The Great Global Warming Swindle

[jethro]

Mmm, the world and the USA in particular are now taking this very seriously. If that's the case then I really cannot see them putting a great deal of money into sourcing alternative, non polluting fuels, just yet. Can you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/business...s/20angola.html

Hope the link works this time.

Edited March 20, 2007 by jethro

[ilsewin]

One more lurker here.

The programme was interesting and raised some good points, but I have to say that in all honesty I don't really know one way or the other what is causing climate change.

The thing that really got to me about the programme was that it felt like they were villifying anyone who took steps to reduce their impact on the environment, saying that they have been practically brainwashed by propaganda. I don't understand this viewpoint at all. Okay, so their argument is that CO2 emmisions have nothing to do with climate change and that's fair enough, but taking action to reduce your impact on the local environment is something that everyone should do anyway, surely?

I recycle because I don't want my waste to end up in landfill. I use public transport and walk more often because it reduces pollution. Inevitably fossil fuels are going to run out, so making investment into cheaper and cleaner sources of energy just seems like common sense, because otherwise, what will we do when the oil and gas are all gone?

[gmoran]

Presuming that you are well-versed in what the prognosis of the models is, I was surprised to see you refer to 'catastrophic' scenarios; I am not sure which parts of the output this is referring to, unless it is to the larger-scale warnings of likely drought, Arctic sea ice loss, and slightly increased probability of extreme weather events. Perhaps you can clarify this.

Falling into my own trap there. In the media changes are nearly always depicted as catastrophic, with maps of the UK with large portions of the land missing due to sea rises. I'd tend to view projections of a 6'C temp increase with sea level rises of 4m by 2100 as being extreme; and would think 1'C and 1m would be more accurate.

There's a paradox here that getting people to take notice so that CO2 can be stabilized is difficult if there isn't a big enough perceived threat, but overplaying the threat just makes people cynical about AGW.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It was trashed because, wait for it......, it was demonstrably trash. Simple really . If it was 'reliable' (as in 'TGGWS reliable') why didn't Mr reliable himself (Martin Durkin) use it?

Just like the AGW swindle Devonian ....trashed by the 'corrupt' IPCC. Proof in that scientists have told them they do not agree with their paper but IPCC keep their names on it...until threatened with legal action. The IPCC should not be trusted....and neither should their findings, how can one really full on believe this when scientists tell actual happenings of the IPCC falsifying scientists approval.

By the way Jawarowski welcomes e-mails to argue his claims...send him some and see if you can denounce his findings. He's very good as he does reply.

Iceberg, 20th century arctic temps

Here

Look at those temps between 1930 and 1940...distinctly higher. Sea ice was more back then too.

BFTP

Edited March 20, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

Just like the AGW swindle Devonian ....trashed by the 'corrupt' IPCC. Proof in that scientists have told them they do not agree with their paper but IPCC keep their names on it...until threatened with legal action. The IPCC should not be trusted....and neither should their findings, how can one really full on believe this when scientists tell actual happenings of the IPCC falsifying scientists approval.

By the way Jawarowski welcomes e-mails to argue his claims...send him some and see if you can denounce his findings. He's very good as he does reply.

BFTP

This chap trashed it. Nothing to do with the IPCC....

[James M]

I dont weather this has been mentioned earlier in the thread because Im rushing out the door atm and havent checked, but I found that Channel 4 will be showcasing a debate in response to the program

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/a...dle-debate.html

[Mondy]

I'm wondering if Prof Wunsch will appear on the debate?!

[biffvernon]

Here's a very interesting piece of reading:

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

Testimony of

James E. Hansen

to

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House of Representatives

19 March 2007

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070...05800-43018.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's a very interesting piece of reading:

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

Testimony of

James E. Hansen

to

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House of Representatives

19 March 2007

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070...05800-43018.pdf

Well what a surprise!

So when we get the 'facts' about ablation of both Greenland and the W.A.I.S., and they point more towards catastrophic collapse than benign ablation, he (Bush) cuts the funding??? I thought Oil money was no longer 'queering' our understanding of climate change???

