Climate Skeptics Misunderstand Us, Too

Wed, 2011-07-06 07:57Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

Climate Skeptics Misunderstand Us, Too

So recently, I’ve watched a few videos from the Heartland Institute conference on “Restoring the Scientific Method”—and it has been a fascinating experience.

I point you, for instance, to this session on public policy, and especially the Q&A starting at minute 56. (Also watch Marc Morano from minute 38 to minute 56, the dude is nothing if not entertaining.) Once the audience questions start coming for the panel, I was rather surprised to hear that most were basically about…uh, communism. And in response, the panelists—and especially Christopher Horner—were quite affirmative that the real reason that we, the “left,” want to restrict greenhouse gas emissions is that we want to hobble economies, redistribute wealth, and restrict individual freedoms.

You can believe this is about the climate, and many people do,” said Horner. “But it’s not a reasonable belief.” Horner went on to argue that “it’s probably about what they’ve claimed they really want.” For many “luminaries” of the environment movement, Horner continued, “economic growth is not the cure, it’s the disease.”

Now, Morano and Horner have various pieces of “evidence” that they use to support their assessment—including out of context quotations. But I, too, have heard some environmentalists attack growth, and say that it is the real problem.

However, I do not believe in any sense that this is the mainstream view of those who want a cap-and-trade bill, whether they are President Obama, or Democratic senators, or the many corporations who supported such legislation—like GE and Duke Energy. Without economic growth, these companies could not maintain rising share prices, nor could they keep reporting rising earnings and annual dividend increases for their stockholders.

I can also speak for myself. If there’s anything I don’t like, it’s extremes—including on the left. I very much want companies to thrive and succeed—who else is going to create jobs?—but to me, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be regulated. I actually do believe that they should be regulated as little as is possible–so long as it is enough to preserve public health and the environment.  

Moreover, it’s not surprising that I think this way—people of my generation in the U.S. don’t even have any direct experience with communism. It hasn’t been a significant force on the U.S. left for quite a long time. It’s something we’ve read about, certainly, but not something with which we associate.

So exactly what environmental left are Heartland acolytes talking about here? As far as I can tell, they’re simply shadowboxing.

I’ve often written about how those on my side do not understand the motivations of climate skeptics. They aren’t just driven by a quest for the corporate dole, for instance—they’re strong individualists who fear government control over choices and freedoms. I believe that ideology is therefore more powerful in driving climate skepticism than is money.

But it’s quite apparent that anti-environmentalists, like Horner, don’t understand us, either. We didn’t cook the science, and we don’t hate jobs, either. We just think that, because global warming is real, and because there are solutions to the problem will ultimately also help the economy, it’s a very good idea to kill two birds with one stone.

But now, having now cleared up the record, I’m quite sure that we won’t see this error any more in the future.

Comments

"PhilM stop the lying! There are many estimators out there, and running just one, I got a 20 year ROI for a ~$17,000 (after Fed and state rebates) investment."

I'm not sure what country you are in. But I'm in Australia. Fortunately for us, we have rebates & feed in tarrifs, like Germany & other countries tryig to get off the dependency of fossil fuels. Which you will NEVER get money back for or increasingly cheaper bills.

The rebates changes on 30th of June, so they cost a little more now, but not much. Here is one blow.

http://www.truesolar.biz/

Please see here for someone else experiencing the same as me.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1730008

You simply have no clue & your mind set has you paying for power for the rest of your life.

PhilM, not only do I have a clue, I now realize we live in two totally different parts of the world. I also realize that we have two different price structures. I also realize that we have two different sets of government incentives. Yours are much deeper than ours in the US.

I dunno about the electricity rate structures, in particular the refund structure for generated power. I do know that my power company pays ~1/10 their charge.

Finally, I do know that any ROI that is near or longer than the life of the product ROI 20Yrs and LOP 20Yrs is probably no ROI at all.

Personally, I'm willing to pay more for freedom. Living cheaply on the grid is still a form of enslavement.

So Phil is ripping off the tax payers with his heavily subsidized solar panel and this is somehow supposed to be realted to CAGW....????

By the way, you will have to replace that thing in under 20 years. There may not be subsidies then....

"So Phil is ripping off the tax payers with his heavily subsidized solar panel and this is somehow supposed to be realted to CAGW....????

By the way, you will have to replace that thing in under 20 years. There may not be subsidies then...."

I,m happy if we return to square one and a level playing field if you are. I,m happy for the tens of millions of tax payers funds from the last couple of years of solar r&d and rebates, if you are willing for the 100,s of billions in fossil fuel rebates and subsidies paid for by the tax payer for the past 100 years to be returned. Deal?

In 5 years we will have paint on solar. In 20 years, who knows, but the prices are coming down rapidly.

Not good news for your cause.

Phil M

They are projecting. Because their position is mostly ideological, they assume the same for climate realists. They know a littany of skeptic arguments that sound plausible enough to support their preconceived notions. They force intelligent conversation into a game of wacka-mole. Lately, Desmogblog has been swamped with denier trolls, who jump on every article.

Desmogblog's focus is on exposing the denialist PR disinformation machine.
At other sites, that are more specifically focused on the science, their comments would be rebutted quickly and respectfully- the first time.

Very very few on the left in America are socialists. - never mind communist.
Redbaiting has been around a long time. The fact is that every successful economy in the world is a combination of capitalism and social programs, like support for labor. But for those lacking in critical thinking skills, anything that is for the people, or the environment that suports us, is socialist or communist. Regulation is communist, despite the very specific authority to regulate commerce, spelled out in the commerce clause of the Consititution.
"We believe that all men are created equal" is foreign to them.
"To provide for the public welfare" is foreign to them.
"'To establish a more perfect union" is foreign to them
As is equal protection under the law, separation of church and state

The founding fathers were men of the Enlightenment, preferring reason.
Cutting education funding, while giving $40 million tax credits for a Creationist theme park, complete with dinosaurs living alongside humans, as was done in Kentucky, is not what the founding fathers had in mind.
Ignoring the opinion of every major scientific organization in the world and 98% of scientists who do research on climate change, is not the kind of thing they had in mind, I'm sure.
Where did they stand on religion and govt? Look up Deism at Wikipedia.

