Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 Next
Comments 19551 to 19600:
-
dieharder at 13:24 PM on 23 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
No, Tom Curtis. Your graphs do not satisfy my "quibbles" — not in the slightest. What I am looking for are the "corrections" that were applied to the original data (which clearly showed a warming hiatus) in order to eliminate the warming hiatus. These data adjustments, as I stated in a previous posting, totally eliminated the warming pause and about doubled the warming rate. Now, before negating me again on this claim and being too quick to delete this posting, be advised that this was part of the introductory statement made by Zeke Hausfather on the video Recent Ocean Warming has been Underestimated. In his words, "... they increased the amounts of warming that we have experienced pretty significantly. They roughly doubled the temperature trend since 1998 compared to the old versions of the datasets." So who am I supposed to believe, you or him!?
Now from the email newsletters I get from the "denier" community along with a few online news articles about whistleblowers and NASA and NOAA fighting the Congressional investigation, I believe I have some insight as to why you can't come up with the dataset showing the adjustments that did away with the warming hiatus. NOAA simply refused to cooperate with the investigation and witheld the subpeonad email communications and scientific data. Since this was still during the Obama administration, the Whitehouse would not enforce their compliance. Therefore, the world may never know just what killed the hiatus at NOAA, and I'm supposed to accept their "data" as "overwhelming evidence with 97% consensus". — Give me a break! If this is your version of science, you can keep it!
Finally, I would like an apology from you for your statement "Rather than admit that gross error, he quibbles about the data source, and about the change in the NOAA temperature data set detailed in Karl et al (2015)." We know now that my claim was not erroneous at all. Either that or Zeke Hausfather made the same "gross error". Also, I resent your use of the term "quibbles" as it gives readers the impression that my concerns are over trivia as opposed to the primary issue of assessing the amount of global warming we are experiencing.
Moderator Response:[PS] More gross violations of policy from already banned user. No responses please.
Update - this latest incarnation now removed. Why someone who has no intention of abiding by comments policy post here is mystery.
-
nigelj at 12:15 PM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
So according to "Joe" science gets some environmental things wrong, so all environmental things must be wrong. On that basis we might as well give up on all fields of science.
Some people are just plain frustrating and childish.
-
ubrew12 at 11:27 AM on 23 May 2017Trump's Fox News deputy national security adviser fooled him with climate fake news
Fifty years ago, the Oval Office told the rest of America that Climate Change was a threat we needed to take seriously. Now Fox News can drop a faux-pamphlet into the Oval Office in-box, and they are ready to pronounce it to the rest of us as the 'new truth'? It's the same office! We heard them the first them, did they hear them? I'm certain the Science community did not change its mind, so what's going on?
Bret Stephens (he of infamy) suggested in the NY Times that the blind fear the 9/11 hijackers gave birth to grew, it enveloped Iraq and Afghanistan, and last Fall enveloped the White House. And the 'crater' they left there doesn't know Climate Change, or Climate Science, or any Science at all.
Stephens: "Maybe 2016 was the Flight 93 election... Maybe the pilots are dead. Maybe the passengers failed to storm the cockpit. Maybe the hijackers reached their target by landing on the White House after all."
-
John Hartz at 10:41 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: You state:
Haile is using a different methodology and assumptions, etc., yet the conclusions have a striking similarity to the Paul Ehrlich et al conclusions. Why is a re-hash of those failed studies and predictions any more valid?
If Haile uses a different methodology and assumptions than Erlich did, Haile's study cannot, by definition, be a rehash of Erlich's work.
-
joe - at 09:42 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
"someone once made a bad prediction, therefore all predictions are wrong". Can you show that Haile et al are using the same methodology and assumptions that have proved erroneous in the past? This would be a useful contribution to the discussion which is otherwise a bit handwavy.
Rob - True - Haile is using a different methodology and assumptions, etc., yet the conclusions have a striking similarity to the Paul Ehrlich et al conclusions. Why is a re-hash of those failed studies and predictions any more valid?
Moderator Response:[PS] Different methodologies and assumptions means that it is not a rehash. You argument remains that because it produces predictions like Ehrlich, it must be wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Demonstrating problems with Hailes method or assumption would more constructive.
-
Evan at 09:14 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Thanks for the sample HK. So in summary, you are using the same, simple logarithmic relationship that holds for CO2, even though some of the other GHGs have different behavior.
Ravenken, I hope you've learned something from this inquiry and also see why I have not yet woven CO2-eq into any of my plots. I will work on doing that in the future.
-
HK at 08:47 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
My calculation of CO2eq from the total man-made forcing in 2015 (excluding sun and volcanoes) was done like this:
Forcing relative to 1850: 2.155 w/m2 (sum of columns 2-7) Number of CO2-doublings: 2.155 / 3.96 = 0.544 Rel. increase of CO2eq since 1850: 2 0.544 = 1.458 CO2eq in 2015: 285.2 ppm x 1.458 = 415.8 ppm Same approach without aerosols and albedo, but the starting point was 3.354 w/m2.
I assumed a constant logarithmic relationship of 3.96 w/m2 per doubling of CO2, but there are probably some very minor changes over that range. The relationship between concentration and forcing for other GHGs are different because they unlike CO2 haven’t achieved band-saturation in the central part of their absorption bands. The forcings of some CFCs are almost linear to their concentrations because they are so rare compared to CO2. There is also a rather complex relationship between CH4 and N2O because their absorption bands partly overlap.
-
joe - at 08:00 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
[Rob P] How can projections for future decades be proven wrong now? The study authors used global production data from 1961–2013 to reach their conclusion.
Your comment does seem to be sloganeering (a violation of the comments policy) but if you can provide some examples/details of the prior studies you claim are wrong a genuine discussion with others can ensue.
And please note that sloganeering may result in comments being deleted.
Rob - This study is simply a variation of the numerous paul elrich predictions which have been demostratively wrong - My point and question is why does this study have any greater predictive value when it only a rehash of the multiple prior studies.
