What do you believe about climate change?

[Dicey]

It's hot here and we have no water. Climate Change? I believe the more accurate term is Climate Changed. Done deal.

[brainfart]

It might get worse...

[music lover]

How was he exposed as a fraud? By whom and..link?

He wasn't.  He was accused of fraud by a group of oil and gas industry lobbyists, which sparked a series of investigations, all of which fully exonerated him of any wrongdoing.  But that doesn't matter here, because it's an easy-to-verify fact and this clearly isn't a conversation about facts.

Who "fully exonerated" Mann, other than Penn State (his employer), who also exonerated Sandusky?? Based on the results of that investigation, their methods should be questioned.

By the way, what group of oil and gas lobbyists are you referring to? Got a link?

[sol]

Got a link?

Hah!  You're funny. 

After pages of refusing to provide links for your outrageous claims, suddenly you demand proof?  I'll play if you will.

[scottish]

I  believe 3 things:

1.  Reducing pollution is a good thing.   

2.  Most of the pollution is coming from developing countries.   They generally have worse pollutants to worry about the carbon dioxide.    So our efforts will be mostly setting a good example without a lot of direct impact.   don't underestimate the importance of a good example though.

3.  The book "Mathematics & Climate" by Kaper and Engler has reasonably clear physical models that even an engineer like Scottish can understand.   (Great now I'm talking about myself in the 3rd person.)    So there's definitely truth in the statement that carbon dioxide levels can alter the climate.   But it remains unclear how well these models are calibrated.   Academic papers remain obfuscatory, primarily to keep industry consultants from trying to discredit them.   This is a heck of a way to do science.

[Stache-O-Lantern]

It's hot here and we have no water. Climate Change? I believe the more accurate term is Climate Changed. Done deal.

The heat is for sure!  I'm sweating outside in CA as I write this.  But i think the current drought in CA is not necessarily attributable to human-induced climate change.  There's a paleoclimatologist, Lynn Ingram, who's done some work and concluded that the 20th century in CA was wetter than normal.  That said, the current drought is consistent with predictions of climate change.  Or it could just be reversion to a longer term mean.  Or it could be both. 

Your comment sounds so final, so sure of itself.  I too accept the scientific conclusion of human-induced climate change.  My point is simply that everyone, on all sides, always needs to keep an open mind.  It is so much harder with things that become politicized, like climate change.  Everyone hardens up.  It's human nature to close your mind to an alternative explanation once you find a particular explanation that fits.

Perhaps I'm too wishy-washy.  I believe the current drought in CA may or may not be attributable to human-induced climate change!

[music lover]

Got a link?

Hah!  You're funny. 

After pages of refusing to provide links for your outrageous claims, suddenly you demand proof?  I'll play if you will.

Nice try, but there are plenty of links for every claim that I made, but there are none at all for your claim. Why is that? Even the alarmist sites don't make that claim, so the only possibilities are that you either made it up or are lying.

[ender]

I am completely convinced people will continue to use anecdotal evidence to believe whatever they want about climate change.

I am also completely convinced that the right course(s) of action are the same, whether climate change is 100% real or 0% real.

[Bob W]

I believe that it is happening much faster than we imagine. 

I believe that the oil and gas industry has the greatest PR firms ever.

I believe my grandchildren will experience life very differently than I do primarily due to climate change.

I believe that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat piece of dung who occasionally says something correct.

I believe that the oil industry praying on a bunch of people that believe that a man who died 2000 years ago will save them is a very sad ironic thing. 

I believe that the US is the only country overrun by climate change skeptics.

I believe in the tragedy of the commons and that people will keep pouring shit into our shared air as long as we allow them.   

I believe that Elon Musk is our great hope and that in the next decade the price of solar energy powered everything,  including cars,  will be below the cost of fossil fuel energy. 

I believe that in many respects it is too late.  The eggs are scrambled.   

I believe my brother, the flower growing freak, who said years ago the season in St.Louis had moved 2 weeks in his 40 years of growing.   

I believe in what Dick Cheney said -- "It is not if,  it is when?"

[music lover]

I believe that the oil and gas industry has the greatest PR firms ever.

Lol. It pales in comparison to the alarmists and the liberal media. Remember how we were told daily that the sea Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2015?? It didn't happen, but no one apologized for the years of misinformation and propaganda, and no one was held accountable...they all simply moved along to the next big scare. And, of course, when the next big scare fails to happen, the goal posts will simply be moved forward once again.

I believe that the US is the only country overrun by climate change skeptics.

Or, the only country that makes a big deal out of an unproven theory. Yes, it's only a theory...based on computer models that can't recreate the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. When a computer model can't recreate what has already happened, it's about as useful as a random number generator.

I believe that Elon Musk is our great hope and that in the next decade the price of solar energy powered everything,  including cars,  will be below the cost of fossil fuel energy.

He has yet to build an affordable car without government subsidies. Solar powered "everything" is fantasy talk from people who have no real knowledge of the real world.

[Chris22]

Amusing, but completely lacks nuance and context. 