To me I have to ask whether some 'powers that be' think that their majority can't 'handle the truth' and they'll just be left to face any rapid changes blissfully unaware until they are upon us?

If anyone else tells me the scientists are only after securing their own funding/life in the light of such revelations I'll just have to laugh........

Edited March 21, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[The Penguin]

If anyone else tells me the scientists are only after securing their own funding/life in the light of such revelations I'll just have to laugh........

Hang on though, we all do it. What makes scientists so special?

Isn't it interesting that in the low tax Republican USA environmental issues are swept under the carpet, whilst in New Labour's UK we highlight any possible environmental issue and then tax them.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Pengers!

What makes scientists so special?

If I called them Developmental eccologists of planetary investigators would that make it more paletable? For the 'leading nation' on our planet,with the largest ecconomy, enjoying the highest standard of living (on average) and by far the largest energy consumption to then turn it's back on discovering the scale of our current problems (for whatever the cause ,they are global problems) and so to effectively 'offset' them for their future generations is awful (don't you think?).

They are effectively consigning future generations to development stagnation, or worst, the first 'backward steps' in standards of living for many generations purely to help secure re-election because they tax less????

From witnessing the selfish, self centred outpourings on this board, across these topics I can see why 'taxation' is favoured to volentary contributions. Maggies children have grown into the I,me, mine society and any moves that erode their spending/debt repayment powers seem to be met with stark opposition (probably 'cause in the past mum and dad paid for it all!).

[gmoran]

From witnessing the selfish, self centred outpourings on this board, across these topics I can see why 'taxation' is favoured to volentary contributions. Maggies children have grown into the I,me, mine society and any moves that erode their spending/debt repayment powers seem to be met with stark opposition (probably 'cause in the past mum and dad paid for it all!).

Regardless of the level of uncertainty in climate change science; something green advocates seem to forget is that in a liberal society you can't tax without widespread acceptance of the justice of the taxation. How often do we see some Greenpeace spokesman on TV berating the governments lack of spine for not heavily taxing motorists for example - I mean where on earth is the reality check there? Tax motorists too much and you will get widespread resistance, and if not reversed they will be kicked out at the next election. And furthermore this is right, and it isn't selfish it is common sense. If you are going to take my money then you must prove it is in the interest of me and mine.

Climate scence can prove AGW, but can't prove that it is sufficiently serious to warrant taxing us all out of prosperity.

And if Bush's hideous government have played hard and fast with the information they pass onto the public (which they have, and indefensibly so); the same is true of the IPCC as well.

[Gray-Wolf]

And if Bush's hideous government have played hard and fast with the information they pass onto the public (which they have, and indefensibly so); the same is true of the IPCC as well.

Though neither are morally defensible which would you choose? carry on living footloose and fancy free only to find out later that the debt is to be called in or cut back now to be given the 'all clear' further on down the line? Personally I'd go for the later myself and not have my/my children's lives forfeit later on.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Though neither are morally defensible which would you choose? carry on living footloose and fancy free only to find out later that the debt is to be called in or cut back now to be given the 'all clear' further on down the line? Personally I'd go for the later myself and not have my/my children's lives forfeit later on.

There is, of course, the third option of following a "No Regrets" policy - which is something that seems to have been forgotten on these boards... And, no, "No Regrets" is not, and does not advocate, a "Do Nothing" stance on the issue.

CB

[biffvernon]

Just remind us what a "No Regrets" policy is.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Just remind us what a "No Regrets" policy is.

"No Regrets", at least insofar as I have interpreted it, suggests that it is more appropriate (not to mention more economically viable) to make reforms to our energy infrastructure and take a measured step towards a fossil-fuel-free future, rather than making the proposed reactionary knee-jerk sudden cuts (with associated fees, fines and taxes and their respective economic impacts). This is in resopnse to a perceived threat of global warming as indicated by what is still a relatively embryonic scientific discipline.

Or, to cut out the long words and be a bit more verbose...(!)

