Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 Next
Comments 15701 to 15750:
-
RickG at 01:35 AM on 18 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
The main thing I think needs pointing out with respect to the skeptical/denial side, is that almost entirely all of their claims come from people, blogs, media and organizations with absolutely no science background what so ever, much less that of climatology. Additionally, the science papers they criticize are based on cherry picked data or deliberate misrepresentations of what those papers actually show. Also, I would have to ask these skeptics/deniers why is it that none of the non consensus climate scientists are taking any of the 97% consensus papers and showing "specifically" their mistakes?
-
michael sweet at 21:07 PM on 17 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Alchemyst,
I was commenting in the same spirit as your post I was replying to.
Medical papers are a special case where comanies with much money to gain have gamed the system. Scientists have identified that there is a problem and are working on solving this problem.
By contrast, all the money in climate is on the denier side. Seminal papers have been reproduced many times. Arrhenius 1896 paper is still in the IPCC range and he did his calculations with a pencil. Many projections of temperature rise have been shown to be within the range of error after 30-50 years wile denier claims of flat ot cooling have been proved incorrect. Review the temperature comparisons here at SkS or at Realclimate. Jacobson has hundreds of citations that get about the same result as he did on using renewable energy. While there are undoubtedly errors in Jacobson's work, the replication of his work by so may others shows he was on the right path.
The consensus of evidence is what shows us that Climate Theory is on the correct path. Yout claim is false.
I see that as I expected, you trust experts most of the time. It is only when you do not like the result that you claim that they are always incorrect.
You inform no-one when you claim that peer reviewers do not re-do the papers they review. It is not their job. They are supposed to provide a filter to remove errors but they are not expected to be perfect. The good journels (like Science and Nature) do a pretty good job of removinng the chaff. Lower quality jourals are not as good.
Mann's hockey stick paper has been reproduced by other people using different data hundreds of times. How much replication do you need? Every global climate model (dozens of different models) makes a projection of future temperatures. That is in addition to the papers that sepecifically address the climate sensitivity by other means like comparison to past temperatures.
Replication by obtaining the same result by a different path, as has been done repeatedly in climate science, is better than re-doig the experiment. Your insistance on re-doing things over is rarely done.
Your argument is incorrect. Your claims do not withstand the slighest examination. You should apologize to the hard working scientists you have insulted.
-
nigelj at 18:00 PM on 17 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
The so called "harm the economy" issue is meaningless, and scaremongering, unless people are specific on what they mean. I haven't had time to read the links on the costs studies, but here are a couple of thoughts from a slightly different perspective, stripping it right back to first principles.
Start with a basic normally accepted definition.The economy is the way 'society' chooses to organise the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services and money. This can be paraphrased as the best use of scarce recources.
Reducing emissions doesn't really reorganise how the economy works in terms of basic decision making and systems. It might add a carbon tax, but taxes are nothing new, and its limited to one product essentially. Even Trump wants a petrol tax for road funding.
Reducing emissions has some potential to have inflationary effects, but not significantly as I talked about above. It doesn't have to add debt. However the point is, its hard to see why it would cause stability problems, like economic bubbles do.
Of course nobody thinks making the required changes comes for free. We need to cap industrial emissions and replace coal plant etcetera. But costs of all this are put at a couple % of gdp, which equates to a couple of % of our income each year, not some doubling of income tax, or massive drop in living standards. Renewable electricity is already cheaper than fossil fuels, and it creates jobs.
The point on discounting of future costs is a good point and needs to be considered.
And of course there are the costs of continuing to use fossil fuels. They harm the economy, and not just because of CO2, and they are not ultimately a sustainable resource in the way solar power is for example.
Until its all broken down like this into the component issues, we will go around in circles.
-
nigelj at 16:52 PM on 17 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Alchemyst @24
Thank's for the links etc. Interesting.
I didn't really refer to the peer review system as such. I'm just saying climate science generates a huge mountain of research, even on basic causation. It would be almost impossible for one individual to make sense of it all to see what it adds up to, and it seems only a large organisation like the IPCC or someone like the BEST organisation can do this as a team effort. And we see meta studies. None of this is ideal, but I'm mystified what the practical alternative would be.
Likewise as MS says no one individual can be expert in everything in life. I like to think I am, but I'm just not!
But regarding peer review. I have never been involved in this, but I was a quality assurance manager for a design company for a couple of years, so I know about reviewing things and writing QA systems.
I think peer review is a very good system from my general knowledge, but its only really a means to maintain quality, and weed out obvious junk science and basic errors to declutter things. It doesn't mean every paper is guaranteed100% correct. I think the correctness can only be established by how the science community responds to published science over time, so its a quite drawn out subtle kind of process to me. But it basically works well.
Of course peer review isn't perfect, and some absolute junk slips through the system sometimes. That is not good. But nothing is perfect. And it's expensive to purchase research. On the other hand, peer reeview has worked well enough for a long time, and you would need a significantly better alternative. Journals that make scientists pay are not too compelling, and this website did an article I think.
The validation system is hard to understand, looks complicated, and like its subcontracting part of the process to some person, who in turn is validated by someone else? This looks like an expensive process, and is not going to be 100% proof something is correct. However it would provide a sort of chain of documents identifying strengths and problems in a rigorous, formalised way and this is a strength.
The stealth syndromes project peer review reproducability... I think this is all good commentary.
This makes obvious sense "For all those reasons, important decisions should not be based on a single study, but need to be made on the basis of a consensus of the overall body of trustworthy studies considered as a whole."
Repoducability and easily available and full data and methods definitely needs much more emphasis.
Stealth systems what is peer review? Churchill sums it up well. Again the criticisms of peer review make sense, and I certainly think the suggestions to improve peer review largely make sense, after a quick read.
I wouldn't blame regulatory agencies too much. They are just people trying to do a job, and are governed by partisan politics, which is sometimes very hostile even to the idea of a regulatory agency. This probably warps things.
