Scientific Consensus?

[Beemer]

Thanks Pex.

That was funny Zen. Accuse me of the very thing you are doing.

I like to find the most credible sources of scientific information as possible so those that wish to debate the policies so they have the relevant information without the spin that is found in the media reports.

I don't comment on climate policy very often.

When a scientist can admit his/her mistake when shown the evidence, he/she is doing science. That's how you get to the best explanation. Scientists with differing opinions debate fiercely but the debate is based on presenting their evidence. Let the best evidence win which adds to the pool of knowledge.

Screw ideology. It gets you farther from the truth than a lie.

[Harold7]

Gee Beemer, stay away from the discussion for a few days and civility seems to vanish for some people...please Zen, good manners should always rule here.... it's fun and an interesting intellectual exercise to debate merits of the research that is ongoing in Climate Theory, but really isn't that all it is... an interesting intellectual consideration of incomplete and ever changing data and computer models that are only true until research provides a new set of data to model.

As I've stated before, in a real world sense, Climate Science and Global Warming /Climate Change Theory are irrelevant as factors in solving the problem of rising energy prices and the supply/demand issue with oil... whatever the climate is going to do, it is going to do, over the short term (lets use 50 years as a standard), if there is a climate crisis, there is no technology, no science we can use to stop it, no Climate Security Act (CSA) or global climate treaty can do anything stop it... if you completely ignore the concept of Climate Science the problem of rising energy costs and a diminishing oil supply remains unchanged, the problem is going to be the same and the solutions the same no matter what climate does.... solve the energy problem and there is no long term CO2 problem, either way the market place is the solution not government.

The question we should be asking is why do we need to create another large and permanent bureaucracy in Washington do what the marketplace already does far more efficiently and at lower cost than government ... all the CSA does is impose another layer of government on business, suck more money out of the economy to fund a bigger social welfare state and siphon off 10% to international organizations... how is the CSA going to do anything except drive energy costs higher for consumers as companies pass their tax increases on to their customers?

The marketplace is doing as it always does in response to price rising as demand out paces supply, consumer driving habits are changing, more fuel efficient vehicles are showing increased demand, investment is growing in the alternative energy technologies, so why do we need the government to interfere... to lower or reduce the impact of increasing oil prices on the economy, is government going to make it easier to build new nuclear power stations, more refinery capacity,allow domestic oil to be accessed, will our most abundant resource (coal) be used for conversion to fuel in the interim period that it takes for the alternative energy technologies to mature as cost effective alternatives?

I suspect the rush to find a government solution is the common fear of politicians... that we'll discover that we don't really need them as much as they'd have us think... anyway you look at it maybe if we didn't have so much government, we wouldn't need so much government.

[Gomer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harold7

The marketplace is doing as it always does in response to price rising as demand out paces supply, consumer driving habits are changing, more fuel efficient vehicles are showing increased demand, investment is growing in the alternative energy technologies, so why do we need the government to interfere... to lower or reduce the impact of increasing oil prices on the economy, is government going to make it easier to build new nuclear power stations, more refinery capacity,allow domestic oil to be accessed, will our most abundant resource (coal) be used for conversion to fuel in the interim period that it takes for the alternative energy technologies to mature as cost effective alternatives?

I suspect the rush to find a government solution is the common fear of politicians... that we'll discover that we don't really need them as much as they'd have us think... anyway you look at it maybe if we didn't have so much government, we wouldn't need so much government.

Market forces are going to come up with the best solution for those at the top of the pyramid, not the bottom.

Like I pointed out in another thread... there is no profit to be made in using/selling any less of anything. Big Business has ZERO interest in reducing the demand for anything. The concept of conservation doesn't stand a chance against the advertising machine. Burn it in the government furnace? Burn it in R&D into alternative energy. Invest in efforts to increase supply and production??? We ought to be investing in efforts to reduce demand and waste!!!!!

Those companies that currently suck and scrape it out of the ground leaving a wake of destruction behind them have ZERO interest in seeing any success whatsoever in efforts to harness the massive amount of energy output by the sun, the tides, and subterranean mass of the Earth. Who is going to invest in something like that that has a direct return on investment that is limited financially but an indirect benefit to society that is immeasurable? This effort is suppressed by the machinations of the entanglement of Big Business with Big Government.

They are only interested in a product they can sell for $$$$. They are not interested in harnessing the power of the sun, geothermal energy, or the savings that can be had through improvements in efficiency.

The Big $$$$ energy companies have a vested interest in selling some form of something that costs money to produce. Big $$$$ encourages people to use more to sell more. They have no problem subsidizing wasteful products and they use their $$$$ force to suppress things that might result in people using LESS (opposition of CAFE standards). That is why they buy patents to viable alternative technologies in order to sit on them (e.g. large format NiMH tech).