For instance, the speed and level of severity with which you must undertake certain things is wildly different depending on if "all life depends on it" or you're just trying to "make the world a 'better' place."  Also, 'better' is an opinion; my world is not 'better' if you kick me out of one of my gas-powered cars and onto a bike or public transportation.  Or start to restrict my power usage.  You better have real good proof if you want to start restricting my freedoms in that way, and that proof better include tangible downsides, not just "it might get 1.8* warmer on average". 

[gaja]

I think the question "I don't believe in climate change" shows a total and mindblowing lack of basic knowledge. Climate=average weather. So these people don't believe in weather? Or math? Is it only averages they don't believe in, or all use of numbers, plus and minus? They want us all to convert to medians? Or do they not believe that the weather changes? The weather normals (climate) are usually calculated for 30 year periodes. I don't see how it is possible to think that the average weather in 1930-1960 would be identical to the average weather in 1960-1990.

And then this concept of change. I get that some very few fundamentalists believe that the earth is 5000 years old and has stayed the same all the time. But most normal people accept the overwhelming evidence that we have had both warmer and colder periodes the last 4 billion years.

So to the discussion of how much of the current climate change is man made. I agree with shelivesthedream: I don't care. We should be trying to make the world a better place anyway. Some people like numbers, so lets count improvement in CO2. Or trees. Or the increasing number of whales. Or less women dying in child birth.

But still, I do care a bit. As a paleontologist, I've studied what happened the other times the world saw major climate changes. In the Perm/Trias event, somewhere around 90 % of all life died. One of the triggers were probably massive emissions of methane. Similar to what is happening in Russia now, as the permafrost is melting. Sure, it would be nice to get warmer weather in Norway. And we don't really care about sea level, we'll just climb higher up the mountains. But there is kind of the rest of the world to to think about, including my Inuit friends who no longer can hunt on the ice, because it has melted. And my Faroese friends, who no longer can eat puffin, because the fish has migrated north to colder seas and caused starvation for the birds. And my Danish and Dutch friends who will loose their homes if the sea water rises just a few more meters. If that happens; will they still be friends, or will they try to steal our mountains? They have done so before, and I do not want to be ruled from Copenhagen again.

My personal conclusion: I choose to believe that humans are influensing the climate change, because that would mean that we have a chance to continue doing so. If it is only up to the sun and volcanos, we are doomed. I don't want to live in a world where we get overrun by flatlanders, so I'll do my best to keep their lands habitable. Also, electric cars and bioenergy are fun and frugal.

[sol]

Wait, your seriously just calling science a religion in order to discredit it?  If your best argument against science is that it is like a religion, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood both of those things.

[Chris22]

Wait, your seriously just calling science a religion in order to discredit it?  If your best argument against science is that it is like a religion, I think you have fundamentally misunderstood both of those things.

"Science" is not a religion, but there are an awful lot of parallels between AGW and religion amongst the true believers.  Hell, what's the difference between "carbon credits" and "indulgences"??

[skunkfunk]

I don't want to piss anyone off so I'll just say that this thread is, err, shocking to see here.

We're posting on an environmental blog's forum space...

[gaja]

In the 1970s the experts warned us about global cooling.
In the 1990s the experts warned us about global warming.
Then the enviro-mental politicians like Algore decided the science was settled and blamed us for all the warming (or cooling, or whatever is convenient).  Seems more like a religion than actual science, frequently and fervently evangelized in the U.S. by the same folks who care more about Cecil the lion than the legal genocide of 60,000,000 unborn Americans. 

Some quotes on the topic from folks more eloquent than I:

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that “everybody” believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few “deniers” who are likened to Holocaust deniers.

The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables. — Thomas Sowell

Professor (Phil) Jones, considered to be the high priest of the manmade global warming movement, has been in the spotlight since he was forced to step down as CRU’s director after the leaking of e-mails that skeptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. In a recent interview with the BBC, he admitted that he did not believe that “the debate on climate change is over” and that he didn’t “believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this.”

Long denied by the warmers, Professor Jones admitted that the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) might well had been as warm as the Current Warm Period (1975-present), or warmer, and that if it was, “then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.” That suggests global warming may not be a manmade phenomenon. In any case, Professor Jones said that for the past 15 years, there has been no “statistically significant” global warming. — Walter Williams

As Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace explained, “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” No set of facts can disprove the environmentalists’ secular religion. In 2004, former vice president Al Gore gave a speech on global warming in New York City on the coldest day of the year. Warm trends prove global warming. Cold trends also prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman. — Ann Coulter

And my favorite:

Global warming is a fact. Now it's up to liberals to make it a reality. Hence there is crucial importance in preventing powerful, greedy free market forces from getting in the way of worsening storms and rising sea levels. The Kyoto Accord is a good first step.
P. J. O'Rourke

Americans (and Torbjørn Jagland in the Nobel Price Comittee) are probably the only ones who care about Al Gore. The rest of the world listen to, and debate, what scientists say. If the subject of this debate has changed to what American politicians have said about climate change; should I start translating and arguing about quotes from Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Faroese, Greenlandic, and German politicians too? Maybe someone on the forum could give insight into the details of the opinions of Malaysian politicians? Or would that be equally irrelevant to you, as your former vise president is to me?

[TheOldestYoungMan]

In the late 80's and early 90's, it was all about conservation.  Captain Planet represent yo!