"Lately, Desmogblog has been swamped with denier trolls, who jump on every article. "

I've noticed it also. They have lost on every science blog, so they come here.

I suspect most are partisans who don't have a clue about the big picture, they are just blindly defending "their team" ,but I'm sure there is paid industry denier trolls as well.

"Very very few on the left in America are socialists. - never mind communist."

Its strange how deniers have these two diamterically opposed positions at once. One where they say its all about the socialism & communism i.e. Big government wants to take control of everything enslaving us all & the other position where they say that people like Al Gore are trying to financially benefit from private entrprises he is involved with.

Shouldnt Al be advocating that the government take control of everything including his own private invetments?

The left hand doesnt know what the right is doing.

PhilM, it's gotta annoying to see alternative views after many months of living in the DeSmog Blog echo chamber.

BTW, the ACO2 theory of Global Warming has been falsified, several times over. And, Y'ano, it takes only one falsification to disprove a theory, no matter the weight scientific documents documents supporting the theory. When based upon an error they are all ...." Well Y'know.

Moreover, the catastrophic prognostications are nearly nonexistent, with the past decade+ of no temperature gain, the whole argument has been altered. But, of course, the most important finding was Climatgate, where emails showed just how badly the "scientists" were altering the data and controlling the message(s).

Hangers on are always in evidence on any issue after the argument is over, as is this one.

"BTW, the ACO2 theory of Global Warming has been falsified, several times over. "

Not sure if you realise this, but opinion & rhetoic doesnt count. Have you got a peer reviewed paper from say science or nature or a climatology journal that backs what say?

That's your queue to dissapear.

"with the past decade+ of no temperature gain,"

If you cherry pick a small decadal timeset then yes. Is this years temps higher than every temp from 1880 to 1997?

The only thing that didnt gain was your understanding.

PhilM, look at Roger Pielke Sr's blog to get the list of papers. I realize he is considered a denier, but actually is a luke warmer. BTW, can you even articulate the theory?

As far as cherry picking, you do realize it is somewhat critical to be able to determine a tipping point? Tipping points do not wait for the full 30 year window to appear, even though an extreme change would show earlier. But, extreme changes is not what is expected since the full range of temperatures is a maximum of 8C with most of the range contained within 5C.

While we are on that ole cherry picking issue, what do you think of trying to claim unprecedented temperatures when we are using ~150 year window out of an available 1M+ years to compare? Or maybe you prefer the Hokey Stick window? Both are too short to actually capture the true past interglacial/glacial cycle, let alone the history of all of them.

Another BTW, I see you chose not to respond to being called out on your solar experiment numbers. Phil you just lost what little credibility you had.

'While we are on that ole cherry picking issue, what do you think of trying to claim unprecedented temperatures when we are using ~150 year window out of an available 1M+ years to compare?'

What did you not understand about my last explanation here?:

http://www.desmogblog.com/creator-valdez-catastrophe-exxonmobil-tries-downplay-yellowstone-spill

Pielke Sr' a luke-warmer, nah more like a Cool-Hand Luke obfuscater, he likes to confuse the issue and hide the true flavour - just like curry dishes.

LionelA, I'm sure you are scientifically superior to Curry, Pielke, Sr and even Smith, but you've surely not shown it to date. All we see is blind ideology.

At least two of those three are actual scientists You clearly are not.

'LionelA, I'm sure you are scientifically superior to Curry, Pielke, Sr and even Smith, but you've surely not shown it to date. All we see is blind ideology.'

Well, despite your assurances to the contrary a few threads back, you have now shown, unequivocally, your true colours. One who cannot even debate on the science and would rather resort to another of colinski's points:

'3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.'

You also wrote:

'At least two of those three are actual scientists You clearly are not.'

Yes but two scientists who now tailor their workings to satisfy fossil fuel interests rather than the tenets of true scientific methodology and who also would rather engage in Orwellian terminology to mask this.

Well done. You have dug your hole and that is where I shall leave you undisturbed. Unless of course you actually begin to show some evidence of understanding of the true state of the science which unequivocally shows that anthropogenic climate change as the result of positive temperature forcing is a reality and not some 'communist-socialist' plot.

Using the tactics of Joe McCarthy will not work for much longer. I sense that this is slowly being grasped by your ilk, or your masters, and why a desperate attempt is being made to saturate blogs with the usual short and sharp simplistic BS memes so familiar now.

Lionel, when confronted you resort to the stand-by of attacking and ridiculing. That is usually because the counter argument is weak or in your case non-existent.

This blog has for some long time been an echo chamber four you CAGW/AGW folks. Now that the owners apparently have changed policies there is a more open debate, and that is a very good thing.

If you can not discuss issues and only want to run away, that's OK, but remember it does confirm my contention of weak or no counter argument.

"Another BTW, I see you chose not to respond to being called out on your solar experiment numbers. Phil you just lost what little credibility you had."

Please check again . Poor deniers, so deluded.

My god it's so funny to see a double entendre claims of "projection"!

"They are projecting. Because their position is mostly ideological, they assume the same for climate realists."

Here is where you get it so wrong. When Climategate was quickly picked up by Limbaugh and Beck, there was a collective shudder on WUWT, the most popular skeptical site, with much hand-wringing about the topic becoming so politicized on the skeptical side. I was giddy about it, since I figured that the story would otherwise be buried, but I was about the only one expressing excitement about us suddenly being in the real news.

"Desmogblog's focus is on exposing the denialist PR disinformation machine."