Big Energy is not going to come up with the best solution for society. They are going to come up with the best solution for Big Energy. They are going to come up with the solution that allows them to continue to aggregate wealth at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. They are going to flex that $$$$$ influence in our government to ensure that the solution to the alternative energy problem is the most beneficial to their bottom lines, not ours.

What is wrong with mandatory recycling?
What is wrong with mandates requiring responsible packaging?
What is wrong with laws that would allow me to shut down the pipeline of waste flowing into my mailbox every day?

The only efficiencies big business is interested in are those that are pre-consumer.

Let's not add a tax to gasoline. Let's cut Big Oils' subsidies. Let's pour $$$ into a Manhattanesque Energy Project. A real one... not one that lines the pockets of corporate interests. Let's drive home the point that we don't have enough... and that using less is the same as making more. Regardless of what our long term solution is to the energy problem, conservation is going to have to be a keystone.

[MTAtech]

Market forces behavior for self-interest not collective interest. Collectively, we have a need for clean air and clean water. However, pollution control equipment adds cost to a company's product which makes them resist taking on that burden on their own. That's where the government is useful by making rules that all the companies must adhere to.

[Harold7]

No argument from me MTA, it's a proper role for government to set standards for businesses in how they deal with the world, if government weren't setting emission and water quality standards I'd be worried, far too many corporate executives have shown a serious lack of ethics... being more interested in pumping up quarterly profits to justify giving themselves bonuses and stock options, unfortunately we treat them more like celebrities than the lying scum they really are, we just don't put enough of them in prison, too well connected I guess, with all the politicians they've bought.

Cutting and pasting the same statements you've posted earlier still doesn't make them true Gomer, there is no egalitarianism in the capitalist system, money always flows upward in a market economy because wealth creation is based on the willingness to take the risk to invest, having the disposable income to invest, not being afraid of failure and trying again... you can't raise the bottom by lowering the top, without a stable currency the people at the bottom are always going to screwed. ... somehow I get the impression that capitalism isn't your preferred economic system.

If you want to know the real villain in the story blame the federal government for massive deficits and the Federal Reserve... the people at the bottom have limited means to invest and grow wealth when the currency is being constantly devalued (you know that inflation thing) and an inflated currency creates the numbers game we're in now, the gross income for corporations and banks gets bigger (the notion that if the numbers get bigger then prosperity has occurred), but the dollars are worth less, so they (the corporations) are basically defrauding their creditors by paying off their debt with cheaper dollars and the banks have a larger number of dollars that are worth less to loan out again... if you'll check, you'll see that the wealth disparity tracks with the growth in the money supply, the inflation rate etc.

If you're really concerned about the people at the bottom , demand the the government pay off the national debt and revalue the currency, but therein lies the consequence of an inflated money supply, as you shrink the money supply to revalue the currency, you leave fewer aggregate dollars available for paying off public, private and commercial debt, can anybody say collapse of the economy, so the government, in order to fix the problem it created, is going to have to slowly payoff the national debt by reducing government spending... raising taxes just takes money out of the economy and makes it harder for all entities below the level of the federal government to service their debt.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

What is wrong with mandatory recycling?
What is wrong with mandates requiring responsible packaging?
What is wrong with laws that would allow me to shut down the pipeline of waste flowing into my mailbox every day?

Because it's a free country.

You ask for mandates, you'll get mandates all right - some you probably won't like.

I'm all for cutting oil company subsidies. It won't affect the bottom line of the oil companies, it's just a subsidy to do such and such. It such and such is turning a profit, it will continue. If not, it will be stopped.

I don't have a problem with cutting the subsidies. Why doesn't congress cut them?

[Beemer]

I was going to create a rather large comment about this so I've been sitting on the link for a few days. I've decided to just present the link instead and see where it takes us.

Some more interesting reading for you Harold that may help you with a time line if we do something about the anthropogenic forcings, namely GHG's.

If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?

Gone for the day. My motor pickle is calling me.

[Harold7]

I bookmarked the site for further reading Beemer, but a cursory reading of the article and looking at graph (a) tells me that in order to stop the growth of CO2 (the zero emission goal) in the atmosphere we have to remove all animal and plant life from the Earth to get to a zero emission state for CO2... I vote we find another option.

Apparently, according to the article, reducing CO2 emissions by 50% will only stabilize things for about a decade, so in order to stop AGW, just how extreme does the solution have to be... mandatory population reductions, reversion to a pre-industrial society, you know... turn the world into a giant agrarian commune, which leads me to wonder how the proposed Climate Security Act or a new global climate treaty along the lines of the one talked about, can do anything to stop AGW... is there any known or potential technology that can be used to reach even the 50% level of CO2 emission reduction, can the world's economy even function or survive attempts to reach that level?