Ultimately no checking procedure will be perfect but they can certainly be very good. I think it comes down to how studies stand up over time to wider scrutiny and more information, and also having multiple studies, especially of criticaly important science. For example, the risk of saturated fats seems to have been exaggerated to some extent, and was based on a small number of rather old papers apparently. The body of research on climate change is much larger and more recent.
Yes the climate debate gets a bit personal at times unfortunately. Perhaps theres fault on both sides. However Michael Mann and other "warmists" have been viciously insulted and received death threats not so much from scientists, but from political groups etc. Anyone in his shoes would then get bad tempered sometimes, although he seems very affable.
I have my share of dark thoughts on certain people, and its also possible to be excessively polite, but I dont like debates that become highly abusive. It just becomes a shouting match.
-
Alchemyst at 12:32 PM on 17 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
michael you are offensive.
Read the Feyman quotes. My opinion is that he was the greatest scintist of his era
Also
scientists were unable to replicate the results of 47 out of 53 papers that were seminal to launching drug-discovery programs. “This is a systemic problem built on current incentives,” he said according to Nature.
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33719/title/Science-s-Reproducibility-Problem/
Sweet
In answer to your question regarding medics. I do not self diagnose but I always ask to see the test results and often ask for a second opinion. I only fly in planes that have co-pilots. It's what is known as double contingency. The systems allow it for a very good reason as a bad decision can easily be fatal. As for a second shot at filling a cavity, on that, I gernerally think that once is enough, the pain ain't worth the gain.
nigelj, you seem to give too much reverence and attribute too much power to the peer review system. It is better to have it than to have not. But it has limitations, in that it does not guarantee
that the work is reproducible, or correct, see above. The reviewers check it for grammer, style, reasoning but not specifically that the results are correct and reproducible. see https://www.springeropen.com/get-published/peer-review-process.1/ I have personal experience of stopping an already peer reviewed paper from an eminent scientist going to publication. The reasoning in the paper was correct. His results were not faked, but his conclusions had a mistake, which had only become apparent through supplemental work which we had performed at our own suggestion to strengthen his work. Upon hearing of our results he pulled the paper back. But it was only by luck through that eminent scientist talking with my collegue that these supplemental tests were performed.
2/ Peer reviewers are normally very busy and do not go to their labs and repeat the experiment, or in the case of climate reseach do not repeat the darting of polar bears or checking the thermometer readings. However there should be sufficient information available so that another researcher can reproduce the results. Please read the next ref in it you will find how long a reviewer spends on a paper. the longest time in this unscientific sample was one day whilst the researcher may well have encompassed an entire PhD project of 900 days. It can hardly do merit to the original work.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99238/how-do-people-peer-review-many-papers
3/ Having shown you the weakness of the publish and peer review process, it is still better than nothing at all. However it does have a strength. It sets out a paper with a conclusion that can be confirmed or denied by someone else skilled in the art. In reality most papers end up in the journal and get read by the apocraphal 2 and a half other researchers on a wet thursday afternoon. But sometimes someone will take the effort to properly check out the paper, which is more likeley if the guy has a genuine interest or maybe does not like the author. It is only then do we have any idea if the paper was reproducible or just bad sciencce. I hope now that you and this website will realise that Muller did the correct thing
please take the time to read these attachments and give me your opinion
https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/reproducibility-vs-peer-review/
http://stealthsyndrome.com/?p=359
http://stealthsyndrome.com/?p=2125
ps from the accounts Bohr and Einstein were always disagreeing with each others papers and trying to find holes in them. Yet both men had a deep respect for each other (and both men went out to meet the young Feynman ) and that is how scientific knowledge progresses. What I am seeing in the climate change argument is a lot of disagreement without respect.
-
nigelj at 07:23 AM on 17 February 2018New research, February 5-11, 2018
Excellent research on deconstructing denialist myths, and fascinating.
Regarding your example:
P1: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
P2: The climate is currently changing
C: The climate is currently changing through natural processesIn summary this is of course one of the most frustrating denialist arguments, because the fact that climate changed before does not mean natural causes are a driving factor today. Its logically flawed before even needing to consider the science.
However its also a frustrating argument, because I think there are other issues as well. I think this is how some denialists might see this particular myth:
P1: The climate has changed in the past.
P2: The climate is currently changing
C: Change happens all the time, so why worry?The premises are true, but it is of course a false deduction because the argument lacks sufficient information on cause, consequences, dangers, and options available to humanity to change things to draw the conclusion. Its also a form of philosophical fatalism.
Some denialists also see the myth in yet another way in my experience:
P1: The climate has changed in the past, and humanity survived.
P2: The climate is currently changing
C: So why worry?The premisese are true, but are not sufficient reasons because mere survival still had huge costs, and the past is not fully understood, and relevant to todays more complex integrated technological world with billions of people. So the premises are misleading, or have inadequate information.
This is possibly why "climate has changed before" is such a recurring and annoying myth, because it possibly combines three arguments in the one myth, all logically flawed. Its a sort of super myth.
-
jclairea at 05:15 AM on 17 February 2018News network climate reporting soared in 2017 thanks to Trump
The fact that our digital age enables people to “stay up to date” with current events strictly through outlets that do not pose a threat to their viewpoint or identity is a curious phenomenon. Theoretically, the interconnectivity that technology offers allows for diversity in coverage and opinion relating to a particular issue (e.g. https://www.allsides.com/), yet many people have constructed their own worldview and voluntarily choose to stay within its confines. For instance, according to the article’s “US Corporate News Network Climate Coverage” figure, in 2016, FOX News only discussed climate-related matters for approximately five minutes in total. This is in part due to the presidential election, and for those who view FOX News exclusively, the topic of climate change is simply irrelevant, even nonexistent within the lens by which they interpret the world. Further, I found the comparison of major news networks’ — ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and FOX — coverage of extreme weather events in 2017 in the context of climate change to be very interesting and helpful for better understanding the scope of these outlets. Luckily, climate reporting in 2017 generally increased relative to 2016; however, the corporate broadcast networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX only aired four total segments relating to natural disasters and climate change. Contrastingly, PBS continues to be an exemplar in publicly advancing climate science data, yet may face substantial reductions in federal funding in light of Trump’s proposed budget. It is critical that as conscious citizens we continue to be skeptical and inquisitive of what we hear and see on the news, pushing back against vested monetary interests that value arbitrary wealth over planetary longevity.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:46 AM on 17 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
michael sweet@77 provides a comprehensive rational assessment of NorrisM's commenting to date.