You are writing this on the web site of a PR firm! None of the skeptical sites on the blogroll of WUWT are PR firms. They are *blogs*, after all. Paranoia runs deep though, deary, in your case very much so.

"At other sites, that are more specifically focused on the science, their comments would be rebutted quickly and respectfully- the first time."

This is the great illusion of RealClimate.org, a site whose web site WhoIs information currently shows to be registered to the PR firm (the Environmental Media Services branch of Fenton Communications) that was behind the junk science silicone implant and the autism/vaccine scares. WUWT is ranked the #1 science site on the net, BTW.

The *illusion* that comments are rebutted quickly indeed exists there and on SkepticalScience.com too since serious comebacks are censored after certain initial comments are let through! Blogger Tilo Reber expresses this effect succinctly:

“The whole purpose of the procedure is to give the illusion that the subject has been fairly and completely dealt with and that the pro AGW side has won – once again. From that point, any future arguments of similar issues by skeptics will simply be marked as, “discredited – see such and such a thread”. The entire RC web site is full of victories that are won, not by science or logic, but rather by censorship. Of course the average reader of RC doesn’t know this. He never sees the objections by skeptics that cannot be answered.”

BTW, I didn't pick up any of my current offering of arguments from other blogs as "talking points": I made them myself damn it, by delving into the primary literature and peer reviewed official data archives. It was only in the first month or two, years ago, that I fell for a few empty arguments that were floating about the Net, but being pounced on for them quickly made me tighten my game, until now, it's just basic facts and a bit of psychology.

I strongly note that the pro-AGW comments here do not engage us skeptics but in fact dance around us in an act of pro-AGW social bonding, merely. So scroll up. Find my Sea Level poster, and offer an explanation of why the daily news is full of claims of "surging seas" when when I actually went to look, as an individual citizen, at the latest Church & White article that plotted a simple average of tide gauges, one which showed utterly no trend change whatsoever in 150 years. Do you know that only argument I've had against this issue? That the past doesn't matter! Then I've linked to hockey sticks that claim it very much does matter!

Your ongoing attempts to demonize us skeptical citizens of free countries via hate speech, to cheerlead for us to be censored, to lament and gnash your teeth that we can't be silenced creates the very force you feel threatened by, for nasty opposition is exactly what turns a scattered collection of eccentrics minding their own business into a self-organized group who are *highly* motivated not by ideology but my shared oppression. The lack of self-correcting discipline within a rogue and formerly eccentric but now billion dollar fueled field of science, created an online gathering of skeptics, who were quickly energized by the mutual anger of being suddenly equated with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers.

-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

Well said!

@Nik
Do you mean this paper from Church & White?

Abstract:
"We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year-1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year-1 from the in situ data. The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year-1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year-1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year-2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year-2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991."

Is there something that is technically incorrect in its methodology?

Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century
John A. Church and Neil J. White

Surveys in Geophysics
DOI: 10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1
Received: 2 November 2010 / Accepted: 7 March 2011

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2575k28311g5146/

"Is there something that is technically incorrect in its methodology?

Yes, in a way, very much indeed. Their concluding graph that shows accelerating sea level rise is labelled "sea level" whereas it is *not* actual sea level as measured by tide gauges but a theoretical fantasy value that represents some sort of "effective" sea level made to bend upwards by adding a crude estimate of the water that has been damned up on land mostly since the '50s along with subtracting a crude estimate of pumped ground water, both of these adjustments being based on very rough and unreferenced (!) and thus highly speculative values. It's *not* sea level thus, and their conclusion has no relation to the reality actually happening along the ocean shore:

"A significant non-climatic influence on sea level is the storage of water in dams and the depletion of ground water from aquifers, some of which makes it into the ocean. Chao et al. (2008) estimated that about 30 mm of sea-level equivalent is now stored in man-made dams and the surrounding soils; most of this storage occurred since the 1950s. Globally, the rate of dam entrapment has slowed significantly in the last decade or two. The depletion of ground water (Konikow et al. personal communication; Church et al. in preparation) offsets perhaps a third of this terrestrial storage over the last five decades and the rate of depletion has accelerated over the last two decades. We remove this direct (non-climate) anthropogenic change in terrestrial water storage (both dam storage and aquifer depletion) from our observations to focus on the sea-level change related to climatic influences."

Their original article of which this is an update included the word "accelerating" in the title and failed to include a graph of a simple average of tide gauges they used. The current paper demonstrates that *actual* sea level going back 150 years is rising exactly as slowly as ever, namely, ~3 mm/year or a mere foot per century. It is quite possible that groundwater pumping has in fact had more effect than reservoir effects, which would create a decelerating "effective sea level" using their same methods. Their paper is not good science, given that their correction isn't even referenced except as a "private communication" though it will likely be very useful for the IPCC to use to demonstrate accelerating "sea level" rise.

from fox news so it cant be true .but.....http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion/#ixzz1RLVXSRUg

76 T shouldnt be a problem. We can just put it on the credit card like we do with everything else.

I dont get it but it is government policy

Well 76T is less than what the US Govt owes once you include unfunded liabilities.

BTW - it's never going to be paid back in value. Hyperinflation of the USD will destroy the green movement, and everything else in it's path within the next 5 years.

It's interesting to see the way some people have copied and pasted a supposed quote without, seemingly, having checked it out for themselves. Apart from the original (see below), it seems that the copy-and-paste examples are originating from the GWPF - I have even seen one website include a link labelled with the name of the original source...which leads to the GWPF !

Anyway, this is how two people here have pasted this 'quote' :

"one has to free oneself from the illusion that intl climate policy is environmental policy. climate change policy is about how we redistribute the worlds wealth".

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy"... "No. Climate change policy is about how "we redistribute de facto the world's wealth...."

Compare those to the original - question first, followed by reply :

Q. De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.

A. Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.
(Available here : http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/hintergrund/wissenschaft/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html)

Could 'rum' and 'NickFromNYC' respond as to how close they believe their 'quotes' are compared to the original, particularly their inclusion of the word "change" attached to the word "climate".

