Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You’re right that the question of which consequences would have to be defined somehow for the wager to be valid. I think it’ll be obvious, but opinions don’t settle wagers.

ciao
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I am glad to have at least one person here agreeing with me.

I am not sure what will happen with the USA.

To be sure, I understand how Obama is disappointing everyone, but he is not the reason things are stuffed. He’s just a Janitor who can’t possibly clean up after the party, so he decided to swill the kool-aid instead. He is, at this point, irrelevant to anything outside the prosecution of the “War on Terror”.

From my perspective, the Copenhagen conference won’t lead directly to a treaty. It may bear fruit, but apparently over a longer period. Could take another 2 years. Which means 2 years more research and 2 years more data.. and the House of Representatives changes and some of the Senate as well. No telling how the political landscape will look at that point. He’d have a year to get a ratified treaty.

The danger is that only about 1 person in 10 in the USA seems to actually understand what is happening, and only about half of the voters in the US believe it is happening… and the folks who have the money and power right now are fighting like hell to keep everyone confused… and the average American understands things at about a 6th grade level… and you have to get a 2/3 majority to ratify a treaty.

The US may also contribute to the solution in an unanticipated way… by self-destructing economically sometime before 2030. It is on the edge now… and whether economic self-destruction causes a final breakup of different sections of the country (similar to the Russian Republic) I can’t guess.

For the rest of us, the stakes are not changed. China is the 800 pound Gorilla (Why doesn’t it sound right if you say 400 Kilogram Gorilla?) and its actions will determine the outcome.. and China has its own weakness. Without the US as a customer, it has no market and a HUGE overcapacity. The entire planet is economically unbalanced and unstable.

…and we have peak oil.

Not easy to be optimistic about the outcome.

Stockpile canned goods and ammunition. How does that translate into a policy for a government?

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

What this means for Climate Change is the world will need to go it alone with out the US. What ever happens in Coppenhagen will never be ratified by the US Senate. Which countries are going to go it alone without the US.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

BJ

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

Number 1: You “Realists” are instead the ones conducting an unapproved, uncontrolled and unplanned, experiment with the atmospheric chemistry of the only planet we have. YOU are the ones putting us ALL at risk from catastrophic changes. YOU are the ones pumping CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere without any notion of the consequences. All WE want is for you to stop changing things.

You ought to understand mate. It is our atmosphere too, and YOU are the ones who are fncking it up. If we each owned a piece of it the lawsuits for what you’re doing to our property would bankrupt you in a heartbeat. We on the other hand are doing NOTHING to yours.

Number 2: Actually the propaganda campaign and its funding fathers, are well known to us but they aren’t related to US…

http://ringoffireradio.com/blogengine/post/Casting-Doubt-on-Climate-Ch ange.aspx

The basic problem is that WE aren’t nearly as organized as the folks who already have money and power and are intent on keeping it. Compared to them the scientists and we ourselves, are rank amateurs. Which means that we’re losing. Because the average American communicates at a 6th grade level. Which is another reason why we’re losing. Not hard to fool them, which is why the USA is doomed, but that’s another topic.

Number 3: It appears we’ve already seen the minimum. It does affect the climate somewhat. Solar forcing’s contributions are well understood (even though the causes of solar changes are still quite unknown). Right now we have an ENSO. That masks anything else. We also have sunspots for cycle 24 which indicates that this cycle has started. Predicting them is pretty difficult, however, despite the lack of solar activity the temperature appears to be holding up.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

So the general observation by Hansen, that the AGW will overcome the effects of solar over time, appears to be holding up.

Number 4: The temperatures didn’t “decline” over the past decade and the models don’t model decadal variation. Which means that the entire idea is meaningless as well as inaccurate.

Number 5: Possibly the most significant point of your set. The Greens have a couple of real commitments here. One is that we are part of the global community. NZ has contributed to the problem and continues to do so. Despite our higher than usual proportion of renewable energy resources our per-capita emissions are quite high compared to the rest of the world. In other words, we have profited from the use of the climate commons for decades. We have a RESPONSIBILITY. Which is something we’ve noticed National avoiding on all issues at all costs. The responsibility we have is to do as much as we can to shift the world down to a maximum of 350 ppm of CO2. That includes doing our part in reducing OUR emissions and it also includes being seen to be doing our part. If climate change can be averted in spite of your emphasis on number 1, it can only happen through concerted effort on the part of many nations. Encouraging that is important.