I would add that the issue neglected or deliberately ignored by NorrisM and many others is the proper consideration of the Future for humanity including the economies of the future.
NorrisM has correctly observed the problem: The development of a focus on 'Trying to get the best personal Present (Private Interest) rather than living a Good life helping Others, especially helping to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (Global Public Interest)'.
However, NorrisM fails to understand/admit that is a problem to be corrected (and many others share that failing).
The economic evaluations I have seen, including the evaluations by Stern, side-step the issue of the simple unacceptability of current day activities negatively affecting the future. They often pretend that perceived benefits today translate into eternal future benefits.
One way they do that is by comparing the 'costs today, or lost opportunities for perceptions of prosperity today, of rapidly correcting the incorrectly over-developed activities' with 'an assessment of future costs created by those incorrectly over-developed popular and profitable activities'. And things are declared to be OK as long as the evaluation shows less future costs than the current day costs of correction. That is like declaring it is OK to do something you enjoy/benefit from because you have determined that the joy/benefit you get is more than the cost/distress/annoyance you consider you have created for your neighbour.
In addition to that obviously fundamentally unfair method of evaluating acceptability:
- current day costs often get exaggerated
- future costs are limited to a few specifically identified future impacts.
- reduction of non-renewable resources is ignored, no future costs assigned for that.
- Future costs get reduced by discounting, basically saying the future is less important than the present. Note that Net-Present Value type discounting is a legitimate way to evaluate alternative investment opportunities as long as the future costs are experienced fully by the ones receiving the present day benefit. Activities that future generations do not benefit from, like the burning of non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons, can only be acceptable if there is no negative future consequence. And the simple reduction of access to buried ancient hydrocarbons is a negative impact on future generations.
The bottom line is the developed popular concepts of 'pursuits of popularity and profitability economics' are in need of significant correction.
That means significant corrective education of the general population, another item NorrisM should be able to appreciate, unless his motives are different from the Global Public Interest of ensuring that activity today minimizes the harm done to future generations of humanity and actually develops sustainable better ways of living.
-
John Hartz at 00:48 AM on 17 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
An economic reason for mitigating manamde climate change now, rather than later...
Scientists are warning us that the winter is becoming shorter. First freezes are starting later. So when I look at my children, I am even more convinced that we must take immediate and aggressive action on climate if we want their generation to learn these sports and enjoy winters in the mountains. More important, we must act quickly to preserve the culture and economies that depend on winter and snow.
A report to be released this month by the group Protect Our Winters, which I founded, shows that tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in mountain towns as our climate warms. In total, the 191,000 jobs supported by snow sports in the 2015-16 winter season generated $6.9 billion in wages, while adding $11.3 billion in economic value to the national economy.
Saving Winter Is More Than About Snow. It’s About Jobs., Opinion by Jeremy Jones, New York Times, Feb 16, 2018
-
michael sweet at 21:53 PM on 16 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
orrism,
All the peer reviewed economic reports that I have seen from the Stern report on the Ecoomics of Climate Change up to the present show without question that it is much more economic to take strong action about AGW than to wait or go slowly as you suggest. I.E. it is much more damaging to the economy to use fossil fuels than to take action about AGW.
Your claims that reducing fossil fuel use might damage the economy are simply fake news and propaganda from oil companies. Please provide a peer reviewed economic analysis that indicates there is danger of harming the economy from reducing fossil fuel use. I doubt such an analysis exxists, it is all propaganda. Everyone who actually looks at the data concludes it is more economic to change to renewables.
You are simply spamming us here since you have provided zero peer reviewed studies to support your claims that taking action about AGW will damage the economy.
I have provided you at least 8 peer reviewed analysis of renewable energy like the Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union and the Jacobson papers. All these analysis conclude it is cheaper to switch to renewable energy. They conclude jobs will increase and the economy will expand using renewables. You are simply voicing oil industry propagada. Provide peer reviewed evidece to support your absurd claims.
Moderators: Norrism has not provided any evidennce to support his repeated, wild claims. That is the defination of sloganeering. He should be required to provide citations to support his claims just like everyone else.
Your claim above about "what the climate may be in 2100" is specious. The climate will continue to change after 2100 even though the IPCC does not consider that time period. Peer reviewed economic analysis like I have cited above show that if we do not rapidly reduce fossil fuel use there is a strong likelyhood that all of civiliation will collapse. Farming in the world's breadbaskets will not be possible with 6C climate change.
Since fossil fuels will run out in 100 years or so anyway, we will be forced to use renewables in the end no matter what. Why destroy a living climate for those in the future when we can make the switch now?
Provide peer reviewed papers to support your wild claims.
-
nigelj at 19:18 PM on 16 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Norris M @75
All you have said is that the public dont all understand the economy / environment relationship, and they worry about jobs. You are stating the obvious and reinforcing the general ignorance, so what is your point and purpose?
"That means convincing the public and if you make proposals that are not practical in relation to the economy then you are just whistling against the wind in my respectful view."
What impractical proposals?
You talk and talk and never really say anything. You go in circles like a merry go around like you are paid to waste time.
-
NorrisM at 16:01 PM on 16 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 71
The environment will always be here long after man has parted this world (after listening to a few of Sam Harris podcast interviews with people knowledgeable about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) all of this talk about what the climate may be in 2100 may be a bit academic, for the human race at least).
But assuming we somehow figure out "the alignment of AGI" and we still are around, again, it comes back not to what we might think is right (the left side or the right side of the graphic), but rather as to what does the public think about this graphic? My sense is that they would point to the representation on the left of the graphic.
What the public most thinks most about are jobs, education, health care, pensions, taxes, etc etc ie. the "economy". So "harming the economy" is very relevant.