I think conservation was and remains a noble goal in and of itself.  A ton of people weren't listening though, and so there was this continuous stream, this line of people from the 70's up to now, who have been active in popular culture and in politics advancing an agenda.

The origins of skepticism over global warming stem from that.  The people first pushing this onto center stage were not scientists and engineers who had data that proved a theory, these people were in every definition of the word, batshit crazy.  And the early science was bad.  It wasn't double-blind studies, it was half-cocked poorly researched underfunded "the sky is falling" nonsense.  They ended up being right in the same way that people who predicted the Dow closing price at the end of the year are "right."  There's something to be said for it's better to be lucky than good.  That the people now embracing the current round of science will not own this reality, and insist on belittling those who disagree with them, is exactly what you would expect from believers.

Scientists and engineers just state their information as best they know it.  That "climate scientists" allowed themselves to be corrupted by manipulating the reporting of their findings in service to an agenda is their fault.  You can disagree with the people who call bullshit on those grounds, but the grounds themselves are legitimate.  It is why it is so vitally important that you put your data out there and walk away.  By trying to manipulate the conversation beyond convincing with facts, they strayed from science as much as any accused "denier", if not more.

As far as the science is concerned, I can actually perform the heat transfer calculation that demonstrates how atmospheric concentrations of gasses affect the overall energy balance.  I have performed primary research on climate change, including temperature measurements.  We used thermocouples instead of thermometers, as we were doing science, not rhetoric.  Go right on trusting your thermometers Sol.  They're useless as scientific instruments, but go ahead.

I'll say right now what any responsible and ethical engineer or scientist can say, the climate is in flux, and humans are having an effect (because of course, this is a helluva lot less profound a statement than it seems), but it is impossible to say how much or how little.  This is a conversation where the conclusions have to be expressed in probabilistic model statements.  It is ludicrous to think that laymen who blatantly abuse statistics for their own gain could accurately interpret the results, regardless of how they are presented.  The climate is about the most complex thing humanity has ever tried to understand or model.  I can say with 100% certainty that all the models are wrong.  Pretty much every model of anything is wrong.  That isn't the same thing as useless.  But when you defend a model that is demonstrably wrong, one where the creators of the model will freely admit, should you ever attend one of their conferences, that they forced it to match the historical record, you (the believer speaking on behalf of someone who actually knows what they are talking about) sound like an idiot.  The purpose of the model was not to be right.

As for the politics, as soon as the issue entered the political sphere it stopped being about science, period.  There is not now, nor will there ever be, a politician who gives a shit about this.  They care about power and the money that is helpful in securing power.  So when believers or skeptics get to arguing about the politician's views on the science, I roll my eyes.  The political conversation is entirely separate from the science.  No one involved in the political conversation has any credibility.  Environmentalists, as a political concern, are watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

I take comfort in some human nature realities, some biological realities, and some historical facts.

Human nature:  There's money to be made in coming up with energy that doesn't pollute.  Someone is going to figure out how to do it.

Biological realities:  I will be dead before this is a problem that kills me, or I will be dead soon after (right as?) it kills me.  Times are good now, life is great.  Carry on, nothing to see here.

Historical Facts:
Taken from SuperFreakonomics by Levitt and Dubner

"In 1898, New York hosted the first international urban planning conference.  The agenda was dominated by horse manure, because cities around the world were experiencing the same crisis.  But no solution could be found.  "Stumped by the crisis," writes Eric Morris, "the urban planning conference declared its work fruitless and broke up in three days instead of the scheduled ten."

The world had seeming reached the point where its largest cities could not survive without the horse, but couldn't survive with it, either.

And then problem vanished.  It was neither government fiat nor divine intervention that did the trick.  City dwellers did not rise up in some mass movement of altruism or self-restraint, surrendering all the benefits of horse power.  The problem was solved by a technological innovation.  No, not the invention of a dung-less animal.  The horse was kicked to the curb by the electric streetcar and the automobile, both of which..."

Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are both excellent and fun reading.  If you want to see what it's like when someone is arguing not from an ideological perspective but from a perspective grounded in facts and science, worth reading.  If you just like to see what happens when you teach monkey the value of money, worth reading.

As bad as you may think climate change is, there were literally mountains of horseshit covering the largest cities as recently as 120 years ago.  We will come up with a solution.

[shelivesthedream]

Just wanted to point something out: we don't say "global warming" any more (like we did in the 1990s when I first heard about it) because we know it isn't just the whole world getting warmer. We say "climate change" because it's (potentially) about a whole host of things including temperature, rainfall, sea levels, etc. So please don't attack *climate change* just because it's not getting warmer where you live.

Also, my impression is that it's only in America that this debate is still really going on amongst the general populace. I'd be interested to see some statistics on public consensus in various countries, though. A quick Google suggests 90% of Britons believe in climate change, but I've no idea where the papers were getting those numbers from.

[music lover]

Well stated TheOldestYoungMan.

Some telling comments by powerful people at the top:

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Just wanted to point something out: we don't say "global warming" any more (like we did in the 1990s when I first heard about it) because we know it isn't just the whole world getting warmer. We say "climate change" because it's (potentially) about a whole host of things including temperature, rainfall, sea levels, etc. So please don't attack *climate change* just because it's not getting warmer where you live.

