Resisting Climate Hysteria

[drsmith]

Smurf you have just brilliantly laid out why we must have an ETS, without it there's no capital flow to pay for it, without an ETS, Renewable's are too expensive....and that's exactly why its inevitable.

Really ?

Engineers would note that the ETS is fundmentally a financial market instrument. Engineers would also note that it is only the financial system which is preventing the development of vast amounts of clean, renewable energy right now.

Renewable energy, which requires large capital investment, simply can not compete against lower investment / higher ongoing cost fossil fuels in this environment. We're going to cook the planet not through lack of technical ability or resources, but because speculation was deemed a better use of capital than production. Hmm...

Sounds more to me like the capital from an ETS would largely line the pockets of investment bankers and speculators.

 

[So_Cynical]

Really ?





Sounds more to me like the capital from an ETS would largely line the pockets of investment bankers and speculators.

Care to show me a market where investment bankers and speculators don't line there pockets?

 

[drsmith]

Care to show me a market where investment bankers and speculators don't line there pockets?

So you consider speculation a better use of capital than production ?

 

[Smurf1976]

If we assume that CO2 is to be cut then:

What the energy industry needs is a means to operate with higher costs, and pass those costs onto consumers, without some other supplier choosing to not cut CO2 thus operating with lower costs.

In that context note that "some other supplier" means in particular South Africa, China, India, South American countries in general, Middle East countries in general particularly Iran and Qatar, Russia and anyone nearby.

There is a major misconception that competition in the Australian electricity industry is something new an is about coal versus gas, one power station versus another and so on.

Oh no it's not... Go back as far as the 1920's and the industry had already worked out that competition was from overseas, interstate and from alternatives to electricity. Tasmania was first in Australia at playing that game, with Victoria and South Australia deciding to get on board in the 1950's (though SA never really succeeded at doing so). By the 1970's Qld and NSW realised they also had the means to compete - witness the rapid industrialisation of Qld as a direct result.

Fast forward to the early 1990's and it was no secret at the time that the Tasmanian government / Hydro had a serious problem on their hands... from South Africa which was trying to poach basically every energy-intensive industry in the state. Then came gas, Basslink, wind and attempts to wring every last Watt out of the hydro system...

Bottom line? An Australian-only ETS, or even one that only covers a few countries, is pointless. The USA is NOT a competitor to the Australian electricity industry. Neither is the EU or Japan. They aren't in the game. It's the likes of China, India, Saudi Arabia etc that are the competition - either they are part of the ETS or it's a complete waste of time that may even increase emissions.

As for the bankers, they have no interest in anything which constrains GDP growth and brings about the failure of their fiat money system. That they seem keen on an ETS speaks volumes in itself. Yet another financial instrument created out of thin air that can be traded for profit by financial institutions. Basically, another "currency" that costs nothing to produce and sells for a huge profit to captive customers.

Introduce a proper global ETS not subject to the antics of bankers and it would work. But I can't see that actually happening anytime soon. There will always be someone who cheats. Meanwhile coal use continues to soar.

In my opinion, the only real hope is to change the focus from capital, which is created out of thin air by central banks, to labour which is real and tangible. The old capital versus labour argument.

If capital is valued most highly, then fossil fuels have an advantage since much of the total cost is deferred. If labour is valued most highly, then renewables have the advantage since over the life of a plant, constantly mining coal requires more labour than the one-off construction of solar, hydro etc.

It is no coincidence that the economics of hydro, other renewables and nuclear fell in a hole shortly after the financial events of the early 1970's. That is the real problem - the financial system. To their credit, the Greens worked all this out well before their opponents - the nuclear and in particular hydro schemes they so strongly opposed, and which others fought so hard to build, would not have been profitable anyway and the same applies to other renewable technologies today.

 

[explod]

In my opinion, the only real hope is to change the focus from capital, which is created out of thin air by central banks, to labour which is real and tangible. The old capital versus labour argument.

If capital is valued most highly, then fossil fuels have an advantage since much of the total cost is deferred. If labour is valued most highly, then renewables have the advantage since over the life of a plant, constantly mining coal requires more labour than the one-off construction of solar, hydro etc.

