Global Warming Question

[themadhair]

This is exactly why, despite Themadhair's claim that it is unjustified arrogance,I don't use wiki. I can bypass it by going directly to sources themselves, including those not cited by wiki. More importantly, just looking at one section where the wiki article makes claims about the harms of DDT and backs them with citations, we find that neither citation actually supports these claims. One explicitly denies the claim, the other mostly denies it, and neither supports it.

TalkDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When I am shown to be wrong I admit to being wrong. I was sorely and embarrassingly wrong on this point.

Question now becomes - will you do likewise for the AGW issue?

 

[Oberon]

TalkDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When I am shown to be wrong I admit to being wrong. I was sorely and embarrassingly wrong on this point.

Question now becomes - will you do likewise for the AGW issue?

What does AGW stand for? Against Global Warming?

I will do what I have always done. Evaluate the evidence. I had a dialogue with you (I think it was you) not long ago when I was of the opinion that there was not enough evidence to support the idea tha humans were influencing the climate change. Too much was unkown. However, prior to that conversation, it had been several years since I reviewed the literature. As a result of that conversation, I went back and did so. I know believe that there is sufficient evidence that climate change is influenced by human activity, although I will still say that way too much is still not known about climate change.

All that took place prior my responses on this thread. I am still vehemently opposed to Kyoto. This is not because (as I said) Kyoto is a first step in establishing global cooperation in combatting anthropogenic climate change, but because the emission reductions planned are very expensive and worthless.

I support funding increased research and development into reducing emissions. I also support global cooperation. What I do not and will not ever support are short-sighted "we must do something" proposals without adequate research. Currently, Kyoto is just such a proposal. An enormous amount of money will be spent on reduction of emissions that will have next to no effect.

 

[themadhair]

What does AGW stand for? Against Global Warming?

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

I had a dialogue with you (I think it was you) not long ago when I was of the opinion that there was not enough evidence to support the idea tha humans were influencing the climate change.

I don’t think it was myself.

I support funding increased research and development into reducing emissions. I also support global cooperation.

Kyoto lays the foundation for just these.

 

[Oberon]

Kyoto lays the foundation for just these.

It does. And I don't object to those aspects to it. However, it would also spend TRILLIONs of dollars to reduce emissions, only the effects of those reductions amount to nothing, because they put off only for a few years what would have happened without Kyoto. To quote myself from a previous post:

For the effect, see e.g. Wigley, Tom. "Global Warming Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications." Geophysical Research Letters 25, no 13: 2285-88., which concluded that the reductions per kyoto would not have any significant effect (four hundreths of a degree) in reducing warming. Nature 22 (2003):395-741 concluded the same, predicting a reduction of warming by .02 degrees. Even the IPCC models at most estimate a change of .15. In other words, these studies all conclude that a reduction in warming by 2050 would be minimal, and of course the warming would continue, meaning that we would have the same projected temperature a few years later than if Kyoto were not signed.

For the cost, see
Weyant and Hill. Introduction and overview: The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. Energy Journal Kyoto special issue.

The point is that while Kyoto has some good effects, the extraorinary expensive effects which would result are unnecessary, virtually worthless, and VERY wasteful.

 

[Alceste]

It does. And I don't object to those aspects to it. However, it would also spend TRILLIONs of dollars to reduce emissions...

For the cost, see
Weyant and Hill. Introduction and overview: The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. Energy Journal Kyoto special issue.

The major conclusions are: (a) the net global cost of the Kyoto Protocol is $716 billion in present value.

Wow, for somebody who is so obsessed with howling about the misrepresentation of scholarly papers, I'm shocked at you, Oberon.

 

[themadhair]

The point is that while Kyoto has some good effects, the extraorinary expensive effects which would result are unnecessary, virtually worthless, and VERY wasteful.

You keep bringing up this red herring regarding the expense without realising that the first step in implementing a global strategy is going to be expensive almost regardless of what that step is. To analyse the cost of Kyoto by divorcing it from its role in establishing the foundations for future actions is rather pointless.

What you are doing is, in effect, arguing that the foundations for a house should not be dug because of the expense and the fact that the foundations, in and of themselves, don't lead to a house.