Beyond the radical words of far too many alarmists, the core of the claim that they are socialists, communists, or more accurately statists, lies in their espoused solution - government.
I am not aware of a single warmists, and very few in any part of the environmental movement that do not advocate government as their solution.

For those of us that see government as at-best a necessary evil - we are at odds before we get to science.

I am sorry if AGW proponents get offended when some of the rest of us lump you all together as socialists or communists, while many are some are not. But I have not encountered an AGW proponent that was not a statist - even if they did not grasp that themselves. And in that I think the sceptics know you better than you know yourselves.

For the sake of argument lets presume the predictions of the global climate models are correct. Honestly consider what needs to be done.

Almost no one asks what should always be the first question - does anything need to be done ? almost all advocates go straight to something must be done.

I am going to skip the question of what needs to be done and advance to that of who needs to do it. Again the unpondered answer of almost all proponents is the state.

I will accept - for the sake of argument, that the ultimate answer might be that a state solution may be needed. But warmists do not even consider any other possibility. That makes warmists statists, and after that the distinctions between various statists - socialists, communists, fascists, ... are not important. Hayek did not demonstrate that government power lead to communism, just that it lead to totalitarianism in one form or another.

Even accepting that warmists are not seeking One World Government or EcoFascism, just some small increases in the power of modern democracies, it still brings us one step further down the slippery slope.

You will not like this, but ultimately this means sceptics know you better than you know yourselves. You can claim that this is different, but it is not. Until you are prepared to seriously consider that even if AGW is true, the default position still should be to do nothing. Then alarmism is about more than a debate about science, it is at its core a statist ideology.

Excellent analysis.

Indeed it was/is.

With that in mind it not at all difficult to see how a few Statist idiologs in power positions could infleuence many many otherwise smart people to accept a hypothesis that is sort of plausable sounding.

well if they fudge the facts a bit anyway.

@dhilli1

"Beyond the radical words of far too many alarmists, the core of the claim that they are socialists, communists, or more accurately statists, lies in their espoused solution - government.
I am not aware of a single warmists, and very few in any part of the environmental movement that do not advocate government as their solution. "

Sheeesh, not another tin foil hat wearing reds under your beds paranoid conservative. Dhilli, as I have asked countless amounts of deniers like yourself with no answer as yet, why oh why do the conservative governments of N.Z, the U.K, Germany and France have a carbon tax and green initiatives?

Are they now socialists and communists? Time for the obligatory silence from the deniers. Your plugged in ideologically dumbed down position didn't allow you to ever think of that possibility did it? The benefit of reading only denier blogs I gather.

The fossil fuel industry have been sucking on the tax payers teet for the past hundred years , so they have an unfair advantage.

Phil.....

What planet are you reall from?

There are NO Conservative governments in the EU.

Do you not read at all?

Phil.....

What planet are you reall from?

There are NO Conservative governments in the EU.

Do you not read at all?

"Phil.....What planet are you reall from? There are NO Conservative governments in the EU. Do you not read at all?
"

First of all I didnt mention the EU, I mentioned NZ & the UK, who are both not in the EU. But both are consertvative governments & both have a carbon tax. I mentioned Germany & France who ARE in the EU & ARE conservative govs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_European_Union

German conservatives currently in power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_%28Germany%29

France conservatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_a_Popular_Movement

Italy conservatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_of_Freedom

You might want to check the other 27 EU members.

Good Grief Phill...

they may have the word conservative in their names but they are by NO means conservative governments.

have you ever been to europe?

They are nearly all socialists. That is why they are in so much economic trouble now.

Open you eyes...

@dhlii1
"Beyond the radical words of far too many alarmists, the core of the claim that they are socialists, communists, or more accurately statists, lies in their espoused solution - government. I am not aware of a single warmists, and very few in any part of the environmental movement that do not advocate government as their solution."

So I've yet to hear a denialist offer any type of proposal that actually addresses any type of solution to how to transition to a renewable based economy.

By the way, here are a few words from Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" (Chapter 3) (I've had to edit this extensively because Hayek does have the tendency to take many words to make a point.)

"It is important not to confuse opposition against the kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of coordinating human efforts, not an argument for leaving things just as they are. ...

Nor does it deny that, where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make competition effective, we must resort to other methods of guiding economic activity. ...

And it regards competitions as superior... because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. ...

The successful use of competition as a principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life, but it admits of others which sometimes may very considerably assist its work and even requires certain kinds of government action ...

It is necessary in the first instance that parties in the market should be free to sell and buy at any price at which they can find a partner in the transaction and that anybody should be free to produce, sell, and buy anything that may be produced or sold at all. ...

Any attempt to control prices or quantities of particular commodities deprives competition of its powers of bringing about an effective coordination in individual efforts, ... This is not necessarily true, however, of measures merely restricting the allowed methods of production, so long as these restrictions affect all potential producers equally and are not used as an indirect way of controlling prices and quantities ...

To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the societal costs which they impose. Nor is the preservation of competition incompatible with an extensive system of social services -- so long as the organization of these services is not designed in such a way as to make competition ineffective over wide fields. ...

There are, finally, undoubted fields where no legal arrangements can create the main condition on which the usefulness of the system of competition and private property depends: namely, that the owner benefits from all the useful services rendered by his property and suffers for all the damages caused to others by its use. Where, for example, it is impracticable to make the enjoyment of certain services dependent on the payment of a price, competition will not produce the services; and the price system becomes similarly ineffective when the damage caused to others by certain uses of property cannot be effectively charged to the owner of that property. In all these instances there is a divergence between the items which enter into private calculations and those which affect social welfare; and, whenever this divergence becomes important, some method other than competition may have to be found to supply the services in question. ...

Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism."