From the above, I trust you will see Phillipe Chantreau that I believe the economy is much more than just "corporate profits".
It just seems to me to be irrelevant to talk about things in a vacuum. Anything we do has to come back to convincing governments elected (in theory) by the public to take action. That means convincing the public and if you make proposals that are not practical in relation to the economy then you are just whistling against the wind in my respectful view.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:11 AM on 16 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
nigelj,
I agree that the graphics presented by scaddenp are a good representation of different potential 'worldviews'. I would add that the right presentation is the only one that can be supported by reason.
Reality is the entire physical universe (or multi-verse if verifiable observation leads to that awareness and understanding). All of that physically understandable stuff is the Environment. Within that Environment there are Living things that have developed by 'fitting into the Environment'. Within Living Things there are Humans. Humans develop a variety of societies within the totality of Humanity. And each society of humans can have a variety of economies developed within it. But any part of developed life can only continue to exist if it is a sustainable part of the Environment.
Societies are developed by the interaction of individual humans. And economic activities are a sub-set of those human interactions. Therefore, the economy is a diversity of possibilities that can develop regionally and be changed as needed.
What is needed by Humanity is a sustainable future for humanity that is constantly getting better for all of humanity. That requires the interactions between humans to be constructive and helpful to the development of a sustainable better future for humanity. That requires all of the chosen to be developed interactions of the economy to be sustainable improvements for 'all of humanity including generations into the distant future'. Another way to say that is 'all human activity needs to fit in as a sustainable part of the environment'.
That understanding leads to the need for restrictions on human activity to protect the sustaining of a robust diversity of life in the environment, things like healthy water, healthy air, healthy soil, healthy food.
Those reasonably required restrictions contradict the preferred developed beliefs of the Economy-Centric types (the people who think the Economy Governs Reality and must be Protected, or at least be allowed to compromise Society or the Environment). Like a Religion, the Economy-Centric fans require Faith when the evidence (Reality) exposes that a developed profitable and popular Economic activity is harmful to the pursuit of sustainable development benefiting all of humanity, especially the future of humanity. But Economy-Centric belief is unlike spiritual religions because almost every spiritual religion includes teachings of the need for humans to honour, respect and protect the Environment and other life.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:50 AM on 16 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"the economy can't exist without the environment."
I can't think of a more concise and accurate way to define the problem. We are on the way to discover the true cost of ecosystem services; it's not going to be pleasant. The other aspect is this: the immense majority of arguments that go the "harm the economy" route conflate "the economy" and corporate profits.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 16 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Regarding Scaddenp's nice graphic, the right hand set notation is clearly the more convincing. The economy is a subset of the environment. The environment is more important than the economy, because the economy can't exist without the environment.
New Zealand had a proposal to change the resource management act environmental legislation, to make the economy equal to the environment, more like the left hand graphic. I think Scaddenp is from NZ, so may recall how this provision was fortunately defeated. While it sounded superficially appealing, and balanced, they cannot be considered equal as well demonstrated by your graphic. (I lobbied on this issue under the name of gandalf.)
Although it is self evident that the economy is also important. Imo its always going to have to be a case of demonstrating that some economic activity does not significantly harm the environment, and the RMA has a good process for this. Although I think it could be made to operate more quickly I think in a practical sense, without qualitatively changing the process and rules. Lawyers slow it all down (sorry Norris).
Here is a bit of a personal view on the forces behind all this. The environment is effectively a combination of our home in the galaxy, and the the raw materials of the economy. The environment is a limited and finite resource. While we may eventually be able to mine asteroids, we know this will have problems and limitations, even with the most optimistic assessment of the possibilities so we cannot possibly count on this sort of thing as a given.
The environment is constantly changing for natural and man made reasons. It can be transformed in ways that are sustainable, and ways that aren't sustainable. Waste can turn the planet into a rubbish dump, or be disposed of more carefully, or we can use alternative materials.
All these things are interrelated of course.
The goal should be to maximise the time humans can exist and flourish on this planet. The environment can be conserved with a combination of sustainable development goals and appropriate rules. It also requires a voluntary and enlightened change in both personal and corporate lifestyles and values. Ultimately, and sooner rather than later, population growth must slow radically. Economic growth must slow, or change its focus.
If all this doesn't happen by design and evolution, planetary limits are likely to force things to change and population and growth to fall the hard way.
-
nigelj at 05:43 AM on 16 February 2018News network climate reporting soared in 2017 thanks to Trump
Regarding Trump pulling out of Paris, and similar matters. Imo much of what Donald Trump does is similar to internet trolling. Trolls set out to be provocative, seek attention and to cause maximum argument and disruption, and have certain personal characteritics all as below.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
I think pulling out of Paris is partly just to be deliberately disruptive for the sake of it.
You could also add self centred plundering of the environment with no care for the consequences.
-
nigelj at 05:37 AM on 16 February 2018News network climate reporting soared in 2017 thanks to Trump
My thanks to PBS, CBS, and NBC for making the effort to report the science.
Fox are just pathetic, completely asleep at the wheel. Anything that upsets their world view is ignored. This will come back to bite them and their supporters.
-
John Hartz at 04:45 AM on 16 February 2018Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer
Recommended supplemental reading:
It's misleading to ask what Earth's 'ideal temperature' is. Here's what's really important by Andrew Freedman, Mashable, Feb 14, 2018
The article is chocked full of quotes from prominent climate scientists.
-
michael sweet at 23:23 PM on 15 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Alchemyst,
I suppose you diagnose all your illnesses yourself instead of going to the doctor and fill your own cavaties also. You build your own car and pilot the airplane whe you travel.
What a stupid comment.
Moderator Response:[PS] Over the line.
-
nigelj at 15:49 PM on 15 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Alchemyst @21
Richard Muller didn't do the calculations for the global temperature record himself. He was part of a large team of scientists called the BEST project as below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
So this is not so different from other research teams, or even the IPCC in principle.
I know thats not your point, and its good to check things yourself where possible. But its not always going to be possible, because some issues are too large. So we have to have faith in other people at some level I think.