 

[Alceste]

Also, having read the abstract for every study in that issue, I find it equally shocking that one who is so averse to making critical decisions while any form of uncertainty remains, that you failed to note the vast range of divergent opinions on the cost and effectiveness of emissions reduction strategies in all the research in those studies.

You'd like us to decide to do nothing about global warming out of your hysterical, reactionary, thoughtless fear that action will be costly, but you have failed to demonstrate any consensus on this issue from economists.

In comparison, all climatologists and most of the scientists in every other field agree that failure to act will be catastrophic.

So, who do we listen to? I'm going with scientists. You feel free to go with whichever economists happen to agree with your pre-existing point of view.

 

[yossarian22]

The claim that Kyoto lays the groundwork for future cooperation is more than a little dubious considering it is unlikely that many of the current signatories will sign Kyoto's followup treaty if it winds up costing them money. I don't particularly care that Kyoto is expensive so much as I care that it doesn't really help all that much.

 

[themadhair]

The claim that Kyoto lays the groundwork for future cooperation is more than a little dubious considering it is unlikely that many of the current signatories will sign Kyoto's followup treaty if it winds up costing them money. I don't particularly care that Kyoto is expensive so much as I care that it doesn't really help all that much.

Wait for IPCC 2009.

 

[Oberon]

Wow, for somebody who is so obsessed with howling about the misrepresentation of scholarly papers, I'm shocked at you, Oberon.

Wrong article. You are quoting from the abstract of

Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol
by William D. Nordhaus and Joseph G. Boyer

I take it you never actually read the article itself, however? Because then you would know that that total is only reflecting a specific amount of time. For example, take a look at figure 7. By 2100, the US ALONE will be losing over 70 BILLION dollars a year. Their cost projectings for the globe in that time ARE trillions.

Also, having read the abstract for every study in that issue

Yes, and we've seen how far that has gotten you above.

I find it equally shocking that one who is so averse to making critical decisions while any form of uncertainty remains, that you failed to note the vast range of divergent opinions on the cost and effectiveness of emissions reduction strategies in all the research in those studies.

The range of effectiveness is explicitly stated several time in a number of sources not to be vast. No one, even the IPCC, expects that Kyoto reduction of emissions will do much of anything.

However, even assuming "smart trading" economic models ALL agree that the expenses are ENORMOUS. Try reading the actual articles.

You'd like us to decide to do nothing about global warming

How about finding solutions that work? Read Hoffert et all (a total of 18 experts) "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet" Science 298 (2008):981-87

They doubt whether reducing carbon emissions is even possible with current technology. Hence, more R&D, less extremely expensive plans nobody thinks will work.

but you have failed to demonstrate any consensus on this issue from economists.

You failed to read the actual articles. How would you know?

In comparison, all climatologists and most of the scientists in every other field agree that failure to act will be catastrophic.

True. However, that doesn't mean our actions should be very expensive and do nothing. Funding new technologies is a great idea. Using more nuclear power is as well. Extremely expensive plans to reduce emissions nobody will expects will do anything is a horrible idea.

I'm going with scientists. You feel free to go with whichever economists happen to agree with your pre-existing point of view.

No, you aren't. Show me which peer-reviewed articles you've read which state that Kyoto is expected to have an actual effect (other than delying what would happen for a few years). Not even the IPCC predicts that. Moreover, you haven't actually read any articles by economists. You read the abstracts from a few articles, and you misunderstood them.

 

[Alceste]

Wrong article. You are quoting from the abstract of

Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol
by William D. Nordhaus and Joseph G. Boyer

I take it you never actually read the article itself, however? Because then you would know that that total is only reflecting a specific amount of time. For example, take a look at figure 7. By 2100, the US ALONE will be losing over 70 BILLION dollars a year. Their cost projectings for the globe in that time ARE trillions.

ROFL! You believe you can predict what the economy is going to do in NINETY YEARS? And you scoff at scientists who believe they know what the climate is going to do in ten or twenty?:biglaugh: You should go into banking. Seriously.