Correct, as an effort to rebrand the agenda and make it harder for sensible observations regarding the climate to contradict the narrative, the accurate name was forsaken in favor of one that was easier to sell.

[bacchi]

I don't want to piss anyone off so I'll just say that this thread is, err, shocking to see here.

We're posting on an environmental blog's forum space...

Climate change, and the possible changes needed to solve it, is scary. It freaks people out.

edit: gramm(e)r change

[the_gastropod]

Who "fully exonerated" Mann, other than Penn State (his employer), who also exonerated Sandusky?? Based on the results of that investigation, their methods should be questioned.

As Sol said, ALL committees who investigated him: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, Independent Climate Change Email Review, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation. [1]

Lol. It pales in comparison to the alarmists and the liberal media.

Source? Exxon Mobile, alone, has dumped over $30 million in funding misinformation about climate science. [2][3]

Remember how we were told daily that the sea Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2015??

Source?

Or, the only country that makes a big deal out of an unproven theory.

Wrong. South Korea, Japan, Greece, Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Portugal, Paraguay, Chile, Hong Kong, Columbia, Uruguay, El Salvador, Panama, Bolivia, Peru, Guatamala, Mali, Philippines, Spain, Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, Angola, Sudan, Malta, Morocco, Madagascar, Ireland, Nicaragua, Uganda, Italy, Hungary, Venezuela, Laos, Sweden, Lebanon, France, Sri Lanka, Israel, Malasia, Iran, Djibouti, Bangladesh, Canada, Luxembourg, Romania, Egypt, Germany, Kenya, Belize, Honduras, Poland, Republic of Congo, China, Ethiopia, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Algeria, Syria, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Jordan, Mozambique, Finland, India, Dominican Republic, Czech Republic, Russia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Austria, Ukraine, Ghana, Belgium, Palestine, Lithuania, Tunisia, and several others all have larger percentages of the population that believe in man-made climate change. [4]

Yes, it's only a theory...

Just like evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, general relativity, special relativity, Heliocentrism, plate tectonics, and so many others. Maybe you should read up about what a theory is, and the rigor with which they are tested.

based on computer models that can't recreate the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. When a computer model can't recreate what has already happened, it's about as useful as a random number generator.

What are you talking about?



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
[3] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/exxon-climate-change-email
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

[pbkmaine]

Does it even matter what's a "fact" and what isn't? What's the downside to conserving resources and living lightly on the Earth?

[abiteveryday]

The atmospheric chemistry behind CO2 and warming has been well understood for a century.     The degree to which it will affect is is less well understood.   Objectively even a small change is terrible if you are Marshallese, but here in the PacNW the best models say I'll get a longer summer growing season.     I believe there is change occurring, it will be very bad for some people, and almost certainly is happening as a result of human CO2 emissions.   

That said, I also don't believe that anything could possibly be done to stop it.    It would require a level of global cooperation I just can't imagine.    And to be honest, it would require significant reduction in lifestyle in most of the developed world.    I think that's really at the heart of so many people's disagreement.   They are being asked to make real sacrifices for something that isn't (yet) very real to them.  So barring some kind of amazing unforeseen technological solution, I guess I'm just here for the inevitable ride.

[music lover]

Does it even matter what's a "fact" and what isn't? What's the downside to conserving resources and living lightly on the Earth?

No one disagrees with living lightly. They disagree with politics such as this:

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

It's not about the climate, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's about money and power. Even when the people at the top who want to take your money tell you outright that it's about money and not the climate, some people are still too BLINDINGLY STUPID to believe them. That's what frustrates people.

[ender]

It's not about the climate, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's about money and power. Even when the people at the top who want to take your money tell you outright that it's about money and not the climate, some people are still too BLINDINGLY STUPID to believe them. That's what frustrates people.

The funny thing is that I have no idea if this complaint is against or for climate change policy.

[bacchi]

It's not about the climate, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's about money and power. Even when the people at the top who want to take your money tell you outright that it's about money and not the climate, some people are still too BLINDINGLY STUPID to believe them. That's what frustrates people.

The funny thing is that I have no idea if this complaint is against or for climate change policy.

It doesn't help when quotes are either made up or taken completely out of context.

[Tyson]

Coming from Texas, myself, and seeing the shitstorm they are dealing with due to climate change is somehow quite gratifying.  Having relatives deny climate change in one breath and then bitch that they have to sell half their herd because draughts cause a hay shortage is amusing in the extreme.  I hope Texas (and the rest of the backward South) keep up their Ostrich-Head-In-The-Sand strategy.  Seems to be working out GREAT for them so far!

[music lover]

It's not about the climate, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's about money and power. Even when the people at the top who want to take your money tell you outright that it's about money and not the climate, some people are still too BLINDINGLY STUPID to believe them. That's what frustrates people.

The funny thing is that I have no idea if this complaint is against or for climate change policy.

It doesn't help when quotes are either made up or taken completely out of context.

Those are direct quotes, but I get the impression that you don't really care about facts.