Its a fair and valid question
Moderator Response:[PS] This is still heading into "someone once made a bad prediction, therefore all predictions are wrong". Can you show that Haile et al are using the same methodology and assumptions that have proved erroneous in the past? This would be a useful contribution to the discussion which is otherwise a bit handwavy.
-
joe - at 07:54 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Or, if this isn't correct, could you explain what it is specifically that makes you question the validity of Haile et al (2017)?
What makes me question the validity of the Haile study - Its the similarity of conclusions with the Paul Ehrlich predictions, et al. Simply put, numerous studies have predicted the same and/or similar results, yet all have been wrong to date.
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 23 May 2017Trump's Fox News deputy national security adviser fooled him with climate fake news
Excellent, thorough analysis.The trouble is many people like Trump in particular are too proud to admit they were wrong, or fooled. The fate of the planet hangs on the fact many people just can't re-process information rationally, and move on.
-
Evan at 06:55 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Thanks HK for the reference. This is great. Just one clarification. I am assuming that the forcings listed in this table increase logarithmicly with CO2 concentration (assuming same relationship between CO2 concentration and ultimate warming). Because this table gives forcings, to convert back to CO2 equivalent I assume that I have to use exponential functions of the ratio of current forcings relative to the forcing at 1850, the date for which we have the reference CO2 concentration.
-
MA Rodger at 06:00 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
joe,
You ask what is different with the study-under-discussion (Haile et al 2017) that makes it valid when the pedictions of Paul Ehrlich and other doom-mongers of the past have proved to be invalid.
I would assume your question is not uniquely aimed at Haile et al (2017) but that you would likely question the validity of many other papers in an identical manner. If this assumption is correct, could you set out the characteristics of this broader work that leads you to question its validity?
Or, if this isn't correct, could you explain what it is specifically that makes you question the validity of Haile et al (2017)?
-
HK at 05:38 AM on 23 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
Evan:
This table shows how the most important forcings have changed with time.
If you add all the GHGs, tropospheric aerosols and surface albedo (TA+SA) for each year you will get a time series of man-made forcings from 1850 to 2015. Convert those numbers to "CO2-doublings" by dividing them by 3.96 (the forcing from 2 x CO2 used here) and you can calculate the CO2eq for each year relative to 1850, which had 285.2 ppm CO2 according to this table.
With this approach, I get CO2eq = 416 ppm in 2015 if aerosols and albedo are included, and 513 ppm with GHGs alone. -
Larry E at 05:06 AM on 23 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
I appreciate the dialog. Here are further thoughts.
1. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good ... a meaningful price on carbon sooner rather than later."
I see this a question of workability rather than perfection, and believe Fee & Dividend won't work out as promoted, for reasons already explained.
If a carbon price is the way to go, just put on a price but without the dividend. The Canadian federal government is moving that way with a plan that does not have a dividend: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/pan-canadian-framework.html
2. "Once implemented [fee and dividend] can be improved upon as needed."
Obviously back-sliding as well as improvement could occur. The "dividend" part of the arrangement seems to me make backsliding more likely. We need to get to zero fossil fuel carbon emissions, which means zero dividend. Early on, people will become dependent on the dividend, and won't want it cut off. Politically, that can be expected to maintain a continuing carbon "fix," a continuing addiction at some level. Alaska's permanent fund dividend (PFD) (essentially a negative tax) is an example such pressures. The state has been in a severe fiscal crisis for several years and cannot balance its budget, yet cutting back or eliminating the PFD is a political third-rail that has proven untouchable.
3. "Fee and Dividend is well worth a try as it beats not having anything (as in the U.S.) or just having something inadequate (as the ETS in the EU)."
We need a complete solution, even if it is a combination of things. If Fee & Dividend is muscled through by itself it is likely to be perceived as "the" solution and either greatly delay or block more effective measures. (Apart from the fact that I don't think F&D will perform as promoted.)
4. As said in my last comment, the target we need to hit is changing year-by-year as we have continued with high emissions. We need zero FF emissions by 2035-2040 (actually should have been by now, really) as Anderson has well demonstrated (see URL in my last comment). CCL needs to lead the target, not aim at where it appears to be or was.
-
John Hartz at 04:25 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: Unless you can precisely define what you mean by "valid" and answer the questions that I have posed, your global assertions disguised as questions are nothing more than sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. If I weren't conversing with you, I would come down hard on you as a Moderator.
-
joe - at 04:12 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
I will repeat my question - What makes this study any different from the similar & previous studies and predictions. Simply cloaking the predictions in "science" doenst make it any more valid.
-
John Hartz at 03:35 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: You state:
John - yes the study should be judged based on its one merits - yet it is basically a rehash of numerous other studies that have been proved wrong,
How did you arrive at your assertion that the paper Climate Change, Weather Extremes, and Price Risk on Global Food Supply is basically a rehash of numerous other studies that have been proved wrong?
Please list the studies that you are referring to and provide links to them. Have you personally read all of the studies that you are referring to? How do you know that these studies have been proved wrong? Please document the source(s) of your conclusions.
-
michael sweet at 03:20 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe,
And yet we have sent men to the moon and built computers. Since scientists have made many millions of predictions it is easy to find some that were incorrect. As John says, you have to evaluate this prediction on the merits of the data they provide to support their claims.
You have not even commented on the merits of the article, you just make this ad hominum claim that all scientific predictions are incorrect. Your second post is sloganeering and against the comments policy.
I will note that Ehrlich's claims were never scientific consensus. This article is not consensus yet, but there are many dangers from warming (like sea level rise and extended drought) that are.
-
joe - at 00:35 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
John - yes the study should be judged based on its one merits - yet it is basically a rehash of numerous other studies that have been proved wrong, In fact, just the opposite has occurred based on advancements in real science.
my question remains - What makes this study any more valid that all the other previous studies that have been proved wrong, such as Ehrlich frequent predictions.
Moderator Response:[Rob P] How can projections for future decades be proven wrong now? The study authors used global production data from 1961–2013 to reach their conclusion.