Anyway, I didn't read the whole article - you cited an entire journal, I read the abstract of every article in it. That's the only one that mentioned a global price tag, and it conflicted with yours. I'm not a believer in the supremacy of the economy over all other considerations - like reality - and I don't read articles by economists when I am researching a purely scientific issue. Climate is real. The biosphere is real. Finance is a product of our collective imagination, like religion. In the next 90 years, we could scrap the whole thing and start over with a completely different model. In fact, I'd say it's fairly likely that we will, considering the scarcity of our non-renewable resources and the exponential growth of our population.

 

[Oberon]

ROFL! You believe you can predict what the economy is going to do in NINETY YEARS? :biglaugh: You should go into banking. Seriously.

You should study economics and their models prior to laughing at their claims. And their models do not depend on taking into account the entire economy. Moreover, the models BEGIN by predicting the treaty costing billions for the US alone. They simply track how likely that number will grow.

Anyway, I didn't read the whole article - you cited an entire journal

Wrong. Check the citation again. See the name of the two authors? I gave the journal name, the journal title, and the title of the article.


,

I read the abstract of every article in it.

Try reading the articles. That way you won't make the same mistake twice.

That's the only one that mentioned a global price tag, and it conflicted with yours.

Wrong. Because that price tag was not the total cost. It was the total cost within a fairly short period of time. Read the article.

I'm not a believer in the supremacy of the economy over all other considerations - like reality - and I don't read articles by economists when I am researching a purely scientific issue. Climate is real. The biosphere is real. Finance is a product of our collective imagination, like religion. In the next 90 years, we could scrap the whole thing and start over with a completely different model. In fact, I'd say it's fairly likely that we will, considering the scarcity of our non-renewable resources and the exponential growth of our population.

Again,

"How about finding solutions that work? Read Hoffert et all (a total of 18 experts) "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet" Science 298 (2008):981-87

They doubt whether reducing carbon emissions is even possible with current technology. Hence, more R&D, less extremely expensive plans nobody thinks will work."

"Show me which peer-reviewed articles you've read which state that Kyoto is expected to have an actual effect (other than delying what would happen for a few years). Not even the IPCC predicts that. Moreover, you haven't actually read any articles by economists. You read the abstracts from a few articles, and you misunderstood them. "

 

[Alceste]

You should study economics and their models prior to laughing at their claims. And their models do not depend on taking into account the entire economy. Moreover, the models BEGIN by predicting the treaty costing billions for the US alone. They simply track how likely that number will grow.


Wrong. Check the citation again. See the name of the two authors? I gave the journal name, the journal title, and the title of the article.

Those two authors compiled a dozen studies for an entire journal, from what I gather. FYI, it's bad form to cite a whole journal in its entirety to support one factual claim without referencing the relevant paragraph. Does your university let you get away with that? It's also bad form in an internet discussion to cite sources that I would need to purchase in order to verify your claim.

Here's your citation: The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. Weyant and Hill. Here's what that turns out to be - an intro to the contents of the entire journal. So which of the 400 pages supports your claim? Either type it out or link to it. Don't strut around looking down your nose at anyone who isn't interested in reading all 400 pages of an energy industry publication to dig up your source. That's ridiculous.

Wrong. Because that price tag was not the total cost. It was the total cost within a fairly short period of time. Read the article.

Link please.

Moreover, you haven't actually read any articles by economists. You read the abstracts from a few articles, and you misunderstood them. "

No, it's true. I don't read stuff published by economists. Growth-based economics is only one of many religions I don't believe in. I am more interested in actual, factual, true things, which are accessible to empirical investigation.

So, please copy, link or type the relevant paragraph to support your claim.

 

[Oberon]

Those two authors compiled a dozen studies for an entire journal, from what I gather. FYI, it's bad form to cite a whole journal in its entirety to support one factual claim without referencing the relevant paragraph.

I didn't cite the whole journal. "Weyant and Hill. Introduction and overview:"

They wrote the introduction to the special issue of The Energy Journal titled "The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation"

Does your university let you get away with that? It's also bad form in an internet discussion to cite sources that I would need to purchase in order to verify your claim.

If can send them to you if you would like. Moreover, you are wrong. I can't help it if academic sources are often expensive and not always free online.

Here's your citation:The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. Weyant and Hill.

You are misquoting me. You left out Introduction and overview: The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. They wrote the intro and overview.