[music lover]

Coming from Texas, myself, and seeing the shitstorm they are dealing with due to climate change is somehow quite gratifying.  Having relatives deny climate change in one breath and then bitch that they have to sell half their herd because draughts cause a hay shortage is amusing in the extreme.  I hope Texas (and the rest of the backward South) keep up their Ostrich-Head-In-The-Sand strategy.  Seems to be working out GREAT for them so far!

Yeah...because Texas never before had a drought in recorded history until SUV's came along. Or California.

[bacchi]

It doesn't help when quotes are either made up or taken completely out of context.

Those are direct quotes, but I get the impression that you don't really care about facts.

Citing the primary source should be easy then.

Thanks.

[Tyson]

Coming from Texas, myself, and seeing the shitstorm they are dealing with due to climate change is somehow quite gratifying.  Having relatives deny climate change in one breath and then bitch that they have to sell half their herd because draughts cause a hay shortage is amusing in the extreme.  I hope Texas (and the rest of the backward South) keep up their Ostrich-Head-In-The-Sand strategy.  Seems to be working out GREAT for them so far!

Yeah...because Texas never before had a drought in recorded history until SUV's came along. Or California.

Man, I was hoping someone would come along to illustrate my point.  Thanks!

[Thegoblinchief]

We still need to take radical action to change our habits and our consumption whether or not the planet gives a damn about our CO2 emissions. We need to stop driving cars to lower air pollution and slow the use of finite oil resources. We need to stop wasting water because purifying it is incredibly wasteful. We need to stop buying plastic shit from China because [see: cars] and to stop enslaving people halfway across the world to find our whims. We need to stop throwing stuff away because landfill is disgusting. We need to move to varied, organic agriculture so we don't create more deserts and kill off even more biodiversity. We need to say no to corporations so that we can function on a human level and remain psychologically healthy. We need to use less electricity because we shouldn't need to burn coal to fuel our greed.

+1

Personally, it's self-evident that you can't release millions of years of stored solar energy in two centuries and NOT change things. That said, "climate change" distracts from much scarier issues like water pollution, desertification, and humanity's head-long race to make the planet as inhospitable to life as possible because they're selfish asshats.

We'll kill the Earth's life-carrying capacity long before a few extra degrees make a damn bit of difference.

Yes, climate change is real, but it is NOT the biggest issue by far.

[matchewed]

I take comfort in some human nature realities, some biological realities, and some historical facts.

Human nature:  There's money to be made in coming up with energy that doesn't pollute.  Someone is going to figure out how to do it.

Biological realities:  I will be dead before this is a problem that kills me, or I will be dead soon after (right as?) it kills me.  Times are good now, life is great.  Carry on, nothing to see here.

Historical Facts:
Taken from SuperFreakonomics by Levitt and Dubner

"In 1898, New York hosted the first international urban planning conference.  The agenda was dominated by horse manure, because cities around the world were experiencing the same crisis.  But no solution could be found.  "Stumped by the crisis," writes Eric Morris, "the urban planning conference declared its work fruitless and broke up in three days instead of the scheduled ten."

The world had seeming reached the point where its largest cities could not survive without the horse, but couldn't survive with it, either.

And then problem vanished.  It was neither government fiat nor divine intervention that did the trick.  City dwellers did not rise up in some mass movement of altruism or self-restraint, surrendering all the benefits of horse power.  The problem was solved by a technological innovation.  No, not the invention of a dung-less animal.  The horse was kicked to the curb by the electric streetcar and the automobile, both of which..."

Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are both excellent and fun reading.  If you want to see what it's like when someone is arguing not from an ideological perspective but from a perspective grounded in facts and science, worth reading.  If you just like to see what happens when you teach monkey the value of money, worth reading.

As bad as you may think climate change is, there were literally mountains of horseshit covering the largest cities as recently as 120 years ago.  We will come up with a solution.

Wait wait wait, you want to stop people from talking about a solution in order for a solution to accidentally arise due to an unanticipated side effect of a technological innovation for a problem you don't actually believe is true or a problem?

/bogle

[gaja]

It's not about the climate, and hasn't been for a very long time. It's about money and power. Even when the people at the top who want to take your money tell you outright that it's about money and not the climate, some people are still too BLINDINGLY STUPID to believe them. That's what frustrates people.

The funny thing is that I have no idea if this complaint is against or for climate change policy.

It doesn't help when quotes are either made up or taken completely out of context.

Those are direct quotes, but I get the impression that you don't really care about facts.

Or it could be that the rest of the world
a) Don't give a fuck about what some US politician says. Anymore than you care about what a random swedish member of parliament had to say.
b) Are not surprised that people who study economical science and history give speeches where they put the current trends in the context of economical theories.

This man, on the other hand, is worth listening to: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2eTwn7npLK0
I know Aqqaluk. He is an honest man who cares deeply about his people. If the US politicians want to talk about power and money; let them. I'll be over here working with Aqqaluk, local communities in the arctic, local ship builders, etc, on making the world a better place.

Some issues are full of conflict, windmills are one example. But there are loads of stuff we can do on other issues that will be positive for everyone. One example is biking; making better bike paths, making sure kids can bike safely to school, etc. Another one is hybrid LNG ships. They offer better work conditions (less noise and smell), are cheaper to operate (less fuel consumption), and there is less chance of oil spills and dead birds. There are plenty of other stuff that is good for both people, environment, and economy.

