Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I am sure that I have heard :lol: :lol: Gordon Brown :wub: :lol: refer to a "carbon based economy" more than once.

I think you mean carbon-free or green economy?

I agree. As far as this new economy requires pre-planning by the government it won't be as efficient and dynamic as it could be.

[Devonian]

Al Gore is an activist. I've looked into the science too, and I have come to a different conclusion. Certainly, there is no basis to liken the fight against global warming to a fight against Germany in WWII - that's political rhetoric and should be kept out of science. Do you agree political rhetoric has no place in science?

Science is science, what you do with that science (that knowledge) is another matter. I don't think you're exactly apolitical :lol:

Of course Al Gore is a politician (I think that much is obvious) I also think that zeroing in on something people wanted him to have said so they could attack him for saying that (which in fact he didn't) is also political. Al Gore (aka 'Gore') is a politician but one who does know his stuff wrt climate.

The science is what we can all read from the IPCC or NOAA or Hadley. But, I suspect you disagree. So where is your science? In Nature? In the Telegraph? In, well, I dunno.

I also think there isn't a problem if ones political views grow from what one learns. I do think it's a problem when ones political view leads one to look for some 'science' to back them up - wrong way round imo.

I've not said you are a jerk, anywhere. Absolutely you're not, or else you simply would refuse discussion or debate. Unlike your good self, Al Gore doesn't respond to question or even entertain skeptics. Al Gore believes debate has ended.

Nor have I said the AGW believers are either. Please don't misrepresent what I say. There are a lot of reasonable, honest people who believe in AGW for what they believe are honest reasons. Many are open to skeptical views but are not as yet convinced of the skeptic side.

I believe these reasonable people would agree that divisive rhetoric that demonises a great many good scientists is not helpful.

(As far as I believe the political-economic manifestations of the global warming idea is a scam many AGW believers concur, for their own reasons. The term "scam" is not a new one.)

So, who are the jerks (plural)? Again, there is no scam, believe me I've met people from Hadley, from the Met O, they are not part of a scam.

I don't think WUWT is a nest of either jerks or part of a scam - I don't think Al Gore is either.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

I have to admit I'm no fan of the obsession with carbon and carbon dioxide. Talking in more general terms about non-sustainable, fossil-fuel driven economies and pollution of the environment would be better. After all, carbon and CO2 are the biggest individual source of pollution but there are also plenty of others and it is important not to neglect the others, as some of them are subject to considerable uncertainty.

Cut CO2 emissions by 80% but leave everything else as it is... perhaps not the best way forward?

With regards the politics, one problem is that many of the people who are "politically active" on the AGW front are those who are frightened about the possible consequences of AGW and are thus desperate for extreme draconian measures starting now (curb AGW and carbon at any cost etc). Indeed, it is often the case generally that the people who are the most vocal are predominantly the ones with the most extreme views- and those with strong views that are somewhere in the middle (a position I often find myself in) are very much in the minority.

AGW is certainly not a scam intended to bring in socialism, although it is feasible that some proponents of socialism will abuse AGW to help add substance to their arguments.

AFT, you say that "As far as this new economy requires pre-planning by the government it won't be as efficient and dynamic as it could be". I guess, partly in view of your arguments in the political thread, that you wish for free markets to dictate this new economy. Unfortunately, without some government regulation and incentivising, the free markets will always put short-term profits before long-term sustainability, and the new economy will only come about when it is forced to- i.e. fossil fuels become too scarce for use of them to generate less revenue than use of cleaner alternatives. This could happen suddenly, and trigger a large depression, due to underdevelopment of the alternatives. Not to mention any AGW that we might be having as a result.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Iceberg]

With regards to free markets and governmental planning, this is a complete red herring.

We quite rightly outlawed CFC's without any real effects on the market.

We also tightly control other pollutants such as putting raw sewage in rivers, Nitrates etc.

As I've said many times put the real cost of GHG creation on the markets i.e the costs of Global Warming and people will very quickly switch to renewables, electric cars etc.

Put in a dollop of government backing to say that housing reg require high insolation and energy standards and that Solar panels should be fitted on all new houses and we get there.

