Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 Next
Comments 37601 to 37650:
-
Composer99 at 00:19 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Too bad, I had run into some issues downloading the Fox & Gallant paper and only got to reading it late last night. (Although I was just going to echo CBDunkerson, anyway.)
-
John Hartz at 00:03 AM on 8 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
All: In a deleted comment, Russ R has stated that he is done posting on this thread.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:40 PM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
What an exciting story! And so well written! Thanks, Bob, for this fascinating account of what, at the time, must have seemed like a horrible nightmare. And thanks to the whole SkS team for what, in my view, is the best site on the Internet!
-
CBDunkerson at 22:25 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R, for the record, your statement that you were able to provide "real-world evidence" ("instead of abstract projections") of future costs (i.e. "mitigating global warming") was sufficient to convince me that there was no point in further discussion.
Your subsequent citation of the Fox & Gallant projections has only confirmed that conclusion.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:41 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
chriskoz @55, even if Michael Sweet was rejecting the conclusions of Gallant and Fox (2010) (as is likely given his post @56), nothing follows regarding his integrity, nor his compliance with normal SkS standards, despite Russ R's insinuation. Indeed, the direct response to Russ R's question:
"What does SkS call people who refuse to accept peer-reviewed literature and instead cite sources such as Wikipedia, industry PR sites, and newpaper op-eds?"
is that we do not call them anything at all.
Implicit in the question is an assumption that any peer reviewed article must be accepted uncritically. That is not Russ R's opinion, of course, but one by which he misrepresents the regulars at SkS in attributing it to us. Such a standard is automatically contradictory, for many peer reviewed articles contradict each other.
The SkS standard has, and has always been that you need some very solid, indeed, peer reviewed evidence to reject a consensus within the peer reviewed literature.
-
chriskoz at 21:17 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
I concur with Tom Curtis@54, that the article characterises Judith Curry accurately. Especially the double-negation part. JC has been shown many times that she recently abandened the science and just plays the "uncertainty games".
Russ R.@37 claim:
Cook and dana1981, [...] are misrepresenting Judith Curry
(emphasis original)
is an absurd, given the welth of examples showing her abuse of double-negation. She likes to use the double-negation language and often contradicts herself in the process. On the other hand, I haven't seen any double-negation statements in IPCC. The cartoon's portrayal of JC as double-nagating obfuscator, is very accurate, in-line with the evidence I linked above.
-
michael sweet at 21:12 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ,
Fox and Gallant chose to do a worst case analysis of renewables. The cost basis has decreased so much in the past 4 years that ther analysis is no longer valid. I choose an industry site for costs because it is up to date. It was the first of dozens of sites that document that wind and solar power have dramaticly decreased in cost and your reference is dated so that it no longer applies. Anyone who is informed on the subject would know this without a reference.
My Wilipedia reference was to address one of your many unsupported arguments. Here again, anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that fossil fuels transfer much of their cost from electricity onto general funds through health, fire suppression, general pollution etc. I added the reference since you are apparently unaware of these basic facts. While Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, this fact is so basic it does not require much to support the argument. Since you are upset about me citing Wikipedia, what do you call someone who constantly uses his unsupported word for his arguments? You have still not supported the bulk of your post here, in spite of your repeated posts since then and your wild claim that you had copius examples. That is sloganeering and is prohibited at SkS. The moderators have been lenient with you despite your repeated failures to support your wild claims.
My op-ed cite was of an expert that you found and showed that your unsupported word that your increases in electricity were due just to renewable energy was incorrect. The increases are due to multiple causes and not just renewable energy. Once again I have cited an expert and you have your unsupported word. You have provided no evidence that the bulk of your price rise was due to renewables. I also provided a clear cut example of savings due to wind energy. It is too recent an example to get into the peer reviewed data set yet. This is because wind and solar have only in the past two years become useful for solely economic reasons.
It is very tiresome to constantly post against your unsupported word when you are generally incorrect. It is rare for you to provide even a single reference. Since I posted asking you for references, you have made seven posts on this thread and have cited one, outdated, reference. Then you complain that I do not solely use peer reviewed sources for common knowledge. Please provide evidence to support your wild claims.
-
chriskoz at 20:48 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R.@51,
If you want to dispute the study's findings, you're welcome to take it up with the authors directly. What does SkS call people who refuse to accept peer-reviewed literature and instead cite sources such as Wikipedia, industry PR sites, and newpaper op-eds?