It is no coincidence that the economics of hydro, other renewables and nuclear fell in a hole shortly after the financial events of the early 1970's. That is the real problem - the financial system. To their credit, the Greens worked all this out well before their opponents - the nuclear and in particular hydro schemes they so strongly opposed, and which others fought so hard to build, would not have been profitable anyway and the same applies to other renewable technologies today.

Hit the nail on the head smurf. Would disagree on the put down of nuclear. Though there are still some problems with radiation escape they are now minimal compared to the source of real grunt for alternative power till better methods of solar, wind etc can be developed. Denmark for example are doing a great job in this area but that sort of change is also a change in our way of life and will take a generation or two to take hold in my view.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hit the nail on the head smurf. Would disagree on the put down of nuclear. Though there are still some problems with radiation escape they are now minimal compared to the source of real grunt for alternative power till better methods of solar, wind etc can be developed. Denmark for example are doing a great job in this area but that sort of change is also a change in our way of life and will take a generation or two to take hold in my view.

ALL power pollutes

I'd describe myself as a realist in regard to the whole energy issue. We're going to use it, it's going to have an impact. The question is what is the lesser of the evils?

Nuclear - if CO2 is really a problem and geothermal doesn't work then we're going to have to use more nuclear power (worldwide) than at present. That's reality.

But it is also reality that anything man does is prone to error. Build enough nuclear reactors, operate them for long enough and eventually there will be an accident.

Now, if we're talking about conventional fission reactors using uranium, then the consequences of such an accident far exceed anything that can possibly go wrong with coal, gas, hydro, wind etc. A coal mine collapse traps 100 miners, a gas plant explosion kills 20 workers and shatters nearby windows, an oil spill wrecks 20km of coastline, a dam burts and wipes out a town downstream, a blade comes off a wind turbine and kills someone on the ground. Or a worst case nuclear accident affects millions.

The chances of a nuclear accident may well be low and I would agree that they are. But the consequences of such an accident, if it were to happen, far exceed that associated with any other energy technology. It may end up being a risk we have to just live with, but there's a risk, however small, that no amount of engineering can reduce absolutely to zero.

Thorium reactors are, in theory at least, inherently safe since they need external energy input to operate and without that the reaction stops. A bit like how a petrol engine stops if there's no power to the spark plugs. That's my understanding at least, and if it's correct then thorium seems a much more sensible choice for nuclear power - a worst case accident wouldn't be a major disaster. And not having uranium in widespread use eliminates the risk that some third world dictator decides that their power reactor would be better used for weapons production.

But as I said, all power pollutes. The argument is about what to pollute and how, rather than whether to pollute at all.

I've seen first hand plenty of power stations in operation. 5 coal, 1 fuel oil, 2 diesel, 9 gas, 29 hydro, 4 co-generation plants and a wind farm too. Based on that, I conclude that none of them are doing the environment any real good (possible exception of one hydro scheme that is the sole habitat of a particular species and home to another endangered species).

Consider wind. One of the operating conditions at Woolnorth wind farm (Tas) is how many endangered birds it is allowed to kill. There are estimated to be 350 breeding pairs of Wedge Tailed Eagles in Tas so it's not exactly a common bird. Thus far, Woolnorth has killed 17 Eagles over 9 years (worth noting that the license allows up to 8 birds to be killed per year).

What about coal? Let's see what happens in Victoria at the brown coal plants... Craters in the ground, mercury and sulphur into the air and a huge pile of ash. That's without mentioning CO2 or local air quality. Black coal is the same except that the mines are often underground.

Oil / gas - Take a look at where global reserves are concentrated. We'll end up fighting over the stuff and/or drilling somewhere like Antarctica. And burning #6 fuel oil creates more smoke than you'd have thought possible.

Hydro - Let's just say it created what is now the Greens in order to oppose it. Personally I'd rather a flooded landscape (and I've seen plenty) than the alternatives simply because it could be restored in a matter of decades if the dam were no longer required, a point even hardline Greens acknowledge. It is certainly an impact, but it's not permanent like with coal etc. But many will disagree and argue that wilderness has a value in itself (and I'd actually agree with them by the way, a scenic river beats a half full man-made impondment any day - it's just that I'd rather a dam than fossil fuels).

