Global Warming Question

[Reverend Rick]

Kyoto has one major flaw. China and India are not included. How can we compete in a global market when some of us have to play by the rules while the rest of us don't?

Nuclear energy would help, but there is that toxic waste issue. Could someone please tell me why nuclear energy is bad but hybrids are good? What are we going to do with all those batteries when they go dead? Then consider all the coal that is burned to charge the batteries each and every day? These things are overlooked because the green people like hybrids. To me, they are no better than riding around in a Hummer.

And another thing, we save burning coal when we use those compact fluorescent light bulbs, but what are we going to do with all the mercury in those bulbs when they burn out? Check the recycle figures. If we do not get back every used bulb when it has expired, where are they all going? In the landfills? There goes the water supply!

Why is nuclear held to a different standard?

I love the thought of green technology, but it is going to have to be truly green.

People are going to have to be able to afford the technology as well. Asking us to sacrifice while China and India goes on unchecked is an expensive zero sum gain IMHO.

 

[themadhair]

Could someone please tell me why nuclear energy is bad but hybrids are good?

Who are you asking this question of? The folks who are following the science are pretty much agreed that countries like France, who extensively use nuclear, are doing it right.

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.

.<---- the point
Your head ---->@
Tell me this Oberon, if Kyoto is so pointlessly expensive then why have the IPCC backed it?

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.

I don’t get why you make statements like these. What exactly do you base the above statement on, and how do you believe it to be relevant in contradicting the current overwhelming consensus by climatologists that AGW is environmentally damaging?

 

[Oberon]

Tell me this Oberon, if Kyoto is so pointlessly expensive then why have the IPCC backed it?

Because of politics. Because it isn't there money. Because of who knows what. I will say that any organization that has the need for a summary for politicians isn't a purely scientific organization. Moreover, the IPCC admits that the Kyoto reductions won't do anything, and it cites the same source I used for calculating expenses. Why do they back it? Why did the government ban DDT when millions died? The "let's do something before its too late" mentality.

I don&#8217;t get why you make statements like these. What exactly do you base the above statement on,

The projected temperatures per the IPCC (among others) and what can be known from the past. For past temperatures, see e.g. Hodgson, P.E. "On Climate Change." Modern Age. pages 347 348. The paper (and the sequal) supports anthropogenic global warming, yet mention is made of the past warmings.

and how do you believe it to be relevant in contradicting the current overwhelming consensus by climatologists that AGW is environmentally damaging?

Because when I look at actual papers for documention of the likely effects within a century or more, I don't see anything. The average temperature will go up very slowly. In fact, in many places in the U.S. and elsewhere, the temperature has been more or less the same for the past 100 years. Increased carbon is good for the soil. Hotter temperatures are good for agriculture and for most people. What is your evidence for disaster in the near future?

More important still, even if we are facing one, why would kyoto, which nobody expects will do anything (reductions-wise), and is still extremely expensive, be a good idea?

 

[themadhair]

Because of politics. Because it isn't there money. Because of who knows what.

So you don’t have a good answer then?

I will say that any organization that has the need for a summary for politicians isn't a purely scientific organization.

Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. The clue is in the name.

Moreover, the IPCC admits that the Kyoto reductions won't do anything, and it cites the same source I used for calculating expenses.

You continue to strawman this if it makes you seem big. I’ll continue quoting IPCC until it sinks in – ” There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts.”.

Again, why then are the IPCC backing Kyoto if it is pointlessly expensive?

Why do they back it? Why did the government ban DDT when millions died? The "let's do something before its too late" mentality.

False analogy and no science again I see?

For past temperatures, see e.g. Hodgson, P.E. "On Climate Change." Modern Age. pages 347 348.

I don’t seem to be able to find the passage you are referring to. Are you referring to the part that goes “ One example is the Anasazi who lived in Colorado and were finally forced by major droughts in 1130-1180 and 1275-1299 to abandon their cities and to move away to areas with a climate that allowed them to continue their way of life. ” I want to make sure this is what you are referring to. If it is then it is about to get smacked out of the ballpark.