(about michael sweet @50)
I must opine this statement is a gross misrepresentation (followed by unnecessary personal attack), because michael sweet @50 said:
It is good that you have finally cited data to support one of your positions, even if it is a little out of date. Please link to data to support your other claims
(my emphasis)
which is an indication of actual acceptance of "peer-reviewed literature", contrary to your claim. Perhaps his interpretation of the quoted study ("it is a little out of date") is not the same as your interpretation, but such difference does not mean that he "refuses to accept" the study. Rather than trying to personally attack him, it would be more constructive take your detailed knowledge of the study you apparently have, and prove that your interpretation is right, i.e. provide the data that supports your interpretation. But you instead have chosen to do baseless hand-waving "you're welcome to take it up with the authors directly", followed by personal attack. Such argumentation, I can repeat aftrer Tom Curtis above: "lessens you".
-
Tom Curtis at 14:50 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @51, on the Curry quotation, your response is evasive at best. Curry has clearly indicated an opinion that we do not currently have enough information to justify any sort of policy response requiring explicit reductions in CO2 emissions, the fact that you are evading. If you wish to treat that as irrelevant, then it is about time you started quoting Cook accurately. He does not quote Curry as saying, "We should do nothing about climate change." Rather he quotes her as saying, "I can't say myself that [doing nothing] isn't the best solution". Playing bait and switch, as you have been doing, lessens you.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:52 PM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ said... "Fortunately for John Cook, he chose to lampoon a climate scientist who isn't likely to sue him."
Fortunately, John is responsible enough to not claim that someone is fraudulent in their research when it's clearly known they're not.
-
Alpinist at 13:05 PM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
Likewise to Tom and SB. Having worked a bit on the website for our non-profit nordic ski club website I know how much work even a minor website can be. SKS is one of my go to sites and I really, really appreciate the work the entire drew does!
-
scaddenp at 11:47 AM on 7 March 2014We're heading into cooling
jsmith - I hope you dont get your understanding of science from Fox, but yes, Tsonis did say that. What he hasnt done is provided scientific support for his contention. The closest you get is the Tsonis and Swanson 2009 paper does not support any long term change in global warming. You can see the statements, and Swanson's commentary on the 2009 paper here.
-
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ, the contention of the cartoon, is that in the face of uncertainty, Curry is claiming that doing nothing is a valid option. I would find it very hard to read any other meaning into her statements. I dont contend that she has said it is the best solution - I claim that she is contending that it is a valid (ie a logical, reasonable choice). The cartoon is lampooning such a response.
-
Russ R. at 11:24 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Tom Curtis @47 and michael sweet @50,
Fox & Gallant's $60.94/MWh calculation was entirely incremental to the rate increases in Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP) 2010, which already accounted for savings from coal plant shutdowns. By the government's own accounting, electric power prices will rise much more than the 1% promised in 2009. If you want to dispute the study's findings, you're welcome to take it up with the authors directly. (What does SkS call people who refuse to accept peer-reviewed literature and instead cite sources such as Wikipedia, industry PR sites, and newpaper op-eds?)
scaddenp@48 and Tom Curtis @49,
Everything you wrote is nice and all, but none of it is an actual quotation of Curry saying, without qualification, that "We should do nothing about climate change" or "Doing nothing is the best solution". Unless you can produce that, I'm going to continue to argue that her quote in the above cartoon is a misrepresentation.
Moderator Response:[JH] You have expressed your opinion about the Curry statement embedded in the cartoon more than once. Please move one. Excessive repetition is a violation of the SkS Comments Policy.
-
jsmith at 11:03 AM on 7 March 2014We're heading into cooling
I feel obliged to point out that while the green box at the top says that "many of the listed scientists are not predicting global cooling," apparently Anastasios Tsonis is not amont them. He said, ""We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped." Source:
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
dmyerson at 10:27 AM on 7 March 2014Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr
The footnote may provide plausible deniability, but it also proves that he was intentioanlly deceiving people by hiding relevant information. I don't see how anybody could in good faith leave that second sentence out of the main text when it addressed the central question at hand.
-
Wol at 09:53 AM on 7 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
.
>>Climate change is at once really easy and really hard to write about.<<
It's really hard "debating" with deniers (deliberate quotes) for the average punter like me, who, while accepting the AGW concensus, has little scientific education beyond basic meteorology and climatology.
In fact it's damn near impossible: the deniers "know" they are right, and if they come up with any references at all (rather than merely stating that it's "crap") as we all know they bring up the same three or four culprits again and again. Those of us who have not studied the complexities of climate change are immediately at a disadvantage since all we can do is reference sites such as this one - which immediately brings the response that it's a leftie conspiracy ecomaniac website and is talking rubbish.
