Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

However, I believe the U.S. Administration's position on Kyoto was that it was (1) ineffective in that it did not promise any substantive change even in the model used to justify it; (2) unfair in that it imposed obligations only on the industrialized nations - those that in terms of economic output per unit of energy consumed, led the world; (3) Ill-conceived in that the economic penalties it would impose on the advanced nations would inhibit the investment needed in the new technologies need to solve the problem in the long term. This sounds like a fairly astute analysis to me. Hardly the work of idiots.

0 Replies

I guess it depends on what you mean by "the US Administration". There are people in the Bush administration who hold the position you describe. I have no problem with them. But the official position Bush and Cheney take, and that his press secretaries have taken on behalf of the administration, is that we have insufficient data to even know that the globe warmed over the last 150 years. DeLong is justified in calling that "idiocy".

To put this in perspective, I admit the idiocy Roland Emmerich peddled in his film "independence day" is several orders of magnitude greater. And this does not cause alarmists to try and debunk it. Instead they generally praise it or "increasing sensibility" to global warming.

0 Replies

By nature an alarmist is an alarmist. I don't know anyone who thought that movie was anything but over-the-top. However, as Emmerich is German, you may have heard different views. I think, btw, that you don't mean Independence Day (aliens, Desert BBQ's, and Will Smith) but The Day After Tomorrow (Randy Quaid, his son & icebergs at the Met). That film did win the BAFTA award for its special effects but I really have never heard anyone praise it for anything scientific.

Did it make people "worry" about global warming? Is that good? To me, its apparent overkill wrecked some serious discussions.

Within the "atmosphere" of the upcoming holiday season and thinking back over these many posts, I would like to publically say THANK YOU for these discussions. Here's an early Christmas present and I hope it fits. I'm giving you the pleasure of hearing//reading me say:

"You were right and I was wrong, Thomas."

I hope that feels something like a gift as it was hard to say! Laughing

Over the course of the last two years on a2k, I have received a mini-education about the ramifications of Kyoto and I have diligently tried to learn more about it. I wonder how it was that (and why) I was led astray by its supporters. You have convinced me that it was not a well-put-together agreement. Whether it is based on false science... I am not sure, but I am grateful to you, Thomas, for carefully and kindly making me change my mind. I even now see dimly and with my "Green"-tinted glasses why Economics (capital E) must be a huge part of the equation.

Thomas, you once said that there was probably not much to be done but learning to cope. Is that still your position?

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

I'm giving you the pleasure of hearing//reading me say:

"You were right and I was wrong, Thomas."

I hope that feels something like a gift as it was hard to say!

Wow -- nobody ever said that to me. To be honest, my first reaction was to nervously look around for some kind of trap. But now that I don't see any ... thanks a lot, and happy advent season to you too. Smile

Piffka wrote:

Thomas, you once said that there was probably not much to be done but learning to cope. Is that still your position?

I would be surprised if I said it quite that way. I thought, and continue to think, that there is a given, finite amount of effort we can invest. And the best way of investing that effort is to devote a very large fraction of it to coping, and a very small fraction of it to preventing global warming. Nordhaus and other serious economists researching the issue do leave some room for measures that offer more gain for the environment than pain for anything else we care about. They just don't think Kyoto is such a measure, and they are generally much, much more sober about the tradeoffs involved.

0 Replies

Nah, Pif don't set traps.

0 Replies

Of course, Blatham's quote ASSUMES several things. First of all, it assumes that the assumption that water vapor will amplyfy the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dixoide concentration in the air. As the National Academy of Sciences commented:'The nature and magnitude of these hydrological feedbakcs give rise to the largest source of uncertainty about climate sensitivity. Indeed, hydrological feedbacks might diminish or magnify warming trends, BUT ALL THE COMPUTER MODELS ASSUME THAT WATER-VAPOR FEEDBACKS PRODUCE A LARGE GAIN IN GLOBAL WARMING. If that assumption is not true, then every model exaggerates warming at the lowest level of the atmosphere--Both Clouds and water vapor--EACH MORE IMPORTANT IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 --ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.

The second assumption is that, Despite the fact that the sun's solar magnetism is as active as it has been in the last 400 years, the sun is not involved in global warming.

The sun may be heating the earth with its heat rising and falling in fairly regular cycles.

