Bush on Kyoto

[a_unique_person]

The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (by volume) is currently ~2.5% and that of CO2 is ~0.04% So dominating is the difference that when the weather forecasters try to predict tomorrows temperature, they use the amount of water vapor in the local atmosphere as a key figure in the calculation, while they completely ignore the amount of CO2.

They aren't predicting the weather, they are predicting the climate. A different task.

...


Bring us some actual evidence please. For sure the earth is warming up. Does CO2 play a significant role? Evidence please.

I have posted numerous links to the IPCC before.

 

[Rob Lister]

You didn't pay attention the stuff I put on bold. It is very clear to me that Kyoto is far from enough. And it saddens me that we can't even implement these relatively small cuts.

Here's what you put in bold. I bolded more specifically.

Proponents also note that Kyoto is a first step [3], as requirements to meet the UNFCCC will be modified until the objective is met, as required by UNFCCC Article 4.2(d). [4]

Yes. The much eluded to but never defined framework argument once again. "Modified until the objective is met".

I want to know what "modified" means. How will it be modified? What modifications are necessary to make it work? It doesn't work now so "as required" is already necessary.

In effect, you are arguing for something that doesn't exist.

Earlier I wrote:

Yes, as AUP is no doubt about to inform me "for the millionth time", Kyoto is just the "framework". Fine. We know roughly what the cost of the framework and it is laughably unacceptabe (IMO) given the cost(huge)/benefit(none) analysis.

So, how much is the rest of the house for which this framework is proposed? So far, nobody has demonstrated that such a houseplan exists.

 

[Ziggurat]

Water is not added by humans but other elements are and they may affect the performance of water vapor, or crystals, in the total equation, but water is not a triggering agent in the change any more than nitrogen or oxygen are.

It is not comparable to either oxygen or nitrogen, because water concentrations in the atmosphere are dynamic. It really doesn't MATTER if it's added by humans or not, it can still change. Understanding that change is critical to not only the weather, but ALSO climate change. And we don't really understand it yet. Claims that we understand climate change are really premature.

One does not necessarily have to have a full understanding of the atmosphere to deduce that it is changing, or even to deduce what is primarily responsible for the change.

Yes to the former, no to the later. It's not just that we don't fully understand the atmosphere and climate, we barely understand them. And while some change is occuring, it's pretty small, there are LOTS of contributing factors (water, CO2, sunspots, vegetation cover, etc).

Everything about global warming is being pinned on one factor only, carbon dioxide, primarily because that's the ONLY factor we can establish a record for (so that's what scientists measured) but also because that's what the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) can blame on capitalism. But that doesn't mean it's the important one. We simply don't know.

It is true that without a very detailed understanding one cannot project with certainty how the changes of the past will continue, but it is not reasonable to ignore an approaching hurricane because the forecast track is still uncertain, as we all know in Florida. The same applies to this.

But what, exactly, is approaching? The error bars on everything are still huge, often bigger than the measured warming, so even taking it as a given we don't really know how big it is, let alone how big it will be. And what, exactly, should we do? Can we really stop it, or are we better off figuring out how to adapt to it? Climate change can cause problems. But as the Tsunami proved, natural disasters are exacerbated by poverty. Wealthy nations will be able to adapt to climate change fairly easily, it's the poor nations that get screwed. So: do you want to put the brakes on global development to try to stop something that probably can't be stopped (I don't see how you get China and India on board, for example), or do you want to work to raise up poor countries so that they can handle the coming changes?

I'd prefer the second approach. But that debate seems verboten. If future warming will be primarily driven by water vapor feedback, for example, then there's no point in trying to cut back CO2, we're much better off getting ready to adapt. THAT is why we need to understand what's going on with water vapor, and at this point we don't.

 

[Orwell]

It is not comparable to either oxygen or nitrogen, because water concentrations in the atmosphere are dynamic. It really doesn't MATTER if it's added by humans or not, it can still change. Understanding that change is critical to not only the weather, but ALSO climate change. And we don't really understand it yet. Claims that we understand climate change are really premature.

Yes to the former, no to the later. It's not just that we don't fully understand the atmosphere and climate, we barely understand them. And while some change is occurring, it's pretty small, there are LOTS of contributing factors (water, CO2, sunspots, vegetation cover, etc).

Everything about global warming is being pinned on one factor only, carbon dioxide, primarily because that's the ONLY factor we can establish a record for (so that's what scientists measured) but also because that's what the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) can blame on capitalism. But that doesn't mean it's the important one. We simply don't know.