It's not rocket size, it won't cost a fortune and it certainly won't sqew the markets.

Adam Smith had quite a lot to say about how free markets such treat pollution and how combatting pollution is fully consistant with free market economics, through the externality system.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

So, who are the jerks (plural)?

The plural was in the negative: they are not jerks.

TWS

I have to admit I'm no fan of the obsession with carbon and carbon dioxide. Talking in more general terms about non-sustainable, fossil-fuel driven economies and pollution of the environment would be better.

I agree with that. There should be movement away from carbon-based economies. But this should be managed by the market rather than the government. If it is done by the government then there must be politics involved somewhere.

AGW is certainly not a scam intended to bring in socialism, although it is feasible that some proponents of socialism will abuse AGW to help add substance to their arguments.

I agree with this.

The "scam" is an unproductive elite class taking money from the taxpayer, businessman and citizen "to reduce global warming". Like a regressive tax, this causes impoverishment and inequality of the poorest while barely hitting the wealthiest who can simply transfer their shares to "green companies" in on the scam (which is why green politics is popular among rich, private jet owning elites like Al Gore).

While I am aware of liberals who don't believe the AGW story (Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit), I do recognise socialists who do believe aren't cruel people: they do believe they can make up for this regressive tax in other ways. However, I think this is misguided.

AFT, you say that "As far as this new economy requires pre-planning by the government it won't be as efficient and dynamic as it could be". I guess, partly in view of your arguments in the political thread, that you wish for free markets to dictate this new economy. Unfortunately, without some government regulation and incentivising, the free markets will always put short-term profits before long-term sustainability, and the new economy will only come about when it is forced to- i.e. fossil fuels become too scarce for use of them to generate less revenue than use of cleaner alternatives. This could happen suddenly, and trigger a large depression, due to underdevelopment of the alternatives. Not to mention any AGW that we might be having as a result.

I'm okay with some government because I agree with you on this. So we both agree that government is an essential part of an economy. The question that must separate us is how much is too much government?

I'd like to think grandiose attempts to manipulate our economies in order to control the climate temperature in 40 years time to 2 degrees Celsius is too much government. The fact it will be an easily achievable target even if nothing were done for me says everything.

Edited July 9, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[noggin]

I think you mean carbon-free or green economy?

Ah, yes, right you are! It was the combination of the two words "carbon" and "economy" together that I was thinking of. :lol:

As an exciting exercise, I have searched the No 10 official website to see how many times he has used the two words together in his speeches and the number is 318 times just in the last two years :wub: , including this gem...........(sick bags at the ready and just imagine his voice saying it :lol: :lol: )...

........"a low carbon economy is not a cost to be borne but a prize to be won."

[HighPressure]

You missed the words 'try to'?

Again, they will 'try to' - it's, I agree, a cop out.

I did not miss 'try to' I pasted in the headline which the BBC choice to use and my point in a nutshell is they decided to omit those words WHY?

[Methuselah]

I have to admit I'm no fan of the obsession with carbon and carbon dioxide. Talking in more general terms about non-sustainable, fossil-fuel driven economies and pollution of the environment would be better. After all, carbon and CO2 are the biggest individual source of pollution but there are also plenty of others and it is important not to neglect the others, as some of them are subject to considerable uncertainty.

Cut CO2 emissions by 80% but leave everything else as it is... perhaps not the best way forward?

With regards the politics, one problem is that many of the people who are "politically active" on the AGW front are those who are frightened about the possible consequences of AGW and are thus desperate for extreme draconian measures starting now (curb AGW and carbon at any cost etc). Indeed, it is often the case generally that the people who are the most vocal are predominantly the ones with the most extreme views- and those with strong views that are somewhere in the middle (a position I often find myself in) are very much in the minority.

AGW is certainly not a scam intended to bring in socialism, although it is feasible that some proponents of socialism will abuse AGW to help add substance to their arguments.

