Cure for Global Warming? Pollution!

Okay, you made the point about not harpooning the other side, so give what I have to say a little consideration. Consider, too, that I get no compensation from any vested interest. This is how I--a skeptic--think. (Also, when I write "global warming" [in quotes], I mean anthopogenic global warming; few deny the Earth's climate changes, but the skepticism revolves around the causes for it.)

1. [THE THEORY IS NEVER TESTED] Although I've been hearing about the profound danger of global warming for decades--remember, Al Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" BEFORE he became Vice President in '92--I have seen no predictions by the "global warming" camp that have come true. We've heard about a hotter Earth--and it got cooler; we've heard about rising sea levels--and they haven't materialized. We've heard about "tipping points" and drastic weather excursions--and that hasn't happened either. The proof is ALWAYS a few more decades down the road. And claims of evidence of "global warming" are always after the fact.

2. [CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY REMAINS IN HOW CLIMATE WORKS] Climate scientists don't fully understand how climate works. Their models--the ones that predict big increases in global temperature--are so simplified as to be almost meaningless. The proof is that the models disagree with each other by huge amounts. A big part of understanding the global energy balance is understanding cloud formation, and there have been two significant papers recently that (perhaps) have useful things to say about that: the first, that variations in the sun's magnetic field affect cosmic ray bombardment of the Earth, thereby changing cloud formation; and the second, the one referenced in this thread, about sulfur in the atmosphere "counteracting" the last decade of warming. Now, whether you're convinced "global warming" is real or not, it's clear that there are still significant unknowns in the climate...these RECENT discoveries are proof.

3. [EVERYONE HAS AN INTEREST] It's easy to call a skeptic an "oil company shill," but don't think for a moment that there can't be vested interests in driving the other side. James Hansen, one of the biggest "global warming" proponents, is under investigation for abusing his position at NASA to make millions. Al Gore has made political hay and millions of dollars off "global warming"---all while generating FAR more CO2 than the common person. And do you think all of those bureaucrats on the IPCC are really going to say at some point "You know, we can't prove there's a problem, so we should really give up our cushy, powerful jobs and disband?" No way.

4. [THERE IS NO CONSENSUS] Claims of "consensus" aren't true. There are many scientists who are skeptical of global warming. It's also clear from Climategate that, at a minimum, researchers at the Climate Research Unit in the UK were having private doubts while expressing public certainty.

5. [THE COST OF CHANGE IS REAL AND PROFOUND, THE BENEFITS ARE SPECULATIVE] We don't live in a world of infinite resources. The choice ISN'T between life as normal and life as normal plus addressing "global warming." Changing our pattern of energy consumption--when there is no economically comparable alternative--will have a profound impact on our lifestyles. If the climate change regulators got what they wanted, energy would be far more expensive. This is real, not speculation. The "global warming" problem, however, may not even be real, let alone a problem. If it turned out, say, that the sun's magnetic field had much more influence on the climate, we could spend TRILLIONS of dollars on "fixing" a problem...and wind up with nothing to show for it...except we'd be trillions of dollars poorer.

Ok, so the Right has the "Religious Right" and "Fred Phelps" but we (the Left) are not supposed to use them or include them in our arguements, but Left wing extremists are "the Left"?

I'm pretty left-leaning, but I insist nothing. What I do insist is that the evidence and information gathered so far, could mean humans are affecting the environment.

Not all environmental scientists "falsified" their documentation and, I defy someone to gather any falsification of evidence on the part of the other side paid by the rich and powerful.

that's all anyone wants.

What if the honest peer reviewed studies with logical methodical approaches that bring results will destroy the world economy? If we're all looking for an apocalypse, shouldn't it be over something that might force humans to make better decisions - regardless of whether it's a Right solution or Left solution?

Al Gore is not "The Left".

For the rest of your points .. See my response to Captain J.

What it shows Prick, is the climate changes on this planet whether or not humans are here or not.

Lessen in accordance with what? The Kyoto Protocol?

We have 100 million vehicles in this country that run on gasoline, and there's an infra-structure that supports that. Explain exactly how that would change without the changes being widespread and expensive.

Assuming you CAN change to a "lower impact, more sustainable society."

Platitudes sound good, but you actually have to DELIVER on the promise. What fuel could I use to drive my same car, with the same features, over the same distances, at the same speed, with the same cost right now?

Why can't the change be voluntary? Offer people a choice and see what they choose. But other people's vision of a "better" lifestyle/society may not match YOURS, Dan....so I guess choice is out.

As for consequences, I'd also point out that a few simple changes to mileage and emissions standards in the 1970s almost destroyed our domestic automobile industry. Our carmakers had to focus on what Washington wanted---not what customers wanted. That was a hard-learned lesson.

Am I a simpleton? I think people who advocate radical change without acknowledging the tremendous cost are profoundly naive, and have probably never worked in an environment where costs had to be addressed.

Historically, there does seem to be a continued pressure on the automobile.

Prick, nobody can predict what temperatures will be in decades. Even weather men have a difficult time predicting what the weather is going to be in a few days.

The cure for Global Warming is to get rid of all the politicians. At this point, they are about the only ones who still actively worship the religion.

Which were for the most part made without anyone trying to force it.

You pick the low-hanging fruit first. Particulate matter is fairly easy to control; coming up with an alternative to petroleum is not.

It's the law of diminishing returns. The cost per increment of improvement does not remain constant. It's why going from 50ppm of mercury in water to 30ppm may cost X, but going from 30ppm to 10ppm (the same increment) may cost 10X. PERFECTION is unobtainable at ANY price.

There's very little inefficiency and waste in the western world. If some process produces a large quantity of waste material, someone else tries to find a use for it. Capitalism is very, very efficient.

If they were to all come up to western standards overnight. They won't. They'll come up over the next few decades, and increasing efficiency and exploitation of new resources will allow them to do so at minimal cost.

You're making the classical Malthusian mistake, Dan. You're assuming that resources are fixed in the here and now. They're not. Malthus would've been right about the world starving to death...except that he totally failed to foresee the revolution in farming that was coming. If people had listened to Malthus, there might've been severe controls on population or a freeze in the development of agriculture that would've had disastrous effects.

Today we feed FAR more people using FAR less land than Malthus could've imagined.

The population of America has done nothing but go up from the beginning and we've gotten continuously higher standards of living. It isn't a zero-sum game. If another person is added to the population, it doesn't necessarily make everyone else that much poorer. Look around you---how could it? You live considerably better than someone who would've lived in your neck of the woods 100, 200, 400, or 800 years ago, despite your country's population being much larger.

I love how the ones that apply the nastiest allegories between ACC and "a religion", are typically those that most lose their shit in a debate on "real", religion.



"Oh, no, how dare you, religion is wonderful! You're a scumbag for ridiculing it! AACC? Fake and stupid, like a religion! You're a dupe! Like the follower of a religion! ".

Shit, I've seen the religious pull it!

The human brain is a heckuva hedge maze...

A stretch. Even for you.

But, whatever keeps you spanking it.

Post 100!!!

Good to see you've got the car in full reverse and the pedal to the medal.

I said the data you initially presented was worthless by itself. You were the one arguing that 99.9% of the data was worthless.

What have I reversed myself on? And why aren't you answering my question?

Data from the short term is relevant to the short term.

Well shit, you found a Wikipedia article that cites a couple geographers from regional universities in Wisconsin that wrote a paper. You won me over.

So we've got Dan, Rick, and Mike in corners. I hope no more dumbasses show up. I'm running out of corners.

Oh hi, Jenee.