, Europe lags very far behind as it always will.

Just another example of how well this works was detailed in the WSJ a few months back. Unfortunatly I cannot remember his name but a wealthy hedge fund manager, single and without heirs, looking for a place to 'invest' his fortune, decided against a large contribution to his Ivy League alma mater. He is instead forming a $1B trust designed to improve the eco-system in his native Michigan hear the great lakes. Equally important is he will be an active manager of the project research and investing in cost effective ways to improve the environment and buy up land, or better yet, the development rights of private lands. With $1B he'll be setting aside a lot of land.

The problem in Europe is they are so dependent on the Govt to do things for them these types of efforts are impossible. In addition they are very poor wealth creators. There will never be a European Equivalent of Bill Gates. Branson may do good things but it's far more likely most of his contributions will go toward supporting bureaucracy and we'll never see much of his investment.

The results in the USA are obvious every day. We have very clean air and water. Where I live in S.E. PA I can take a drive and be in horse country in 10 minutes and know huge parcels have been converted into conservatories for tax breaks and will be horse farms forever. The Duponts, Strawbridges, Dorrances and a great many other old money families with huge estates have made similar 'investments' while new money has been doing the same.

America works my friend. I know you want to save the world but you are going to have to move to Europe and sell them on real capitalism to do so. You don't need to tell them the sky is falling. They're already there. Just convince them to become boy scouts. Make their place cleaner than they found it.

Actually you should move to China. I understand they are literally starting choke on their air. That's the result of Kyoto. It's your fault. You fix it. You can eye my wallet all you want but it isn't happening.

What I tend to object to are the people like rdw who feel that they are so much smarter than the scientists that they don't need to understand the science.

I don't think I'm smarter than the scientists. I do think the scientists regularly make more claims than their data can actually support. When they say they've proven GW they are liars. They are stating opinion. It may be a well educated opinion but such opinions have been very wrong in the past with a surprising level of frequency.

I will give them a slight break because they have little choice due to the politicalization of GW. If they want to make a living they have no choice but to believe in GW. They simply will not get grant money otherwise. The system is simply too corrupt. The science simply does not matter.

I have made countless attempts to follwo th studies only to find out those 'selling' a theory are usually no different than those selling a house. They don't explain the holes and so often they are glaring. For example most people are under the impression good temperature data exists going back 1,000 years and that's total nonsense. The kind of temperature changes they are trying to meaure, i.e. 1/10 a degree, they can't go back 100 years. This is a house of cards.

This has become the famous 'boy who cried wolf once too often' scenario. I don't listen to the sciencist because they have no choice if they want to make a living and because what they say doesn't matter. Americans ARE already leading the world in cleaning our environment.

y

checkout the 10/31 WSJ page A6 for the stats on emissions. The USA is at 1.3% increases versus 2.4% forthe EU. The USA also had double the economic growth.

Anyway you look at it Kyoto has been a disaster. Americans would never trust the UN to manage anything important. After this debacle they never will.

Rdw: thanks for the reply. However I am afraid it shows that you do not have a firm grasp of the underlying science. In response to

The IPCC has indeed determined that concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing due to anthropogenic causes

You said:

They've done no such thing. They have tons of these useless studies which showed something happened and then we saw soem warming. There's never a connection between the two events. Quite often the attempted connections have been proven silly.

I am unclear here. The IPCC has indeed shown that the current increases in CO2 are anthropogenic. This is clear cut. You can use C14 studies or a simple mass balance but in either case we are the cause for the increase. However the rest of your paragraph addresses a point not raised there – the connection between greenhouse gases and increased warming.
Again we can look at some basic science and we see that CO2 will absorb infrared radiation and it will also emit the same. This is shown both in laboratory experiments as well as theory and has not been questioned for 150 years. SO the connection between the two is actually very solid.
You go on to dismiss a lot of the science with a wave of the hand. I challenge you on this. Instead of making vague insinuations and producing circular logic (They're tainted... Thus they're by definition totally compromised and cannot be relied on) please provide some concrete examples to back up your hypothesis. After all this is the very foundation of science and if you can’t, some might think you were attempting to sound scientific in an attempt to push a political position.

rdw:

I don't think I'm smarter than the scientists. I do think the scientists regularly make more claims than their data can actually support.

Great show your work. If you can then you can get published in the academic world.

When they say they've proven GW they are liars. They are stating opinion.

Go back to the papers and read what the scientists actually say. Then you can argue with it. Do not take what the media say they said and what they said to be the same.

If they want to make a living they have no choice but to believe in GW. They simply will not get grant money otherwise.

With the exceptions of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Michaels, McKitrick of course.

Y.

Y,

I made several points and all went completely past you.

1. The 'scientist' lost credibility a long time ago because they have made too many claims of proof that could not be supported by the data. In my case I am going back more than 15 years. I just don't pay attention anymore. That's not a political reaction. That's a reaction to a lifetime of scientific quackery and the total lack of standards within the community. Anyone can call themselves a scientist.