AFT, you say that "As far as this new economy requires pre-planning by the government it won't be as efficient and dynamic as it could be". I guess, partly in view of your arguments in the political thread, that you wish for free markets to dictate this new economy. Unfortunately, without some government regulation and incentivising, the free markets will always put short-term profits before long-term sustainability, and the new economy will only come about when it is forced to- i.e. fossil fuels become too scarce for use of them to generate less revenue than use of cleaner alternatives. This could happen suddenly, and trigger a large depression, due to underdevelopment of the alternatives. Not to mention any AGW that we might be having as a result.

Brilliant post, Ian...

I think the main problems with politically-motivated people 'looking at the science' lie in the way they tend to 'look' at it: often merely in order to find something in support of their respective politics. Which, more often than not, results in an overselective approached - thus to heavily biased conclusions (told you so's)??

Good point about the current obsession with CO2, too...But, I do suspect that any technology capable of cutting carbon emissions by 80% would also reduce many of the other nasties as a by-product?

I agree with that. There should be movement away from carbon-based economies. But this should be managed by the market rather than the government. If it is done by the government then there must be politics involved somewhere.

That's a scary thought, AF...I just can't see the markets deferring their profits for long-enough for it to happen?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I agree with that. There should be movement away from carbon-based economies. But this should be managed by the market rather than the government. If it is done by the government then there must be politics involved somewhere.

That's a scary thought, AF...I just can't see the markets deferring their profits for long-enough for it to happen?

You can't make a profit out of a commodity that no longer exists!

But let me make my position clearer: if there were scary, runaway global warming I agree this would be something for the government to manage. I would want the government to act. The problem is when there isn't scary, runaway global warming but slow, fluctuating, climate change. The market is better at adapting to slow climate change; government fast climate change. Which do we have? What if we're wrong?

Edited July 9, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Methuselah]

You can't make a profit out of a commodity that no longer exists!

But let me make my position clearer: if there were scary, runaway global warming I agree this would be something for the government to manage. I would want the government to act. The problem is when there isn't scary, runaway global warming but slow, fluctuating, climate change. The market is better at adapting to slow climate change; government fast climate change. Which do we have? What if we're wrong?

A very valid question. But, what if the consensus is right? What, if after another 50 years' waiting for the markets to respond, there is scary, runaway global warming? What will we we do then?

PS: I'll be pushing-up dasies!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

A very valid question. But, what if the consensus is right? What, if after another 50 years' waiting for the markets to respond, there is scary, runaway global warming? What will we we do then?

First, there is no consensus. Otherwise the debate Al Gore declared over would not still be continuing. Second, there is no indication of rapid global warming, only slow climate change.

PS: I'll be pushing-up dasies!

This ideology of global warming, which seeks to prevent the construction of new coal fired power stations, is determined to recycle those wintering oldies into spring daisies sooner than that!

[Devonian]

First, there is no consensus. Otherwise the debate Al Gore declared over would not still be continuing. Second, there is no indication of rapid global warming, only slow climate change.

What would you see as an indication the predictions are right, on course, given it's 2009?

[Methuselah]

First, there is no consensus. Otherwise the debate Al Gore declared over would not still be continuing. Second, there is no indication of rapid global warming, only slow climate change.

I disagree: indeed, there are many concensuses. And, there a at least two within the Climate Change arena? The problem lies in the schizm that those consensuses have engeandered...

I agree absolutely that a drive towards sustainability is more useful than the current obsession with carbon-emissions and CO2 - but the two are inextricably linked; we'll never achieve sustainability without reducing carbon emissions.

But, where I don't agree is the markets! The markets will continue to profit from fossil fuels for as long as they possibly can; shareholders are more interested in short-term profits than in long-term sustainability: It's better 'for me' to put my money into my offshore account NOW, than to plan for the future...

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

What would you see as an indication the predictions are right, on course, given it's 2009?

Well, the model predictions the IPCC have worked with over the years have all been wrong so far.

Personally, my view is if temperatures have yet to exceed the interglacial equilibrium of the last 13'000 years: +/- 0.6 Celsius, then nothing significant is happening.