Here's what that turns out to be - an intro to the contents of the entire journal. So which of the 400 pages supports your claim? Either type it out or link to it. Don't strut around looking down your nose at anyone who isn't interested in reading all 400 pages of an energy industry publication to dig up your source. That's ridiculous.

Again, I cited a single article within the journal. I am sorry you can't read a citation. However, I can send you any of the articles you want.

Link please.

You can't access my links. I get it through my university.

No, it's true. I don't read stuff published by economists. Growth-based economics is only one of many religions I don't believe in. I am more interested in actual, factual, true things, which are accessible to empirical investigation.

This is really funny given your strong stance on climate change. These models go even further into the future (not to mention the past), and are dealing with an even more complex system. Yet while you accept as gospel the vastly divergent various models on how even the various different aspects of climate should be estimated, not to mention climate change as a whole, you reject any and all economic models. Hmmm.

So, please copy, link or type the relevant paragraph to support your claim.

Again, I have access to every article in .pdf form as well as hard copy. If you know of a way I can send you the .pdf (like, for example, setting up a throw-away free email account) then I can send you all of them.

 

[Alceste]

I didnt' cite the whole journal. "Weyant and Hill. Introduction and overview:"

They wrote the introduction to the special issue of The Energy Journal titled "The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation"

If can send them to you if you would like. Moreover, you are wrong. I can help it if academic sources are often expensive and not always free online.

You are misquoting me. You left out Introduction and overview: The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation. They wrote the intro and overview.

Again, I cited a single article within the journal. I am sorry you can't read a citation. However, I can send you any of the articles you want.

You can access my links. I get it through my university.

I assume you mean "can't". If you have a link, surely it's easier to simply copy and paste the relevant sentence than it would be to mail mail me the whole article? I only want to see the one that says it will cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS! and accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! as you claim.

Also, I note that TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!! is a significantly less impressive figure when spread out over 90 years. It seems you were implying this would be an immediate, short-term expense. Were you misrepresenting your sources perhaps?

This is really funny given your strong stance on climate change. The models go even further into the future (not to mention the past), and are dealing with an even more complex system.

I accept the near-unanimous consensus of scientists in the field. Can you demonstrate a unanimous consensus that all the world's economists believe carbon emissions reduction will cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!! and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING AT ALL!!!! ? Because last I checked some economists were suggesting that a growth-based economic model is not feasible in the long term considering scarcity of resources, and that the picture would look very different if certain things that presently are not assigned a monetary value for economic calculations (i.e. human happiness and a healthy biosphere) were taken into consideration in economic modeling. For example, if you assign a monetary value to the services provided free of charge by a protected watershed, the whole picture of whether or not building a Walmart on top if it is economically beneficial changes completely.

Yet while you accept as gospel the vastly divergent various models on how even the various different aspects of climate should be estimated, not to mention climate change as a whole, you reject any and all economic models. Hmmm.

As I said above, I accept the consensus of qualified scientists. When it comes to economic models, I only reject the ones that do not assign a monetary value to the services provided by a protected biosphere, and the ones that presume it is possible to achieve perpetual, exponential economic growth despite finite natural resources.

Again, I have access to every article in .pdf form as well as hard copy. If you know of a why I can send you the .pdf (like, for example, setting up a throw-away free email account) then I can send you all of them.

Not interested. I wanted to see only the section that supports your claim it will cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!! (with a clearly implied "in the short term") and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING!!!!

 

[Oberon]

I assume you mean "can't".

Yes. I fixed it.

I only want to see the one that says it will cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS! and accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! as you claim.

You are talking about two different claims. These articles are concerned only with the economic models. The introductory article shows the projections of all models in various figures. For example, you can see from fig. 9 the loss of gdp for the US in the year 2010 in billions of dollars.

Also, I note that TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!! is a significantly less impressive figure when spread out over 90 years. It seems you were implying this would be an immediate, short-term expense. Were you misrepresenting your sources perhaps?

No. Actually, you can see for yourself. The annual cost of kyoto will be a fairly large portion of the world's annual funds, most of it shouldered by the US.

I accept the near-unanimous consensus of scientists in the field.

There is no unaninmous consensus when it comes to the exact predictions of climate change. Various models of climate change itself, not to mention models within those models, vary. The near-unanimous consensus from scientists in relevant fields is simply that the warming is occuring and that we are significantly contributing to this. The details are all over the place.