Because when I look at actual papers for documention of the likely effects within a century or more, I don't see anything.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Global temperature change — PNAS

Increased carbon is good for the soil. Hotter temperatures are good for agriculture and for most people. What is your evidence for disaster in the near future?

Global warming and agriculture ... - Google Books
http://are.berkeley.edu/~fisher/The_Impact_of_Global_Warming_on_US_Agriculture.pdf

More important still, even if we are facing one, why would kyoto, which nobody expects will do anything (reductions-wise), and is still extremely expensive, be a good idea?

IPCC - ” There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts.”.

 

[darkendless]

Kyoto has one major flaw. China and India are not included. How can we compete in a global market when some of us have to play by the rules while the rest of us don't?

Nuclear energy would help, but there is that toxic waste issue. Could someone please tell me why nuclear energy is bad but hybrids are good? What are we going to do with all those batteries when they go dead? Then consider all the coal that is burned to charge the batteries each and every day? These things are overlooked because the green people like hybrids. To me, they are no better than riding around in a Hummer.

And another thing, we save burning coal when we use those compact fluorescent light bulbs, but what are we going to do with all the mercury in those bulbs when they burn out? Check the recycle figures. If we do not get back every used bulb when it has expired, where are they all going? In the landfills? There goes the water supply!

Why is nuclear held to a different standard?

I love the thought of green technology, but it is going to have to be truly green.

People are going to have to be able to afford the technology as well. Asking us to sacrifice while China and India goes on unchecked is an expensive zero sum gain IMHO.

China and India go unchecked because they provide a considerable amount of the worlds cheap labour. They're industrializing nations, America and formerly Soviet Russia did the same thing during world war II. I'd like to see them Industrialize without the need for destroying the atmosphere. However, i don't see it happening. I, like you, wonder how these countries can get away with such things.

Nuclear power has been tainted because of Chenobyl. With the whole threat of terrorism, the world is afraid of the massive disaster which was Chenobyl happening again. Then theres waste, i know waste from Lucas Heights reactor (the only one is Aus.) gets transported into a former mine in central Aus.

I think the world needs to wipe Chenobyl from their minds, and objectively discuss the pros and cons of nuclear power. My government forgets our economy could be stabilised with such a move considering we have 28% of the worlds Uranium deposits.

 

[Oberon]

So you don&#8217;t have a good answer then?

No. How should I know why they support an expensive treaty when it won't do anything.

You continue to strawman this if it makes you seem big. I&#8217;ll continue quoting IPCC until it sinks in

&#8211;

It is hardly a strawman argument. Look closely at your sources. Look at what they say is "good" that will come out of Kyoto:


&#8221; establishment of a global response...
, stimulation of an array of national policies,...
the creation of an international carbon market...
and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts.&#8221;


The only "good" thing listed that has anything to do with the carbon emissions is the "creation of an international carbon market." Of course, nowhere in any publication of the IPCC has it shown how this will actually be good. As for the others, the expensive part of the treaty is hardly necessary for doing them.

Let me make this very simple for you, because you insist on quoting the same thing:

1) The expensive part of kyoto is the emissions reduction
2) Nobody thinks this will do anything
3) The only defense you or anybody offers is that it is a "first step"
4) If it is only a "first step" then why not leave out all the pointlessly expensive stuff?

Again, why then are the IPCC backing Kyoto if it is pointlessly expensive?

False analogy and no science again I see?

I already gave you the science. The science indicates great expense with no gains. Now you want reasons for policy. That isn't science.

And I don't know. But I have the data on the expected results of the emissions reductions per kyoto. Not even the IPCC expects it to do much of anything. I also know how expensive it will be. So there is no reason for it. You can keep shouting "first step" until you are blue in the face. When I want to build a house, my first step isn't to pitch a tent. The "first step" here (reduction in emissions anyway, the part I am objecting to) doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't even lay the foundations for future success. Kyoto as a whole can be seen in that light, but that doesn't change the fact that we have layed down an enormously expensive plan to do.....(wait for it)... nothing.