I don't see any way of effectively combatting the misinformation of the oil and gas industries in popular blogs and the like, only trying to show denial politicians the scientific facts - and they've been got at too.
At a deeper level, unless world population is brought under control any and all attempts to curb CO² emissions are doomed to failure, unless we prevent the developing world from attaining something approaching our own standard of living. And if you think convincing deniers of the AGW facts is difficult, good luck with arguing effectively for population control!
.
-
michael sweet at 09:33 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ,
Fox and Gallant use prices for wind and solar power installations that are from 2010. Since the cost of both has dropped by over 50% since then, they are out of data and no longer apply. For a recent cost estimate see this wind industry site, solar is about the same right now. This op-ed peice from Gallant (written last month) lists a number of items that raise your electricity costs. Only a few relate to renewables (none in the first five). He specifically mentions that the contract with Samsung has been renegotiated, which addresses your concern about not being able to stop after you start.
It is confusing when you mix costs from renewables with costs from industry subsidies and fuel cost increases. Please site a reference that separates out the renewable expense from your other costs. Some of the costs you cite are from increased coal prices. It is not apparent how much of your increase in electricity costs is from renewables.
This Wikipidea article (from about 2011) documents about $3 billion dollars per year of health costs from coal alone in Ontario. There are additional large costs from acid rain, mercury and other coal pollution. You will see lower general taxes from savings due to lower coal use since much of fossil fuel costs are paid from general revenue instead of from the electricity bill.
This Clean Technika article documents large consumer savings from wind energy during heat waves in Australia (caused by AGW) because fossil fuel electricity costs less since it has to compete with wind. The savings on the hot days paid for the wind subsidy for the entire year! They claim that a fossil fuel plant was written down because it cannot make much money competing with wind.
It is good that you have finally cited data to support one of your positions, even if it is a little out of date. Please link to data to support your other claims.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:58 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R @39, the statement quoted by Scaddenp @38 comes at the end of a discussion of geoengineering, but is clearly not intended to be limited to geoengineering. Specifically, she denies that the IPCC even has enough information to know that potential climate change is dangerous; and she couches her advice on policy terms in the most general language.
As an aside, I will note that Curry is contradicting herself if she is applying the quote to geoengineering, and specifically the geoengineering that Pearce suggests may be necessary. Specifically, early in the he post she quotes herself, writing:
"In this book I outline the reasons why I believe this particular climate fix—creating a thermostat for the planet–is undesirable, ungovernable and unreliable. It is undesirable because regulating global temperature is not the same thing as controlling local weather and climate. It is ungovernablebecause there is no plausible and legitimate process for deciding who sets the world’s temperature. And it is unreliable because of the law of unintended consequences: deliberate intervention with the atmosphere on a global-scale will lead to unpredictable, dangerous and contentious outcomes."
(My emphasis)
However, the geo-engineering proposal she argues against is just the reduction of CO2 concentrations back towards c. 1950-2000 levels. If reducing CO2 levels from c. 550 ppmv to c. 320 ppmv will "...lead to unpredictable, dangerous and contentious outcomes", then of necessity, so also will increasing CO2 levels from 320 to 550 ppmv. Indeed, even more so as when increasing CO2 we are taking it to levels not recently experienced, and hence to a climate state on which we have little direct data. In contrast, the reduction will be to a climate state that we know better than any other.
Finally, Curry's quote essentially says that an organization set up to provide an exhaustive assessment of the current state of information on the science, effects and best policy responses on global warming should completely shut up about what are the best policies (given current information) unless they have perfect information. That means her preference is for ill informed policies based mostly on self interest rather than the best informed policies available.
-
scaddenp at 08:51 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ, fair on context for my quote.. However If that means doing nothing, "I can't say myself that that isn't the best solution." seems entirely relevant to the quote. It ignores that uncertainty cuts both ways and ignores the precautionary principle. Frankly it sounds more like the chant of "we dont to pay for energy and absolutely dont want to pay more tax".
This economy-first ("cant do anything that might have negative impacts on economy") is usually what you associate with a right-wing ideology. Interestingly, right wing ideology is usually also keen on respecting others rights and taking full consequences for your actions. Almost all the enhanced CO2 contribution to the current atmosphere is from Western emissions. A disproportiate amount of the impacts will happen outside the West. Will the West accept the consequences of the emissions and pay for this? Frankly I think going there would be an absolute quagmire and it constituents yet another risk with doing nothing. Better to mitigate emissions.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:29 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R, Fox & Gallant estimate the costs of transferring to renewables on the assumption that all gross costs of electricity generation are also net costs. That is, they assume that increased investment in renewable energy will not be partly offset by reduced investment in coal fired power plants. That fact alone means that their headline result does not follow from their analysis.