The issue of global warming fits all the criteria which Hayek lays out for government intervention. What is key to Hayek is that government action should not be taken with the intent of income redistribution. In that regard, I think that denialists misinterpret efforts to assist other countries with a transition to renewables as a social welfare system.

anonymous2 said:

"BTW, the ACO2 theory of Global Warming has been falsified, several times over."

Baloney. There is no credible evidence of that whatsoever.

On the denier side, it is everywhere, and demonstrably so.
It's hard to think of a case where cherry picking is not used, for starters.
I have links to hundreds of articles showing this clearly- dozens and dozens of cases. I have a text file that is 464 pages long filled with such links. And that is just from the past 15 months. Before my computer burned up, I had 4 years of such archives. Your claims are conjecture and nonsense. Mine are demonstrably true.

no temperature gain in the last decade?

Every year since 2001 was warmer than any year in the temperature record before 1998.
While one or two data sets show 1998 as the warmest year, more show either 2005 or 2010 or a tie of those two, as the warmest.

A 15 month period ending in July last year was the warmest 15 months ever recorded.

The last decade was warmer than the 1990s, which was warmer than the 1980s, which was warmer than the 1970s.

As of July last year there had been 305 consecutive months warmer than the mean for the 20th century.

A recent study suggests that Canadian ice caps are melting faster than in the last 4,000 years.

Greenlands ice cap is losing mass at an excellerating pace.

The melting of Arctic ice, which is happening far faster than scientists predicted just a few years ago, is useing up some of the increased energy in the earth's energy budget. That moderates the increase in tropospheric temperatures.

"The past six years [until 2010] have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20110503/seas-could-rise-16-meters-2100-study

"Greenland's mass loss is still increasing. Here we show that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern portions of Greenland, is now spreading up along the northwest coast, with this acceleration likely starting in late 2005. We support this with two lines of evidence."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042460.shtml

?????
Frauenfeld, Knappenberger, and Michaels 2011: Obsolescence by Design?
(Pat Michaels)

"Had the authors considered all available data, their conclusion that ‘Greenland climate has not changed significantly’ would have been simply insupportable."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=713

Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
29 January 2011
Here is the latest data showing the record amount of ice loss Greenland experienced in the 2010 summer.
Around two decades ago and for some time before that, Greenland was probably in approximate mass balance - with ice gain in the interior matched by ice loss at the edges. Around one decade ago, the ice loss increased to around 100 billion tonnes per year. Currently, it's losing ice at over 200 billion tonnes per year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=547

Greenland ice sheet saw record melt, study finds
'Area of the size of France melted in 2010 which was not melting in 1979

"This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average," said study co-author Marco Tedesco
.... Greenland's summer temperatures last year were up to 3 degrees Centigrade above the average and that the ice sheet saw reduced snowfall.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41197838/ns/us_news-environment/

At the end of September 2010, the end of the Arctic melt season, the Arctic Sea Ice Volume was far below anything ever recorded before. Now we just had the end of June, halfway through the 2011 melt season , and the ice volume is already lower than it was last Sept 30, at the end of the melt.
At the peak of the freeze season this year, the ice was almost two standard deviations below the mean for all seasons, of the past 32 years. In fact, it was lower than the end of the melt season of 2007, which was a record low for sea ice extent as well as volume. Sea ice extent right now is lower than it was at this time of year in 2007.

You can see the sea ice volume chart here:
C:\Users\admin\Desktop\SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png

Sea ice extent hasn't decreased as fast as volume, but it is thinner softer ice. Multi year ice is decreasing fast.

Warming in the past decade has little to do with how much CO2 was emitted in that decade, by human activities. We are seeing the warming from emissions of decades ago. There is time lag of about 30 years, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans which delays warming.

So stating that it hasn't warmed - even though emissions have increased - is a meaningless statement, even if the first part were true.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......

Sailrick Said; Your claims are conjecture and nonsense. Mine are demonstrably true. "

Are you really that arrogant?
you spout off a page of nonsense that you made up and throw in a dumbe remark like that.

The CAGW hypothesis is now so full of holes there is not enough room here to list them all.

Wheather you say so or not.... LOL.

The bigest is that the warming stopped years ago while the co2 kept going up..
And that is just a minor issue.

'Sailrick Said; Your claims are conjecture and nonsense. Mine are demonstrably true. "

Are you really that arrogant?'

Hum! Accusing those with more understanding of the topic under discussion of being arrogant is a common denier tactic. Of course this does not rule out the possibility that you do understand the reality but are outright lying and being paid to do so.

Thanks to colinski (thanks that was brilliant BTW) in another thread this is well explained:

'12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. Education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.'

You write:

'The CAGW hypothesis is now so full of holes there is not enough room here to list them all.'

To answer which I will include my answer in another thread to the anymouse2 troll's BS:

'There is still a net positive radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources. This is well understood. The temperatures in large sections of the fluid systems of the earth's surface, especially in oceans is rising.

Water takes a large quantity of heat energy to raise its temperature by one degree Kelvin. Then there is the matter of accelerating ice loss from Antarctic, Arctic and Greenland and most glaciers around the world.

Do you understand the concepts of heat capacity of various materials and of latent heat? In other words, do you appreciate how much heat is required to raise the temperature of one gram of ice to its melting point and then how much heat energy is required to change the phase of one gram of H2O from ice to liquid water? How does that compare to the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water through one degree Kelvin?

'It's a start to realizing that nature is probably in control and not man. Both have impacts, but to assign overwhelming values of control to man's expansion of a trace gas in the atmosphere over nature always was a high risk short sighted position.'

Not at all. I have explained in a post up-thread, and elsewhere here, that the science of the so called greenhouse effect (bad analogy but that term is now common currency - unfortunately) is well understood. I repeat:

CO2 is neither evil or virtuous, it just is. However the science of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics tell us that CO2 in the atmosphere interacts with the infra-red region of the electromagnetic spectrum in a way which is out of all proportion to its proportions.