Wood? Personally I think we've destroyed enough forests on Earth already in order to make paper without resorting to buring them for power as well. That reality in England, running out of trees and realising there were better uses for wood than burning it, is why coal became established as a fuel in the first place...

So it's about harm minimisation rather than avoiding any harm at all. Thorium seems, in theory at least, relatively low impact. Underground coal gassification would greatly reduce the impact of using coal (including less CO2). Hot dry rocks, if it works, also ought to be relatively low impact compared to the alternatives. And there's still more we can do (globally) with wind and hydro without messing up the geuinely high conservation value wilderness areas. And of course we can put solar hot water or heat pumps on houses, build better car engines and so on too - again not perfect but it helps.

 

[WaveSurfer]

You are totally misrepresenting the science and the scientific consensus.
Climate scientists are very much of the view that CO2 is the principal ingredient of concern and postulated a theory which was presented in great detail in the last IPCC Report.

Dude, you're not telling me anything that I don't already know.

Rather than present views which are mischievous and baseless, you might like to try and come to grips with some realities. Or you might try to learn more of the science.

Mischievous and baseless? Come to grips with reality? Learn more of the science? LMAO. What a piece of work...

I am not sure where all your reading is based. As I am a student of science, I have access to a database of practically every scientific journal on the planet. To get access to this database you need to pay a premium. That premium I pay through my University fees. My reading is 0.5% Internet, 0.5% Media and 99% published scientific reports.

As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.

There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against. There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.

As Sdajii put so well

....people believe what they want to believe, not what is the most likely truth, not what the evidence actually points to...

Precisely. The evidence suggests that we have no idea if it's man-induced or a natural cycle that's going happen regardless of our CO2 omissions.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we neglectfully "burn away" and potentially speed up the process either. As I said countless times. I am not on either side because science informs me that we need more information before we start jumping the gun.

This information we don't have to spend hundreds of hours in the books to obtain. Once it is available, it will be summed up by a real scientist in a nice little package for all to understand. Somehow, I don't believe this will be in my lifetime. But hey, who knows?

 

[wayneL]

As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.

There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against. There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.

Thanks for highlighting the real truth WS. I often argue for my own opinion on here, but acutely aware that it is just that.

If all would admit that and revert to the true science you allude to, I think much more could be achieved. As it stands, there is this silly attitude polarization which only engenders destructive argumentation.

 

[sneak'n]

As I said, there is not enough evidence to base a scientific conclusion on the for or against side. PERIOD. There you have thousands of reports and essays summed up in one sentence.

Not even the IPCC has stated the climate case is conclusive, so please do not invent an outcome that achieves your objective.

There are compelling arguments for, and just as compelling arguments against.

I am keen for you to elaborate the case which you suggest is "compelling" against the IPCC Report.

There are also way too many variables in the equation to be considered. To base an opinion (because that's all it is at this stage) on either side is ridiculous and proves that one doesn't know the true meaning of science.

As a science student you should respect the basis for hypothesis, and the case that underpins the IPCC's theory. To place "variables" into an equation where in fact we are looking at empirical evidence is not a reasonable practice.

The evidence suggests that we have no idea if it's man-induced or a natural cycle that's going happen regardless of our CO2 omissions.

The evidence suggests we have a better than even chance of pinning present warming trends to increased greenhouse gas emissions that are not part of the natural cycle. What evidence are you using?

 

[Timmy]

I enjoyed browsing this:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....

Humorous, but of course with serious intent.

Check out the homepage:
Number Watch


(Apologies if this has been linked to before)

 

[wayneL]

I enjoyed browsing this:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....

Humorous, but of course with serious intent.

Check out the homepage:
Number Watch


(Apologies if this has been linked to before)

Excellent site Timmy.

 

[wayneL]

Here is an interesting article from Stephen Wilde, Posted on Anthony Watt's blog. A New and Effective Climate Model.

It even has some science to satisfy "rederob incognito".

 

[Calliope]

I enjoyed browsing this:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Including: decline in circumcisions, vampire moths (watch out Goldmans), the Earth will explode ....

I think I know why rederob is so worried. He probably owns a short-nosed dog.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/pets/...d-as-heat-rises/2008/01/19/1200620272510.html.

He is one of the few warmists who haven't used the excuse that they want to leave a "better world for their grand children".