Further, I cannot make head nor tail of how they determined their final values. They do not show their working at any point. As you are citing them, presumably you have been over the numbers and have confirmed them. That being the case, can you link to a spreadsheet showing how the numbers are determined.
-
Andy Skuce at 08:00 AM on 7 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Paul Ryan stuns CNN host: Keystone pipeline will solve Russia’s Ukraine invasion
When Ryan was asked what the US Congress should do about Ukraine:
“I think we should approve an LNG terminal in the east coast to go to Europe. I think we should approve the Keystone Pipeline. And I think we should show that the U.S. is going to be moving forward on becoming energy independent.”
“Moving forward with the Keystone pipeline!” Bolduan [the CNN interviewer] exclaimed. “That development would take years, though, to actually make that happen.”
Ryan argued that the controversial pipeline would be a “signal” to Russia.
From this we learn that:
- Paul Ryan believes that the pipeline is needed to get the the bitumen to market.
- He thinks that the Russians believe this too.
- The fact of the KXL approval will be a "signal".
- He implies that importing Canadian bitumen will help make the US energy independent; forgetting that Canada is a separate country from the USA, as Ukraine is from Russia.
-
Russ R. at 07:54 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Composer99,
If you're skeptical, invite you to actually read the Fox & Gallant paper and get back to me. Feel free to read other sources to familiarize yourself with what's actually happened in the Province of Ontario.
I've had the benefit of actually living here and watching this unfold.
-
Russ R. at 07:45 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
KR@41,
(-snip-).
I took the time to read the blog post that scaddenp@38 linked to, entitled "Can science fix climate change?". (-snip-). I suggest you focus on the very first line: "Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry. – Fred Pearce" Geoengineering was the subject of the blog post, and the quote that scaddenp provided was her conclusion.
The quote you're refering to was from the NPR interview was an entirely different matter. It said: "All we can do is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions," she says. If that means doing nothing, "I can't say myself that that isn't the best solution." It had nothing to do with geoengineering or scaddenp's question.
(-snip-).
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory tone snipped.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:31 AM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
I'll add my voice to St Barnabas, and say thanks to John Cook and the team for the invaluable service they provide, and the tremendous effort they put into it. Even my brief stint on the inside did not allow me to appreciate the amount of time and effort John has put into, what remains, an unpaid service. (And thankyou Dikran for detailing that.)
-
Composer99 at 07:26 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R.:
Your quotes do not, in and of themselves, show that rate increases are a specific consequence of the Green Energy Act without which they would never have occurred, nor does the text you have cited from Fox & Gallant (2011).
Colour me skeptical.
-
Russ R. at 07:01 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
michael sweet @33, KR@35, Composer99@36, Dikran Marsupial @40, and CBDunkerson (who never actually requested it).
Recapping, I challenged the cartoon's insurance analogy with this humorous bit:
"Uncertainty Mutual sells a homeowner's policy, except they don't tell you the cost of your premiums in advance, the deductible is ambiguous, and they can't guarantee that your losses will actually be covered. Oh, and you don't have the option of cancelling your policy."
CBDunkerson conceded that the insucance analogy "breaks down" as it doesn't directly cover losses, but challenged two parts of my analogy (costs disclosed in advance, and no option of cancelling). CBD did not cite specific evidence, but claimed there are "a number of studies" describing costs, and that actions like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes can be reversed.
I responded with two points...
- The studies are abstract projections, and I could provide real-world evidence of the public being misled by low-balled cost projections.
- I agreed that some policy actions are easily reversible, but would be happy to show evidence of others that are not.
So, going at them one at a time:
Real-world evidence of the public having been misled about the costs of mitigating global warming, only to discover the true costs once the policy was enacted:
I didn't have to look far for this example, since I am presented with evidence of it every time I see my electric power bill. In 2009, the Ontario government passed the Green Energy Act, that would replace coal-fired electric power with renewable wind and solar power. They said the costs to ratepayers would be low:
Energy Minister George Smitherman, at the time of the enactment
of the Green Energy Act, stated, “I have been very clear
about it. One percent per year, incremental on the cost of a
person’s electricity bill, with corresponding capability through
investments in conservation for people to lessen their use of
electricity” (Hansard, 2010).After the GEA was enacted the story changed dramatically:
Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP), announced by the
Liberal Party on November 23, 2010, states,
Over the next 20 years, prices for Ontario families and
small businesses will be relatively predictable. The consumer
rate will increase by about 3.5% annually over
the length of the long-term plan. Over the next five
years, however, residential electricity prices are expected
to rise by about 7.9% annually (or 46% over five years).