-
Alchemyst at 14:07 PM on 15 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
David Kirtley 3:55 am 14 feb
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
"I never pay attention to anything by "experts" I calculate everything myself" -Feynman
And if it was good enough for Feynman it is good enough for me. I admire Muller for calculating it himself which I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the advocates of man made climate change have not.
It then becomes an act of faith and that has been horribly wrong in the past. If you believe that you definately know the answers on a subject, then you do not not it well enough.
-
John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 15 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
nigelj: We also have this...
Trump seeks big cuts to science across agencies by Scott Waldman, E&E News, Feb 13, 2018
Luckily, the US Presidents' budget proposals are rarely, if ever, enacted as proposed. This one will be no different.
-
nigelj at 07:39 AM on 15 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Speaking of heads of organisations we have the following:
"Trump’s Science Advisor, Age 31, Has a Political Science Degree
Because Trump has not nominated someone to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Michael Kratsios is the de facto leader."Can anyonee believe the cynical, destructive, ideologically driven anti science agenda here? Political science is not a hard physical science, or even much of a science at all.
"Kratsios graduated from Princeton in 2008 with a political science degree and a focus on Hellenic studies. He previously served as chief of staff to Peter Thiel, the controversial Silicon Valley billionaire and Trump ally."
"The vacancy might reflect Trump's skepticism on climate change. If the president believes that the Senate would balk at a nominee who questions widely accepted views on climate change, he might prefer to leave the post open, said William Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University who is considered a leading candidate for the job. Happer says the Earth is experiencing a "CO2 famine."
"There is no problem from CO2," Happer said last month in an interview with E&E News (Climatewire, Jan. 25)."
You couldn't make this stuff up. If it was an idea for a fiction book or movie, it would be rejected as too implausible. But no, it's actually happening.
-
nigelj at 07:09 AM on 15 February 2018Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
Conradin Sakison @8
What you say seems quite interesting, and technically true. At that level of thinking, there's no absolute division between natural and un-natural. I would say theres no absolute division between a lot of things.
However the term natural is just a way of categorising things for convenience in discussion, so we dont have to constantly recite detailed lists. Its sort of a way of organising information. For example saying he died of natural causes saves having to go into complicated details about diseases, especially if more than one contributed to the death.
It only relies on general agreement on what fits in the category of natural versus un-natural or mad made, and this is generally not so difficult to agree on. Its not a contentious issue in the climate debate, because everyone pretty much agrees on what constitutes the group of natural causes versus human causes. Categories are useful things, even if there are sometimes no absolute divisions between categories.
I think climate denialists might respond to your idea along those lines, and I'm not sure it would be worth arguing with them. Most of them would also struggle to grasp what you are saying philosophically, because the climate denialist world view seems to crave for absolutes and clear divisions in all things. So good luck!
-
scaddenp at 06:44 AM on 15 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM - how come it is okay to harm the environment but we mustnt on any account harm the economy? Which of these is more accurate representation of reality?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:37 AM on 15 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
When considering how to respond keep the following in mind.
The issue is 'Correcting incorrect over-development to minimize the damage done to future generations'. The current globally agreed understanding, based on all the currently developed understanding of climate science, is to limit the accumulated impacts of incorrect over-development to a level that has a good chance of limiting the increase of global average surface temperature to 2.0C.
Such corrections will inevitably involve 'harming' the incorrectly over-developed aspects of the global economy. And since 1987, and actually earlier than that date, there has been no valid excuse for any leader, political or economic, to actually believe otherwise (their desire to get away with behaving less responsibly, more harmfully, and try to keep popular opinion on 'their side, excusing them' is understandable, but is not excusable).
Another thing to keep in mind is that pursuing benefit from light crude is not necessarily better than trying to pursue benefit from bituminous sand deposits. In Alberta light crude extraction can involve tertiary recovery methods that involve high energy requirements, and may include 'permitted' chemical pollution, making such light crude as bad or worse than some bitumen (though totally legal because of the legal loopholes like 'permission' to pollute). And the end result of burning the final consumer products from either source is the same magnitude of problem, something that needs to be rapidly curtailed in spite of the losses that could/should be suffered by the people who gambled on benfiting that way.
-
NorrisM at 03:14 AM on 15 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 66
If you were to reduce the rate to take into account population growth during this period, I would have to agree that that level of reduction should not put the economy in trouble.
I am going to have to apologize that I am going to be out of pocket for a couple of days before we leave for an extended holiday in Mexico. Once we get there (assuming the WiFi works) I will have more time to reply to Bob Loblaw and OPOF.
All of us simply do not have the resources to analyze how seriously various steps will affect the economy. So perhaps all we can do is look to jurisdictions like Canada, Germany and Sweden and others in the European Union to see what can and cannot work without jeopardizing the economy. California should also be included in this mix. It is a little like an federal jurisdiction which allows various components to try things and see what works.
So rather than talk about theoretical percentage reductions in a vacuum I suggest that we would be better to see what these other jurisdictions have done, what has worked and what has not. All of these jurisdictions have experts who can attempt to advise them on these issues but once again they have to look over their shoulder to see if their voters are going to come along. None of us (I trust) are proposing steps ignoring the democratic polictical realities that exist at least in most of our Western civilization. With the acknowledged exception of China (nigelj), we have to respect this process when we make proposals.
Having grown up in Calgary, lived in Toronto for three years (while attending law school at UofT), and then having spent my adult life in Vancouver, I think I have a "balanced" view of what is in the interests of Canadians generally and certainly not just Alberta. My children do not live in Alberta.
-
nigelj at 18:06 PM on 14 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
If Pruitt opposes renewable energy like wind power, he is just hurting the American People, given its now cheaper than coal, as well as lower CO2 emissions, and it also causes less respiratory health problems. I don't think there can possibly be any logical argument otherwise. I dont live in America, so it's just my observation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:59 PM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM@63
"One of the big reasons our energy demand has increased is because the population of the world keeps on growing"
The growth of population is a concern. But the real problem is the continued growth of consumption of unsustainable and damaging energy by the more fortunate, the ones who can afford to get their energy more responsibly (admittedly more expensive, but everything else about their efforts to impress others is also - More Expensive) and can afford to reduce the energy they need to live decently (admittedly for no personal perception of increased grandeur relative to others).