On the other hand it could be that he is just naturally argumentive.

 

[basilio]

So how would we build a green economy to deal with CO2 emissions and their effect on the climate ? Came across an excellent article by Paul Klugman in New York Times which explores the economics of rebuilding the world economy and the ways and means to do so.

Some notable highlights were
1) On the most honest estimates economic growth would be very slightly reduced with a change to non carbon based energy sources

2) The possible/probable consequences of inaction would be devastatingly high. Accepting this risk seems totally stupid....and suicidal

3) Arguments by self interested opponents to these actions and conservative think tanks are basically bad faith arguments which willfully deceive the public about costs associated with any change to the status quo.

Obviously there are many more salient points but you'll need to actually read the article to have a considered opinion.

Building a Green Economy

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 5, 2010

If you listen to climate scientists — and despite the relentless campaign to discredit their work, you should — it is long past time to do something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If we continue with business as usual, they say, we are facing a rise in global temperatures that will be little short of apocalyptic. And to avoid that apocalypse, we have to wean our economy from the use of fossil fuels, coal above all.

But is it possible to make drastic cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions without destroying our economy?

Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost. There is, however, much less agreement on how fast we should move, whether major conservation efforts should start almost immediately or be gradually increased over the course of many decades.

......

Climate of Doubt?
This is an article on climate economics, not climate science. But before we get to the economics, it’s worth establishing three things about the state of the scientific debate.

The first is that the planet is indeed warming. Weather fluctuates, and as a consequence it’s easy enough to point to an unusually warm year in the recent past, note that it’s cooler now and claim, “See, the planet is getting cooler, not warmer!” But if you look at the evidence the right way *— taking averages over periods long enough to smooth out the fluctuations — the upward trend is unmistakable: each successive decade since the 1970s has been warmer than the one before.

Second, climate models predicted this well in advance, even getting the magnitude of the temperature rise roughly right. While it’s relatively easy to cook up an analysis that matches known data, it is much harder to create a model that accurately forecasts the future. So the fact that climate modelers more than 20 years ago successfully predicted the subsequent global warming gives them enormous credibility.

Yet that’s not the conclusion you might draw from the many media reports that have focused on matters like hacked e-mail and climate scientists’ talking about a “trick” to “hide” an anomalous decline in one data series or expressing their wish to see papers by climate skeptics kept out of research reviews. The truth, however, is that the supposed scandals evaporate on closer examination, revealing only that climate researchers are human beings, too. Yes, scientists try to make their results stand out, but no data were suppressed. Yes, scientists dislike it when work that they think deliberately obfuscates the issues gets published. What else is new? Nothing suggests that there should not continue to be strong support for climate research.

And this brings me to my third point: models based on this research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.

Costs of action

.......Clearly, conservatives abandon all faith in the ability of markets to cope with climate-change policy because they don’t want government intervention. Their stated pessimism about the cost of climate policy is essentially a political ploy rather than a reasoned economic judgment. The giveaway is the strong tendency of conservative opponents of cap and trade to argue in bad faith. That Heritage Foundation broadside accuses the Congressional Budget Office of making elementary logical errors, but if you actually read the office’s report, it’s clear that the foundation is willfully misreading it.

Conservative politicians have been even more shameless. The National Republican Congressional Committee, for example, issued multiple press releases specifically citing a study from M.I.T. as the basis for a claim that cap and trade would cost $3,100 per household, despite repeated attempts by the study’s authors to get out the word that the actual number was only about a quarter as much. [/B]

A long article but pulls many of the issues together and comes to an inevitable conclusion. If the vast majority of scientific research and current evidence is showing that our emissions of CO2 are causing a potentially catastrophic increase in global temperatures can't we just deal with the problem instead of ignoring it and hoping it will go away?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?pagewanted=1

 

[wayneL]

Krugman

***Spits on ground in disgust.

Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.

Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.

 

[sneak'n]

***Spits on ground in disgust.

Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.

Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.

Is there a reason you cannot substantiate the point you make?
How about you present your case, rather than another dummy spit.
By the way, the link to the alternative climate model you posted was very amusing, so thank you. The science he got right was about the manner in which our earth dissipates heat into space. There may have been a few other points, but I was probably laughing too much to notice.