See Archer, University of Chicago series of lectures:

http://www.youtube.com/user/UChicago#g/c/FA75A0DDB89ACCD7

Also isotopic analysis tells us that the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly from human sources, fossil fuel burning, land use changes and cement production.

These are scientifically proven facts which no amount of denial can wish away.

The paper that you introduced has an element of cherry picking, like many a denier argument, in the choice of the start and finish of the period. By using the high of 1998 as the start guarantees, by knowing after the fact how the succeeding years played out, that conclusions can be used to confuse those with simple minds. It would appear that the authors have succeeded.

When the sulphate etc. particles that have helped to mask the warming effect (note: not totally hidden) rain out the elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere from those same ten years will still be in the atmosphere to continue the enhanced radiative imbalance that has caused an increase in warming.

'Take a longer look than the past 150 years, and the pattern of natural impacts is obvious.'

Well yes, I am aware of that as are David Archer (mentioned above), Richard Alley, Walley Broecker and the many other climate scientists the works of whom I have read. Thus Milankovich Cycles, Dansgaard-Oeschger events and Heinrich Events are not unfamiliar to me. Neither is the geological history of this planet and how it interplays with climate through formation and breaking up of continents with the resultant impacts on the CO2 cycle (orogenic events and subduction), oceanic currents and weather system changes (extreme continental v extreme maritime) and also the biota supported.

It is a complex topic with input from many scientific disciplines and this is why I find studies in oceanography valuable and also books such as William James Burroughs 'Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach' a useful reference to point the truly curious at.

So, all in all, no cracks here bud. On the contrary events unfolding in the US are pointing to the fact that large areas of the US will come to resemble conditions in The Horn of Africa or The Sudan, another few million displaced climate refugees from there. Here is a taste:

NBC: “The Dust Storm that Swallowed Up an American City”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/06/262270/dust-storm/

Now, you really should read, if honest and open minded:

Study: Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Chinese Coal Plant Sulfur Pollution

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/05/260177/study-hottest-decade-chinese-coal-plant-sulfr-pollution/

<--quote-->

Last decade was easily the hottest on record, as were the 1990s and, before that, the 1980s — all part of a multi-decadal trend driven primarily by human-caused emissions.

We’ve known for a while that warming appeared to slow over a short, cherry-picked time frame of 1998 to 2008 because:

1 The starting year (1998) was a very strong El Niño, which temporarily boosts global temps, and the ending point (2008) was a moderate La Niña, which lowers them.

2 The end point was near the bottom of “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.”

3 One key global temperature dataset, the Hadley/CRU one used by the UK’s Met Office, had numerous flaws that led to a slower warming trend than most of the others.

Even so, as we’ll see the land and the oceans just kept warming. It is just hard to stop the radiative forcing of the CO2 humans have put in the air, which equals 1 million Hiroshima bombs a day.

What’s clever about the new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study is it demonstrates that sulfur pollution from China’s massive buildup of coal plants also helped slow the warming:' (quote included in post up-thread followed).

<--quote-->

What’s not clever about this study is that it repeats the myth that there was a ‘hiatus’ in the first place. The top figure, from John Cook’s Skeptical Science website, makes that clear.

And that’s without even discussing the oceans, where climate science says the vast majority of the warming goes:

<--unquote-->

Now as I indicated read the full article and follow links, if you are truly honest about this that is.'

So you stated 'The CAGW hypothesis is now so full of holes there is not enough room here to list them all' using the another common denier tactics of broadbrush and evasion.

You have evaded, so far, providing any rational explanation of why GHGs are not a positive forcing on radiative balance. I wonder if you even have the ability to understand that last sentence of mine. Go on show me that you do.

Over to you LoLo, or are you going to leave us guessing as to who blows you up (i.e. inflates your mojo LoLo).

The article on sulfates as explanation for lack of warming (similar to the same claim used to explain 1940-1970 cooling despite the burst in emissions):
(1) Finally admits lack of warming as fact!
(2) Is a mere hand-waving argument which aerosol optical density data does not support.
(3) Was written by three *economists* with no background in climatology as a science!
(4) Is a laughable example of damage control.

["Last decade was easily the hottest on record."]
That statement has been true almost every decade going back 350 years, according to the oldest thermometer records that exist:
http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif

Your massive post lacks the structure of a good essay or argument, so lacks impact. I feel bad for you since your heart at least seems to be in the right place though you do refer to skepticism as "denial," which has an Orwellian tone to it, one which post-Climategate has become the worst PR move of all time, for skeptics are now seen more and more properly as oppressed underdogs rather than as frothing conspiracy theorists, and this boosts their morale in kind.

["warming appeared to slow over a short, cherry-picked time frame of 1998 to 2008 "]
The fact that it *can* be cherry picked falsifies claims that CO2 is now the main driver of climate. That coal burning creates climate cooling is good news, no? All we need do then is find the proper mix of fossil fuels and modern design nuclear to quite astonishingly have control over the climate. Add plant fertilization to the mix and you have a happy biosphere! You meta-conservatives don't like change though, so well have to hand hold you along the way.

["You have evaded, so far, providing any rational explanation of why GHGs are not a positive forcing on radiative balance. I wonder if you even have the ability to understand that last sentence of mine. Go on show me that you do."]
Claims that the skeptical argument, minus rookie mistakes and healthy but minority opinion eccentricities amount to this: "CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas," doesn't even pass the laugh test. Continued massive funding for climate science, environmental journalism, and in many ways the entire left wing political movement including Greenpeace and Gore's banking forays, now rely on something quite different from CO2 as a "proven by basic physics" greenhouse gas, one that might add another degree of warming over the next century. Oh no, that's not at all what the entire Green Empire is propped up by. Massive water vapor feedback in the absence of any cloud-formation-due-to-higher-T-and-humidly negative feedbacks! That's the Magic Formula, one that has nothing whatsoever to do with the equations that describe the CO2 greenhouse effect.