0 Replies

Piff

I think I must report your post saying that Thomas is right. Surely it is against the TOS to EVER admit someone else to be right!! a2k would be very boring if everyone agreed with each other all the time

Smile

and have a great mid winter non religious non offensive politically correct solistice sort of time to everyone too.

0 Replies

Piffka

Pretty cool, girl.

I stopped telling thomas he was wrong on Kyoto a while back not because I concluded he was wrong but rather that I was simply not prepared to do the research work necessary to argue intelligently in opposition.

Which is very definately NOT to say that I think thomas has his hand on the business end of the shitstick here. A fine fellow, for a german, he demonstrates a faith in a certain version of economic theory which is probably already cycling down after some thirty years in ascendance.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I think I must report your post saying that Thomas is right. Surely it is against the TOS to EVER admit someone else to be right!! a2k would be very boring if everyone agreed with each other all the time

You just wait till you lose your bet about oil prices.

Blatham wrote:

Which is very definately NOT to say that I think thomas has his hand on the business end of the shitstick here. A fine fellow, for a german, he demonstrates a faith in a certain version of economic theory which is probably already cycling down after some thirty years in ascendance.

Great. Now you're knocking Paul Krugman.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

You just wait till you lose your bet about oil prices.

The spot price for gas in UK has quintupled (x5) in the last month. All because the Spanish French and Germans dont operate a free market system. (But there's plenty of oil and gas around of course, just not in the German ocean any more)
http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/672

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Thomas wrote:
You just wait till you lose your bet about oil prices.

The spot price for gas in UK has quintupled (x5) in the last month.

Our bet was about crude oil prices, which have declined. But don't despair just yet. We still have 2 years 10 months to go I think. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Great. Now you're knocking Paul Krugman.

His name sounds german.

0 Replies

makes imitation champagne from recycled oil.

0 Replies

Which is sold at Lidl in the UK.

0 Replies

They are gathering.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Wow -- nobody ever said that to me. To be honest, my first reaction was to nervously look around for some kind of trap.

Haha -- a trap! Half of the world's population (this is a low level estimate) is probably wrong about half the time. Is it so shocking that one is willing to admit it?

Thomas wrote:

I thought, and continue to think, that there is a given, finite amount of effort we can invest. ...They just don't think Kyoto is such a measure, and they are generally much, much more sober about the tradeoffs involved.

Right. Well... Kyoto seems to be a dead issue for the USA. Of course... there are plenty of people in the world who have agreed to abide by the future limitations of the Kyoto Protocol. Very Happy

Cutting the status quo for the people in the developed countries relies on a protocol of unselfish behavior which is so unlikely as to boggle the mind. While I personally think I am that unselfish, you've made me see that the Kyoto Agreement is a world-wide jostling for position in the new pecking order with selfishness paramount in its restrictions.

The purchasing of pollution "credits" seems especially rinky-dink to me and already appears to be falling apart. Nordhaus thought this was an efficient means... I don't like this idea of creating another make-believe market with the tradeable emissions permit system. It's no Grain Exchange.

It looks as there is little hope for us except to fervently believe* we are not doing the damage and therefore global warming/climate change is "not our fault". If that is true, then there is no reason to change except to correctly envision the real future & make accomodations for it AND to use less (of everything) simply because it has all become so durned expensive... except when showing off one's wealth. Isn't that the way of the real world?

*Perhaps the true reason behind the great thundering of American Christianity? This works if you can overcome logic and believe that all this mess is: in the hands of some greater Being, not our fault, & things happen for a reason.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Piff

I think I must report your post saying that Thomas is right. Surely it is against the TOS to EVER admit someone else to be right!! a2k would be very boring if everyone agreed with each other all the time

and have a great mid winter non religious non offensive politically correct solistice sort of time to everyone too.

I was worried about the TOS, Steve, believe me, but I checked and there were no restrictions that I saw, however, it appeared this was treading new ground.

(And a Happy New Moon to you, too.)

0 Replies

That's a bad trend. I hope it stops here.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

(And a Happy New Moon to you, too.)

Her name was Selene...

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

It looks as there is little hope for us except to fervently believe* we are not doing the damage and therefore global warming/climate change is "not our fault".

As it happens, I don't belive this, and I certainly don't believe it fervently. That doesn't frustrate my hopes for humanity in general.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know