[Bob W]

I believe that the oil and gas industry has the greatest PR firms ever.

Lol. It pales in comparison to the alarmists and the liberal media. Remember how we were told daily that the sea Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2015?? It didn't happen, but no one apologized for the years of misinformation and propaganda, and no one was held accountable...they all simply moved along to the next big scare. And, of course, when the next big scare fails to happen, the goal posts will simply be moved forward once again.

I believe that the US is the only country overrun by climate change skeptics.

Or, the only country that makes a big deal out of an unproven theory. Yes, it's only a theory...based on computer models that can't recreate the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age. When a computer model can't recreate what has already happened, it's about as useful as a random number generator.

I believe that Elon Musk is our great hope and that in the next decade the price of solar energy powered everything,  including cars,  will be below the cost of fossil fuel energy.

He has yet to build an affordable car without government subsidies. Solar powered "everything" is fantasy talk from people who have no real knowledge of the real world.

Thanks for proving my point how effective the oil and gas industry PR machine has been.   They certainly have gotten inside your brain.  There are ways to actually check perceptual realities you might look into. 

You are correct that solar will not power everything as wind and nuclear will also be a huge factors.   Germany now averages 27% of power generation from renewables with the record day being 75%.  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/  Germany is about the size of Colorado with a population 10 times the size.

So yeah,  if their population was the size of Colorado their renewable power generation would exceed 100%.   

It is interesting that up until 150 years ago that for all of human life existence on earth that our lives were solar and renewable powered.   So it is not only possible it was the norm for mankind. 

Regarding Musk --- I'm sure your not up on it --- but the next generation car will be in line with gas powered cars pricewise and 300+ mile on a charge.   

By the way --  It is not regarded as a "theory" or a religion like Jesus  -- climate change and global warming are accepted as facts by the scientific community.   No one is working to prove or disprove.   They are all working to measure the impact and develop solutions.   

Regarding "subsidizes" -- that is a red flag that you are a victim of the PR machine -- The US subsidizes virtually all industries one way or another.   You know like the subsidies the auto makers had to stay afloat,  or the banks,  or ethanol producers or, oh yeah,  big oil.   

So the correct answer is to cut all subsidizes and tax the shit out of coal,  oil, gas and route that money to renewables asap.    Won't happen on a political basis as energy lobbies run  the government.  But it will happen in lots of countries and Musk will turn the auto industry on its head very soon. 

As I say though,  sadly it will likely be too little too late. 

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Wait wait wait, you want to stop people from talking about a solution in order for a solution to accidentally arise due to an unanticipated side effect of a technological innovation for a problem you don't actually believe is true or a problem?

/bogle

I didn't say I don't think it's true or that I don't think it's a problem.  I also don't think that millions of people around the world trying to innovate are going to "accidentally" come up with a solution.  It's going to be intentional, just as the development of the diesel or turbine engine was intentional.  And I am not the one trying to silence those who disagree with me by using some pseudo-science talking points that were created specifically to manipulate the conversation as opposed to simply informing it.  See: posts in this thread "you either agree with me or you are a denier and don't understand science."

That you confuse me with someone who does not understand the impact of humanity on the climate is telling.

I do oppose the idea that the issue requires massive governmental intervention.  I oppose the idea that the issue is so bad that it justifies wholesale disregard of proven capitalist ideas.

My point is that worrying about it beyond taking the personal steps and personal choices to reduce your consumption...

Look.  Do you have kids?  Do you turn on your AC ever?  Have you ever ridden in a plane?  Then you are part of the climate change problem.  The only solution available right now, is for 9 out of 10 people to no longer be on this planet.  I don't care where you go, but you can't stay here.  So take 9 of your relatives into a room, only one of you is allowed to leave that room (based on reliance on fossil fuels to produce adequate food for this many people).

Instead of talking about that (because it's crazy), the discussion is about government control of market forces, which is socialism skinned in environmentalism.  It won't work (never has) and it won't solve the problem.  That feeling you have, like I'm against you, is because what I'm saying isn't 100% in line with your beliefs.  If it was about science, you'd be open to all possible solutions, market provided or otherwise.  Banning fossil fuels (like we banned DDT, 50 million deaths and counting http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259) will absolutely reduce how much greenhouse gas we emit.  It's not the only possible solution though.  Taxing the emission of greenhouse gas will accomplish nothing.  So the only "solutions" on the table at the moment are about...you guessed it...money and power.  If we did everything we could to limit our greenhouse gas emissions to the bare minimum to sustain the food production to feed this many people...we're still fucked.

That's the issue with the debate.  Solutions aren't being discussed, proposed, etc.  Agendas are being pursued.  Beware vested interests hiding behind a just cause.

To see how well socialists do on environmental causes, I give you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Government is the least competent force for accomplishing anything.  It should be used with great care, and only as a last resort.

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-God-Yellowstone-Destruction-Americas/product-reviews/0156720361

From Eisenhower's farewell address (which ought to be required to be memorized in school, instead of some random bit from Shakespeare, lend me your ears indeed http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm):

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel."

"As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

[Bob W]

Good points -- thanks for the research.   