The time line I see is measured in centuries for the continued increase of CO2 in the atmosphere even if a rate reduction of 50% were even possible, so unless we do lots of genocide or selective elimination of the socially undesirable and then get rid of the high tech, prosperous society we presently have there is no possibility of stopping the ice caps from melting, having sea levels rise by tens of meters, and having most of the world's species go extinct... we're doomed, doomed , doomed... oh the horror!

I'm glad I got that out of my system, I feel much better now... if you'd ever stop for a moment and consider the irrationality that is implicit in the AGW theory, that as soon as humanity appeared on the earth and human society developed, all life is inevitably doomed... as population grows and consumes resources, increases energy production and raises living standards, CO2 emissions must also necessarily increase to the point the climate will become unlivable for humans and most species and according to the IPCC data the process is irreversible for as long as humans remain on the planet and use resources.... I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than that the mere existence of humans on Earth will inevitably destroy all life.

[Beemer]

70% reduction of CO2 will start to reverse the CO2 effect. Having this done by 2050 is the goal to achieve.

The Canadian Government is aiming at a 50% reduction in air pollutants by 2015. Industry is to reduce GHG's 18% per unit of production over the next 3 years. Each year after that an added 2% reduction per unit. Reducing GHG emissions will not be a voluntary option anymore. For the first time ever, all major Canadian industrial sectors will have to respect demanding mandatory targets to reduce their GHG emissions.

Our techno species is an anomaly for the planet and apparently the planet is not setup to withstand our abuse. The planet is resilient though in that it can bounce back. I have faith in that. I also have faith in the human race that it will do the right thing even if mandatory enforcement is necessary.

[Harold7]

So let's let Canada be the proving ground for what happens to an economy and society when it tries to reach the 70% threshold... a small population such as Canada's and the relatively small economy aren't really indicative of what would happen when applied to America or any major industrial society, but I'd rather you be the guinea pig than us.. and BTW CO2 is not a pollutant no matter how much the environmental lobby tries to portray it as one.

Thanks for proving everything I've been saying about the political and social intentions of the AGW movement... from your last post:

"Our techno species is an anomaly for the planet and apparently the planet is not setup to withstand our abuse. The planet is resilient though in that it can bounce back. I have faith in that. I also have faith in the human race that it will do the right thing even if mandatory enforcement is necessary." ... so who's going to do the mandatory enforcement, there's no possibility that what you want can be achieved by the voluntary actions of individual nations, so for your solution only a global, dictatorial enforcement regime is possible.... and some called me paranoid or thought I was on drugs when I said "they mean to rule us",so whose assessment is more accurate now?

Everything in your "mandatory enforcement" scenario begs the question... where is all the money going to come from to pay for all of this, the developing world doesn't have the resources to reduce their CO2 emissions by 70%, so the it must be that the wealth of the developed world will have to be taxed away by the political entity created to do the mandatory enforcement and redistributed to the poor countries... sounds like a global progressive socialist police state to me... implicit in the concept of mandatory enforcement is the police or military power to do the enforcement... since the US military has the only global reach to enforce global mandates, will will that be their new function in the new world order... to enforce the dictates of the world government against any peoples who refuse to obey?

So re-read my last post and explain how the proposed Climate Security Act (CSA) in the US or another global climate treaty can even come close to the 70% reduction you say is the solution, from reading the CSA the primary purpose appears to be creation of a large, permanent energy bureaucracy that will use a "cap and permit" system to tax away billions from the private sector in the form of "permits" use the money for social programs and a 10% give away to international organizations... while doing nothing to slow the rate of growth of energy cost for the public... there is nothing in the CSA that will do anything to reduce energy costs in the short term (5-10 years) that the private sector isn't already in the process of doing now, there is no technology now or in the foreseeable future that can meet the energy demands of a growing economy and population unless the government allows drilling for new oil supplies, allows construction of more nuclear power plants, more refineries, allows coal to oil industries to use our most abundant resource.... all these have to be done in the interim to allow our economy to survive rising energy costs until cleaner technology matures and the energy infrastructure can make the transition.

How is the CSA going to be more efficient, more cost effective and more responsive to consumer demands than the private sector?

Humanity is not an anomaly for the planet, if you believe in evolution then we humans are the logical progression of that theory... your Gaeian (someone help with the spelling) roots are showing if you believe otherwise... we have just as much right to exist and use resources for species survival as any other living organism, we just do it better... evolution not only gives us the right as a superior species, it is a necessary consequence of the theory.