So the answer is actions that will get more responsible behaviour from the Winners of the games people play, not a claim that limiting population growth will meaningfully correct the damage done by the development of popular and profitable but irresponsible and incorrect behaviour that is obvious to anyone who cares to see it for what it really is rather than try to excuse it.
-
scaddenp at 14:12 PM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
But on mechanism, how do you feel about governments simply banning new generation that either not carbon-free or doesnt bury all of its emission (by forests or directly)? Still lets markets decide and largely free of administration costs?
-
scaddenp at 14:08 PM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
No NorrisM, not what I am asking. You argued from Popper's incrementalism that we could only go off FF slowly. I showed the rate with which we increased, and asked were you comfortable with going down at the same rate. I didnt ask for a mechanism to bring us down by that rate.
I am asserting that if it was safe (from a Popper incrementalism viewpoint) to increase FF at that rate, then it follows that it is safe to bring them down at the same rate. Do you agree?
-
nigelj at 14:03 PM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Just to clarify I think $80 is a proper carbon price from what I have read, but $25 is a reasonable starting point. But it will need to be ramped up reasonably quickly to the proper price.
Bob Loblow those are good examples of change, or "disruptions" on the wider scale, and our psychological tendency to ignore certain ones.
Change and disruption is inevitable. I have a beautiful and expensive stereo cassette deck at home, completely superseeded by compact discs, now almost superseeded by internet services, all in less than 50 years.
I think it's best to avoid generalised, vague ideological positions that act as roadblocks to change. Its better to look at specifics and ask what organisation is best practically placed to so something, so is it government, or private business, or something else?
For example I suggest the private sector is best placed to build and also choose specific types of renewable electricity and electric transport etcetera.The government should not rule any out, unless theres an awfully strong reason.
But sometimes governments can have a role in the lines network, especially in small countries. There are pretty obvious practical reasons for this.
Personally I can see government organising a carbon tax, some subsidies for electric cars and renewable electricity etcetera (funded partly though the tax). Taxes are sometimes slow mechanisms, and a subsidy turbo charges the process, and can be funded from the tax, or cancelling fossil fuel subsidies. Put it this way taxes, and subsides work well together.
Government potentially has a role making sure the electricity market has sensible market rules and deals properly with spot pricing issues. Electricity markets are not your usual market.
Governments may also have a role in promoting forestry carbon sinks, especially because a carbon tax will not incentivise those, where emissions trading does.
-
Bob Loblaw at 13:07 PM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 57:
It seems you want to try to pin me down to a fixed number, even though you appear to be completely unwilling to tell me what you mean by such phrases as "a significant economic impact" and "massive economic impact... " That is unfortunate. It looks like yet another rhetorical trick, in which you think you gain advantage by trying to make it look as if I am unwilling to answer. I am too old to respect such debating tactics.
I will attempt to give you an answer,, once more. I have (in previous discussions) pointed to evaluations that place the social cost of carbon considerably higher than $30/tonne. I am not an economist; I accept these higher estimates as reasonable, and I think that any carbon taxes need to start small and grow over time. $30/tonne will be insufficient, and a carbon tax alone will be insufficient.
You have continued by using phrases such as "bring the economy down", "materially damage the economy", "put the economy into trouble", "industries that would immediately suffer greatly ", "a massive transfer of wealth", "out of a job", "all those direct costs you allege", etc.
If you do not realize that you are using vague, emotional triggers, then you should reflect on what you post. If you are aware of it, then shame on you.
Having lived in Alberta for a number of years (not currently), I am familiar with the role that the gas and oil industry plays in the economy there. Either consciously or unconsciously, I thnk that your thoughts are dominated by the positive role that fossil fuels play in the wealth of that province, and downplay the hugely negative role that economists forecast for the future world. That is why I see your positions here as far closer to Trump et al than you want to or are able to see.
You have also said to me "Your theory about it being "neutral" just does not make sense." Bluntly, all you seem to see is the job losses that will inevitably occur in the fossil fuel industries. Those jobs may be you (semi-retired), your friends, or loved ones. Get used to it - it will happen. I have seen three boom-bust cycles in Alberta in my adult life, and every time the general attitude in Alberta is "this boom will never end". It will, whether it is due to action on climate change or just the cycle of business, What you constantly ignore is the job opportunities and economic potential in alternative energy sources. You see costs, not benefits. You need to look more widely.
You also say "I would much rather governments stick to building the necessary infrastructure rather than making decisions for private sector." This places you squarely in the group that reject climate science and action due to political ideology. I explicitly said that I favour a carbon tax and dividend that leaves money in the proivate sector. Your statement about the public vs. private sector reminds me only too much of the ...but communism..." response that was so common in the years that I lived in Alberta.
In #56, I gave you list of historical events that I asked you to rate as "significant" or "massive" (your terms). In each of those events, people lost jobs, and parts of the economy suffered. To them, each was a bad event - most likely "significant", and quite possibly "massive". Each of those events also provided others with new opportunities and wealth. Whether you consider those events as overall good or bad depends, it seems, on whose ox gets gored.
-
NorrisM at 12:24 PM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
scaddenp @ 61
If you are asking for solutions from me beyond a reasonable level carbon tax and some infrastructure projects I have to admit that I do not have many solutions. One of the big reasons our energy demand has increased is because the population of the world keeps on growing. Birth control anyone? I think it was Prince Phillip who suggested he would like to come back in his next life as a virus and wipe out half the world. Leaving aside drastic solutions such as this, I do not really have an answer for the continuing growth of the world population let alone cutting back on fossil fuel use by a static population.
Perhaps you can suggest some specific steps beyond a carbon tax (or a much less desirable cap and trade system) which would not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Back to the comment by times24by7. It is a very complex problem.