And you know it! You *all* know it by now. Yet you keep harping on and on about skeptical claims that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, hoping against all hope that we wont show up again, so your last word will fool layperson readers who don't have time to delve deeply into the snake pit of lies that is the gospel of the contemporary Church of Climatology, which I correctly call The Green Bank Authority:

http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif

So, lacking real support for HAAGW ("highly amplified" AGW), you drop a bleeding heart reference to a dust storm? Do I really need to spend two hours looking up old newspaper articles? Shall I include dust storms on Mars too?

Texas Dust Bowl, 1934: http://oi55.tinypic.com/w0ouib.jpg
This is futile. I don't have the two hours to look up every dust storm. Sorry.
Well, here they are, after all, the dust storms from 1800 to 1930:
http://tinyurl.com/duststorms
What a mockery these dozens of old news reports makes of your silly reference to this month's example!

You're not used to it are you? You've been hanging out too long on sites that censor comebacks to your weak claims so you've become soft and arrogant. Refusal to show up any more on WUWT due to partisan emotion pegs AGW enthusiasts as cultists. All we get are trolls. The battle lines have been drawn, it seems. And we are winning. Australia is the canary in the coal mine for carbon taxation (artificial energy rationing), now that their prime minister has tried to pull a George Bush Sr. about "Read my lips, no new (carbon) taxes!":

http://oi51.tinypic.com/wwestw.jpg

If you try to instigate rationing you better have damn solid support behind your doomsday claims. You do not have that support, so a grassroots effort is now dismantling your entire machine. If you don't wake up and see that it is not Big Oil that is attacking you but Big People, much more of your mechanism will fall to bits for a generation than was ever required for us skeptics to merely tame the climate science boondoggle. Suddenly we have real political power exactly because your liberal wagons are still hitched to a junk science beast that we are teasing towards a cliff.

LionelA said: "'There is still a net positive radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources. This is well understood. The temperatures in large sections of the fluid systems of the earth's surface, especially in oceans is rising." That ole "net positive radiative forcing" is model's-based and not yet confirmed. You do realize that?

Moreover, the model outputs have been diverging from reality for quite some time now, when the temps have been rising. The models are clearly unable to well handle that other GHG, H2O in its various forms.

You also claimed: "You have evaded, so far, providing any rational explanation of why GHGs are not a positive forcing on radiative balance. I wonder if you even have the ability to understand that last sentence of mine." As far as I have seen no one has made any such claim. So you create your own straw man argument then then tip it over. Good show, but useless.

Finally, you rely on a long list of documents, some scientific and some just plain assertions. It does little good to get into this type of dueling documents, because there is a counter document to each presented. Eventually we end up with the last presenter claiming themselves the winner just by sheer volume. Not a very strong argument.

Let me add this statement to my above:
"“Scientific predictions are just that, predictions, and until they have been verified, are just that, unverified predictions.”"

And that's the problem of relying on model outputs. Too many model-based predicted "truths" are not and probably will never be verified.

Regrettably, you folks rely way too heavily on this level of science.

'And that's the problem of relying on model outputs. Too many model-based predicted "truths" are not and probably will never be verified.'

No atmospheric scientist ever calls the output of models predictions. That is for the lame-stream. Projection OTOH that is the term used by real scientists.

Regrettably you cannot even get your arguments in order.

Now in what follows you cannot even quote properly. What's up doc, never done writing courses?

'LionelA said: "'There is still a net positive radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources. This is well understood. The temperatures in large sections of the fluid systems of the earth's surface, especially in oceans is rising."'

'That ole "net positive radiative forcing" is model's-based and not yet confirmed. You do realize that?'

Radiative forcing is a matter of physics including quantum mechanics and thermodynamic and measurement. Plus the obvious effects of planetary systems absorbing heat energy.

It just so happens that events are following the upper trajectories of projections and are poised to take off, as anybody watching the cryosphere situation can appreciate. Only those with their heads up their arse cannot understand that. And don't go crying to mum ad' hominum because it isn't it is simply a way of stating a fact - that you are in deep denial.

Another mung up of yours here:

'You also claimed: "You have evaded, so far, providing any rational explanation of why GHGs are not a positive forcing on radiative balance. I wonder if you even have the ability to understand that last sentence of mine." As far as I have seen no one has made any such claim. So you create your own straw man argument then then tip it over. Good show, but useless.'

What claim have I said you made? There is no indication of any such in there. I am merely asking you to support your implied claims by providing evidence for why GHGs are NOT providing a positive forcing.

This latest of your explains much, comprehension is not your strong point or maybe you just like shooting from the hip on a hair trigger.

'Finally, you rely on a long list of documents, some scientific and some just plain assertions. It does little good to get into this type of dueling documents, because there is a counter document to each presented. Eventually we end up with the last presenter claiming themselves the winner just by sheer volume. Not a very strong argument.'

It is hardly my problem that there is a paucity of reliable and authentic peer reviewed studies which demonstrate that APGW is not happening. Your argument is not only not very strong but fundamentally flawed.

It is nothing to do with sheer volume, as you quaintly put it, but quality of the science too. And you do not find quality science presented at the likes of WUWT, CO2Science (what a mockery that title is) and ClimateAudit.

LionelA starts his counterpoint with a weak semantical argument,
the difference between "projection" and "prediction". These are the definitions:
"projection (prəˈdʒɛkʃən) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. the act of projecting or the state of being projected
2. an object or part that juts out
3. See map projection
4. the representation of a line, figure, or solid on a given plane as it would be seen from a particular direction or in accordance with an accepted set of rules
5. a scheme or plan
6. a prediction based on known evidence and observations
7. a. the process of showing film on a screen..."

and

"prediction - the act of predicting (as by reasoning about the future)
anticipation, prevision
abstract thought, logical thinking, reasoning - thinking that is coherent and logical
projection - a prediction made by extrapolating from past observations
prophecy, vaticination, prognostication - knowledge of the future (usually said to be obtained from a divine source)
adumbration, foreshadowing, prefiguration - the act of providing vague advance indications; representing beforehand..."