Were temperatures to rise significantly above or fall well below that

1. I'd be worried

2. but that would not mean humans could do anything to stop it, although I'd think that would merit research

3. that would not prove humans were causing it

Here a recent temperature anomaly chart for the last 30 years - the El Nino of 1998 stands out as do perhaps some volcanic events, but other than that, no dramatic warming I would worry about.

But, where I don't agree is the markets! The markets will continue to profit from fossil fuels for as long as they possibly can; shareholders are more interested in short-term profits than in long-term sustainability: It's better 'for me' to put my money into my offshore account NOW, than to plan for the future...

Is it? I think it's better to plan sensibly for the future. Markets are planning, and adjusting their plans daily. Governments cannot match the speed at which markets adjust - and you're talking to someone who believes the government has a role in the economy.

If you're investing in something you want a future. The market isn't designed to obliterate reality; it's designed to work with it.

When governments plan for the long term they get it wrong.

[Devonian]

Well, the model predictions the IPCC have worked with over the years have all been wrong so far.

Bit like looking outside at 9am on a sunny morning when the forecast is for showers and saying 'forecast wrong so far'...

Personally, my view is if temperatures have yet to exceed the interglacial equilibrium of the last 13'000 years: +/- 0.6 Celsius, then nothing significant is happening.

Were temperatures to rise significantly above or fall well below that

1. I'd be worried

2. but that would not mean humans could do anything to stop it, although I'd think that would merit research

3. that would not prove humans were causing it

Proof eh?

Here a recent temperature anomaly chart for the last 30 years - the El Nino of 1998 stands out as do perhaps some volcanic events, but other than that, no dramatic warming I would worry about.

I think it's better to look at all the surface records not concentrate on the one that shows the least warmer (well, in fact, the one that is out of line, trend wise, with all the others) - but I gues the record you use is the one most fit for your purpose :winky: .

[Thundery wintry showers]

Is it? I think it's better to plan sensibly for the future. Markets are planning, and adjusting their plans daily. Governments cannot match the speed at which markets adjust - and you're talking to someone who believes the government has a role in the economy.

If you're investing in something you want a future. The market isn't designed to obliterate reality; it's designed to work with it.

When governments plan for the long term they get it wrong.

That's a somewhat rose-tinted view of the markets. The market works with the current reality to do what is best to maximise its profits in the short term. Thus the markets, if left to their own devices, are only likely to shift to cleaner technologies once their use makes more short-term economic sense than the use of current, pollutive technologies.

Unfortunately this process is unlikely to be a gradual shift away from non-renewable resources and over to renewables. Rather, the markets are likely to extract the most they can out of the non-renewables, until it becomes uneconomical to do so. Then we could well face a severe reality check during the transition between finding out it's no longer economical to use fossil fuels, and alternative forms of technology being developed, probably in the form of a big economic depression.

I rather like the look of Iceberg's suggestions a few posts back. Perhaps the government's role should be to implement well-aligned subsidies, pricing, controls and regulations to help push the markets towards "going green" rather more quickly than if left purely to their own devices.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That's a somewhat rose-tinted view of the markets. The market works with the current reality to do what is best to maximise its profits in the short term. Thus the markets, if left to their own devices, are only likely to shift to cleaner technologies once their use makes more short-term economic sense than the use of current, pollutive technologies.

You keep on missing the point that I'm not advocating total non-interference in the economy.

I'd imagine the "rough edges" can be smoothed out by a little law-making. But "a little law-making" is not being proposed.

What they want to do is manage carbon emissions - a non-polluting, life giving element - to a much lower level than they need to be on climate justification alone.

Unfortunately this process is unlikely to be a gradual shift away from non-renewable resources and over to renewables. Rather, the markets are likely to extract the most they can out of the non-renewables, until it becomes uneconomical to do so. Then we could well face a severe reality check during the transition between finding out it's no longer economical to use fossil fuels, and alternative forms of technology being developed, probably in the form of a big economic depression.

Before it becomes uneconomical a freer market would provide huge financial incentives for the development of alternative products. This has happened throughout history. I'm not convinced the market is the menace you are portraying as - don't you see any role for the market in the economy?