Can you demonstrate a unanimous consensus that all the world's economists believe carbon emissions reduction will cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!!!

Yes, even the less drastic models still have the costs at many billions of dollars every single year.

and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING AT ALL!!!! ?

Again, your near-scientific consensus all agrees with this (at least with respect to the emissions reductions, i.e. the expensive part of kyoto). Not even the IPCC, which is all for Kyoto, expects the emission reductions made by Kyoto will do anything significant other than to delay for a few years what would have happened anyway. In the meantime, it is INCREDIBLY expensive.

Because last I checked

You mean read some abstracts?

some economists were suggesting that a growth-based economic model is not feasible in the long term considering scarcity of resources, and that the picture would look very different if certain things that presently are not assigned a monetary value for economic calculations (i.e. human happiness and a healthy biosphere) were taken into consideration in economic modeling. For example, if you assign a monetary value to the services provided free of charge by a protected watershed, the whole picture of whether or not building a Walmart on top if it is economically ratoinal changes completely.

Before you critique the models, you should probably read them.

As I said above, I accept the consensus of qualified scientists.

No, you don't. Because they don't expect the reductions of emissions per kyoto to do much of anything.

When it comes to economic models, I only reject the ones that do not assign a monetary value to the services provided by a protected biosphere,

Translation: I haven't read any of the models. I reject them because they make kyoto look like a really bad idea.

and the ones that presume it is possible to achieve perpetual, exponential economic growth despite finite natural resources.

Let's just start with this logical flaw. We don't really have "finite" resources in the way you are suggesting. The potential for human technological advancement has been the bane of all Malthusian theories. We can already harness ENORMOUS amounts of energy from lumps of rock (uraniam). The more technological gains we make, the more our potential resources grow.

Not interested.

Figured. Your mind is made up, why look at the facts?

I wanted to see only the section that supports your claim it will cost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!! (with a clearly implied "in the short term")

Then look at the figures in the introductory article I cited.

and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING!!!!

Once more, seperate issue. These are economic models. Look back to the sources I already gave you to see citations on the reduction in warming expected by Kyoto.

 

[Alceste]

You are talking about two different claims. These articles are concerned only with the economic models. The introductory article shows the projections of all models in various figures. For example, you can see from fig. 9 the loss of gdp for the US in the year 2010 in billions of dollars.

"Billions?" Not "TRILLIONS!!!!!!!" ? Are we changing our tune now? Toning down the hysteria a touch? That would be nice.

No. Actually, you can see for yourself. The annual cost of kyoto will be a fairly large portion of the world's annual funds, most of it shouldered by the US.

Better to spend it on emission reductions than bombs, says I. A few billion dollars is a drop in the pan compared to US military spending.

There is no unaninmous consensus when it comes to the exact predictions of climate change.

Oh, please. How exact do you need them to be? Aren't you content with a pretty much guaranteed global famine and water shortage? You need to know exactly how many grains of rice we're going to have to fight over? How many drops of water are going to fall from the sky?

Various models of climate change itself, not to mention models within those models, vary. The near-unanimous consensus from scientists in relevant fields is simply that the warming is occuring and that we are significantly contributing to this.

You forgot the punchline: and that we can and must do something about it if we wish to avoid catastrophic impact on the biosphere that sustains us.

Yes, even the less drastic models still have the costs at many billions of dollars every single year.

Billions again? Not TRILLIONS!!!!! ? What happened - you had another look at your own source and realized it doesn't support your factual claim?

Again, your near-scientific consensus all agrees with this (at least with respect to the emissions reductions, i.e. the expensive part of kyoto). Not even the IPCC, which is all for Kyoto, expects the emission reductions made by Kyoto will do anything significant other than to delay for a few years what would have happened anyway. In the meantime, it is INCREDIBLY expensive.

Kyoto is the beginning, not the end. Sure, I'll concede that if the Kyoto agreement is the only thing we do, the climate situation will not be improved. Lucky for us, though, Kyoto is not going to be the only step in this journey. As madhair pointed out, it's just the beginning of a series of many steps that will either help us to adapt to conditions that are increasingly hostile to life, or slow down the change enough so the rest of the biosphere can also adapt.

