And then of course, we have a few people still sticking with the classic Carter-Singer-Michaels-Lindzen brand of nonsense on the demise of global warming. It’s easy to see how hilarious that is even from the anomaly maps at the above link and other lines of evidence like these.

The polarization is real enough. :-0 !!!

I try to be honest about the whole thing and I DO have the occasional doubt about some small piece of it or other, I have enough background to be able to follow most all of the arguments, but at the end of the day it is a little like Pascal’s wager in the realm of theology.

What I have seen is:

Libertarians assailing AGW because it will result in greater government power and intervention.

Neocons and XOM assailing AGW because it means that business cannot be done “as usual”.

No complete theories other than AGW that cover the facts of the past 2 centuries data and the climate record as best we know it for the bast million years.

That’s what I see. The polarization is long standing and political. I remember when I first heard Rush and he was amusing… then I realized that the dittoheads doted on every word, and every other word was a lie, The beginning of polarization perhaps… and the political side-tracks that I’ve seen here leave me in little doubt as to the political (not ecological) opinions of some of our more boisterous guests.

respectfully
BJ

You aren’t approaching this with any prejudice yourself, are you?

Let me put your mind at rest regarding the scientists. The ones I’ve worked with would not give up their integrity for money nor power. I spent a decade working with them at NASA and apart from a single sycophant laboring to get into the good graces of some department called “defence” in the USA, they were pretty damned apolitical. They were also scared by the data they were collecting. The IPCC is quite conservative in its assessments, the acidification is progressing as predicted (you have some theory about how it will suddenly stop?), the glaciers are shrinking (again, you must have some reason to believe that they will grow to be so negative about the IPCC), the deserts are growing and the lag time for the CO2 effects is 30 to 50 years. All this is known and is simply observed fact. You call it alarmist, but you have no reason to do so. It is simply observable fact. The predictions made by the models are the best that can be made, and they’re tracking the real world quite nicely.

It is POSSIBLE that the models are getting the right answers for the wrong reasons. It is POSSIBLE that AGW is not happening and some other force of nature is at work. It is POSSIBLE that an uncontrolled CO2 rise that is at LEAST 50x faster than at any time we can identify in the past million years, is of no consequence. You won’t find any scientists taking those bets though.

As Runyon said: “The race does not always go to the swiftest, nor the fight to the strongest, but that’s the way to bet”. You want to bet against a lot of scientists here, but what are you betting with really? Your children’s future, my children’s future. The whole human species’ future. On what evidence?

What is the cost of using less fossil fuel? Leaving more of it for our kids and a different course of economic development. Not necessarily a different rate or level of development, but definitely a different course.

“Business” cannot be followed by “as usual” without a consequence. Not to do anything carries its own risks… and your argument for greater inertia is a wager against heavy odds.

Have you got a list of the “deniers” who have scientific credibility? Does it look anything like this?

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html

AFAIK there’s Soon and Balunias, a guy who is big at MIT, a couple of Galactic Cosmic Ray theorists and who else? These people are not nutcases, but to be more than a handful we have to find more than 10. I’ll allow you can count McIntyre, as his statistics work looks good vs Mann, but he doesn’t offer alternative theories or explanations that cover the facts.

respectfully
BJ

I am no scientist - merely an interested medic (more art than science methinks).

However what I find fascinating about this whole debate is the way it has polarised what are clearly intelligent people on both sides (mostly anyway). If the waters were not so muddy it would be clear for all to see.

I cannot make my own mind up but am yet to be convinced of the scientific validity of AGW - being guided in large measure by what I see as rational argument from rational and reputable scientists - not the “loony deniers” as they are often characterised (which in itself reduces credibility of those who seek to assassinate their characters).

This has all the hallmarks of a mediaeval witch hunt - maybe burning a few deniers at the stake might put this whole thing in perspective (along with a few carbon debits as well)

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/debate.aspx?did=1

The scientist “experts” answering the questions have a certain flavour to their credentials too - strange that!

To use the oxymoronic phrase - we aint got a “scientific consensus” yet - the “deniers” are from “a handful” and many are definitely not cranks, many have significant credibility in the scientific world.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1995472,00.ht ml

A review of McKie’s articles shows a heavy bias towards supporting anything from the IPCC.

Climate change science and computer modelling is very inexact because most of the multitudinous factors that go into the models have significant confidence limits. To publish such things as

“Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent.”

as established facts is irresponsible and scare-mongering. At best it is an intelligent (?) guess. As alluded to even in this article:

“The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role.”

I suspect that those who believed it has no role were either not invited or had their views rejected very early on!

The IPCC has a huge vested interest in perpetrating the AGW theory - it is a gravy train for the participants and gives global kudos to their deliberations. Wait and see the global media circus that will result when it’s final report is released in early February!