(Ministry of Energy, 2010)Actual costs that are 3.5x to 7.9x higher than promised constitutes being "misled" in my book. But that's not the worst of it, because the government still wasn't telling us everything. Citing a peer-reviewed paper, Fox and Gallant (2011):
"We have been able to identify omitted costs in the province’s
LTEP of $60.94 per MWh. These omissions would raise power
bills by 40% above the government’s forecast. Other areas of
possible omissions have not been quantified because the data
are not public. Assuming a continuation of current policies, the average
Ontario residential user’s annual bill will exceed $2,800 by
2015 and $4,100 by 2030, compared with the current $1,700."If Ontarians had been told in advance what they're finding out now, I'd imagine they would have been much less supportive. So, when I jested that "they don't tell you the cost of your premiums in advance", I had grounds for it.
More to follow.
-
scaddenp at 06:59 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
The IPCC isnt keen on geoengineering. Emission reduction is far better, safer, and arguably cheaper. The statement:
"Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system."
doesnt sound to me like advocacy for geoengineering.
-
KR at 06:41 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R. - 'Your claim that 'She's responding to the argument that "Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry."' is simply incorrect.
The quote in question came from an NPR interview, and was reposted by Curry herself, and is in reference to "proposed solutions". Not just massive geoengineering (although that is in the spectrum of possible solutions), "proposed solutions" includes carbon taxes, incentives for renewables, and many many others.
Your claim is a strawman.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 06:33 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
RussR wrote "Do any of these studies show actual real-world costs, instead of abstract projections?"
Unfortunately we don't yet have data on real world costs of actions taken in the futrue, hence we have to make do with projections.
RussR "Thank you for your concern, but my comment wasn't addressed to you."
You are taking partin a discussion on an open forum. This is a bit like people having a discussion around a table at a pub. If you say something, anybody at the table is allowed to reply. If you want to have a private discussion, email would be more appropriate. In particular, if you claim to have information of interest to others at the table, it is not unreasonable for them to ask you for it.
-
Russ R. at 06:26 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
scaddenp,
re: "And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself."
She's responding to the argument that "Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the atmosphere’s chemistry."
Like her, I wouldn't support any "massive geoengineering" projects without being near certain that the solution isn't worse than the problem. Would you?
-
scaddenp at 06:14 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Interesting. What is your interpretation on this Russ?
JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.
-
Russ R. at 06:03 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
KR,
"You have indeed been pointed to a number of studies (here and also here), as per my previous post, discussing carbon pricing wrt the Federal deficit, energy costs, gas prices, household impact, discount rates, etc."
All of which are no doubt excellent arguments against "doing nothing". I'm not arguing with them because I'm not, nor have I been, arguing in favour of "doing nothing". As I wrote above: "Each action has to be evaluated on its own merits, and not all actions are mutually exclusive. Some actions will rank higher than others, and the "do nothing" option will rank somewhere in that continuum. Where "do nothing" ranks is currently unknown. I think it's a low probability that "do nothing" ranks highest, but that probability does exist."
So you're wasting your time and effort arguing, and I'm not interested in wasting mine doing likewise.
However, nothing in any of your comments responds to my original comment to John Cook and dana1981, who are misrepresenting Judith Curry by quoting her out of context, and drawing a cartoon to attack an argument that she never actually made.
If you can show me where Curry has ever actually said or written, without qualification, that "We should do nothing about climate change", I would concede that the quotation is not a misrepresentation.
Until then...
-
StBarnabas at 05:06 AM on 7 March 2014A Hack By Any Other Name — Part 4
John Cook
thanks again for all your endeavors. SKS has a different feel from the other fora I follow and I was aware of his tremendous work in debunking the usual pathetic "skeptical" arguments but was unaware of quite how much technical effort John has put into this. Indeed I used some of SKS's graphics yesterday at an outreach event. The "escalator" in particular seemed to hit the mark. I am intrigued as to how the hack was done.
SeanD -
Composer99 at 04:51 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Saith Russ R.:
I would be more than happy to show you real-world evidence of the public having been misled about the costs of mitigating global warming, only to discover the true costs once the policy was enacted.
I don't know what else Russ R. has dug up, beyond the articles regarding Spain and Ontario that Russ R. shared in the re-post of Dr Abraham's The Guardian blog (the one he shares with Skeptical Science's dana1981). I'll be interested in seeing them (if CBDunkerson requests them).