As far as I know, climatologists have considered and looked very carefully into the effects of all the gasses in our atmosphere and a bunch of other factors. CO2 gets a lot of press because it is the main anthropogenic global warming gas.

There are things climatolagists do understand, you know? I wish right leaning americans showed this much restraint and prudence in everything they do...

But what, exactly, is approaching? The error bars on everything are still huge, often bigger than the measured warming, so even taking it as a given we don't really know how big it is, let alone how big it will be. And what, exactly, should we do? Can we really stop it, or are we better off figuring out how to adapt to it? Climate change can cause problems. But as the Tsunami proved, natural disasters are exacerbated by poverty. Wealthy nations will be able to adapt to climate change fairly easily, it's the poor nations that get screwed. So: do you want to put the brakes on global development to try to stop something that probably can't be stopped (I don't see how you get China and India on board, for example), or do you want to work to raise up poor countries so that they can handle the coming changes?

The poor nations will also get screwed if important crops fail, if floods get worse, if erosion is accelerated, if their weather patterns get totally out of whack, if entire coastal regions have to be evacuated, all because of climate change. Doing something about global warming now may actually be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing, for them and for everyone else. Let's put it this way: if global warming is for real (right know, I think it is), and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run. If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "d'oh", but not much else will happen.

I think we should err on the side of caution. We'll need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming...

I'd prefer the second approach. But that debate seems verboten. If future warming will be primarily driven by water vapour feedback, for example, then there's no point in trying to cut back CO2, we're much better off getting ready to adapt. THAT is why we need to understand what's going on with water vapor, and at this point we don't.

If I understand correctly, the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere is directly related to the average temperature of the atmosphere. To put it simply, warm air can contain more moisture than cold air. As the atmospheric temperature rises and the amount of water vapor increases, the greenhouse effect is enhanced, further increasing temperature. In other words, more carbon dioxide leads to a warmer Earth, and this increases water vapour in the atmosphere, aggravating global warming. The amount of water in the atmosphere is dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide.

 

[Ziggurat]

As far as I know, climatologists have considered and looked very carefully into the effects of all the gasses in our atmosphere and a bunch of other factors. CO2 gets a lot of press because it is the main anthropogenic global warming gas.

Which is distinctly different from CO2 being the primary cause of global warming, or even of anthropogenic global climate change. You're so close to noticing something: most of the debate on global warming is centered around what the press chooses to cover, and what the press chooses to cover isn't driven by scientific principles. Why isn't there more coverage of how vegetation affects climate? Several reasons: it's more complex so harder for journalists to understand and explain, it can't be blamed on capitalism so a lot of activists aren't interested, and it's harder to measure so scientists are less likely to spend the necessary resources trying to figure it out compared to CO2, which is easier to study. None of those reasons means vegetation coverage is any less important than CO2, but it does mean that the debate is never going to center on vegetation, even if that's the most important factor which man affects.

There are things climatolagists do understand, you know? I wish right leaning americans showed this much restraint and prudence in everything they do...

Why do you assume I'm right leaning? Assumptions can get you in trouble.

The poor nations will also get screwed if important crops fail,

If they're economically well off, then they simply plant different crops to adapt to the changes. It's really not that hard. But famines in the 20th century have been almost exclusively driven by political causes, not by climate, drought, or natural disaster. Global warming is not going to change that: of your primary interest is stopping famine, then your primary concern should be good governance.

if floods get worse, if erosion is accelerated,

Flooding and errosion are primarily caused by deforestation, NOT by changes in weather paterns. And deforestation is primarily driven by man chopping down trees for farmland, for lumber, and for firewood, not by climate change. Want to stop errosion and flooding? Stop deforestation. And that's MUCH easier to do with economic prosperity (the US, for example, has more tree coverage today than one hundred years ago). Poor people who can't buy heating oil will go out and chop down trees for firewood, flooding be damned. Want to keep them from doing that? Economic development.

if their weather patterns get totally out of whack, if entire coastal regions have to be evacuated, all because of climate change.

I'm not sure exactly how you arrived at this idea of "evacuation". Sea levels aren't going to rise overnight. Yes, people will probably have to relocate if sea levels rise. And it will probably happen very slowly, because sea level changes will happen slowly. Which means that instead of children living where their parents lived, they move inland when they grow up. They won't be fleeing in panic from a sudden deluge. And surprise, surprise, it's easier to have a mobile population and relocatable workforce when you're a developed country.