2. The end 'game' of the GW crowd is Kyoto. Kyoto is pathetic. Believe me when I say this is the worst treaty ever negotiated in the history of man. This was purely political document that has been a disaster in every way. If this problem is as bad as you suggest congrats for making it much worse.

3. The USA, not part of Kyoto, is doing a better job than virtually EVERY member of Kyoto and will continue to do a better job. As mentioned above in the WSJ clip USA emissions are growing at a much slower rate than the EU DESPITE much faster economic growth.

4. As a summary statement note the USA has made a commitment toward cleaner everything and it moving extremely quickly toward a very healthy eco-system. Every aspect of American ecology is improving and will continue to do so. The EU will never be able to repair itself as effectively as quickly as the USA.

rdw: the comments did not go past me but were strawmen set up by yourself. If you read back through my posts you will notice I never once said anything about Kyoto. That is because Kyoto is a political document and as such does not really have a correct answer - as opposed to science which does have one correct answer.

What I have done - repeatedly - is to show that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is solid. I have done this through a number of papers and basic science. In response you have made accusations that are not based on science but a feeling that you are right and they are wrong. Let me say again, if there are flaws in the science then expose them.

Simply put the basis of AGW is
1) that humans are causing CO2 levels to rise
2) that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
If you wish to argue the science then one of these points must be wrong, which one?

Y,

If you want to argue science with someone find a science blog. This is a political blog. The only reason to even discuss the science of GW is to debate Kyoto or alternatives.

I lost interest in the actual science because it's also now totally political which is to mean compromised. 95% of the scientists earn their salaries if and only if they can devise some scheme to support man-made GW. At times the crap they come out with is laughable.

I'll give you an example of an experience in my past which shaped my skepticism. In HS (1968 - 71) I had an outstanding chemistry teacher who followed the various cancer scares with some relish. Each week there was some ingredient the bg chemical companies were using to intentionally poison us for profits. Or so libs thought. He always made it a point to look at the raw data and it was almost always bizarre. Cyclamates were banned for number of years based on an egregiously stupid study.

We actually had someone visit out HS to warn us of the various dangers. During one assembly
one chemistry student asked the speaker about the data. The speaker was somewhat bemused thinking this HS Kid was in over his head so he started to explain the process and the kid asked how much of the sweetners were given to the lab rats. At that point the speaker knew where he was headed and knew it wasn't good. He didn't want to answer. Unfortunately the data was in materials he handed out and the kid already did some math.

They fed the lab rats an outrageous dose of the sweetner. The sheer size of which would cause tumors and other biological problems. I'm going to guess converting the dosage given to the rat to an equivalent dosage a day for a human was something like 12 cases of sweetner. In other words if we drank 12 cases of cyclamates we could expect tumors.

Needless to say the entire assembly started chuckling at the now squirming speaker and he had nothing to say. Those were egregiously rotten studies and almost ALL were wrong.

BTW: In that same vein Al Gore is a disaster for your cause. It says everything about you that this dumb ass has risen to the level of 'IntellectuaL'. The man is a complete buffoon.

BTW: I don't think the GW we are seeing is unusual or man-made. Nor do I think it is in the slightest bit dangerous. I look forward to warmer winters. What I am thrilled about is the fact America is leading the way in improving our environment. We are headed back towards Eden.

rdw: If you want to argue science with someone find a science blog.

Perhaps for a general discussion of science, but if someone makes sweeping statements like

We know junk science when we see it. This is total nonsense just as anything led by Al gore would have to be.

then I think we should follow up to see if the statements can be supported. Equally important, the science being global warming is a key prerequisite as to whether we should pursue Kyoto or not. If the science is indeed distorted as you suggest then I for one would be strongly against Kyoto. If the science is strong then that puts Kyoto in a much different light.

Many times above you have said that the science is crap. Science is about what can be established and repeated. I have established what I believe is a strong case (in the limited space available here on Kevin's blog) and I think it is telling you have not even attempted to address or support your point about the science being crap. Instead we are subject again and again to your (extremely subjective) opinion.

So, let me ask you again, what evidence do you have that supports your notion that humans are not mainly responsible for the current warming. Or if you prefer you can pick holes in my points which I would then need to defend. However this is the way science works. If you expect to be taken seriously then I suggest that you start to follow it.

By-the-way, regarding Al Gore. I don't think it is the messanger so much as the message that is important. In that regards, his documentary AIT quite sound (there are some mild science issues that I might object to over but nothing major).

Good design!
[url=http://fzgjpvyf.com/hxqi/tlbc.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://tphsihvg.com/gbcj/zqjh.html]Cool site[/url]

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

If the science is strong then that puts Kyoto in a much different light.