As far as I see it, the proposals for cutting carbon emissions are unrealistic, both economically and logistically. There is a very real risk being run that energy requirements will fail to be met if we are to reach our self-imposed targets. In addition to this, the long-term effects of carbon trading schemes and draconian taxation on "dirty" fuels could potentially cripple the economy of virtually any country that tries to impose them. In addition, there is the possibility of creating either a nationwide or a worldwide wealth gap (in excess of what currently exists) since carbon trading is likely to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. (Think of it this way - if you can afford to cut back CO₂ emissions substantially then you can sell those carbon credits to other countries to make more money - the countries that buy them, though, obviously can't afford the emission cuts, but the only way around those cuts is to fork out money to buy the right to emit more carbon, which means that they lose out either way.)

The best suggestions I have seen (or inferred) for a "No Regrets" policy suggest an alternative: rather than crippling yourselves with cuts, make a real effort to research and (eventually) build low-carbon or carbon-free energy infrastructures. Offer incentives and tax-breaks to companies that can prove their commitment to this task - yearly audits and reviews should be able to check up on progress. Tax-breaks could even be directly related to the progress of development, or to the amount of money a particular company has put into research and development.

In other words, rather than making radical changes with potentially massive repercussions, formulate a strategy to transfer to alternative fuel sources which everyone can benefit from - even the oil companies. If the oil companies lead the way in research then they can still make their scads of money (by, for example, being the first to patent a design or market a process). And since oil companies no longer wan to be seen as Big Bad Wolves (was it Exxon who recently "admitted" to global warming?), there's already a good foundation to build such a policy on.

The "No Regrets" policy is all for cleaner fuels and progressing towards a low-carbon world, but not in a foolhardy way, or a reactionary way, or an unrealistic way.

At the same time, "No Regrets" suggests a process of adaptation - try to determine what the potential effects of global warming might be, what areas and which groups of people would be affected, and work out the best way to safeguard those people and areas. Once you have a plan, then do it! The effects of flooding, for example, are easily avoided by making a suitable flood barrier. Once you have a flood barrier you need the money and the commitment to maintain it (which is what caused the problem in New Orleans - the levees were in a dreadful state of repair and couldn't handle the assault hurled at them by Katrina).

"No Regrets" is a broad-ranging policy which covers all the necessary bases - its drawback (at least in political terms) is that it isn't a "Solve The Problem Now!" kind of solution. It'll take a while to reap the rewards, but the rewards will be reaped without any subsequent (or consequent) repercussions.

Is that clear, or have I just been rambling?!

CB

[biffvernon]

Thanks CB, for a clear description of the 'no regrets' policy. To anyone who realizes the implications of climate change or the imminence of Peak Oil, the 'no regrets' policy is the last thing we want as it induces self satisfied complacency but is far too little and far too late to solve the problems.

[Mondy]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ol_dimming.html

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks CB, for a clear description of the 'no regrets' policy. To anyone who realizes the implications of climate change or the imminence of Peak Oil, the 'no regrets' policy is the last thing we want as it induces self satisfied complacency but is far too little and far too late to solve the problems.

I would disagree with that - I appreciate the supposed implications of climate change, but I haven't seen any evidence that sets any particular time-frame in stone. I've always viewed "Too Little, Too Late" (when applied to the climate change debate) as an unnecessary bit of rhetoric - I think the idea of building a firm foundation for a future of fossil-fuel-free energy production to be far from "Too Little" (that was an awful lot of "f"s for one sentence!), and the idea that it's "Too Late" is based upon the assumption that it is already too late (or will be soon enough). Since we don't genuinely have a solid understanding of the nature of (this) climate change, it is not possible to set a time-line for events and, this being the case, it is not fair (or even necessarily accurate) to say that it is too late.

I object, too, to the suggestion that there would be an inducement of "self satisfied complacency". This is where incentives, restrictions, fines, taxes and tax breaks come into play - if your multi-million dollar company is going to be taxed or fined or have restrictions of some other sort imposed upon it because of a perceived lack of effort in the R&D Department, and if that same company stands to save or make money by putting the effort into the R&D, I honestly think that the company would make the effort. At the end of the day business is all about making money, and a business will work to make money - especially if a lack of work will lose them money.