Before you critique the models, you should probably read them.

Don't need to. Many things that can't be bought or sold have real value. Growth-based, capitalistic economic models do not account for this, therefore they are meaningless conjecture, IMO.

Also, I'm not the one prancing around with my nose in the air pretending to be some Great Academic Thinker who only reads articles by other Great Academic Thinkers and pooh-poohs any information that can be got for free online. Reading a bunch of scholarly publications is your standard (or so you claim), not mine. I'm happy with Harpers, New Scientist, National Geographic, whatever I can dig up on the internet and books about science, geopolitics and energy written for lay people like myself.

I'm only asking for a source for your TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING statements. I'm not challenging you to an "I read more boring crap than you" ******* contest. Madhair provided two good sources and quoted the relevant paragraphs to support his point of view. You've provided nothing but the assertion that somewhere in 400 pages of tedious crap, somebody agrees with you - and if I want to find out where I have to read it all. That makes his point of view more convincing than yours, in my view.

Translation: I haven't read any of the models. I reject them because they make kyoto look like a really bad idea.

True, I haven't read them. I reject them because I assume they are based on a growth-based, capitalistic economic model that does not assign monetary value to things like clean air, a healthy biosphere, a sense of community cohesion, increased leisure time, energy independence, forests left standing in the ground, a healthy diet and a stable or declining (rather than exponentially growing) population. I have rejected that model. I reached my conclusions a decade before Kyoto, because it became plainly obvious to me that everything that grows, dies.

But, I could be wrong - perhaps one of those models attributes a monetary value to the joy I get from watching bats flit from tree to tree by the light of the moon, or calculates the cash value of long afternoons spent bashing rocks with a hammer to find out whether there are fossils inside. If so, I'd love to hear about it. Seriously. I think that would be a fascinating economic paper.

Let's just start with this logical flaw. We don't really have "finite" resources in the way you are suggesting. The potential for human technological advancement has been the bane of all Malthusian theories. We can already harness ENORMOUS amounts of energy from lumps of rock (uraniam). The more technological gains we make, the more our potential resources grow.

So you say. I'm not sure you realize uranium is a non-renewable resource, like oil. What do we gain from replacing one non-renewable resource with another once the first is gone? Nothing in the long term, except a whole bunch of extremely toxic waste.

Figured. Your mind is made up, why look at the facts?

Yet another free market zealot who is unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. Why am I not surprised?

Then look at the figures in the introductory article I cited.

I sure would, it you'd trouble yourself to copy them out.

 

[Oberon]

"Billions?" Not "TRILLIONS!!!!!!!" ? Are we changing our tune now? Toning down the hysteria a touch? That would be nice.

This is one year. The point is that in a single year, the cost would be billions.

Better to spend it on emission reductions than bombs, says I. A few billion dollars is a drop in the pan compared to US military spending.

Wrong. When you are spending billions of dollars every year, and the cost is going up, you get into the trillions very fast. Much more loss than military spending involved here.

Oh, please. How exact do you need them to be? Aren't you content with a pretty much guaranteed global famine and water shortage? You need to know exactly how many grains of rice we're going to have to fight over? How many drops of water are going to fall from the sky?

This is pretty disdainful for somehow who wrote of economic models because of variability.

As for how exactly, how about actually being able to predict warming? Or el nino? Or have consistent models to account for UHI? There are so many models and so much variability when it comes to climate science, which you accept like gospel, but economic models are laughable because they make predictions over a shorter period of time, and on less complex systems.

You forgot the punchline: and that we can and must do something about it if we wish to avoid catastrophic impact on the biosphere that sustains us.

Actually, there isn't a whole lot of agreement on what will happen or when. For example, our current data tells us we are still relatively cool considering global climate over millions of years. As a matter of fact, even projected temperatures 100 years from now are not thought to be greater than temperature rises that have already occured. There is no imminant catastrophe which should prevent us from learning more prior to actions that won't do anything.

Billions again? Not TRILLIONS!!!!! ? What happened - you had another look at your own source and realized it doesn't support your factual claim?

Again, EVERY YEAR! When you spend 180 billions a year, how many years does it take to equal trillions?

Kyoto is the beginning, not the end.