-
KR at 04:46 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ R. - You have indeed been pointed to a number of studies (here and also here), as per my previous post, discussing carbon pricing wrt the Federal deficit, energy costs, gas prices, household impact, discount rates, etc.
Now, what are your examples? Because I have to say that an unwillingness to provide evidence gives the appearance of handwaving on your part.
Moderator Response:[PS] While discussing risk management, then please continue. However, further discussions on the costs associated with CO2 mitigation, should happen on the topic CO2 limits will harm the economy
-
Russ R. at 03:48 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
michael sweet,
Thank you for your concern, but my comment wasn't addressed to you. Nor was it addressed to Composer99, because I'm not arguing with him/her.
My comment was addressed to CBDunkerson in response to his/her argument @26, which cited nothing more specific than "a number of studies". Taking that as the bar for argumentation on this issue, I thought I'd leave it to him/her as to whether he/she will accept my counter-argument at face value, or demand more specific evidence.
-
michael sweet at 03:08 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
Russ:
If you have real-world examples it would save us all time if you linked them in you post, instead of making promises to supply them later. As it is you have made empty, unsupported assertions.
Composer at 7 has already linked the Stern report and IPCC AR4, AR5 has not been released yet. Please only link peer reviewed material as a response to IPCC reports.
-
Russ R. at 02:01 AM on 7 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
CBDunkerson@26,
"Actually, there have been a number of studies on the costs of mitigating global warming."
Do any of these studies show actual real-world costs, instead of abstract projections? I would be more than happy to show you real-world evidence of the public having been misled about the costs of mitigating global warming, only to discover the true costs once the policy was enacted.
"Really? Once we start a carbon tax or cap and trade or funding for renewable energy research we can never stop? "
I'd also be happy to show you, backed up again with real-world examples, that not all mitigation policies are as easily reversible as a carbon tax. Some have blown huge amounts of capital that can never be recovered, while others have incurred future costs that will be locked in for decades.
-
RemootSensing at 01:42 AM on 7 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
Another piece of information that came out this week in the US is the Quadrennial Defense Review which sets "a long-term course for DOD as it assesses the threats and challenges that the nation faces..."
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
While this is a high level document discussing how the DOD plans to move forward, it does not ignore science. From page 25:
"Finally, the Department will employ creative ways to address the impact of climate change, which will continue to affect the operating environment and the roles and missions that U.S. Armed Forces undertake. The Department will remain ready to operate in a changing environment amid the challenges of climate change and environmental damage."
-
wili at 20:22 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
JH, thanks for activating the links. But I don't have the scientific chops to judge how accurate they are. Is this dynamic of cool capping water really enough to shut down that thermohaline circulation as the Daily Kos article claims? IIRC, it would take about one sverdrup of fresh water to shut down the AMOC. Is that true of this southern current? Is there really that much fresh water down there?
Thanks ahead of time for any insights on this important issue.
Moderator Response:[JH] I will defer to one of my more learned colleagues to respond to your question.
-
chriskoz at 18:41 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
MichaelK@2,
-
Michael Whittemore at 17:51 PM on 6 March 2014Peer-reviewed papers by Skeptical Science authors
You guys are doing a great job and in my opinion, the best job!
-
MichaelK at 17:46 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
The link to "Global warming slows down Antarctica's coldest currents" returns a Not Found.
Moderator Response:[JH] The link has been fixed. Thank you for bringing this glitch to our attention.
-
wili at 12:05 PM on 6 March 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #10A
More on the Antarctic current here:
"The Antarctic Half of the Global Thermohaline Circulation is Collapsing"
"The largest source of Antarctic Bottom Water in the global thermohaline circulation (labelled W) has ceased production.
...this study probably underestimates the amount of fresh water around Antarctica and its effects on Antarctic Bottom Water (ABW) formation...
Global political policies are not keeping up with the rate of change and our models have, to date, underestimated the rate of change. We are witnessing a total failure of global leadership to deal with changes we caused that are spiraling out of control."
Peter Ward on the consequences of this development: "When [the global ocean current conveyor belt] stops, we lose oxygen at the bottom, and we start the process toward mass extinction."
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for providing the links to additional articles. The findings of this new study have attracted quite a bit of coverage.
PS - I activated your second link.
-
Andy Skuce at 09:12 AM on 6 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Don9000, the same problem with losing a long comment just happened to me. I think there is a time-out problem. Luckily, I kept a copy.