Your comment does seem to be sloganeering (a violation of the comments policy) but if you can provide some examples/details of the prior studies you claim are wrong a genuine discussion with others can ensue.
And please note that sloganeering may result in comments being deleted.
-
John Hartz at 00:12 AM on 23 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Joe: The study that you are referring to is cited below. It should and will be judged on its own merits.
Impact of Climate Change, Weather Extremes, and Price Risk on Global Food Supply by Mekbib G. Haile, Tesfamicheal Wossen, Kindie Tesfaye, and Joachim von Braun, Journal of Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, May 6, 2017
Abstract
We analyze the determinants of global crop production for maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans over the period 1961–2013. Using seasonal production data and price change and price volatility information at country level, as well as future climate data from 32 global circulation models, we project that climate change could reduce global crop production by 9% in the 2030s and by 23% in the 2050s. Climate change leads to 1–3% higher annual fluctuations of global crop production over the next four decades. We find strong, positive and statistically significant supply response to changing prices for all four crops. However, output price volatility, which signals risk to producers, reduces the supply of these key global agricultural staple crops—especially for wheat and maize. We find that climate change has significant adverse effects on production of the world’s key staple crops. Especially, weather extremes— in terms of shocks in both temperature and precipitation— during crop growing months have detrimental impacts on the production of the abovementioned food crops. Weather extremes also exacerbate the year-to-year fluctuations of food availability, and thus may further increase price volatility with its adverse impacts on production and poor consumers. Combating climate change using both mitigation and adaptation technologies is therefore crucial for global production and hence food security. -
joe - at 23:43 PM on 22 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Climate change, and its impacts on extreme weather and temperature swings, is projected to reduce global production of corn, wheat, rice and soybeans by 23 percent in the 2050s, according to a new analysis.
What makes this study any more valid that the the numerous studies and predictions put forth by Paul Ehrlich and others with similar predictions
-
BaerbelW at 21:28 PM on 22 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
Larry - for me this is a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Which is why I think that CCL's Carbon Fee and Dividend is well worth a try as it beats not having anything (as in the U.S.) or just having something inadequate (as the ETS in the EU). Once implemented it can be improved upon as needed. Not having anything cannot really be the best path forward in my opinion.
As mentioned in the article, I'm active with CCL in Germany and thereby Europe. So, we are having discussions of how something like and as close to Carbon Fee and Dividend could be made to work within or alongside the ETS. Overall, solutions will most likely differ per region and country, but I really hope that we'll get a meaningful price on carbon sooner rather than later. We "simply" have to stop using our shared atmosphere as a free dumping ground for our CO2 emissions.
Just my 2 cents.
-
grindupBaker at 16:16 PM on 22 May 2017Why is Greenland's ice loss accelerating?
The incorrect comment #2 RSVP and responses of John Cross both miss the most overwhelming piece of science regarding this fallacy of melting ice cooling the ocean's well-mixed layer and this is ironic because the piece ignored is the mechanism of Earth's Energy Balance and the massively overwhelming quantity of the Sun's input and Earth's cooling output to all other energy sources and sinks in the ecosphere, the very essence of "global warming" that this site and discussion everywhere is all about. The details (but unquantified) in this case are:
1) Ice melts and, lets say, spreads over a surface ocean layer of several hundred thousand square kilometres that is colder than it would have been had the ice not melted onto and into it.
2) So now (Stefan Boltzmann t**4 and all that) that ocean layer transmits less LWR up than it would have been had the ice not melted onto and into it. I should think less evaporation and sensible also.
3) None of this affects the solar radiation input so the ice melting and this spreading over a much vaster area than if it had stayed as ice mostly hidden from the Sun by other ice above simply increases Earth's energy imbalance at TOA over that ocean area. The sun warms that colder water back to whatever average temperature was the balanced average temperature for that region, as though ice had not melted and ocean surface not cooled.To put it simply, melting the ice simply spreads it out thinly over an enormous area and makes it vulnerable to the overpowering energy of the Sun, no sustained cooling occurs. That concept is a fallacy. First point of quantification is how long it takes Sun to warm 12 months of ice loss back to the prior ocean surface temperature. Obviously, if it takes the Sun 10 years, or even 2 years, to warm 12 months of ice loss back to the prior ocean surface temperature then I am incorrect and there is sustained cooling. However, I did a quick calculation a few months ago by spreading the annual Greenland ice loss over that famous Cold Blob (rather arbitrary I know) and found that it takes Sun 7 months to warm 12 months of ice loss back to the prior ocean surface temperature. Therefore there cannot be any cooling of the ocean's well-mixed layer by melting of ice at a rate less than about double the present rate. It isn't just a matter of the cooling being a tiny portion of OHC +ve anomaly, the cooling is not happening at all.
Second point of quantification is how deep the ice melt mixes. I didn't mix it at all and I only computed it for whatever depth (175 mm) matches 350 Gt / yr ice loss ans a 2,000,000 km**2 spreading area, which gives 175 mm depth of non-mixed ice water. I can see that mixing to various depths would slow the rate at which Sun re-heats it but I didn't do a selection of semple computations. Somebody might want to do that some time.
If the melt water from ice plummeted down into the thermocline in the North Atlantic where temperature is >0 degrees then I can see it cooling the ocean but I seriously doubt that fresh water does that.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:51 PM on 22 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
cosmoswarrior/coolearth/diehard appears to not like my pointing out @406 the gross error in his claim that "...the temperature history during the last two decades of the 20th century was rewritten to double the rate of temperature increase". Rather than admit that gross error, he quibbles about the data source, and about the change in the NOAA temperature data set detailed in Karl et al (2015). To deal with his quibbles, here is a comparison of raw and adjusted data in the new data set in figure 2 of Rove et al (2015):
The top panel shows the difference between prior adjusted data set, and the new adjusted data set. It is very clear that use of the new data sets make almost no difference to the trend. In the bottom panel is a comparison of the new adjusted data set to the raw data set. Post 1945 there is almost no difference, and in particular it is clear that claims that "...the temperature history during the last two decades of the 20th century was rewritten to double the rate of temperature increase" are at best massively misinformed, and at its source, a lie.