Greens DO recognize that the effort may fail. That agreements may not be reached or may be abrogated unilaterally by others, or others may “cheat”. There is no precedent for the effort we must make, no map that tells us that this is even possible for humans to organize. Many of us are dubious of the chances of success, but we are adamant about the requirement to make the attempt. We also make every effort to watch for the signs of failure.

eye-wateringly large amounts of money to reducing this tiny quantity by, say, 25% rather than doing much better things for the environment (fisheries, biodiversity, sustainable energy, etc., etc…)

A false dichotomy in this context. Sustainable energy is the same solution whether it is done for AGW or Peak-Oil purposes. What part of not overfishing costs money? Preservation of biodiversity is only expensive in terms of (for instance) not mining our national parks. I do see your point but it is a false one, echoing Lomborg’s false issue of spending money to save people from AIDS. This money would not be spent on people with AIDS… it would line the pockets of the wealthy and powerful, which is why they are organizing the opposition to action on AGW.

I note that many Greens are as individuals, in favor of preparing for the catastrophe we expect even as we attempt to avert it.

Number 6: I’ve a long history with Owen and a certain amount of respect for him. I think he has been misled by others, not that he is intentionally lying. I didn’t call him a liar either… read carefully. I have no real knowledge of what happens on Kiwiblog but that in checking on his post a prior instance of the same information appeared on Kiwiblog before he brought it here. I did not go to Kiwiblog to ascertain who posted what there. As for Briffa, the Yamal controversy was answered quite comprehensively, which you may not have noticed, and I am letting him speak for himself –

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

McIntyre notably did NOT claim to have a better analysis than Briffa. Smart man. McKittrick is regrettably not as restrained.

…and as for Gore… the Judge in the case said it quite clearly.

The judge, Justice Burton found that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate”.

Someone is misrepresenting the results of that case to you. You might want to look that person up and give them a wedgie.

Number 7: Plant fertilization via CO2 runs into limits to growth based on water and nitrate and phosphate availability. In other words, it isn’t open-ended. It IS however, included in many of the models. So there’s no denial about the CO2 effect, just more accurate knowledge of its limits… and insofar as a “warmer world” being better, I suggest a quick perusal of the book “6 degrees” by Lynas. I don’t recommend buying it… but he does manage to collect the likely impact of different levels of warming. Here’s a synopsis, not from the book. I take in a lot of sources:

a. Two degrees. Not bad. Rainfall patterns change a bit, weather becomes more variable and rainfall patterns change but this is overall survivable. Note that this level of climate change is GUARANTEED to happen no matter what we do. If we shut down every fossil plant tomorrow and quit emitting completely, the CO2 already in the atmosphere would bring us up at least two degrees before the natural uptake in the plants and ocean brought levels down again.

b. Three degrees. This global temperature is last thought to have existed some 3 million years ago. Stunted trees grew in Antarctica, the ocean was at least 20 meters deeper…

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/data/sea_level/ofr96000.html
http://www.iop.org/EJ/ref/-prog=article/-target=inspec/1748-9326/2/2/0 24002/51

Note that this is steady-state. We just went in and turned the stove on. The heat is going in but the pot isn’t boiling YET… so if we turn it off it will only get a little warmer…. 2 degrees. If we get 3 (which is what our current CO2 levels indicate) the ocean will swallow our most developed regions, and the Bull and the Bear will sleep with the Fishes.

Note as well, that the odds of striking a tipping point and releasing even more CO2 and in particular, CH4, rise from about 25% at 2 degrees, to 75% or more as we cross 3 degrees… once one of those goes over we’re no longer in control, as the climate will provide its own supply of gasses for amplification and the temperature will NOT stop at 3 degrees.

d. Four degees: Now we definitely have 36 meters of sea level rise and we also have substantial climate damage to any remaining cropland. We are also into the realm where the rest of the Antarctic is vulnerable. That’s another 50 meters of effective sea-level rise. It would take thousands of years, but WE HAVE NO WAY TO CHANGE IT BACK.

I don’t think I have any need to go further. The rebound of the crust after removal of the mass of the Ice probably creates additional vulcanism and earthquakes… If there are survivors, they will curse us until they too go down the track towards complete primitivism.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

All because you, looking at Number 1 from the viewpoint of “Business as usual is right” fail to notice that Business as usual is an uncontrolled experiment. In science this is a “Very.Bad.Thing” and it affects the ENTIRE planet (that’s all of us) which we collectively own. Which means that MY property is being damaged by YOUR business… but because the ownership hasn’t been noted in law, I can’t sue for damages.

This is property theft on a grand scale.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 8  2 (+6)

Like or Dislike: 4  2 (+2)

http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/09/18/climate-change-answers-to-every-q uestion-you-ever-had/

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469

Notice how most of the people who argue that a small temperature rise would be a good thing live in temperate areas rather than tropic areas.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 5  2 (+3)

There was a single year with an abnormally high temperature peak in 1998. Temperatures have not declined since, as they are based on averaging over longer periods.