Thanks for a thoughtful comment.
You say: My basic problem with the way some--including you and Hansen--are laying out the debate is that your approach creates an argument against the XL Pipeline based on the Either-Or fallacy: Either we stop the XL Pipeline from being built, Or it is game over for the planet.
I do not believe in the "game over" framing and I have critcized James Hansen for exaggerating the potential of the oil sands to change the climate. Please read my post Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”? I wrote:
James Hansen, in a Huffington Post article, cites the IPCC AR4 WGIII report (page 268), which says that Canada’s bitumen resources represent at least 400Gt of “stored carbon” (the reference for this number is not clear). This implies an in-place mass some 68% higher than the ERCB’s in-place estimate and more than nine times the ERCB ultimate recoverable potential resource. The WGIII report states that 310Gbbl (~41GtC) of the bitumen resources are recoverable, a figure close to that of the latest ERCB number of 315Gbbl.
I also point out that Alberta's coal resource contains more carbon than its bitumen resource. I don't downplay the overwhelming relative importance of coal.
Here is a figure from that post where I compared the contribution of aggressive oil sands development with extrapolations of current consumption of other fossil fuels to the end of the century.
Quite clearly, my message is that bitumen exploitation is a step in the wrong direction, but it is clearly not the main cause of the climate problem, either now or in the future. And no, I will not give up hope if any more fossil fuel infrastructure is built.
Don9000 said : That is why I believe Skeptical Science needs to seriously consider widening this front in the war. I don't see anywhere near enough thoughtful analysis here or elsewhere regarding how carbon taxes can work.
I agree, we should do more of this and we will. However, we have already made some effort in this direction. I have written two pieces;
BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working
Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
and Dana Nuccitelli has written about carbon pricing and carbon taxes both here and in The Guardian:
Citizens Climate Lobby - Pushing for a US Carbon Fee and Dividend
True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus
Can a carbon tax work without hurting the economy? Ask British Columbia
Citizens Climate Lobby pushes for a carbon tax and dividend
I think that a global carbon tax is the most important single step towards mitigating the climate crisis. It likely won't be enough, we will need additional regulations, government investment in R&D and infrastructure and a cultural change in our attitudes to emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases. And some luck with climate sensitivity, carbon cycle feedbacks and new technologies.
I agree, there is a risk that if the pipeline is not approved, some people may think that the climate problem is then solved. But many people already seem to think that buying a hybrid car or installing energy-efficient lightbulbs is sufficient. We will have to do our best to remind people that one or two small steps are not enough. The solution involves transforming the economy.
I don't claim to understand the mentality of the Republican Party, but I don't think that approving the pipeline will really make them more open to the idea of compromise on carbon pricing. It is an article of faith among most of those people that climate change is not a serious threat or is even a hoax perpetrated by extremists. As Roy Spencer recently wrote:
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.
I doubt that Spencer would interpret the approval of Keystone XL as a sign of reconciliation or as a good moment to start talking seriously about a global carbon tax. Perhaps he is not typical of people on the US right, I don't know, I am not an American.
The main reason that I am motivated to lobby against new pipelines is because this may have some effect. Yes, the effect will be small, yes it may be fleeting and only partially effective, but it is possible. In contrast, making progess on effective national-level carbon pricing policies in N America is still a few election cycles away. progress on a global carbon tax may be a generation of more away. I wish it were not so and I have vowed never to vote for any party that is not committed to introducing a carbon tax of some kind.
As David Roberts put it on Twitter, asking activists to butt out of the pipeline issue and focus exclusively on carbon pricing is to demand that they “drop achievable campaign, switch to something impossible”.
Moderator Response:[RH] Modified image width.
-
grindupBaker at 09:01 AM on 6 March 2014A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
PhilMorris #25, Tristan #26. Yep, the numbers are vital because they separate this sensible debate from the barrage of irrelevancies by some "skeptical" types. 900 ZettaJoules to melt 3 million km^3 of ice on Greenland. It's, what, ~300 ZJ added over the last many decades (25 ZJ in 2013) but of course hardly any of it will get to the Greenland ice. So it's a slower process than a few decades but it will be accelerating for sure. 5,600 ZettaJoules to heat oceans 1 Celsius but then they only heated 3.5C during the entire 10,000 year warm up from the "ice age". It's my understanding that Greenland ice would not slide into the ocean, so it requires air-warming or rain-warming, but some large West Antarctic glaciers might do that if their sea ice buttresses get eaten away. PhilMorris might want to review those aspects if time permits. Longer than a few decades I would think.