[GuitarStv]

Wait wait wait, you want to stop people from talking about a solution in order for a solution to accidentally arise due to an unanticipated side effect of a technological innovation for a problem you don't actually believe is true or a problem?

/bogle

I didn't say I don't think it's true or that I don't think it's a problem.  I also don't think that millions of people around the world trying to innovate are going to "accidentally" come up with a solution.  It's going to be intentional, just as the development of the diesel or turbine engine was intentional.  And I am not the one trying to silence those who disagree with me by using some pseudo-science talking points that were created specifically to manipulate the conversation as opposed to simply informing it.  See: posts in this thread "you either agree with me or you are a denier and don't understand science."

That you confuse me with someone who does not understand the impact of humanity on the climate is telling.

I do oppose the idea that the issue requires massive governmental intervention.  I oppose the idea that the issue is so bad that it justifies wholesale disregard of proven capitalist ideas.

My point is that worrying about it beyond taking the personal steps and personal choices to reduce your consumption...

Look.  Do you have kids?  Do you turn on your AC ever?  Have you ever ridden in a plane?  Then you are part of the climate change problem.  The only solution available right now, is for 9 out of 10 people to no longer be on this planet.  I don't care where you go, but you can't stay here.  So take 9 of your relatives into a room, only one of you is allowed to leave that room (based on reliance on fossil fuels to produce adequate food for this many people).

Instead of talking about that (because it's crazy), the discussion is about government control of market forces, which is socialism skinned in environmentalism.  It won't work (never has) and it won't solve the problem.  That feeling you have, like I'm against you, is because what I'm saying isn't 100% in line with your beliefs.  If it was about science, you'd be open to all possible solutions, market provided or otherwise.  Banning fossil fuels (like we banned DDT, 50 million deaths and counting http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259) will absolutely reduce how much greenhouse gas we emit.  It's not the only possible solution though.  Taxing the emission of greenhouse gas will accomplish nothing.  So the only "solutions" on the table at the moment are about...you guessed it...money and power.  If we did everything we could to limit our greenhouse gas emissions to the bare minimum to sustain the food production to feed this many people...we're still fucked.

That's the issue with the debate.  Solutions aren't being discussed, proposed, etc.  Agendas are being pursued.  Beware vested interests hiding behind a just cause.

To see how well socialists do on environmental causes, I give you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Government is the least competent force for accomplishing anything.  It should be used with great care, and only as a last resort.

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-God-Yellowstone-Destruction-Americas/product-reviews/0156720361

From Eisenhower's farewell address (which ought to be required to be memorized in school, instead of some random bit from Shakespeare, lend me your ears indeed http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm):

"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel."

"As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Governments don't control markets with an iron fist.  At best, they nudge markets.  Right now there is little compensatory benefit to a company that decides to produce less carbon in day to day activities.  By applying a slight nudge via carbon tax, you can create a capitalist environment where people are working towards reduced carbon production.

You know how the EPA helps to prevent your lakes and rivers from being polluted, and helps to prevent your air from being as shitty as what they choke down in China?  Yeah, that's some more of that terrible "heavy-handed" socialism at work . . . via fines and jail sentences we've managed to make our world a better place.

It's absolutely not true that 9/10 people need to die to 'fix' climate change (I'd love to see where you're getting this idea from).  It is true that there needs to be a widespread lifestyle change to maintain the numbers we currently have though.  The good news is that population growth in developed nations has largely stalled and reversed itself.  If we can help to bring about this change in developing nations (education for example reduces female birth rate more than just about any other technique that has been tried) then maybe you'll get to see some dramatic reduction of total number of people on Earth as well.

[music lover]

Bob, your "everyone who doesn't agree with me must be brainwashed by Big Oil" mindset is wrong, tiresome, and shows a complete inability to apply critical thinking.

[skunkfunk]

shows a complete inability to apply critical thinking.

I don't think I've ever seen anybody accuse Bob of being unable to apply critical thinking. That is rude and quite unfair, yourself.

[brainfart]

Great thread, I see nothing has changed. All my prejudices were proven right once more.
Maybe we can have another thread about coal rolling, and another one about creationism?

[shelivesthedream]

This is a much politer version of the post I just typed.

Why do Americans hate socialism so much and go on and on about "freedom"? Do y'all have no compassion? Can't you imagine what it might be like to be poor and hopeless? Why are you all so entitled to do whatever you want without thinking about anybody else?

"Ain't nobody gonna take away my freedom to pour oil into the sea, dagnabbit!" "I have the right to hold your head over my car exhaust and laugh!" "Goddamn liberals trying to make a nicer world!" -- that's what I'm hearing on this thread. Grow up and learn to play nicely with others.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

The 9 out of 10 comes from a rough estimate of the amount of CO2 emission per capita (average) that the current ecosystem can process, with no year-over-year increase.  Of course you could increase the number by a reduction in the average (so you can save 8 subsistence farmers in the far east for every Canadian).  They don't need to die, they just can't stay here.  Man you're dark (joke).

The "consensus" number seems to be closer to 3 billion.  That assumes we all switch to vegetarian and still use fossil fuels though (fertilizer and mechanized agriculture/distribution/storage).  So you can have global warming and 3 billion, or not and closer to 8 or 900 million.  The reason I think this is nuts to worry about is that there's always been a cap to what the planet will support, which we've improved upon with technological advancements.  The idea that there are limits is contrary to my ideology, although I'm open to scientific proof that there are limits.