With regard to the disappearing of the "hiatus", that comes about in Karl et al (2015) not because they use a new method of adjustments, but because they use two new data sets. Specifically, they switch from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4 for marine temperatures, and from GHCNv3 to the ISTI database for land temperatures. The later represents a switch to a larger database with a more extensive coverage. It represents more data. The change in ERSST versions involves, "...updated and substantially more complete input data from the International Comprehensive Ocean–Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) release 2.5; revised empirical orthogonal teleconnections (EOTs) and EOT acceptance criterion; updated sea surface temperature (SST) quality control procedures; revised SST anomaly (SSTA) evaluation methods;
updated bias adjustments of ship SSTs using the Hadley Centre Nighttime Marine Air Temperature dataset version 2 (HadNMAT2); and buoy SST bias adjustment not previously made in v3b." It's effect on the NOAA temperature record is discussed in detail by Kevin Cowtan here. It has also been discussed by Zeke Hausfather as part of a more comprehensive discussion of the NOAA updates.Finally, the "hiatus" is not defined as a period of zero or negative trend in Global Means Surface Temperature (GMST). Rather, it is defined as a period in which the zero trend is within the error margin of the observed trend. As it happens, the long term trend has been within the error margin of the observed trend through out all periods considered to be part of the hiatus. That means, logically, there is no more reason to consider the trend to be zero than there is to consider it to have continued unabated. Indeed, given that all purported periods of the "hiatus" are parts of periods in which there is a statistically significant positive trend, there is more reason in those periods to consider them to be periods or warming rather than stasis. In short, the "hiatus" was at best only a statistical artifact such that a small change in the observed trend (approximately one standard error) over the period of the "hiatus" makes it transparently an artifact. That so small a change can make it "disappear" shows it to have been, at best, an artifact all along.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think this serial spammer is data-resistant but thanks for clarifying the matter for the benefit of other readers.
-
nigelj at 12:09 PM on 22 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Dcrickett @6, yes people are complex, but as humans we look for patterns. There's a correlation between religious fundamentalism and climate science denial. There are of course exceptions, but the question is why the correlation, and I have taken a stab at it above.
I agree it's important climate denial is looked at from various different points of view, and nothing is simply assumed. There are many reasons for climate denialism discussed on this website, and all seem compelling,so it may just be a combination of things. I would add it's an important decision whether to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and it takes time for people to mentally work this through, and all the time there is a campaign of lies against the science hanging over us as a distraction.
Doctrinaire single minded workaholics. I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the issue, but having suffered from this, and severe burnout, I'm now a fan of balance and moderation. But many great achievers are doctrinaire single minded workaholics, so is it entirely wrong? People are complex, and life is complex as well.
-
Dcrickett at 11:20 AM on 22 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
I have a grandniece who is a young-earth-believing fundamentalist Christian, a recently degreed MD, an ardent feminist and a climate activist (activism limited by demands of a medical internship).
People can be complex. I prefer complex people to doctrinaire whatevers.
Regarding climate matters, I am glad that denialism is being seriously studied from a variety of approaches. The road to Hell is paved by doctrinaire single-minded workaholics.
-
Larry E at 10:40 AM on 22 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
BaerbelW, thanks for your replies and the link to the REMI study.
1. The first part of your #16 presumes rational behavior, but it is well established that people don't behave rationally concerning consumption.
2. The second part of #16 and #17.1 regard "cap and trade," but my comment was explicitly that what we need is a "cap WITHOUT trade."
3. Regarding #17.2, a rapidly rising fee also results in rapidly rising dividends. It seems likely that the economy and behaviors will adjust to that, just as they do to other inflation. The dividend facilitates that. It is a huge gamble (at best) that this mechanism will adequately change behavior.
4. Regarding #17.3, the rebound effect should be casually dismissed. Also, I find the REMI report to be non-transparent concerning whatever assumptions (e.g. rational consumer behavior?) are inherent in it, through the three models that were employed. Also, how the economic feedbacks for both the fee and the dividend are handled for the various segments of society is critical, but is not disclosed.
5. Regarding #17.4, will the FF companies end up selling _enough_ less to solve the problem? That is a crux. It could be that they would end up selling about the same or somewhat (but not enough) less, or fall far short. From the REMI report example on gasoline prices, the 90-cent per gallon increase by the end of the first decade is relatively minor, as is the $1.80 increase after two decades. That would still leave US prices far lower than in Europe, for comparison, and the steady $10 per year increase in the CCL plan gets eaten away by inflation to a significant degree.
As a final point, the REMI study shows a 52% CO2 emissions decline (if correct) by 2035. However, the CCL plan and the study date back a few years and BAU year-on-year since then has made the climate change challenge. In looking at the remaining carbon budget for either a 1.5 or 2.0 oC increase, we need to be at essentially zero emission by 2035-2040. (See Kevin Anderson's "Laggards or Leaders" presentation, https://play.kth.se/media/28+mars/0_aej506wl, as one recent example.) Fee & Dividend doesn't get us there for this budget reason, as well as the ones above.
-
Evan at 07:46 AM on 22 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
I agree with you that CO2eq is the appropriate data to use. However, I have not been able to identify a source to use that melds all of the GHGs together into CO2eq, so for now I am using CO2. Once I identify such a source, I will update the plot in the analogy and begin using CO2eq. I don't think it will change the message, and at most make a small adjustment to the time delay. But I do agree that CO2eq is the appropriate metric to use.
Thanks for pointing this out.
-
BaerbelW at 05:23 AM on 22 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
Some more information:
1. Increased incomes can lead to increased energy use. Carbon Fee and
Dividend is designed to prevent this.2. The rapidly rising fee makes increased energy use much less likely, and pushes investment away from artificially cheap FF.
3. Modeling of 160 sectors of the US economy, cross referenced with behaviors observed historically from income and price changes, shows there is no rebound that pushes up emissions.