Doing something about global warming now may actually be cheaper in the long run than doing nothing, for them and for everyone else. Let's put it this way: if global warming is for real (right know, I think it is), and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run.

Like I said, you're once again assuming that doing "something" about it means trying to stop it, rather than trying to adapt. You're also assuming that controlling CO2 emissions are the best way to do that, rather than programs to change vegetation patterns. You're making too many assumptions. But you've really given no argument as to why cutting emissions is preferable to figuring out how to adapt. In fact, you haven't even argued that stopping global warming is even possible at this point.

If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "d'oh", but not much else will happen.

Hardly. Besides possibly prolonging poverty and underdevelopment in the third world (which has horrific human consequences) because our decreased economic activity won't provide the markets they need to develop functional economies of their own, China is simply not going to be on board with this. So they're going to continue to develop their economy and consume resources as fast as they can. We hobble ourselves to combat global warming, and we'll find ourselves faced with a beligerant, authoritarian superpower which is suddenly much more powerful, relative to us, than it would have otherwise been. And it won't have worked anyways: with decreased competition for resources, China will pick up much of the slack in energy demand, increasing their own economic output and keeping global warming on track anyways. You really can't imagine how devoting significant effort to halting global warming could POSSIBLY have negative consequences?

If I understand correctly, the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere is directly related to the average temperature of the atmosphere. To put it simply, warm air can contain more moisture than cold air. As the atmospheric temperature rises and the amount of water vapor increases, the greenhouse effect is enhanced, further increasing temperature. In other words, more carbon dioxide leads to a warmer Earth, and this increases water vapour in the atmosphere, aggravating global warming. The amount of water in the atmosphere is dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide.

Again, it's not that simple. Why is the east coast of the US fairly humid in the summer, and California is fairly dry? It's not like California is cold in the summer. It's not only about temperatures. It's also about air flow patterns. Air flow patterns affect climate and temperature, and temperature and climate affect air flow patterns. It's an extremely complex system.

But the global warming activists wants to ignore that complexity, and focus on the one factor that they can blame on economic development. It's almost a religion: they preach giving up worldly prosperity in exchange for a future paradise, with arguments that ultimately come down to faith.

 

[Orwell]

Which is distinctly different from CO2 being the primary cause of global warming, or even of anthropogenic global climate change. You're so close to noticing something: most of the debate on global warming is centered around what the press chooses to cover, and what the press chooses to cover isn't driven by scientific principles. Why isn't there more coverage of how vegetation affects climate? Several reasons: it's more complex so harder for journalists to understand and explain, it can't be blamed on capitalism so a lot of activists aren't interested, and it's harder to measure so scientists are less likely to spend the necessary resources trying to figure it out compared to CO2, which is easier to study. None of those reasons means vegetation coverage is any less important than CO2, but it does mean that the debate is never going to center on vegetation, even if that's the most important factor which man affects.

Zig, my position on global warming isn't based on what the press has written on the subject. It is based on what the scientists say. I know perfectly well that the press often oversimplifies.

Why do you assume I'm right leaning? Assumptions can get you in trouble.

I'm not assuming anything. I have read a lot of your posts, even before I started contributing to this forum (I lurked for a while). You are one of the most outspoken defenders of the Bush administration on this forum. If you are not a " Bush conservative", then you very convincingly play one.

If they're economically well off, then they simply plant different crops to adapt to the changes. It's really not that hard. But famines in the 20th century have been almost exclusively driven by political causes, not by climate, drought, or natural disaster. Global warming is not going to change that: of your primary interest is stopping famine, then your primary concern should be good governance.

Flooding and errosion are primarily caused by deforestation, NOT by changes in weather paterns. And deforestation is primarily driven by man chopping down trees for farmland, for lumber, and for firewood, not by climate change. Want to stop errosion and flooding? Stop deforestation. And that's MUCH easier to do with economic prosperity (the US, for example, has more tree coverage today than one hundred years ago). Poor people who can't buy heating oil will go out and chop down trees for firewood, flooding be damned. Want to keep them from doing that? Economic development.

There's a good chance that massive ecological problems that already exist will be made worse by climate change. It is an obvious and well known fact that deforestation is aggravated by drought, and that social and political unrest are often connected with ecological problems. It makes sense supposing that Global warming will make development of poor nations harder.

