What does YOUR conduct (ignoring other poster's logical, scientifically supported arguments) say then?
Unfortunately I learned a long time ago that politics, science and religion are inherently inconveniently incompatible.
Which is fine, but when a poster is talking about AGW, the debate is already a scientific one and as such, should be supported by arguments that are grounded in science, not fictional pictures of the globe and ten year data sets (when hundred year sets tell the tale, not just half a chapter).
I'm coming late to this thread and missed the previous climate change thread alluded to. True the climate is an incredibly complicated system yet the theoretical foundation of man made global warming, AGW as you refer to it, is very sound. We know for a fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do trap heat, we know for a fact that that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels have risen faster than at anytime in Earths history and we have seen trends in warming in the last few decades. While I totally agree we can't say absolutely for certain that AGW exists we can certainly say that there is a high probability such a thing is happening. Except that your example still shows that the ice cap level is far below the meridian point shown in red. A two year window very well maybe a statistical anomaly. I'm going to state what I always say in regard to these debates. Consider what happens if we do take steps to address man made global warming what happens even if it is bunk. We remove our dependence on foriegn energy sources, we have renewable energy, we have cleaner air and water, and we develop several new technologies that could revolutionize our economy. Now consider if we don't do anything and the possibility that the dire predictions come to pass. The dislocations that could happen to our civilization will have huge implications to the global economy not to mention to settlement patterns and resource allocations. I fully agree that the there is uncertainty in the climate models but consider that we are basically gambling with our climate and the stakes are if the man made global warming models are right and we don't do anything the results could be disatrous. On the other hand if we do do something about it even if those models are wrong we still reap a lot of side benefits. Given those stakes wouldn't it make sense to do something about it even with short term costs?
As I stated in my post on the previous page of this thread, here, the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. The Arctic ice cap has been melting and receeding for fully 12,000 years. As you point out, that trend is not a straight line. The ice coverage has vacillated both up and down over that period, as it has over the last 20 years, or the last three years. At what stage do you believe we had the correct amount of Arctic ice coverage? Was it 20 years ago? A thousand years ago? Or, was it during the last ice age? Because regardless of any efforts by man, eventually the ice caps are expected to expand again and cover much of the Northern Hemisphere. Nothing we do will be able to stop it. I do not think any of the measures that have been proposed are desirable because none of them - none of them - have ever claimed to be designed to alter or correct the climate in any noticeable way. I challenge you to show me the outline of a plan that has even a small amount of feasibility and credibility that claims to make the adjustments that the proponents of AGW theory say are required. None of these proposed programs, including the most aggressive cap and trade proposals in existence, claim to to be able to accomplish this. Programs like cap and trade are a 'guilt offering' for our past environmental sins, and a vehicle for transferring effective control over the energy sector to the government. The programs do not even propose to 'fix' the climate or the environment. So, no, it would not be a good idea to spend trillions of dollars on anything like this.
This is the reason that ignoring some people's input to this debate is trollike. You have made this claim repeatedly, to the point of absurdly posting exactly the same thing several times in that thread. However, in that same thread, b-bob gave you analysis that shows that the Earth has not been steadily "warming since the last ice age." In fact, the Earth's temperature has been pretty much on the same level for quite some time until the last hundred years or so (b-bob posted scientific data based on ice core readings where you provided nothing but your opinion, so b-bob's point is far more supported). So, the starting point of your counter is dead in the water. If the AGW scientists are right, and the scientific data shows that this is the most probable case, then you are dead wrong. If we continue on our current course, there won't be another ice age until Earth is no longer habitated by humans. Again, since you ignored rj's point, the absolute worst case scenario of taking AGW scientists seriously and doing something about it is reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources, creating a brand new industry to be the leader in, and having cleaner air and water. The NPV analysis in this case would EASILY be positive when you use those goals as your measuring stick instead of climate change. Climate change is a small part of why we need cap and trade, but you can't even make a reasonable argument against that.