-
Don9000 at 07:20 AM on 6 March 2014The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL
Andy,
I'm in basic agreement with Mike@1 and David@3 on this. I too tried to post comment yesterday pointing out that a carbon tax is the key. Somehow, when I hit submit, it disappeared into the planetary ether.
My basic problem with the way some--including you and Hansen--are laying out the debate is that your approach creates an argument against the XL Pipeline based on the Either-Or fallacy: Either we stop the XL Pipeline from being built, Or it is game over for the planet.
I see now that you've at least conceded that you didn't make a strong enough case for a carbon tax, and I think I will begin with it. Here is what you say:
"I agree that carbon pricing is the best solution, however it is off the table, politically speaking, in the US and Canada. Using KXL approval as a bribe to get the approval of the Republican Party or Canada's Conservatives for carbon pricing does not seem feasible to me. I would love to be persuaded that I am wrong on this."
In fact, I would argue that a carbon tax, or, if you prefer, "carbon pricing" is not just the best solution, it is really the only holistic solution. Stopping the XL Pipeline is not a solution. It would merely be a kind of battlefield victory ion a much longer war, and I suspect winning this particular battle could well turn out to be a devastatingly pyrrhic victory, most obviously since stopping the pipeline would absolutely not guarantee the bitumen remained locked in the oil sands, but more insidiously because the semblance of a great victory would arguably both enrage the pro-carbon types and at the same time appease many regular Americans who don't really have a very good grasp of the scale of the problem. To me, this is the essential political calculus we have to make.
Look at it this way: By arguing that building the pipeline would be a complete disaster, or a game-over moment, or whatever hyperbolic statement you like, that argument is going to look to many average Americans who lack a strong grasp of the subject like an argument that says stopping the pipeline equates to victory over climate change.
Certainly, you can bet the oil, gas, and coal lobby would spin it that way to gain another few years to delay and obfuscate.
So, if we do stop the pipeline, where would we be? I think I can tell you: We would be forced into the position of saying, "Well, stopping the pipeline is great, and an important first step, but we have a lot more to do before we can say we've won the war."
How well do you think that argument will fly with Republicans? How well will it fly with regular Americans, who will probably be thinking that the defeat of the pipeline means they can relax?
I'll tell you how I think it will fly: it will crash. It will crash, because we will still have to come back and argue that a carbon tax is needed to really solve the problem, and the GOP will be incensed and claim they've given us everything we asked for, and now we are asking for more, and many regular Americans will agree with them.
My advice to you, if you wish to be convinced that I am right about this and your approach is wrong, is to put yourself in the shoes of the deniers and the skeptics and the general and generally ignorant public and play through in your mind how a rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline would appear to them. Don't think about how a defeat of the pipeline would appear to you: You are not Them. Alternatively, imagine how you would react if the pipeline were approved. Would you really give up at that point? If you would, then I guess you really do believe in the Either-Or fallacy, but if not ... Just think it all the way through.
Regarding your belief that a carbon tax or carbon pricing is off the table in the US and Canada at the present time, I say, "all the more reason Skeptical Science should be pushing it as the necessary first step to get carbon emissions under control." A comprehensive carbon tax will have to show up on the table soon, and will have to be put into effect, before we really are on our collective way to averting disaster. That is why I believe Skeptical Science needs to seriously consider widening this front in the war. I don't see anywhere near enough thoughtful analysis here or elsewhere regarding how carbon taxes can work.
For example, I believe that a global effort to combat global warming is so crucial that if the US enacted a carbon tax that impacted its fossil fuels and manufactured goods prices, it would have a right and in fact a duty to see to it that countries and international companies that don't take similar steps should not be allowed to export their products into the US without being charged a tax. I don't know enough about international trade law to speak on this idea with any authority, but it is clear to me that without the ability to level the playing field in this way, national carbon taxes would be a recipe for cheating on a massive scale.
So, where are we? Well, without a comprehensive approach--which a well-designed carbon tax is a necessary part of--all we are really doing is putting costly bandages on flesh wounds. It may make us feel better to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline in such a world, but stopping the pipeline would in effect exhaust our bank account of public willingness to act where action is much more effective for some time to come.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:17 AM on 6 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
William... You can find the "link" tool on the second tab, titled "Insert", above the comments box. You can use the tools there to post images and to hot link text.
-
william5331 at 04:49 AM on 6 March 2014Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk
The more we hammer at these ostriches, the more they push back. Perhaps we should tell them to forget climate change.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link. (Since you comment here regularly, please learn how to embed links properly. Thank you).
Prev 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 Next