I'm not sure exactly how you arrived at this idea of "evacuation". Sea levels aren't going to rise overnight. Yes, people will probably have to relocate if sea levels rise. And it will probably happen very slowly, because sea level changes will happen slowly. Which means that instead of children living where their parents lived, they move inland when they grow up. They won't be fleeing in panic from a sudden deluge. And surprise, surprise, it's easier to have a mobile population and relocatable workforce when you're a developed country.

(Sigh) That's not what I said. I never mentioned anything about "sudden floods". My point was simple: I'm willing to bet you that the long term economical and human costs of all these "re-locations" risk being much higher than the costs of actually doing something to mitigate global warming right now. Besides, many countries don't have the territory to move their populations out of the way (Bangladesh comes to mind), and many cities are very near sea level. You can't simply move a city. Huge levees and dikes will have to be built to preserve places like New Orleans, Venice and other coastal cities, both in rich countries and poor countries. Agricultural land will be lost, and the populations that are moving will impinge on the territory of other populations.

Like I said, you're once again assuming that doing "something" about it means trying to stop it, rather than trying to adapt. You're also assuming that controlling CO2 emissions are the best way to do that, rather than programs to change vegetation patterns. You're making too many assumptions. But you've really given no argument as to why cutting emissions is preferable to figuring out how to adapt. In fact, you haven't even argued that stopping global warming is even possible at this point.

I'm not arguing that we can stop global warming. I believe, however, that we can make it less severe by cutting global warming gas emissions now. I'm also arguing that we should do it as a precautionary measure.

Hardly. Besides possibly prolonging poverty and underdevelopment in the third world (which has horrific human consequences) because our decreased economic activity won't provide the markets they need to develop functional economies of their own, China is simply not going to be on board with this. So they're going to continue to develop their economy and consume resources as fast as they can. We hobble ourselves to combat global warming, and we'll find ourselves faced with a beligerant, authoritarian superpower which is suddenly much more powerful, relative to us, than it would have otherwise been. And it won't have worked anyways: with decreased competition for resources, China will pick up much of the slack in energy demand, increasing their own economic output and keeping global warming on track anyways. You really can't imagine how devoting significant effort to halting global warming could POSSIBLY have negative consequences?

I am very sceptical of the claims that economic development will be halted by ecological considerations. Saying that the Kyoto accord is an "economy killer" is as much of an exaggeration as saying that global warming will kill all life on Earth.

Again, it's not that simple. Why is the east coast of the US fairly humid in the summer, and California is fairly dry? It's not like California is cold in the summer. It's not only about temperatures. It's also about air flow patterns. Air flow patterns affect climate and temperature, and temperature and climate affect air flow patterns. It's an extremely complex system.

But the global warming activists wants to ignore that complexity, and focus on the one factor that they can blame on economic development. It's almost a religion: they preach giving up worldly prosperity in exchange for a future paradise, with arguments that ultimately come down to faith.

Yeah... Well, these global warming "activists" include the national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union (AGU statement), the American Association for the Advancement of Science... I'm siding with the overwhelming majority of the scientists here.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not assuming anything. I have read a lot of your posts, even before I started contributing to this forum (I lurked for a while). You are one of the most outspoken defenders of the Bush administration on this forum. If you are not a " Bush conservative", then you very convincingly play one.

No, you ARE assuming something. You are assuming that my support of Bush on the topics I debate about indicate I support him across most topics. I do not. For example, I think constitutional ammendments against gay marriage or flag burning are about the stupidest wastes of time the government could possibly be engaged in. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal. I've got LOTS of beefs with Bush. No one ever considered me conservative until I started defending the Iraq war. I'd rather not get into that debate here since it's off-topic, but basically, no, you really don't know who I am and what my beliefs are from the small cross-section you've seen on this board.

There's a good chance that massive ecological problems that already exist will be made worse by climate change. It is an obvious and well known fact that deforestation is aggravated by drought, and that social and political unrest are often connected with ecological problems. It makes sense supposing that Global warming will make development of poor nations harder.

That global warming would make development harder is not the same thing as saying that the best way to promote development is to stop global warming. You seem unwilling to consider that (even given the same assumptions about the effects of global warming) stopping global warming is the optimal use of resources. Because that really isn't obvious at all.

(Sigh) That's not what I said. I never mentioned anything about "sudden floods". My point was simple: I'm willing to bet you that the long term economical and human costs of all these "re-locations" risk being much higher than the costs of actually doing something to mitigate global warming right now.