It is an extremely expensive plan, where trillions will be spent to accomplish what no one expects will do anything.

As madhair pointed out, it's just the beginning of a series of many steps that will either help us to adapt to conditions that are increasingly hostile to life, or slow down the change enough so the rest of the biosphere can also adapt.

Why not restrict ourselves to steps people expect will actually help? The cost of Kyoto comes from reductions of emissions. Nobody expects this will do anything. So why do it?

Also, I'm not the one prancing around with my nose in the air pretending to be some Great Academic Thinker who only reads articles by other Great Academic Thinkers and pooh-poohs any information that can be got for free online.

Yes, we saw how great wikipedia was.

I'm only asking for a source for your TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS and ACCOMPLISH NOTHING statements.

Again, seperate claims. My citation of the introductary article goes over projected costs. All of the models predict trillions spent within a fairly short period of time. All of them have us funnelling billions per year on an increasing scale.

And as we know from other sources, even themadhair's sources, nobody expects this reduction to accomplish anything.

I'm not challenging you to an "I read more boring crap than you" ******* contest. Madhair provided two good sources and quoted the relevant paragraphs to support his point of view.

Wrong. The IPCC, while supporting kyoto, admits that the reduction will not accomplish anything, other than delaying warming which would have occured without it for a few years.

You've provided nothing but the assertion that somewhere in 400 pages of tedious crap, somebody agrees with you - and if I want to find out where I have to read it all. That makes his point of view more convincing than yours, in my view.

I already told you, it is a single article. You don't have to read the whole journal. The introduction covers the basics.

True, I haven't read them. I reject them because I assume

Let's just stop right there. You've said plenty.

So you say. I'm not sure you realize uranium is a non-renewable resource, like oil. What do we gain from replacing one non-renewable resource with another once the first is gone? Nothing in the long term, except a whole bunch of extremely toxic waste.

1) The waste from nuclear plants could potentially be reusable. We don't know how yet.

2) Nuclear power can be gained from anything once we have better technology. We already can utilize hydrogen to release nuclear energy
3) As our technological capacity increases, so will our ability to find new sources of energy and new solutions to problems.
It is the inability for Malthusian theorist like yourself to understand the potential for human technology that make you always wrong. From Malthus to Ehrlich, you continually fail to see the human capacity to use technology to survive.

Yet another free market zealot who is unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. Why am I not surprised?

Probably because you aren't well-informed.

I sure would, it you'd trouble yourself to copy them out.

Much of it is graphs. Why can't you just go to yahoo or something, set up a throw away email, and I will do the same, and I can send you the whole article?

 

[Alceste]

Hi, Oberon, I'm off on a holiday. I'd say that themadhair wins, due to having put forth a coherent argument backed by reputable sources accessible to anyone reading the thread.

You've dodged all his main points (that Kyoto is the first of many steps, not the whole deal), and mine (that economic modeling is flawed since it doesn't assign value to the health of the biosphere, and that the consensus is greater among climate scientists than economists), and continue to assert there is uncertainty within the scientific community with respect to the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change despite having been shown to be incorrect.

As much as I'd love to keep flogging this dead horse, I'm going on holiday. I'll check back on this thread in ninety years and we can establish whether or not your TRILLIONS!!! have been spent and accomplished NOTHING!!! , or whether or not my famine, water shortage, collapse of civic order and mass extinction has occurred due to rapid climate change.

 

[Oberon]

You've dodged all his main points (that Kyoto is the first of many steps, not the whole deal),

A first step leads you directly to the goal. If I'm building a house, my first step isn't to set up a tent, but to lay the foundations. I have no problem with all of the good stuff themadhair stated was going to come out of kyoto. Countries coming together, research generated, etc, all good things. However, that isn't what is expensive. Themadhair ignored this. Why? Its very inconvenient, because the sources themadhair cites actually agree that the emissions reductions, the expensive part, won't do anything. I'm not the one dodging.

If this was an extremely expensive first step in which progress was actually made, even the foundations, then that would be one thing. That isn't what's happening. Kyoto is an incredibly expensive program, and the expensive part doesn't come from "laying groundwork" or "a first step towards the goal" but from action nobody expects will have significant results.

So why do it? What is gained by spending billions of dollars every year, with no real results?