-
scaddenp at 10:46 AM on 14 February 2018James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
If you are actually interesting in volcanic contributions to atmospheric CO2, then try
Burton, M.R., Sawyer, G.M., Granieri, D. (2013). Deep carbon emissions from volcanoes. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 75, 323–354.
and
Gerlach, T. (2011). Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide. EOS, 92(24), 201–202
-
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 14 February 2018James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
Atc - I would argue that studies on Lake Nyos disaster are of almost no relevance. From a climatic point of view, the interesting no. is how much CO2 is released on average from volcanoes and whether that is changing. Studies of a highly localized eruption like Nyos contributes almost nothing except when the context of global inventories. Papers on global inventories of CO2 from lakes are another story.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:30 AM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
You have not answered the questions I have asked. But from your comments I have a clear understanding of your position/perspective.
You are essentially arguing for only a minor reduction from a Business as Usual scenario. That would be like an RCP 7.0 or 8.0, which can only be argued for by someone who does not understand or accept the globally agreed need to 'limit total human impacts to 2.0C and an aspiration of reducing the impacts inflicted on future generations to 1.5C (significant rapid CO2 removal from the atmosphere)'.
The understanding of the reason why Business Essentially as Usual approaches that inflict minimum negative consequences to aspects of economies that over-developed in the wrong direction can not be expected to produce the required chnages/corrections was well stated in the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" which included the following blunt assessment of the unreliability of pursuit of profit and popularity to develop the required changes/corrections.
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."When President Bush Jr announced that the USA would not participate in Kyoto he proudly declared that Americans did not need to change the way they lived. That attitude has developed an unsustainable economy that needs significant correction. The required responsible correction will be a negative result from current perceptions of prosperity. But that current perception is clearly a falsehood, a Fake Economy. The perceptions of prosperity in the USA are substantially built on getting away with deliberately behaving less acceptably.
As a result, I agree that the USA leadership is unlikely to willingly choose to responsibly and fairly correct the incorrect economic over-developments. Something like carefully targeted international trade sanctions against specific USA activities are likely to need to be developed in order to get more responsible leadership behaviour from the USA (just like sanctions are required to try to get better behaviour from leadership in N. Korea and Russia).
That a once great leader towards a better future for humanity should have so significantly devolved through the past several decades is a major tragedy.
-
Atc at 06:13 AM on 14 February 2018James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
To clarify what I meant by relevance, in the carbon dioxide example. The study was on the deaths caused by carbon dioxide coming out of a lake. Would it be of interest to pursue how much carbon dioxide was coming out? How significant is it? We know it is relevant in this example; but are there other ones with not so obvious relevance? Relevance which we can’t think of right now.
-
scaddenp at 05:45 AM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
"So perhaps you should be re-visiting the answer you gave to the question asked by saddenp@33"
I agree. Interested to know.
-
Atc at 05:07 AM on 14 February 2018James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
With the AI program, we wouldn’t be searching just for climate change or global warming. We can be searching in other fields such glacier science, volcanology, oceanography, etc. So what we want is for the AI program to be looking for relevance to the topic of global warming or climate change. For instance, carbon dioxide in lakes or submarine volcanoes. They may not have a position on global warming but may be relevant. Just a thought. Don’t know if it will clarify anything or just muddy it more.
-
sparker at 04:46 AM on 14 February 2018The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation
Conrad,
I'm quite curious to see the analysis of which you speak which indicates that solar power is not dispatchable. Certainly, you can't "turn on" more solar panels to meet peak demand when there are clouds, it is night time, etc, but a robust power storage system will still allow a solar powered grid to meet demand when demand peaks. There have been notable recent advancements in solar power that now allow many solar power plants to supply the grid in much the same way as older fossil fuel or hydropower plants were able to load follow. Specifically, concentrated solar power plants use concentrated solar radiation to melt salts or other substances, which are then used to generate electricity thermally, and the molten salts are stored to meet later peaks in electricity demand.
-
Atc at 04:42 AM on 14 February 2018James Powell is wrong about the 99.99% AGW consensus
Can the survey of peer-reviewed literature be done with some kind of AI program? This way we don’t just have abstracts but the entire paper. We can do all sorts of analyses on the papers. Something like the AlphaGo but for reading research papers.
-
David Kirtley at 03:55 AM on 14 February 2018How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change
Here is another interview with Jerry Taylor in this podcast: Important, Not Important: Episode 3
Alchemyst @11 - It seems to me that Powell is appealing more to the "authority" of the peer-reviewed science rather than to any particular scientist(s). The "appeal to authority" fallacy usually involves a claim that something is true because "Great scientist x" said so; not by pointing to a consensus of scientists and the wealth of data/theory that the consensus is based upon. A good example of this fallacy (or at least the thinking which it is based on) might be: "One Muller is worth 98 Powells". ;)
-
John Hartz at 03:38 AM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
[JH] Recommended supplementary readings:
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Militarizing America's Energy Policy, Introduction by Tom Engelhardt, Article by Michael Klare, TomDispatch, Feb 11, 2018
11 takeaways from the draft UN report on a 1.5C global warming limit by Megan Darby, Climate Home News, Feb 13, 2018
Expect more 'complete surprises' from climate change: NASA's Schmidt by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald, Feb 12, 2018
-
NorrisM at 02:46 AM on 14 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
MA Rodger @ 58
I agree that it is somewhat of an over-statement to suggest that a carbon tax is the only tool but with the exception of infrastructue projects I am leery of what governments might do in their zeal to meet certain voluntarily imposed limitations on the use of fossil fuels. One of those actions is the banning of ICE in automobiles by a certain date when there is no viable alternative on the horizon (will not get into the problems I see with EVs on a massive scale).
But here is where I strongly disagree with you as to the practicality of this statement by you:
"In a AGW-mitigated world, without a breakthrough in zero-carbon energy supply, we can expect the use of energy to be much constrained."
I think we have to plan for a future where the demand for energy increases not decreases. That has been the history of the world to date and that would be a large ship to turn around. I just do not see that it is practical to assume otherwise.
-
Doug Cannon at 01:40 AM on 14 February 2018New study ‘reduces uncertainty’ for climate sensitivity
I found the IPCC reference
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm
It was in TAR. I wonder if there's an update in the 5th Assessment Report.