You used the term "evacuation". What else could you possibly mean but to imply a sense of sudden urgency to it?

As for human costs, well, sorry, but that argument simply doesn't pan out. I'm currently sitting on the other side of the country from where I was born and raised. I moved here for a job. There were not "human costs" associated with my relocation. I moved because that's where my job was, and I had the money to do so. In rich countries, populations relocate all the time, very easily. It's only in poor countries, where people have subsistence living, that relocation becomes a burden. So: should we stop global warming so that they can continue to live at subsistence levels, or should we help raise them up to a living standard where relocation really isn't a big deal? I'd vote for the later.

As for the costs, you may be willing to bet they're larger, but you haven't actually put forward any arguments about why. And since global warming is happening anyways (you seem to concede that we cannot stop it but only mitigate it), won't such relocations have to happen anyways as well? If mass relocations are going to happen, aren't we better off creating economies where such movement is easily accomodated, rather than trying to cut the number of relocations by what might only be some small amount?

I'm not arguing that we can stop global warming. I believe, however, that we can make it less severe by cutting global warming gas emissions now. I'm also arguing that we should do it as a precautionary measure.

How much? By the estimates of its own proponents, Kyoto would have little impact, and even THOSE targets have proven unreachable by the countries who signed up. How much can you really expect to cut back on global warming, and what will it take to make a significant impact, given that China is never going to help out?

Yeah... Well, these global warming "activists" include the national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India, the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union (AGU statement), the American Association for the Advancement of Science... I'm siding with the overwhelming majority of the scientists here.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. By activist, I mean those who advocate particular policies and courses of action. Science accademies, when acting correctly, are not activists. Science accademies are supposed to address how much global warming there is, what it's caused by, and how various courses of action might affect it. But it is NOT, and never has been, their job to answer what should actually be done. That is a question for the public at large, because it involved tradeoffs: what does society want, and how much is it willing to pay for it. Scientists can give information about what these costs and benefits are, but they cannot answer the question about what choices society should make, and are often not even well informed about other aspects of those choices (a climatologist, for example, may be completely ignorant about the economics involved in adapting to climate change). Those who pretend that scientists are uniquely qualified to make decisions about something like global warming are pulling the wool over your eyes. If those accademies are, in fact, trying to play the role of telling society what it should do about global warming, then they have stepped beyond the bounds of science, and given up their role as impartial sources of information. I would only trust them to the extent that they are willing to maintain that independence, and refrain from trying to conclude a course of action for the rest of us. I did not think such accademies fell under what I meant by the term "activist", but if they do, it does not speak well of the activists' agenda so much as speak poorly about those accademies. And that is NOT based on the merits or drawbacks of the position of such activists, but merely on a proper understanding of what the role of science in public policy should be.

 

[CapelDodger]

If I understand correctly, the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere is directly related to the average temperature of the atmosphere. To put it simply, warm air can contain more moisture than cold air. As the atmospheric temperature rises and the amount of water vapor increases, the greenhouse effect is enhanced, further increasing temperature. In other words, more carbon dioxide leads to a warmer Earth, and this increases water vapour in the atmosphere, aggravating global warming. The amount of water in the atmosphere is dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide.

Increased water vapour also affects cloud-cover, which may have an overall negative feedback by reflecting sunlight directly. This is one of the least-understood subjects, and is currently a focus of research, theorising and modelling. This potential negative feedback has been often been cited by denialists as a mitigating factor.

One thing is for certain, as evidenced by the best model there is : the world has warmed over the last few decades and there is no sign of a negative feedback from clouds stopping it. The response should be very rapid, much more so than glacial and permafrost melting. If there is a negative feedback, it's insufficient to cancel out the positive ones.

 

[CapelDodger]

How much? By the estimates of its own proponents, Kyoto would have little impact, and even THOSE targets have proven unreachable by the countries who signed up.

The Kyoto target is to be reached by 2012, so it has hardly proven impossible. The importance attached to global warming at the current G8 is evidence that the deadline is looming and being taken seriously.

How much can you really expect to cut back on global warming, and what will it take to make a significant impact, given that China is never going to help out?

China (and India) are taking climate change very seriously. They don't have the insouciant US attitude that it can all be fixed by unlimited wealth and technological possibilities. They are making some efforts to reduce their impact, even though they are being overwhelmed by the effects of economic growth. In the US action is only being taken (or even considered) at a city level, from what I've read.