[Solar Cycles]

Bit like looking outside at 9am on a sunny morning when the forecast is for showers and saying 'forecast wrong so far'...

Here we go again eh Dev! Climate models only as good as the junk put into them. Historians will look back on this with bemusement, as to how climate scientist came to the conclusion that the earth will warm by so much. When all they had as evidence was a theory, and a best guess approach to the outcome. But more worryingly how they managed to convince the powers that be, that the way forwards was to go backwards, when temperatures hadn't risen for over 11 years. BIZZARE!!!!

[Methuselah]

Here we go again eh Dev! Climate models only as good as the junk put into them. Historians will look back on this with bemusement, as to how climate scientist came to the conclusion that the earth will warm by so much. When all they had as evidence was a theory, and a best guess approach to the outcome. But more worryingly how they managed to convince the powers that be, that the way forwards was to go backwards, when temperatures hadn't risen for over 11 years. BIZZARE!!!!

The evidence for those assertions being?

[Solar Cycles]

The evidence for those assertions being?

What the 11 years without warming?

[laserguy]

What the 11 years without warming?

Nothing can block the inexorable path of AGW,SC - regardless of what's really going down. You know that as well as I do. Oh it exists alright,in the addled minds of computer programmers and politicians. It must not be allowed to flounder now.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

If it helps you come to terms with why it's happening... other than elite greed, it's energy security. Europe doesn't have it.

The frantic search for alternatives to carbon based energy economy that puts European economies in a weak geopolitical position vis-a-vis Russia, and the Middle East is cloaked in the convenient language of psuedoscience.

I'm not sure how much the elites themselves know they're doing it for this reason. I suspect it's an emergent phenomena.

The fact the hard AGW lot don't think the governments are doing anything at all suggests that somehow, costs and benefits are getting traded off.

None of that makes it any more just or true.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Nope, AGW is not a political cover-up for the worries over energy security, it was a widely talked-about phenomenon in the 1990s and the focus was very much on climate change, not on energy security. Energy security has always been a known concern, but there actually seem to be surprisingly few people out there who are arguing for a move towards renewable energy on that basis. I actually believe that the focus is the other way around, there is too much focus on climate change and not enough on the energy security.

Climate models are, indeed, only as good as the assumptions that are put into them, but just because they aren't 100% trustworthy doesn't mean they are "junk". Climate models are the main line of evidence that we have to make predictions of what will happen to our climate in the future- just as short-range forecast models are the main line of evidence for what the weather will do in 4-6 days' time- though I don't think we can really trust them as far as the IPCC and most related scientific groups do. Unfortunately until we can come up with a good way of testing the accuracy of climate models, beyond assessing their simulations of the past (if such a thing exists!) we can't have as much certainty re. their reliability as with weather forecasting models.

I'd imagine the "rough edges" can be smoothed out by a little law-making. But "a little law-making" is not being proposed.

What they want to do is manage carbon emissions - a non-polluting, life giving element - to a much lower level than they need to be on climate justification alone.

Carbon is not a non-polluting element, ask anyone who breathes in air that contains unusually high CO2 concentrations or even worse carbon monoxide. I do think that the 80% reduction is unrealistically steep, but people forget that we're talking about reducing the amount of CO2 we are adding, not removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Before it becomes uneconomical a freer market would provide huge financial incentives for the development of alternative products. This has happened throughout history.

Until these alternative products become cheaper to use than current ones, where do those financial incentives come from?

I'm not convinced the market is the menace you are portraying as - don't you see any role for the market in the economy?

Pure straw, and typical of the AFT tendency to categorise any criticism of the free market as implying one is a Marxist. My perspective on markets, on general grounds, is that they are a good thing in moderation, but give them too much freedom and they will abuse it (just like with governments, or any person or organisation), and that there's more to life than money.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Nope, AGW is not a political cover-up for the worries over energy security, it was a widely talked-about phenomenon in the 1990s and the focus was very much on climate change, not on energy security. Energy security has always been a known concern, but there actually seem to be surprisingly few people out there who are arguing for a move towards renewable energy on that basis. I actually believe that the focus is the other way around, there is too much focus on climate change and not enough on the energy security.