 

[wayneL]

Is there a reason you cannot substantiate the point you make?
How about you present your case, rather than another dummy spit.
By the way, the link to the alternative climate model you posted was very amusing, so thank you. The science he got right was about the manner in which our earth dissipates heat into space. There may have been a few other points, but I was probably laughing too much to notice.

Probably pretty much the same reason that you can't substantiate yours rederob.

BTW, it's fair that you laugh at Wild's model. It is after all, merely a model, and models are just... models. Plus one may choose to laugh at something they disagree with. Not very scientific, but it was a good tactic in kindergarten so why not try it in adulthood?

A reasonable man would understand the mirth of others towards his own cherished models because of the same.

Somehow I don't see that you would.

 

[sneak'n]

Probably pretty much the same reason that you can't substantiate yours rederob.

Please provide examples where I have not substantiated a statement or claim I have made. I will gladly rectify any reasonable omission that is about the science.

Wavesurfer and drsmith were the last two I recall responding to, and neither has been back to justify or elaborate further on their statements.

You, on the other hand, have been absolutely true to form (as I noted when first joining ASF). Attack the man (and claim the shoe on the other foot), post linkages without explanation/interpretation, and then legitimise your stance with an obligatory reference to Pielke Snr's site; all without ever backing your claims.

I welcome discussion or debate that contexts the supposed "hysteria" attached to this topic. I would prefer not to make responses to posts of yours that continue to refuse to bring in scientific debate, while subtly suggesting I might hold positions you ascribe.

For example, why refer to a "kindergarten" tactic when you had an opportunity to support the model you linked to? Wilde's model had no temporal base, and did not discuss the role of greenhouse gases in any meaningful way. His model did nothing but suggest his preferred slant on many known events.

 

[wayneL]

Please provide examples where I have not substantiated a statement or claim I have made. I will gladly rectify any reasonable omission that is about the science.

Ummm... your previous post?

You bagged out Wilde without a shred of justification for doing so.

Wavesurfer and drsmith were the last two I recall responding to, and neither has been back to justify or elaborate further on their statements.

Perhaps they thought it a bit tiresome to continuously refer to published science which disputes the IPCC. Dunno, just guessing.

You, on the other hand, have been absolutely true to form (as I noted when first joining ASF). Attack the man (and claim the shoe on the other foot),

It is your turn to be amusingly hypocritical for the umpteenth time... ROTFLMAO

post linkages without explanation/interpretation, and then legitimise your stance with an obligatory reference to Pielke Snr's site; all without ever backing your claims.

I must point out that it is not my place to back claims. I can never do so as successfully as the scientists involved. That is their job.

It is up to the inquisitor to decide whether the argument is valid or not. Second hand arguments are... well, secondhand. My purpose is to line up behind those arguments that make sense to me.

I welcome discussion or debate that contexts the supposed "hysteria" attached to this topic.

Rubbish.

You only welcome discussion that ascribes to your specific point of view. You steadfastly refuse to consider any other viewpoint, even after concessions from the other side.

Very disingenuous.

I would prefer not to make responses to posts of yours that continue to refuse to bring in scientific debate, while subtly suggesting I might hold positions you ascribe.

I don't understand what you mean. But I can only point to the plethora of links I have posted over the timeline of this and other climate threads that refer to climate science.

I regard it foolish that you continue to ignore/deny this.

For example, why refer to a "kindergarten" tactic when you had an opportunity to support the model you linked to? Wilde's model had no temporal base, and did not discuss the role of greenhouse gases in any meaningful way. His model did nothing but suggest his preferred slant on many known events.

As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models

You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.

This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.

All the while, there are no practical answers to the purported problems.

I would bet my @ss that rederob lives in a better than avergae (and hungrier in energy) house, drives a nice car and has a "carbon footprint" typical.... perhaps even in excess of those of his peers.... just like Al Bore.

Perhaps he has even invested in companies profiting from ETS etc. That would be odds on.

 

[explod]

As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models

You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.

This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.

Science is not static, new information from all sides comes from the continued enquiry, so of course we have a subjective situation. But then you go on to speak of "the true scientific method".

You too are shifting to suit your own argument.

Science or no science, we would not be having such discussion subject and I might add fought with such passion if we did not have a problem with rising co2.