4. Before significant economy-wide transition sets in, some carbon-fuel companies may earn more while selling less, but they have to diversify to avoid a steep fall-off in their profits.
5. Modeling shows faster rate of emissions reductions than from any other known policy.
For a lot more information, check the REMI-study:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/So, from what I can tell, the alleged rebound effect is a myth.
-
Ravenken at 02:21 AM on 22 May 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
How come CO2eq is not used?
-
BaerbelW at 18:26 PM on 21 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
Larry E @15
CCL's FAQ about carbon fee and dividend touch on at least some of your objections:
Q: Why will citizens change to low-emissions technologies if they are given a dividend to pay for the increasing price of fossil fuels?
A: With Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation, it is clear to citizens that prices for fossil fuels will go up every year. Part of their motivation is to save as much of their dividend check as possible rather than spending it on more expensive fossil fuels. They can do this by changing over to energy efficient lighting and appliances, upgrading their insulation or windows, replacing that old oil furnace with a geothermal heat pump, etc. When it comes time to get another vehicle, they would consider one that gets better gas mileage or an all-electric vehicle. They can then buy clean electricity (where available) through their utility to charge their car, getting them off fossil fuels altogether. The motivation is to reduce cost in the years to come. The same is true for investors and for fossil fuel companies: as the fee increases, and the cost of doing business rises with it, the rising dividend will ensure that the true cost of doing business will be paid by those in that business.
Q: Why is Carbon Fee and Dividend better than Cap and Trade?
A: Cap and Trade was used by some early signers of the Kyoto Protocol, the first international treaty to address climate change. Though most early adopters tried hard to make it work, Cap and Trade was not easy to understand, energy prices swung wildly, consumers paid the whole cost of the experiment, and it was not very effective in reducing total CO2 emissions. Much of the reason for this was because of offset credits. Power providers could buy offset credits that allowed them to burn more fossil fuels, but the offset credits did not actually reduce total CO2 emissions. Carbon traders and offset investors made lots of money. Utilities and manufacturers had increased costs that were passed on to the consumer. No real reduction in CO2 was achieved and the consumer was stuck with the bill. Carbon Fee and Dividend, on the other hand, is easy for everyone to understand, it gives the end consumer 100 percent of the proceeds of the carbon fee to help pay for the transition to clean energy, there are no offset credits or carbon credits to manipulate and no one technology is singled out to win or lose. Only with inaction over several years do you become disadvantaged. With action you become more efficient and competitive. The free market picks the winning and losing technologies. Low-emissions energy and efficiency measures become cost competitive as prices rise for fossil fuels. As we transition to green technologies and green energies, CO2 emissions are reduced. Investments in green energy spur the development of innovative technologies that we export to other countries. America regains leadership in the green revolution.
Hope this helps!
-
Larry E at 17:46 PM on 21 May 2017Citizens’ Climate Lobby - Pushing for a price on carbon globally
The CCL approach at first appear seductive; however, I have concluded that it will result in more or less "business as usual" (and likely more). The tax rebate will result in a rebound effect with the population segment that is of less than average wealth. And, for the those of above average wealth (and particularly for those in, say, the top 20%) a tax will have negligible effect — and these are the people who for example fly the most often and the farthest.
The net effect, I believe, will be on average more of: consumption of stuff, travel, size of dwellings, etc.
So, I think the solution is instead to put a cap (with no trade, and no C tax) on fossil fuel production and imports (on a C-content basis). That gets the matter down to the absolute basics. Anything else is fiddling around so that it looks like we're doing something while actually still doing the same damage or worse. The CCL is a ruse, even if a popular one, in my opinion. Let's get real!
-
nigelj at 12:37 PM on 21 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Factotum @3, I think you are right that climate denialism goes together with religious fundamentalism. In addition to your research link, one of the leading climate deniers in my country is a christian fundamentalist and book writer and magazine editor. I'm not going to give him any advertising by naming him. And he is far from the only person I can think of. So my anecdotal evidence is consistent with the research.
One can only speculate about why this is so, because religious fundamentalism does not seem incompatible with looking after the earth or anything particular in the bible old testament. It may just be thinking that the earth was created fundamentally fixed in its processes, and we are temporary passengers before the second coming, and anything that erodes confidence in this is painful to contemplate.
Fundamentalists do also include a fair share of blue collar people left behind by globalisation, who probably resent and distrust the elite who are afterall associated with identifying the climate problem. I'ts a complex web of social, economic, politically conservative, educational and ideological factors.
However I dont think all christians are climate sceptics by a long way. Pew research find the vast majority (80%) of people in Latin America are worried about climate change and want something done (which implies they accept the science) as below. Now Latin America has a lot of catholics so they seem to accept the science and want something done. So there is quite a pronounced difference in attitude between cathloics and fundamentalists.
www.randalolson.com/2014/09/13/who-are-the-climate-change-deniers/
The following website has some interesting data (with original sources) on the relationship of climate denial to politics and religion. It notes that In America 80% of athiests accept climate change, and this number drops with people with any form of religious convictions, but more so fundamentalists.
But clearly not all athiests accept climate science either. Libertarians tend to lean towards athiesm in my experience and are also generally very sceptical about climate science in my country. I'm thinking of a libertarian leaning political party. So political and world view ideology can influence climate beliefs.
There would also presumably be athiests with vested business interests, such that the vested interests are compelling to them and take precedence over their scientific outlook.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
-
scruffy_scirocco at 12:01 PM on 21 May 2017Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
I'm curious why 2000 words are devoted to casting suspicion on this list of scholars, in order that it simply be dismissed from the discussion. Then an overwhelming 75 out of 77 respondents from a survey covering more than 10,000 people which got 3000 responses is mis-labeled as "97%" and put forward as proof that there is a scientific consensus on the subject.
By every logic used in this article, the "97%" figure should be laughed out of the room, not used as the basis for a claim.