Don't go thinking there's a cover-up. That's a riduculous idea.

It's an emergent phenomenon - it arises out of individual actions and interests, and individual cost-benefit calculations.

Climate models are, indeed, only as good as the assumptions that are put into them, but just because they aren't 100% trustworthy doesn't mean they are "junk". Climate models are the main line of evidence that we have to make predictions of what will happen to our climate in the future- just as short-range forecast models are the main line of evidence for what the weather will do in 4-6 days' time- though I don't think we can really trust them as far as the IPCC and most related scientific groups do. Unfortunately until we can come up with a good way of testing the accuracy of climate models, beyond assessing their simulations of the past (if such a thing exists!) we can't have as much certainty re. their reliability as with weather forecasting models.

They were all wrong. Scientists have big questions remaining over how to model the role of clouds, ocean-conveyor, cosmic rays. It's not really a surprise the world has not warmed as predicted, and has in fact cooled over the last decade.

Carbon is not a non-polluting element, ask anyone who breathes in air that contains unusually high CO2 concentrations or even worse carbon monoxide.

I think you mean the molecule Carbon Dioxide, not the element Carbon, but anyway - I disagree.

We are made out of carbon. We eat plants who "eat" carbon. Carbon in gas form with Oxygen is vital to life on Earth.

Farming businesses in this country today are using giant greenhouses into which they are pumping in CO2 in far higher concentrations than it exists in the environment. Why? Because CO2 makes plants grow larger and faster.

The "greening" of the Sahal region of sub-Saharan Africa, which I remember being taught in A-Level geography had a problem with desertification, has been attributed to enhanced levels of atmospheric CO2.

If we took 100 PPM CO2 out of the atmosphere, how many millions of tonnes of global cereal production would be affected? If we had 100 PPM more, how many more mouths would be fed? Every year 15 million children die of hunger alone - this is not an insignificant amount of lives.

Let's get the science right, otherwise what is the point of discussion? Carbon monoxide is not Carbon dioxide - it's a different molecule and so irrelevant here. The levels of CO2 are so minuscule - we're talking parts per million - that it has no impact on human breathing.

I do think that the 80% reduction is unrealistically steep, but people forget that we're talking about reducing the amount of CO2 we are adding, not removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then you should be more concern with what happens in India and China than the UK. Our middle class has maxed out at 30 million? - their middle class is still growing. And they have 2.6 billion people between them.

Until these alternative products become cheaper to use than current ones, where do those financial incentives come from?

If there was a need I'm not denying the government could play a role in developing new technologies. You want an argument but I'm not the person you should have it with.

I'm not convinced the market is the menace you are portraying as - don't you see any role for the market in the economy?

Pure straw, and typical of the AFT tendency to categorise any criticism of the free market as implying one is a Marxist.

Good to know you defend the value of the market to the economy. Governments don't produce wealth, they spend it.

My perspective on markets, on general grounds, is that they are a good thing in moderation, but give them too much freedom and they will abuse it (just like with governments, or any person or organisation), and that there's more to life than money.

Absolutely. I think you have the right perspective on markets.

Edited July 10, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Methuselah]

They were all wrong. Scientists have big questions remaining over how to model the role of clouds, ocean-conveyor, cosmic rays. It's not really a surprise the world has not warmed as predicted, and has in fact cooled over the last decade.

That doesn't mean that they are all wrong; merely that they've yet to be perfected.

Let's get the science right, otherwise what is the point of discussion? Carbon monoxide is not Carbon dioxide - it's a different molecule and so irrelevant here. The levels of CO2 are so minuscule - we're talking parts per million - that it has no impact on human breathing.

It's only irrelevent so long as it doesn't further oxidize within the atmosphere to become CO2??

Good to know you defend the value of the market to the economy. Governments don't produce wealth, they spend it.

And, I'm glad they do too. But, I also accept that markets are an essential part of a balanced economy. I think we've all learned from the USSR's penchant for 'redistributing' that which no-one is allowed to generate in the first place? Marxist 'economics' I do not like!