Computer models did not forcast reduced temperatures because they did not forecast abnormally low solar flux. If the actual solar figures are entered into the computer programs, then they give good agreement with measurements. Just think what temperatures will be like when the solar flux peaks again.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 4  2 (+2)

Where did you get that 7% value for mankind’s contribution to the 385ppm CO2? The CO2 levels have increased nearly 100ppm since WWII, which is way more than 7%.

Every small country and every state of larger countries also contributes only a small percentage to this. If no one acts because their contribution is small, then no one will act at all. We can’t expect others to act without acting ourselves.

Also, we are wanting to spent those large sums of money on sustainable energy projects and the like, rather than spending them trying to extract the last drops of oil and gas out of the ground.

Increasing CO2 emissions are leading to ocean acidification (harming those fisheries you are worried about), irrespective of whether or not you believe in AGW, and those increases are caused by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests (which harbour much of that biodiversity you are worried about).

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 7  1 (+6)

Like or Dislike: 3  3 (0)

The benefits of action are clearly there if only we would look.

a. much is spoken of the billions that we may spend on a fools errand which will be wasted they say. How wasted ? Much new knowledge on climate science will be one inevitable result, giving us more understanding of how the climate works, & for those whose minds work this way, a possibility of control of some aspects of climate – drought amelioration, increased crop yields etc.etc. One could come up with many possible examples of similar benefits which may flow from action – a la Gore, millions added to GDP by restructuring energy supply chains & so on. It will be argued that this (tax) money could be spent better on ‘other things’, but what other things. We’re continually told that Govts. cannot chose winners, & to let the market decide, so why not. There is already a trend toward a Greener economy, mostly market driven because ‘the market’ can see that that is the way to increase profits. I predict this trend will accelerate over time. A possible objection from the Greener lobby may be, it’s the market that got us into this mess so why should we rely on it to save the day? One overarching reason is that we have little choice. The market seems placed to do what it will anyway.

b. From a risk assessment point of view it makes no sense to do anything else but take firm and unswerving action. The risks of taking no action far outweigh those of taking action. We do this all the time when faced with short term climate events. When a hurricane threatens the coast of Florida people are evacuated at a high cost, but at less cost than allowing them to stay, in lives at least. Some will argue that these events are predictable to a large extent, & storm paths can be plotted fairly accurately, whereas longer term climate events cannot, but the risk assessment principle still applies, the only difference is the assessibility of the risk. Those who say no action is the way to go, refuse to even believe in any possibility that extreme climate events are on their way. It’s therefore the denial of risk that is the problem, rather than the denial of change, human induced or ‘natural’.

c. Some point to Y2K panic as a reason we should this time recognise that CC is similar or even the same. Bad logic & bad reasoning! Y2K was an event that had a definite end date & relative certainty re the ‘fix’. The result of action was also to rapidly advance our IT knowledge, training, and awareness of IT matters in general. Some say that the vast amounts of cash were ‘wasted’. How so ? Please tell me how the money could have been spent in a ‘better’ way & what would have been the advantage over ’spending ‘it in the way it was. It is my contention that the money was only re-directed, not wasted, & it is impossible to say if & where it could have been spent better.

In the end it seems to me that this is largely an argument about dogma. Tax bad, Govt. spending bad, ‘regulation’ bad, etc. market good, capitalism good, wealth (inequality) good, etc. It is about other things too of course, mostly attached to human failings like over-inflated egos, acquisition of wealth, fear of the unknown and so on.

Like or Dislike: 7  1 (+6)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

This article may be of interest:

The Lure of Solar Forcing

Like or Dislike: 1  2 (-1)

We realists are not the ones proposing to spend billions of dollars of other peoples’ money on a contentious scientific theory.

It’s not contentious in climate science circles. Just what would satisfy you that human behaviour is the prime cause of the current warming that is causing rapid climate change? Should we wait until the evidence is accepted in a referendum? What would be the impact, do you think, if it (AGW) turned out to be true but we did nothing until it was too late?

The pro AGW crowd are increasingly concerned that the public do not seem to agree with them – in spite of the most extensive PR campaign ever conducted in the mainstream media. I find it curious that the solutions always seems to be that ‘…we need to educate them more about the dangers…’ This is patronising in the extreme.

How is it patronising? Surely you don’t think that the science of climate change can be determined by what the populace thinks of the subject? It’s not determined by democratic vote.

Like or Dislike: 5  2 (+3)