It is primarily a political organisation seeking validity for it’s existence in selective use of scientific data. The variation in that data is so great that selective use of it can support any view you care to develop.

Much of the IPCCs previous “findings” have been debunked - why should this one garner any more credibility?

Mouldwarp does try even my patience but this isn’t a problem of my patience. He is intelligent but perfectly and completely fixated on certain data which do not prove what he wishes. There’s a lot of water under this bridge and he’s given plenty of insult.in the course of his crusade to force his notion of truth in as the last word on this blog. He’s been refuted repeatedly. We’ve been over the SAME arguments with him too often…

I’m sorry you think MW has been mistreated, but respect once lost is hard to regain and he lost ours long ago. The history is long and he is not typical.

———————–
“The potential cost to our nation by pursuing futile policies to limit our miniscule CO2 production when China and India WILL NOT is huge to us.”

This argument fails on several counts. First, is that this government, which is scarcely competent to count above 10 without removing its shoes, miscounted the CO2 release. This is part of the OP. It has no idea what a properly implemented policy would cost, it has less idea what such a policy would look like and it has proposed nothing. So what is the “potential cost”? A made-up number. Moreover, it is a future obligation at worst due some years from now. What makes it so important to you that we don’t even TRY?

do you really think our views have any impact. And at what cost?
Yes. As a recent American expat who has studied the politics of this I can tell you that if “Clean Green NZ” unilaterally abandons any effort to meet its Kyoto obligations (success is NOT a requirement here) - the US electoral process will foreclose US mitigation efforts for 2 to 4 years, possibly longer. We cannot succeed by ourselves. Nobody here believes we can.

However, we CAN lead the world in doing nothing. This is what the business community would dearly love for us to do. Business abhors change. The “as usual” tail wags the dog and that dog won’t hunt. China and India will ask themselves “Is the west doing anything to slow their release of CO2?” - and the answer is no, not even CGNZ (Clean Grean New Zealand). and they will do nothing. The US will say “Is anyone else doing anything to slow…” - and the answer is no, not even CGNZ, and they will do nothing. Right now some progress is being made, but we can turn that around in an afternoon. The media and the business interests will grab any chance to stop change.

Someone has to start somewhere. We’re here.

Moreover, we have advantages in terms of per-capita renewable energy resources that are unmatched in most places (Oz has a good solar resource) , so if we’d actually DONE something instead of having the inertially and arithmetic challenged incompetents in charge engaging in perpetual debate over it, we’d be well on our way. No Rugby no progress… that’s the way of it.

Green proposals around this involve investment in NZ energy independence. Money spent in NZ and contributing to economic growth of NZ. Money spent enhancing future competitiveness of the NZ economy when peak oil becomes the problem it promises to be.

Unless blind ideological pursuit is all that matters. But this IS a Green blog I guess!

Pot - Kettle - Black.

taxing sectors of our economy to “pay� for their generation of CO2 is plain loopy

Loopy…. Right…, how do you propose to get the economic signal into the system? The market forces that currently ignore the cost of abusing or using the commons will work to correct the problem ONLY if that use is costed. “Free as air” is a deadly mistake. Find me another mechanism Greg… but find it fast cause the increase is 50 million tons of CO2 every single day we delay.

“IF AGW is real (and it is a very big IF despite the global clamour and chest beating)”

We come to the nub of the matter here. You do not believe the climate scientists, the IPCC, NASA or any number of peer-reviewed scientific journals. This comes down to a real issue of science vs speculation which is where the shouting and screaming seems to start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

The CO2 rate of increase is the headline for people like me. That and the fact that it (the increase) is not under our control, and that we have no other planet to go to if our uncontrolled experiments in climate physics stuff this one beyond our ability to adapt.

respectfully
BJ

The other reason it’s impossible to have a political debate about it at government level is because 90% of the politicians haven’t taken it on board yet. All of 6 months ago, the issue was off their radar. People like Cullen will never be able to re-program themselves with the environment as a serious economic constraint. They’ll have to go.

I’m encouraged to see thatyou are “all in favour of strategies to lower our CO2 production if they result in environmental advantage and economic benefits to us”. Because that’s the stuff we are talking about here. There are several interlocking problems :

* global warming
* dwindling hydrocarbons
* NZ’s energy independence
* a sustainable economy for our future.

Currently, NZ is extremely dependent on imported oil, and will soon run out of gas. Short of a miraculous discovery, there is a need either stop consuming so much, or to come up with a whole lot more money to pay for imports. A chronic balance of payments deficit can only get worse, because despite recent fluctuations, the price is only ever going to go up, and a long way up, in the medium term.

Making investments to cut CO2 production is actually productive investment in NZ’s future, because it’s helping us in the direction of a sustainable economy. The current set-up simply isn’t sustainable; more of the same is not an option. “Kyoto compliance” is only a charge if we fail to meet the objectives.