Moderator Response:[PS]
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
In particular, simply parroting well-worn slogans is of no interest. Be prepared to back your claims rather than demonstrating either poor reading comprehension or a disinterest in understanding unpalatable data and avoid argumentative tone.
-
Eclectic at 10:40 AM on 21 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Factotum @3 , you may be right, about the role played by religious fundamentalism in fostering a science-denying attitude about the changes occurring in this planet. See Roy Spencer's strong leaning toward minimizing (in his mind) the amount of global warming going on. And the relatively high level of Christian fundamentalism in the USA has some correlation with the higher than world-average denialism among Americans. It would be a difficult matter to study statistically. For comparison, it would be interesting to see the relative amount of denialism among Christian fundamentalists in Mexico, South America, and perhaps Africa.
I suspect that a greater motivation, at least in the USA, is the anger felt by change-rejecting conservatives — combined with right-wing rejection of governmental regulations, plus ordinary selfishness & lack of compassion for others (especially foreigners).
It is not just Christian fundamentalist theology having a hand. Take for example the (non-Christian) Richard Lindzen who also expresses a belief that this world is a Divine creation, formed as a mechanism which is self-correcting : and which cannot slide into a condition which is unfit for mankind. Presumably this reflects his Old Testament upbringing. [ I am unaware of the degree of denialism in Israel. ]
However, there may also be many people whose thinking is influenced by some amount of "non-religious spiritualism" or subconscious worshipping of an idealized Mother Nature.
Of course, all these factors could be: Horses harnessed together and pulling in the same direction.
-
factotum at 08:55 AM on 21 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that almost all climate deniers are fundamentalist believers of some sort. I could lay out the reasons for t his, and if someone asks, then I will, but let's assume that I am correct.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/?utm_term=.352ae124d2da
You might try this:
Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.And ask ... If you are at the pearly gates, and you claim that you did not know or were in denial, do you think that god will five you a Pass?? Really???
-
diehard at 04:18 AM on 21 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
So where is all of this temperature data that shows the "hiatus" isn't real? It's obviously not the GHCN data shown in Comment 406. As Tom Curtis himself points out "there is almost no difference between the raw and adjusted data from 1980 forward". So where is this data with a big enough difference between the raw and adjusted values such that the raw data shows a warming hiatus but the adjusted values do not?
Now, before you delete this question/comment and disable my login, I believe I am asking a simple, straight-forward question that should be easily answerable if in fact the adjusted data is what the elimination of the warming hiatus is based upon. Therefore, if this comment is simply deleted before I receive a satisfactory answer to my question, I will proceed on the basis that no such data exists, and that eliminating the hiatus was based on politics and not science.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please spare us the polemics.
[TD] I can't make sense of your question. Your first sentence would match the rest of your first paragraph if your first sentence instead was "...that shows the 'hiatus' is real?" Tom Curtis showed you data (and you can download it yourself instead of taking Tom's word for it) revealing no such difference. The "hiatus" does not and never has existed.
[DB] This user is just another sock puppet of serial spammer cosmoswarrior/coolearth; accordingly, their posting rights have been rescinded. As will future iterations of this serial spammer.
-
Hank11198 at 01:27 AM on 21 May 2017Podcast on National Review & the science of climate science denial
This article makes some good points about climate science denial. However in the subject which is the article “Climate- Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers” by Oren Cass, May 1, 2017, I was blow away by the admission of Cass in the article that:
“Not so. I addressed these issues in a recent Foreign Affairs essay, in which I called the IPCC “the gold-standard summary,” cited it repeatedly, and adopted its estimate that temperatures could rise by 3 to 4°C this century. My essay further embraced the Obama administration’s “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis and adopted its high-case model for economic cost. But the essay argued that the likely impact of all this was “manageable” rather than “catastrophic.”
I’m certainly not an expert in climate science but consider it a high risk to our future and as a result have tried to educate myself on the subject. From my studies it appears to me there is more than ample evidence that a 2 degree rise will create life-altering problems and that 3 to 4 degrees will not be close to being “manageable”. I’m surprised someone has not brought this up in this discussion.
Cass doesn’t seem to be denying global warming but denying that it will be catastrophic. Guess that depends on the definition of ‘catastrophic’. -
ubrew12 at 22:26 PM on 20 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Mark Twain: "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." To care for Nature you have to make it personal to you. With all the distractions of modern life, there needs to be some prioritizing, in the Educational sphere, that the World 'out there' is not just another 'reality show'. I was struck by an opinion piece in the New York Times, recently, written by a guy who is walking from Southern Africa out to the Middle East, Asia, Siberia, North America, and finally South America, to trace the expansion of humanity outward from 'Eden'. This guy illustrates, in his writing, Twain's quote. Somehow, through Education, we need to impress upon children the fundamental importance of Nature in our lives. I don't see how that can be done without frequent travel to see Nature.
-
HK at 22:10 PM on 20 May 2017Temp record is unreliable
NOAAs conclusions about the non-existing "hiatus" have been confirmed by other studies using independent data. Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth explains how they did it here and here.
BTW, the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project was founded by physicist and former climate skeptic Richard Muller to address the most important objections the deniers had to the "official" temperature records. They constructed their own temperature record, which turned out to be very similar to the ones from NOAA, NASA and the British HadCRUT4.
-
nigelj at 09:16 AM on 20 May 2017Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
Yes climate science is compelling, proven well beyond reasonable doubt, and we know many of the solutions, but are slow to adopt these. It's like a frustrating log jam. There are several reasons, not least of which is the ongoing cynical, brainwashing campaign of denialism and doubt about the science and also renewable energy, that has worn people down.
We also have general public worries about changing established patterns of behaviour, understandably, and the longer term nature of the problem is perhaps hard for some people to digest.
I agree concentrating on local impacts of climate change brings the issue home quite well. Many people respond better to tangible specifics rather than more global or mathematical or abstract concepts. In fact we need to promote both equally, to reach different mind sets.
However I think the main issue stopping progress is that many individuals are probably reluctant to do much about climate change in terms of their lifestyles and buying choices, in a voluntary sense, because they see the vast majority doing nothing very much, and so perceive their own isolated actions will possibly cost them money and achieve little. It's a sort of stalemate situation or catch 22.