Actually they are two separate things. Cleaning the environment is something we all should be doing. It's one of the 1st things every boy scout had been taught long before GW ever became an issue. We all know we have a fantstically beautiful country and we all want to preserve it for our heirs.

Kyoto was/is a bonehead stupid effort to politicalize GW and create a UN monolith funded by the USA. It's a way for Europe to create jobs since their private sector can't manage to do so.

We know from the 95-0 vote in the Senate the science behind GW is pure garbage. Europe and most of the rest of the world has a Govt controlled press and they don't get balanced reports. They don't know any better. The bottom line is Conservatives and Independents don't believe in European style socialism. i.e. big govt programs to solve every problem, real or imagined.

Polls over the last 2 decades have consistently shown the environment to be a very low ranking issue in the 14 to 18 range. That's not going to change. Not only do we have a much cleaner nation but we're going to start re-allocating budget dollars as other liabilities rise. What has been a private-govt partnership will become more of a private partnership funded by large, permanently funded, private trusts. This region will be even more beautiful 100 years from now.

Virtually every horse farm in S.E PA, Northern Delaware and Northern Maryland and been either deeded to a trust or it's development rights have been sold to the state.

supports your notion that humans are not mainly responsible for the current warming.

As you know we cannot prove negatives. It's for the kool-and drinkers to prove it and they've not come close. As soon as I hear "a consensus has been reached" I Know I am dealing with a fool with zero proof. As I've already said, I can't be bothered any longer picking holes. I know how scientists work. They need to reach a certain conclusion to get Govt money. They cried wolf far too often.

As far as Al Gore he's a dick. You are probably one of those twits calling GWB dumb while adoring Albert as the worlds intellectual. That's beyond pathetic. All George Does is kick you ass in elections and get a much better GPA than Al Gore as well as get a graduate degree.
Albert is the least accomplished VP since Andrew Johnson.

BTW: A large number of serious GW folk were livid at Al for exaggerating practically everything. They knew at the time he would be mocked forever for some of his predictons. GW will never sell in the USA if it comes from libs.

rdw: again you seem to be in error. I am not talking about "cleaning the environment", I am trying to show that you have absolutely no science to back up your asertion about anthropogenic global warming. So far you have done nothing to counter this.

Again, if you have some information that can back up your position regarding global warming then lets hear it. You can go on about consensus, Kyoto and cancer but it does nothing to support your view on global warming.

rdw: you say that it is for the "kool-aid drinkers" to prove it and they haven't done so yet. So let me put forward the following again.

1) We are responsible for adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit infra red raditaion.

Taken together these two statements are enough to prove that humans are responsible for some part of the current warming. So which one do you not agree with and why.

I also appreciate the fact that you seem to think it necessary to bring in the insults (You are probably one of those twits). I might gently suggest that this does not help your scientific standing.

Also, in regards to Al Gore, again I have said nothing about the man, I do think that his documentary is essentially solid science and I know of no creditable climatologist who objects to his movie. If this is not one of those things that you "know" but actually have a reference for please link it.

This is getting weird.

Taken together these two statements are enough to prove that humans are responsible for some part of the current warming

Statment 1) is by definition an opinion. You've offered no facts.

Statement 2) is gibberish. OK, CO2 will absorb and then re-emit. So what?

As far as my scientific standing I have none. I never pretended otherwise. I am most definitely NOT a scientist. I do however have curiosity and an average brain. I can understand science when it's properly presented.

I am confident we have nor yet proven global warming is even occuring. This is my 1st and most serious problem with the issue. We do NOT have good temperature data and cannot prove we are experiencing anything unusual. Newsweek just ran an issue to do a semi mea culpa on a global cooling issue they ran in the 70's along with Time magazine.

Even if I were to grant you GW is occuring we have zero proof man is causing it or how much can be attributed to man. Most annoying are these dickheads like Al Gore suggesting we only have another 10 years before the disaster to come is irreversable. It is utterly assisine to suggest that twit or anyone else has any clue as to how long we might have. It is insulting.

Al Gore is an absolute total disaster. This could be the ultimater case of the boy who cried wolf. The vast majority of skeptics are just like me. They've seen too much junk science on this issue or on this and others and have just tuned out the chicken little's. Al Gore puts it out there hundreds of millions are going to drown because of surging sea waters.

Now lets think this thru just a little bit. I thought the increases in sea levels would be gradual over a long period. Either Al has changed that prediction or he's saying when people see the water around their toes ad then their ankles they'll be too stupid to move to higher ground.

The fact is people are going to use Al gore as the example of how deranged the 'movement' has become. The ultimate irony will be if the labcoats finally get their act together and come up with real proof and no one listens because they're sick of the hype.

I have at least shown you the siler lining. The adults in charge are concerned about cleaning the environment and we've made tremendous progress the last 3 decades and having learned so much will make even more progress the next 3 decades. America works.