I'd prefer to think we're not just screwed. Kyoto establishes a principle - that collective action is necessary and can be achieved.

An old Duke is sat next to a starlet at a dinner. During the evening he turns to her and asks, "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds, my dear?" "Yes," she replies. "Having established the principle, " he says, "let's get down to the bargaining."

 

[Ziggurat]

China (and India) are taking climate change very seriously. They don't have the insouciant US attitude that it can all be fixed by unlimited wealth and technological possibilities. They are making some efforts to reduce their impact, even though they are being overwhelmed by the effects of economic growth.

What, exactly, do you think China will do to curb global warming? Do you seriously think they will do ANYTHING that slows down their economic development? I don't know why they would. Certainly they're going to try to push efficiency improvements, because efficiency is good for the economy. But the communist government has little interest in protecting the environment. They never have in the past, and they show no signs of any sudden enlightenment. China is an ecological disaster. Why would they suddenly start caring about how global warming is going to affect anyone else, when they care so little about how polution is affecting their own land? They don't care about global warming. Any words to the contrary are just that: words. There will be no action, unless that action is also directly beneficial to their own purposes.

 

[CapelDodger]

What, exactly, do you think China will do to curb global warming? Do you seriously think they will do ANYTHING that slows down their economic development? I don't know why they would. Certainly they're going to try to push efficiency improvements, because efficiency is good for the economy. But the communist government has little interest in protecting the environment. They never have in the past, and they show no signs of any sudden enlightenment. China is an ecological disaster. Why would they suddenly start caring about how global warming is going to affect anyone else, when they care so little about how polution is affecting their own land? They don't care about global warming. Any words to the contrary are just that: words. There will be no action, unless that action is also directly beneficial to their own purposes.

China is no more an ecological disaster than the US. They have problems on the lower reaches of the Yellow River : the US has Texas. China's interests are served by reducing climate change and the Chinese government recognises that. This is not the China of the Great Leap Forward. The "communist" label has surely had its day. The interests of China as a whole are the interests of people that run and own it. One difference between the US and Chinese systems is that, were the Chinese to decide that driving a 4x4 Ford Compensator with bully-bars and 8-CD gun-rack is not a human right to those who can afford it, they would be banned. No US government would try that.

 

[Orwell]

No, you ARE assuming something. You are assuming that my support of Bush on the topics I debate about indicate I support him across most topics. I do not. For example, I think constitutional ammendments against gay marriage or flag burning are about the stupidest wastes of time the government could possibly be engaged in. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal. I've got LOTS of beefs with Bush. No one ever considered me conservative until I started defending the Iraq war. I'd rather not get into that debate here since it's off-topic, but basically, no, you really don't know who I am and what my beliefs are from the small cross-section you've seen on this board.

So you're not a member of the religious right! That doesn't mean you don't lean to the right! If you don't want to be confused for a "economic conservative", then don't talk like one.

That global warming would make development harder is not the same thing as saying that the best way to promote development is to stop global warming. You seem unwilling to consider that (even given the same assumptions about the effects of global warming) stopping global warming is the optimal use of resources. Because that really isn't obvious at all.

I do not understand what you mean here. The wording is confusing. I have never said that stopping global warming will promote development. I made the supposition that global warming could disrupt climate enough to cause serious economic and social problems both in poor and rich countries. According to some of the projections made by climate scientists, there's a good chance that, even in the richer countries, the effects of Global warming could be disastrous. This might not happen, but it's a possibility that is serious enough to consider. The Pentagon takes this possibility seriously...
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

You used the term "evacuation". What else could you possibly mean but to imply a sense of sudden urgency to it?

Evacuation: to move out or remove from a threatened area or place. The word doesn't imply sudden urgency.

As for human costs, well, sorry, but that argument simply doesn't pan out. I'm currently sitting on the other side of the country from where I was born and raised. I moved here for a job. There were not "human costs" associated with my relocation. I moved because that's where my job was, and I had the money to do so. In rich countries, populations relocate all the time, very easily. It's only in poor countries, where people have subsistence living, that relocation becomes a burden. So: should we stop global warming so that they can continue to live at subsistence levels, or should we help raise them up to a living standard where relocation really isn't a big deal? I'd vote for the later.

You, as an individual, can move. Entire cities can't. If the worse global warming predictions become true, we could be facing a situation were there could be over a billion "ecological" refugees on the move, all over the world.