Please note the circular definitions. Projection uses predictions and prediction uses projection. I repeat, a weak semantical argument.

The remainder restates what I said, and then argues that restatement. Isn't that similar to my straw man argument to which this responds.

Included in that restatement of what I said with this: "It is hardly my problem that there is a paucity of reliable and authentic peer reviewed studies which demonstrate that APGW is not happening." I didn't mention a difference in quantity nor quality, just that we get into a one by one comparison where: "Eventually we end up with the last presenter claiming themselves the winner just by sheer volume. Not a very strong argument."

So your response confirmed my first assertion of you making straw man arguments.

I guess that you cannot be expected to understand some of the more subtle details of climate science if you cannot understand the subtle difference between 'projection' and 'prediction'

'LionelA starts his counterpoint with a weak semantical argument,
the difference between "projection" and "prediction". These are the definitions:'

According to whom?

If you study the scientific literature you will discover that a projection (think projectile) is the path along which some phenomenon may travel. A prediction is very different, it is a forecast of what will take place. No semantics on my part, just the correct use of terminology.

Can you understand the nuance here?

But then, some deniers clearly will never get it as long as their alpha-romeo-sierra-echo points downwards it would seem, are you going to be one such?

Lionel asks if I understand the nuance between "projection" and "prediction" in one word, yes. Projection is difficult to define with our using prediction in its normal/scientific meaning.

But several years ago when the projections/predictions were failing, then several of the "team" got into this semantical argument. It made little sense then and still doesn't if you are trying to make a point clearly. Nuanced? No, Bravo Sierra.

'Projection is difficult to define...'

Clearly for you but then you have displayed difficulty in comprehending much.

Keep digging that hole.

I am going to leave you to your blatherings as they are becoming increasingly pointless.

You are consistent.

"The Global Climate Coalition, an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change could not be refuted."

"That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the IPCC could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that:"

'The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.'

"When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record."

http://www.desmogblog.com/when-deniers-deny-their-own

Here's who has invented the global warming denial phenomena that has fooled so many, with their pseudo scientific arguments, most of which were disproven over 10 years ago.

"The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR."
David Archer

These 32 conservative think tanks have all been involved in the tobacco industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.

These same 32 groups are now involved with denial of climate science.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation

# 5 and #9 were created by the Koch brothers and they have their hands in others.

#24 is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News features as a climate change expert. He has no science training, but is a professional PR man and a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests.

We often hear skeptics saying that global warming is just another natural cycle, like in the past, nothing humans have done. Here's why they are wrong.
*

You may have heard of clean coal technology, - carbon capture and sequestration, pumping CO2 from power plants deep into the ground to sequester it. Nature sequesters carbon also.
*
In what is called the short term, or active carbon cycle, carbon cycles through the atmosphere, water, topsoils and all living things. It is indeed the most important element in our world, because of how it forms bonds. Carbon compounds are what we are built out of.
This is one thing the skeptics have right, carbon is essential to life. What they don't get - is that it's also why it's so important not to upset the carbon cycle.
*

The active carbon cycle has been in a delicate balance during our entire evolution, and certainly during the entire holocene, when agriculture and civilization started.
*

Coal and oil are carbon that nature sequestered in the earth, locking it out of the short term carbon cycle, thereby maintaining that balance. This happened over maybe 100 million years. We are now releasing all that carbon from 100 million years, back into the atmosphere and back into the short term carbon cycle in about 200 years, or a geological nanosecond. A blink of an eye, so to speak.
This is upsetting the balance of the carbon cycle, bigtime. This is most likely unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is NOT a natural cycle. WE are doing it.
*
This actually may have happened in the past, but not by any creatures. Some evidence points to coal being burned by volcanoes in Siberia leading to global warming and ocean acidification, which led to about 90% of life on earth going extinct. That was natural. This is not. It's us this time. We can choose to stop.

Yawn….

And again with emphasis yawn…

Loads of irrelevant chatter, and almost no comment on the real issue.

Lets get back to the real Questions for a moment.

First lets state what we agree on:

1. There was a little bit of warming in the latter part of the twentieth century.
2. CO2 does help to trap some heat.
3. Humans have liberated some CO2 in the last 100 years.

The questions that have yet to be answered;

1. Was human released CO2 the main cause of the little warming blip?
2. What is the real sensitivity of the Climate to increases in CO2?
3. Is the added CO2 likely to have a net beneficial or harmful effect?

What I have seen so far:

1. There is still no credible evidence that CO2 was any more than a minor contributor to the warm spell.
2. The highly controversial sensitivity figure is most likely to be very low in the final analysis. The effect of CO2 are very small and decrease exponentially as the concentration increases. There are many feedback factors that have yet to be understood, but the net effect seem to be a self regulating system that CAN NOT “tip” into catastrophic warming.
3. The net effect is likely to be very beneficial. Every similar warming in history (and there have been many) have help to advance civilization greatly. It is likely that the optimum CO2 level for us now is around 1000 to 1500 ppm.

Anon, I would add to the we agree on category:
Some warming is from natural causes and some is from man's impacts

Then to the still to be determined category, I would add:
The actual percentages of natural and man induced warming are still to be clarified.

Pages

[x]
No dumping
The former owner of a Youngstown, Ohio, excavating company pled guilty to illegally dumping thousands of gallons of contaminated fracking wastewater into a storm drain that led to the Mahoning River. 
 
Benedict Lupo, 63, will be sentenced on June 16 for violating the Clean Water Act. His sentence could range from probation to up to three years in federal prison. The federal prosecutor in the case intends to seek the maximum sentence....
read more