If a storm is forecast to happen in two months' time, do you spend a month building concrete foundations upon which to construct adequate protection from the wind and rain, or do you quickly put your building up directly onto the sand? Two points to this analogy: 1) There's not 100% certainty that the storm forecast is even correct, and 2) your structure's not going to last if it's built without a solid foundation. Surely it is better to risk pushing the "time window" and get your stuff sorted first, rather than doing a short-term fix immediately that may have unanticipated ramifications further down the line?

Although, if you're talking about taking immediate action, I'm all for pushing the "No Regrets" concept through parliament as soon as humanly possible... (Obviously it's a tad rough around the edges and would require some specific pointers, including facts and figures, so it's not ready to push through parliament yet, but you get the idea... )

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

All sounds a bit B.A.U. (Business As Usual) to me C-Bob!

Yes, we are already slowly creeping towards a more 'sustainable future' but we've been on that path since the 80's and what we have measured over the intervening 20yrs surely gives you cause for concern at least?

I do not like any of the B.A.U. scenarios that have been posted over the past 10yrs and I suspect that ,whatever the 'cause' ,you are less than pleased with those 'options' too and the predicted results that B.A.U. would bring us. I rather suspect that we would all prefer some of the other 'lines' that appear on those graphs!

[Admiral_Bobski]

All sounds a bit B.A.U. (Business As Usual) to me C-Bob!

Yes, we are already slowly creeping towards a more 'sustainable future' but we've been on that path since the 80's and what we have measured over the intervening 20yrs surely gives you cause for concern at least?

I do not like any of the B.A.U. scenarios that have been posted over the past 10yrs and I suspect that ,whatever the 'cause' ,you are less than pleased with those 'options' too and the predicted results that B.A.U. would bring us. I rather suspect that we would all prefer some of the other 'lines' that appear on those graphs!

I disagree - there hasn't been any genuine incentive for big businesses to pursue alternative forms of energy. Oil is too prevalent and far too easy to bother looking into alternatives. I suggest a "No Regrets" policy that actually encourages businesses to change and penalises them for refusing to do so!

I don't see how or why everybody is so dismissive of an idea that displays a great deal of common sense. I suspect it's just because it doesn't seem to be doing enough (although if you actually think about it then it covers every base you could want except for the "Immediate reduction of CO₂" bit, and if - like me - you contest the true effect of CO₂ then perhaps my support of the No Regrets policy would make a bit more sense).

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

The way I see things panning out (here comes the cynic) is this. We will make noise and make a few piecemeal offerings (in the way of 'no regrets'), we'll then make more noise. Before they know it 10yrs will have passed and we will be able to fully feel the impacts of our dilly dallying in terms of climate change and it's economic impact globally. The rest, as they say, will be history.

It'd be lovely to think we would do anything worth a damn but we're human aren't we? We seemed to have evolved and 'advanced' as a result of coping with change and turning adversity into advantage. Change, it would seem, is always bourne on the bones of those who didn't make it through and I sense no great seed change within our peoples to make me think this time will be any different to the rest.

Oh well.

[The Penguin]

I disagree - there hasn't been any genuine incentive for big businesses to pursue alternative forms of energy. Oil is too prevalent and far too easy to bother looking into alternatives. I suggest a "No Regrets" policy that actually encourages businesses to change and penalises them for refusing to do so!

I don't see how or why everybody is so dismissive of an idea that displays a great deal of common sense. I suspect it's just because it doesn't seem to be doing enough (although if you actually think about it then it covers every base you could want except for the "Immediate reduction of CO₂" bit, and if - like me - you contest the true effect of CO₂ then perhaps my support of the No Regrets policy would make a bit more sense).