There is a huge incentive to companies and people to figure out a way to use less energy in their day-to-day.  Energy costs money already.  Taxing the plow isn't what caused the invention of the tractor.  Tax incentives for solar power and other alternative energies, that's good policy.  Good technology doesn't need a subsidy, but it can help speed up adoption.

Basic conservation initiatives weren't working in the '90's, and so there's this effort now to push conservation as an absolute survival imperative.  The problem is that we absolutely need to use about this much energy to feed everybody.  Most of the world isn't actually using up a huge surplus of resources over and above this.  If those of us that are cut back, it isn't going to make a lick of difference.

So in the short term I favor doubling down, lets make as much progress as we can, and hope one of the alternatives that comes along can provide a decent energy substitute.

[sol]

By applying a slight nudge via carbon tax, you can create a capitalist environment where people are working towards reduced carbon production.

Relevant discussion of how this is already working:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html

For human to wean ourselves off carbon-emitting fossil fuel, we will have to use some combination of edict and invention — there is no other plausible way around it. The task before the world is best envisioned not as a singular event but as two distinct but interrelated revolutions, one in political willpower and the other in technological innovation. It has taken a long time for each to materialize, in part because the absence of one has compounded the difficulty of the other. It is extremely hard to force a shift to clean energy when dirty energy is much cheaper, and it is extremely hard to achieve economies of scale in new energy technologies when the political system has not yet nudged you to do so.

Basically, the author is arguing that the past five years have seen dramatic improvements in global carbon controls, largely due to the exact market forces and technological salvation mentioned above, though those things came about as a result of a little government kickstarting.

It's nice to see a news report about climate change that isn't all doom and gloom.

Back on the doom and gloom front, US glaciers are taking an absolute beating this year in the lower 48.  Not enough snow last winter and the hottest summer on record combined to cause faster glacier shrinking than ever before observed.  We only started looking in the 1950s, but it's still a little worrisome.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

This is a much politer version of the post I just typed.

Why do Americans hate socialism so much and go on and on about "freedom"? Do y'all have no compassion? Can't you imagine what it might be like to be poor and hopeless? Why are you all so entitled to do whatever you want without thinking about anybody else?

"Ain't nobody gonna take away my freedom to pour oil into the sea, dagnabbit!" "I have the right to hold your head over my car exhaust and laugh!" "Goddamn liberals trying to make a nicer world!" -- that's what I'm hearing on this thread. Grow up and learn to play nicely with others.

I don't hate socialism, it just doesn't work. 

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Socialism-Guides/dp/1596986492

The track record of socialists on environmental policy is well established and bad.  Capitalists aren't much better, but at least there's had the side effect of creating profit.  Socialists ruin the environment for no reason at all.

[music lover]

As Margaret Thatcher once said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

[gaja]

This is a much politer version of the post I just typed.

Why do Americans hate socialism so much and go on and on about "freedom"? Do y'all have no compassion? Can't you imagine what it might be like to be poor and hopeless? Why are you all so entitled to do whatever you want without thinking about anybody else?

"Ain't nobody gonna take away my freedom to pour oil into the sea, dagnabbit!" "I have the right to hold your head over my car exhaust and laugh!" "Goddamn liberals trying to make a nicer world!" -- that's what I'm hearing on this thread. Grow up and learn to play nicely with others.

I don't hate socialism, it just doesn't work. 

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Socialism-Guides/dp/1596986492

The track record of socialists on environmental policy is well established and bad.  Capitalists aren't much better, but at least there's had the side effect of creating profit.  Socialists ruin the environment for no reason at all.

I know, I know. It is horrible, isn't it. Like the Nordic countries, where socialist parties have had the majority for many years. Never make or are able to keep any money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway). No environmental policy or industries based on renewable energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark#Wind_turbine_industry). And if they have had any impact on global environmentalism, that was done by the right wing people, never socialists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission). yay capitalism.

/sarcasm.

[zoltani]

Also, my impression is that it's only in America that this debate is still really going on amongst the general populace.

And abortion, gun control, gay marriage, universal healthcare....

but i digress

[MDM]

Like the Nordic countries, where socialist parties have had the majority for many years. Never make or are able to keep any money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway).

It is interesting how labels get applied.  E.g., from that wiki article:

"The Government Pension Fund (Norwegian: Statens pensjonsfond Utland, SPU) is a fund into which the surplus wealth produced by Norwegian petroleum income is deposited. The fund changed name in January 2006 from its previous name, The Petroleum Fund of Norway. The fund is commonly referred to as The Oil Fund (Norwegian: Oljefondet)."
and
"The Government Pension Fund – Norway (Norwegian: Statens pensjonsfond Norge, SPN) ... is instructed to invest in domestic companies on the stock market, predominantly on Oslo Stock Exchange. Due to this, the Government Pension Fund – Norway is a key stock owner in many large Norwegian companies."

In other contexts, the items above could be framed as
"profiting from global warming"
and
"privatizing social security"
...neither of which any self-respecting US socialist would support.