That is a good point that we don't know what is the correct amount of Arctic ice coverage. That said though that would undermine your point regarding saying that a two year ice growth indicates that the trend is reversing since you can't say either where it should be. That said your own graphic provides a basis point and judging by that we are still far behind where the cap was. You are bringing up an argument that doesn't make much sense coming from a global warming, AGW, skeptic as you are. Since you don't buy the argument that human activities are adding to global warming your argument that the plans proposed won't stop it are moot since you don't buy the contention in the first place. As you recognize there is a lot of uncertainty in these models so how do you know that these plans won't reverse global warming? This argument that this all about government taking over the energy sector doesn't make much sense as cap and trade puts most almost all of the decision making into private hands. Consider the cap and trade progam used to reduce sulfur emmissions didn't result in a government takeover of the coal industry. If this was about taking over the energy sector by government there are much simpler and more direct ways of doing so. Anyway many of the programs meant to encourage the development of renewables are designed to encourage private investment and if such things as decentralized power generation become a reality it will be even harder for government to control the energy sector if most people can power their houses with solar collectors on their roofs and windmills. You still haven't addressed the question regarding the potentential benefits of addressing global warming except through your ideological argument regarding control. Are you saying that because of what you percieve as a government takeover it is better to keep the status quo regarding dependence on fossil fuels?
Also just to point out that given the amount of infrastructure required to maintain a fossil fuel based economy it is far easier and necessary for the government to regulate and be involved in other ways than it is power generated from renewables. Consider that a large refinery is going to be easier for government to regulate than a bunch of windmills set up in people's back yards. Or for that matter the need to have the US Navy patrolling the straight of Hormuz is a far greater government intervention in the engergy sector than a grant to put up a windmill.
Very nice MojoMan. I haven't been in the D&D for months but I think you'll get sick of it soon. The point you make here is one that will not be heard or acknowledged by the name calling elite around here. The science behind global warming is not the issue. The issue is whether or not giving the government billions of dollars and control of the energy industry is a good idea or not. Liberal posters seem to think it is a good idea, conservative posters do not. Considering the federal government's previous record with loosing money at a record pace and making problems and election points out of social programs they created I don't see how anyone can trust any of them with more money. Oh, and before any of the name calling elite come in and start with the standard "your arguments have already been refuted you freakin idiot" crap please explain to us all how "cap and trade" is going to fix global warming. Feel free to be as creative as possible, I mean really go all out and make me feel truly blessed to have the opportunity to pay more of my hard earned money in the name of global warming. I would hate for us to go "empty-handed" without trillions in American taxpayer monies to the climate talks.
My contention is that there are far more important issues (energy independence, being on the forefront in renewable energy technology, reducing pollution) than climate change when it comes to cap and trade.
So what about the hundreds of billions of dollars (not to mention the human cost) our government already spends securing our oil supply? Also, isn't it right for us to pay for the externalities of our energy use? This article suggests that the burning of fossil fuels in the US costs over $120 billion per year in health costs alone. That seems in and of itself a good justification for government intervention. How else do the people recoup these losses?
Nail on head. Research into renewable energy (which tend to be "green" anyway) is worthwhile as it will reduce the amount we have to chuck out for foreign oil. I'd say the investment is worth it in this facet alone.
Another larger question that doesn't get much play in these discussions is whether it is wise to continue to rely on the same technologies that have driven the global economy since the advent of the industrial revolution. Do we really want to wait for the oil (or coal) to run out before we figure out new ways of advancing and growing as a species? Converting our economy to one employing renewable energy sources is a good idea on so many levels, but my favorite is that it gives us goal we all can collectively pursue that is something other than war.
Wow, did you come up with this on your own? Mad props You forgot about one small detail, though. Cost.
So you support the Republicans and tea party folks trying to block ANY legislation that Obama tries to pass but you now criticize him for not passing any legislations even on liberal issues???? WTF? It's like ties a rope to a dog and then complaining the dog can run past the length of the rope! By the way, the dude has accomplished something this year. He's got the economy to stop bleeding.
There is nothing mutually exclusive about these two paths. You do not have stop the one to start the other. Which is a good thing. Because renewable sources of energy are no where close to being able to generate the energy that this country and the world require. It will be 30-50 years yet, and very possibly more. If anyone truly believes we are just going to stop using energy and go back to horses and buggies in the meantime, that person is obviously out of their mind.