CB

That seems very sensible to me. At the moment there is a vast investment in fossil feuls, whether or not they are prevalent, and that is what provides the inertia for continuing with these. However, once the pain of discovery, development and dissemination of alternative fuels has been overcome, they too will be just as easy, or seem so, to produce and use. But as you say, for as long as traditional energy sources are available and no incentives are offered to explore others, there will be no change.

[Gray-Wolf]

Nice to see you agreeing with my cynacism Pengers! The fossil fuel folk will make token efforts to 'green up' their fuels and their uses but they will not give up until every available barrel of oil/tonne of coal that is ecconomically viable is used (and as time goes on ever more ways of 'ecconomically' winning reseves once unavailable will arrive).

With energy it is the petrochemicals, in medicine the pharmacueticals and whilst both hold control over our planet we will be pegged back from further 'development' until they have bled each resource dry! God bless Capitalism......

[Admiral_Bobski]

The way I see things panning out (here comes the cynic) is this. We will make noise and make a few piecemeal offerings (in the way of 'no regrets'), we'll then make more noise. Before they know it 10yrs will have passed and we will be able to fully feel the impacts of our dilly dallying in terms of climate change and it's economic impact globally. The rest, as they say, will be history.

It'd be lovely to think we would do anything worth a damn but we're human aren't we? We seemed to have evolved and 'advanced' as a result of coping with change and turning adversity into advantage. Change, it would seem, is always bourne on the bones of those who didn't make it through and I sense no great seed change within our peoples to make me think this time will be any different to the rest.

Oh well.

I honestly think that even companies as historically short-sighted as those within the oil industry will accept, in the very near future, that fossil fuels aren't going to last forever. So, being cynical myself now, even without incentives there will soon be a push for these companies to develop alternative energy sources - they're not going to want to lose out when the oil runs dry; they'll want to be at the forefront of the new energy revolution, so they can continue to be "world leaders" in that industry and continue to reap the profits.

But, reverting to non-cynicism, an incentive-based reform of the industry (a carrot-on-a-stick approach, if you will) could well encourage these companies to start investing in the future sooner rather than later. Depending on which incentives and which penalties are used, there is an excellent chance of achieving the "No Regrets" objective.

To sum up, I think that a well-developed "No Regrets" policy could (and probably would) work very well anyway, but from a more cynical standpoint there is already a reason for the relevant companies to change, and that is to safeguard the continuation of their profits.

If this (or any) government would pursue the instigation of a "No Regrets" policy as aggressively as they pursue the instigation of the current wave of carbon cuts and taxation, I see no problems with the policy (which I shall henceforth call "NR") working, and working well.

CB

PS - Thanks for the support, Penguin - I think you're the first to see it the way I do!

EDIT:

Nice to see you agreeing with my cynacism Pengers! The fossil fuel folk will make token efforts to 'green up' their fuels and their uses but they will not give up until every available barrel of oil/tonne of coal that is ecconomically viable is used (and as time goes on ever more ways of 'ecconomically' winning reseves once unavailable will arrive).

With energy it is the petrochemicals, in medicine the pharmacueticals and whilst both hold control over our planet we will be pegged back from further 'development' until they have bled each resource dry! God bless Capitalism......

The thing about capitalism is that it doesn't have to be what we make it - namely short-term thinking for short-term gains. Look at the Japanese - a very Capitalistic society which has recovered so well from World War 2 because they thought in the long-term and, quite often, got short-term, medium-term and long-term gains as a result. You have to admire their business acumen!

Another thing about Capitalism, though, is that Capitalists in the West do generally want returns on investments ASAP, but only the most foolhardy would blindly ign ore their long-term future. With the constant bombardment of reports that "Oil is Running Out" and so on, there is no way on Earth that the oil companies are unaware of the fact that, sooner or later, they're going to be left high and dry. Do you really believe that they won't do anything about their future until they've run out of the one commodity their business is based on? A transition will occur, and I see it as the government's responsibility to present a policy that encourages them to not leave it till the last minute. (And, as I say, the better the incentives and the worse the penalties, the faster that transition will happen - that's just good business sense...)

CB

Edited March 22, 2007 by Captain_Bobski