As for the costs, you may be willing to bet they're larger, but you haven't actually put forward any arguments about why. And since global warming is happening anyways (you seem to concede that we cannot stop it but only mitigate it), won't such relocations have to happen anyways as well? If mass relocations are going to happen, aren't we better off creating economies where such movement is easily accomodated, rather than trying to cut the number of relocations by what might only be some small amount?

Global warming costs mount
Cost of global warming - £1.2bn
global warming: the economic cost

How much? By the estimates of its own proponents, Kyoto would have little impact, and even THOSE targets have proven unreachable by the countries who signed up. How much can you really expect to cut back on global warming, and what will it take to make a significant impact, given that China is never going to help out?

As CapelDodger pointed out, Kyoto would be a first step.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. By activist, I mean those who advocate particular policies and courses of action. Science accademies, when acting correctly, are not activists. Science accademies are supposed to address how much global warming there is, what it's caused by, and how various courses of action might affect it. But it is NOT, and never has been, their job to answer what should actually be done. That is a question for the public at large, because it involved tradeoffs: what does society want, and how much is it willing to pay for it. Scientists can give information about what these costs and benefits are, but they cannot answer the question about what choices society should make, and are often not even well informed about other aspects of those choices (a climatologist, for example, may be completely ignorant about the economics involved in adapting to climate change). Those who pretend that scientists are uniquely qualified to make decisions about something like global warming are pulling the wool over your eyes. If those accademies are, in fact, trying to play the role of telling society what it should do about global warming, then they have stepped beyond the bounds of science, and given up their role as impartial sources of information. I would only trust them to the extent that they are willing to maintain that independence, and refrain from trying to conclude a course of action for the rest of us. I did not think such accademies fell under what I meant by the term "activist", but if they do, it does not speak well of the activists' agenda so much as speak poorly about those accademies. And that is NOT based on the merits or drawbacks of the position of such activists, but merely on a proper understanding of what the role of science in public policy should be.

That's absurd! Scientists are as entitled to have opinions and to participate in politics as you and me. If a scientists thinks that something can cause harm, he is perfectly justified in saying so, and he is perfectly within his rights to act for change. It would be irresponsible for scientists not to engage in political debates were their research is at the base of the discussion.

Academies call for greenhouse gas reductions
Union of Concerned Scientists
100 Nobel Laureates Issue Dire Warning For Planet Earth

Some of the needed legal instruments are already at hand, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Convention on Climate Change, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As concerned citizens, we urge all governments to commit to these goals that constitute steps on the way to replacement of war by law.

 

[Orwell]

What Global Warming Debate?

News: The scientific consensus is unambiguous: global warming is real and human-influenced, and we can do something about it. Here's what to tell those who suggest otherwise.

 

[Elind]

It is not comparable to either oxygen or nitrogen, because water concentrations in the atmosphere are dynamic. It really doesn't MATTER if it's added by humans or not, it can still change. Understanding that change is critical to not only the weather, but ALSO climate change. And we don't really understand it yet. Claims that we understand climate change are really premature.

Forgive me for not addressing all your points, including those in subsequent posts, but what you are saying, as I have already agreed with, is that we don't understand, predictively, all the aspects of climate factors.

The issues about water vapor are only a part of that. You might just as well talk about instabilities in ocean currents and orbital eccentricies and solar cycles, not to mention variabilities in CO2 absorption by the oceans, or forests, or, wild fires or ground clearance in the Amazon.

When I was young there were half as many people on the planet as there are now. I can point to major differences as a result of population that I can see on the ground, and I don't mean houses, I mean for example the fishing I can remember.

To say that we make no difference to the planet as a whole is silly and ignores the obvious. To suggest that this effect stops at the atmosphere is also highly presumptious.

The exact implications I agree are somewhat speculative, but nevertheless have an awful lot of smart people saying, at the very minimum, that WE are responsible for triggering changes; wherever they will lead.

When it comes to climate NO change is a good change in the short run of human lifetimes, and I will, respectfully, accept the scientific consensus opinion before yours.

 

[Rob Lister]

What Global Warming Debate?

News: The scientific consensus is unambiguous: global warming is real and human-influenced, and we can do something about it. Here's what to tell those who suggest otherwise.

Do you have an original thought in your head? Everything in your links has already been debated here. Linking back to it doesn't change that. If you think it does, then this will interest you. You are number three in that list.

 

[Orwell]

Mmm, funny... I'm dissed if I don't back up my claims. But if I back up what I'm saying, I don't have an original thought in my head.