Of course there are individuals who do make the effort to reduce emissions for personal ethical reasons, and because they have taken the time to think about the issues and see a range of advantages, but not enough as yet to motivate the vast majority. Perhaps if the media publicised these people it would help, but I guess theres no big screaming headlines in this, so it doesn't count as news. But they might actually find it does count as news, because I for one am sick of screaming headlines over the latest scandals, and want just some plain, uplifting information.
But to generally break this stalemate pattern of limited action also needs a big push from strong leaders in government and business, and local organisations that set an example in their views and daily lives, as this is visible and provideds leadership.
We also require things like carbon taxes or other legislative rules that send signals to change behaviour. We can also easily make electric cars an attractive option, and it may not require much. This is how other environmental problems in the past have been dealt, with and I cannot see why climate change would be different. The difference is really it's just a bit more complex and there's a bigger sceptical campaign, but the dynamics, psychology, and economic principles and government responsibilities are all much the same as other environmental challenges.
We therefore all need to obviously make some lifestyle choices of our own in a voluntary sense, but also start seriously shaming politicians and business leaders, and force them to set an example, pass some meaningful laws, and stand up to lobby groups.
-
nigelj at 08:12 AM on 20 May 2017Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation
OPOF @11, yes I broadly agree with all that. Here are a couple of things that occur to me on your comments:
Going back to the "helpful and harmful" ideas. You pointed out something broadly like we cannot force people to be helpful, (using the law or other means). This is true at one level, and my immediate reaction was to agree, for example we can't and shouldn't write laws requiring or forcing people to be nice, or donate to charities, or save people in distress. This is all true, because it puts big restrictions on freedom of behaviour and runs into various obvious problems, but on second thoughts there are a couple of other aspects as follows.
For example there are many cultural conventions where good people generally help people, that are not codified in the law as such, and these are generally accepted as good conventions. The obvious example is helping people in severe distress, like a medical emergency. In fact we are hardwired to leap in to try to help, according to psychologists.
And governments "do" often have programmes that aim to help people, like unemployment insurance. My point is by helping people, for example with unemployment assistance (I'm just picking an obvious example here) we are in effect reducing harm, and this is part of the law and requires people contribute through taxation. So we do accept that governments help people by force of law, interestingly in some situations. Help and harm are in a sense opposite sides of the same coin, and quite closely related.
It's probably more productive to try to figure out in what ways is it "valid" for governments to try to help people, because there are clearly problems if we go too far, yet not helping people at all is inhumane. I'm personally lead back to the pragmatic response of striking a balance between these positions. As a society we need to formulate some better principles of when we help people using the law, and already do to some extent, for example circumstances beyond their control. If we could crystallise this better, it would reduce partisan in fighting over the issues. But this is getting away from what you are saying.
Marketing. I kind of expressed my views on that in a previous post. We are stuck with marketing in a free society, but there can be limits regarding how it is done, and better education in the tricks marketers use. This could make a real difference, without limiting freedom to market.
You would think libertarians would see things the way you describe, if they were logical about it. I think they let a strong gut instinct dislike of rules and the very idea of government get in the way. That's just my opinion obviously, but there seems no other explanation for the way they talk, behave and vote in parliament. I guess they are very free spirits, and in fact we mostly all have some scepticism of excessisve authority, but libertarians are a bit extreeme about it. But there are of course varieties of libertarians, and I'm probably over generalising.
The bottom line on these issues of individual freedom versus rules of conduct that limit behaviour, was expressed quite well as far back as Aristotle with his writings on politics and ethics. We are part of a community, and for that community to improve it's well being requires specialisation of skills, and also rules of conduct, or you have chaos. But too many badly considered rules restricts individual freedom and innovation so it's a balancing act, inevitably.
The helpful / harmful concept is an extension of all this, basically. It's all really a question of finding where the right balance is.
Ultimately people who are harming others and damaging the public good should be removed, you are right of course, but they can only be removed by the people, in a democracy, (although Trump may be getting close to being impeached, but I'm not sure - I dont know the American system well enough). In terms of what the people do in these regards, we are reliant on the level of understanding, knowledge, ethical conduct, and thinking of the population as a whole.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:35 AM on 20 May 2017Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation
nigelj,
I need to clarify my comment that Mill's thoughts presented in “On Liberty” do not require people to Help others. Mill does mention the value of people contributing to the overall benefit of society. And the British international thinking did include elements of helping the native populations in the Commonwealth live what, at the time, was considered to be “better lives”.
My own thoughts are that any Libertarian who understands the need to limit their actions to avoid 'harming other people' would recognise that harm is done to the ability of some people's pursuit of happiness when economic games result in portions of the population not obtaining all of the understood needs of a basic decent life or some people end up having more difficulty living a basic decent life, especially when there is a large variation in the level of reward obtained by the participants in the game, and participants include the ones left sitting on the bench and future players of the game (it is essential to understand that pursuit of a basic decent life in a broad diversity of ways is the “happiness” that is referred to when people of that time spoke of the freedom of the “pursuit of happiness”).
It is clear that many developed economic actions have been over-developed in unacceptable directions. The burning of fossil fuels may be considered to be the largest over-development in the wrong direction creating harm or risk of harm to others, though nuclear weaponry is also up there. But I consider misleading marketing to be the most damaging over-development in the wrong direction that humanity has ever created. And climate science is trying to over-come the damaging power of misleading marketing amplified by incorrectly over-developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity and the irrational belief in the freedom of everyone to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please without having to understand if their thoughts and actions are justifiable (helpful/harmful).
Inoculation against misleading marketing is essential.