Moderator Response:[JH] Link activated.
-
MA Rodger at 20:18 PM on 13 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM,
Your arguing only makes sense if you believe the sole weapon at the disposal of mankind to mitigate AGW is carbon tax and further that all today's industries (presumably not including the FF industries) will be allowed to continue their present-day operations without taking a hit.
In a AGW-mitigated world, without a breakthrough in zero-carbon energy supply, we can expect the use of energy to be much constrained. So it is a simple consideration for any industry that uses vast quantities of energy to produce its deliverable. I was always amused by the grand efforts of the glass industry to make its bottles more environmentally friendly and their celebrations at achieving sub-400gm Scotch whisky bottles. This is a wonderful technological achievement. But really, unless their aim is to achieve sub-100gm, is their grand effort nought but an example of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? Unless the glass industry can reduce the energy required to make a whisky bottle to vestigial levels, there will come a day when whisky will no longer be sold in glass bottles. The same message should be understood by all other high-energy using industries.
It is unfruitful to argue over the efficacy of a particular single level of carbon tax as though it were the sole solution to AGW and then engage in a lengthy debate on the impacts of such a policy, either on today's industries or on the resulting future path of AGW.
So perhaps you should be re-visiting the answer you gave to the question asked by saddenp@33.
-
NorrisM at 16:50 PM on 13 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
Bob Loblaw @ 56
In another thread I had suggested a carbon tax of $30 because that is the level of the carbon tax in Canadian dollars that BC has had since 2012. With the exception of you, I think the other contributors above have weighed in with a number. All of these numbers make sense because governments have actually proposed them. My experience is Canada. Alberta has also recently raised its rate to $30/tonne and the federal government has proposed a carbon tax on any province that does not introduce its own by the end of 2018, starting at $10/tonne and moving to $50/tonne by 2022. Nigelj has indicated that the rate in California is around $20/tonne which ballpark matches $30/tonne in Canadian dollars.
These governments have the resources in the way of economic advice to be satisfied that such "incremental' steps will not bring the economy down and they have to look over their shoulder to make sure their voters are behind them. Whether we actually see $50 by 2022 in Canada remains to be seen but, once again, these are small steps that will not materially damage the economy. If the carbon tax is affecting things too greatly then I am sure the governments will respond. If they do not they will be thrown out of office.
But let us not kid ourselves, these rates of carbon tax have no ability whatsoever to get us to the Paris Agreement targets for 2100.
But we still do not have a number from you. If you, as well, are in this ballpark then what were you talking about when you proposed that all direct costs that could be reasonably related to fossil fuels have to be included in such a carbon tax? Was that just "theory"?
If you as well are proposing a tax around the level of everyone else on this thread, then you are right back at my point that we have to take steps that will not put the economy into trouble. Back to "incrementalism".
But I thought you were talking about $150/tonne or something like that. I can name three industries that would immediately suffer greatly would be the airlines, tourism and transportation. Your theory about it being "neutral" just does not make sense. You well appreciate that there would be a massive transfer of wealth by any simple carbon refund. I am sure the complexity of this issue is what times24by7 was referencing in part. By the time you got the carbon refund to people they would be out of a job because their employer could not price in the carbon tax to his customers.
But this is all academic if you are in the same range as everyone else.
Realistic carbon taxes are the real world way of dealing with weaning ourselves from fossil fuels.
I do not disagree with nigelj's comments regarding a mixed economy where there is some government support but I would much rather governments stick to building the necessary infrastructure rather than making decisions for private sector. Perhaps there is a need in the US for a high voltage power transmission system in the US similar to the interstate project of the US government in the latter half of the 20th century.
But again, I hate to come back to reality, but reality in the US is Donald Trump. So when it comes to the US I think we have to stick to talking about a refundable carbon tax probably imposed state by state unless the proposal supported by James Baker et al gains some traction with Republicans.
So back to my question that has not been answered, what number do you have in mind? Is it $30-50/tonne or is it $150 to $200/tonne which would "capture" all those direct costs you allege.
If you are starting at $30/tonne and then gradually increasing it over 20 years based upon what the market will bear then this is gradualism.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:37 AM on 13 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5
NorrisM @ 51:
For starters, I agree with nigelj @55 regarding how to implement a carbon tax. No specific number in mind. Start with something, observe the effects (good and bad), and increase it if benefits suggest so (but be prepared to back off if negative effects outweight the benefits).
But to respond to your "cut to the chase" challenge: you have used two terms
- "a significant economic impact"
- " massive economic impact... "
You have not defined either "significant" or "massive" in the context of economic impact. I presume that massive>significant, but you haven't even specified whether you are talking about massive benefits or massive costs, or net benefits.
Any proper "risk management" covers two areas:
- Dealing with bad $#!^ that might happen and you hope doesn't but need to have a plan for.
- Taking advantage of opportunities that open up, that you coudn't necessarily rely on happening.
As such, a massive effect could be massively good. I doubt that you are using "significant" and "massive" as good things, though.
Now, to help me calibrate your scale, could you please rate the following historical economic/societal changes and tell me where they fall on your scale: little to no effect, significant effect, or massive effect?
- The development of the steam locomotive and expansion of railways in the 1800s.
- Mass production of automobiles beginning in the early 1900s.
- Expansion of national road networks in the mid-20th century.
- Advances in airplane design and growth of the airline industry during the period 1930-1980 (picking 50 years as a nice round number).
- Advent of the microprocessor and development of personal computing devices since 1980.
- The 2008-2009 financial crisis.
If any of the above are "significant" or "massive", you you also please tell me whether you think they were beneficial, or bad?
If none of these fit your "significant" or "massive" definitions, please provide an historical example that does.
Or, you could just stop with the rhetorical flourishes.
-
chriskoz at 11:36 AM on 13 February 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6
Gavin is visiting Down Under and talking about unknown biosystem, glacial & feedbacks feedbacks we are to hit soon and we need to brace for them:
Expect more 'complete surprises' from climate change: NASA's Schmidt
Prev 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 Next