Assuming that you "number three on that list" means that you're accusing me of ad hominism... If I'm not mistaken, An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

I have not dismissed Zig's arguments because he leans to the right (even though he denies it). You'll notice that I actually bothered to answer a lot of his arguments. If you take the time to read the thread, you will also notice that the entire thing started because I made a joke: I said something like "I wish right leaning americans showed this much restraint and prudence in everything they do..." I was referring, of course, to all the objections against Global Warming and the Kyoto agreements that are coming essentially from the right these days. Zig didn't find my joke very funny (can't please everyone), and he assumed that I was talking about him. When he strongly reacted to my little joke, I just went " well, if the shoe fits...".

 

[Ziggurat]

To say that we make no difference to the planet as a whole is silly and ignores the obvious. To suggest that this effect stops at the atmosphere is also highly presumptious.

Sure. Doesn't contradict anything I've been saying.

When it comes to climate NO change is a good change in the short run of human lifetimes, and I will, respectfully, accept the scientific consensus opinion before yours.

You seem to be trying to argue that my opinion contradicts the scientific consensus. If so, I really don't know where you're getting that. Scientific consensus may be that there is some anthropogenic global warming. But the scientific consensus does NOT extend to what we should do about it, because that is, quite frankly, not a scientific question. So there cannot be a scientific consensus on that. Any claims to the contrary basically ignore what science actually is.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's absurd! Scientists are as entitled to have opinions and to participate in politics as you and me. If a scientists thinks that something can cause harm, he is perfectly justified in saying so, and he is perfectly within his rights to act for change. It would be irresponsible for scientists not to engage in political debates were their research is at the base of the discussion.

You either misunderstand me, science, or both. On the issue of global warming, we look to science to try to figure out what is happening, ans what are the likely consequences of various courses of action. Figuring that out is the role that science academies are supposed to fill. Given the different options available to us, the costs and the benefits for them, the question of what to do is no longer one of science, it is one of politics. And for that, scientists are fully entitled to voice their opinions. This is, after all, a democracy. But this being a democracy, their opinions do not count for anything more than every other person's opinion. There is no reason to give a scientists' opinion more weight once it comes to the question of what policy to choose, because scientists are NOT any more informed about the overall picture than the general public.

 

[Orwell]

You either misunderstand me, science, or both. On the issue of global warming, we look to science to try to figure out what is happening, ans what are the likely consequences of various courses of action. Figuring that out is the role that science academies are supposed to fill. Given the different options available to us, the costs and the benefits for them, the question of what to do is no longer one of science, it is one of politics.

I don't make these kinds of separations. The short definition of politics is "social relations involving authority or power". Everything is politics!

And for that, scientists are fully entitled to voice their opinions. This is, after all, a democracy. But this being a democracy, their opinions do not count for anything more than every other person's opinion.

As a citizen of a democracy, I have the right to choose whose opinions to follow. I have read and listened to the scientists (who overwhelmingly support doing something about G.Warming). I have read and listened to those that oppose doing something about global warming (who are generally not scientists). I decided to side with the scientists: their arguments and the evidence they present make a lot more sense to me.

There is no reason to give a scientists' opinion more weight once it comes to the question of what policy to choose, because scientists are NOT any more informed about the overall picture than the general public.

There is a reason to give a scientist's opinion more weight regarding global warming: they generally have better arguments and better evidence.

 

[Elind]

Sure. Doesn't contradict anything I've been saying.



You seem to be trying to argue that my opinion contradicts the scientific consensus. If so, I really don't know where you're getting that. Scientific consensus may be that there is some anthropogenic global warming. But the scientific consensus does NOT extend to what we should do about it, because that is, quite frankly, not a scientific question. So there cannot be a scientific consensus on that. Any claims to the contrary basically ignore what science actually is.

perhaps I don't understand what you are saying.

As I've already said, I think you are arguing that we don't know enough about the atmosphere to say whether or not humans are responsible for what some, many, think is evidence of a warming trend.

Then you appear to say that; in that case there is no point in attempting to do anything, since the costs are too great and we might achieve nothing.

I have little trouble imagining that 6.5 billion humans can have an effect on the planet, even extending to the atmosphere. I also think it is wiser to pay attention to what I think is a clear majority view that the effects are human generated to a significant degree, rather than to those who want a full and complete understanding of all details before acting, and who if wrong will be too late.

As to what to do. That is fairly obvious, within the limits of practicality, if one thinks anything should be done.