With that understanding, any Libertarian Leader, in business or government, would strive to correct the unacceptable results of the games people play, especially economic and political games. They would understand the need to share the total wealth and benefit more equitably, hopefully by changing the rules of the game so that the playing of the game produced better results. But responsible Libertarians would also push for the 'public provision' of the basic needs to all the people who did not obtain that result from the game (until changes made to the play of the game ensured that everyone lived at least a basic decent life with equal opportunity to be bigger winners in the game if they were more helpful to the overall population). Libertarian Leaders would also understand the importance of rapidly reducing human activity that is damaging to the future of humanity (Libertarians would want to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals).
Clearly that result can best be achieved if any person who would choose to try to Win as much as they personally can any way they can get away with is kept from participating in the games until they change their minds and choose to be helpful. Measures like the Paris Agreement can expose the less helpful among the Winners of global leadership (any regional Winner who does not want to incrementally increase their regions contribution to the identified required change being clearly Harmful). That exposure of Harmful Winners allows the collective of Helpful people “Help the Harmful ones understand the importance of changing their mind and becoming more helpful if they wish to maintain any perception of being a deserving Leader (Winning power and influence is a privilege - you still have to prove you deserve it).
So a true Libertarian would push for the removal from positions of power or influence in society any person who got away with Winning leadership, in business or governing, who can be shown to not be acting with the best understanding toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. And, as you implied, the likes of Team Trump, the House Freedom Caucus and so many other groups hoping to Win by claiming to be Uniting the Right are not interested in proving their Worth in that way. They are interested in winning by promoting 'good sounding - appealing' but understandably fatally flawed and damaging beliefs like the freedom to pursue happiness means - people believing whatever they want and doing whatever they please without any obligation to understand the validity of their beliefs or the reality of the harm done to others by their actions, which is a totally irresponsible thing to do, especially from the perspective of a Libertarian who understands the objective of protecting the pursuit of happiness for all others.
A Libertarian can understand that the games based on popularity and profitability produce unacceptable results, with worse results produced by more freedom for people to believe whatever they want and get away with doing whatever they please. And the science behind successful misleading marketing power is easily understood to be one of the most damaging miss-applications of science (science being the diversity of pursuits of increased awareness and better understanding), that humanity has ever developed.
-
nigelj at 15:52 PM on 19 May 2017Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation
OPOF @9 yes fair enough, I agree. As someone who has also been involved in building design in the past, I think climate change represents one big headache. It's hard enough resolving all the usual issues, and meeting earthquake strength requirements, which at least tend to be fixed targets, than dealing with the impacts of climate change and potentially changing wind loads, changing rainfall levels, and thus flood frequencies and appropriate building heights above ground! And of course there is sea level rise.
Speaking of sea level rise, the following article in 3 parts has some truly amazing animations of glacier flow in the Antarctic, and discussion of possible scenarios of sea level rise of 1-2 meters this century.
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html?_r=1
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:15 PM on 19 May 2017Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation
nigelj,
As a Structural and Civil engineer, rather than say I "desire a sense of order", I would say I require a Good Reason when Something Important is being done. And I certainly am motivated about the reason for climate change and reducing the rate of climate change. Regional weather event expectations are important requirements for the "Basis of Design" for Civil and Structural items. If there is increased uncertainty about the future expected regional weather events (and the uncertainty increases with increased rates of climate change), then the designs are at higher risk of being inadequate unless they are over-designed at higher expense for what would only be a guess at what is adequate. Reducing the uncertainty by reducing the rate of climate change is a critical requirement to be able to cost-effectively design for the future.
-
DPiepgrass at 12:54 PM on 19 May 2017CO2 lags temperature
The link to "The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen)" is broken. I found it here:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks. Created link
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:26 PM on 19 May 2017NY Times’ Stephens can’t see the elephant in the room on climate change
OPOF @18
Does that mean you want me to continue firing off "e-mails to the editor"?!
-
nigelj at 07:35 AM on 19 May 2017Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation
Ubrew @12, yes it is rather like that.
Liberals are sometimes criticised for trying to help people with government programmes, like unemployment assistance or benefits, I think Americans call this entitlements? And things like affirmative action. It's alleged this doesn't work, and people become dependent etc, and yes theres a risk of this, and it does happen to some extent. But literally millions of people are genuinely helped, and the majority of the unemployed in my country are only on assistance for a short time. It seems to me a dependent minority does not invalidate the idea of government help.
But Conservatives favour charity, and people can become equally dependent on charity, and I always worry about whether money given get's to people who actually need it, or how much goes to administration etc. But then its likely a minority would become dependent on charity, just as with government programmes, but this hardly invalidates the idea of charity either. I think Conservatives are really more worried about being compelled to pay taxes for government programmes.
This is all a philosophical headache of migraine proportions. I come down on the side of pragmatism, that charity clearly has a strong place, but government programmes also have a strong place in some circumstances, which just scream out for a coordinated large scale, consistently available reliable form of help, like unemployment help or help for invalids. To me this is more important than fretting about paying taxes, as long as taxes do not get ridiculously high.
The more important thing to my mind is making sure money from both private charity and government programmes gets to the people who need it, and are transparent and well audited, and that government programmes are sensible, and constantly evaluated, and don't attempt the impossible. We do not do any of this nearly well enough.
This is a bit OT, but maybe not entirely, as the principles strongly relate to the philosophical rationale for envirnomental issues and laws, in the sense of how we form and evaluate environmental laws. If this is done in a transparent, rigorous, evidence based way, a consultative way, this may help bring liberals and conservatives together a bit more.
-
chriskoz at 07:33 AM on 19 May 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19
Wait for old, immoral, their intelligence encumbered by the FF interests, science denying politicians to die out. The new generation of youmg leaders are already breaking up with the shameless tradition of their elders and demand better mitihation policies. In Australia, the movement start, unsurprisingly, in Natioanl Party, representing mainly farmers:
Generational evolution forces Nationals to consider emissions
because farmers are the ones who start feeling the climate chenge effects in this country. The movement is already overdue, the question is: is it broad enough (affecting other parties) and will it be quick enough.
-
scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 19 May 2017Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
"Where does this come from" - page xxii of summary for policy makers of FAR. (pg 30 of the PDF version found here).
Prev 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 Next