Your quotation from the IPCC is the strawman argument. None of what they claim will be good comes from the emissions reductions policy. It is possible to have all of the good things without the plan for emissions reductions which nobody thinks will do anything.

I don&#8217;t seem to be able to find the passage you are referring to.

It goes on beyond your quotation.

Are you referring to the part that goes &#8220; One example is the Anasazi who lived in Colorado and were finally forced by major droughts in 1130-1180 and 1275-1299 to abandon their cities and to move away to areas with a climate that allowed them to continue their way of life. &#8221; I want to make sure this is what you are referring to. If it is then it is about to get smacked out of the ballpark.

I notice you conveniently chopped off the quote right beneath yours. "Greenland, as its name implies, was at one time a fertile land and supported a colony of Vikings until colder weather forced them to move elsewhere."

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full

Global temperature change â&#8364;&#8221; PNAS

Global surface temperature has increased &#8776;0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years,

You have to love an article that starts out like this. Global temperatures have increased for three decades. Of course, they went down before this. And they didn't rise from 1988 to 2005 (See Professor Bob Carter's article in the Telegraph "There IS a problem with Global Warming...It Stopped in 1998"). Not to mention that one can find plenty of places on the globe (outside of major cities) where the temperature is pretty much the same (or less) than it was 100 years ago. Well, that's a great set of data to make sweeping policy changes on.

"

similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. "

HA! Hansen's 1988 prediction was that the increase would be .35 over the next ten years. Actual increase was .11. Hansen was off by roughly 300%. That isn't a prediction. It is a bad guess.

Moreover, he said in 1998 that "The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." Proceedins of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998) 12753-58.


http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=CwIQ-9YdjzQC

Global warming and agriculture ... - Google Books
http://are.berkeley.edu/~fisher/The_Impact_of_Global_Warming_on_US_Agriculture.pdf

First, most models include an increase in agricultural outpout. See Parry, M. L. et al "Effects of CLimate Chnage on Globlal Food Production under SRES Emissions and Socio-economic Scenarios" Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 2004

page 64.

Also, total global GDP models for agriculture vary from decrease to increase. See Fischer, Shah, and Nachtergaele" Global Acro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology and Results International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002.

Second, while you are right that global warming will PROBABLY have a negative effect on THIRD WORLD farming, it will have a positive one for first world.

In other words, even your sources do not show much proof of "drastic" negative impact within a hundred years. Moreover, studies are conflicted concerning what will happen to agriculture, and many studies refure claims in growth of diseases or dramatic weather. You can read plenty on how people will die from the increased heat, but very few people seem to care about how many people globally die from the cold. In short, there is no "imminent disaster" predicted by a consensus of scholarship. Moreover, if we do get to that stage, that doesn't mean it will be a good idea to spend billions and trillions on something we know won't do anything.

NOTE:
Before another strawman argument against my view is offered, I want to nip it in the bud. I am NOT saying that global warming left unchecked will be a good thing. Nor am I saying that we should do nothing. What I AM saying is that doing something just for the sake of doing something is not a good idea, and that Kyoto is an example of this. The actual "emissions reduction" part of Kyoto will do nothing at an enormous cost.

 

[themadhair]

Let me make this very simple for you, because you insist on quoting the same thing:

1) The expensive part of kyoto is the emissions reduction
2) Nobody thinks this will do anything
3) The only defense you or anybody offers is that it is a "first step"
4) If it is only a "first step" then why not leave out all the pointlessly expensive stuff?

“ There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. ”
I’ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

I already gave you the science. The science indicates great expense with no gains. Now you want reasons for policy. That isn't science.

“ There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. ”
I’ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

And I don't know. But I have the data on the expected results of the emissions reductions per kyoto. Not even the IPCC expects it to do much of anything. I also know how expensive it will be. So there is no reason for it.

“ There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. ”
I’ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

Your quotation from the IPCC is the strawman argument. None of what they claim will be good comes from the emissions reductions policy. It is possible to have all of the good things without the plan for emissions reductions which nobody thinks will do anything.

“ There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. ”
I’ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

I notice you conveniently chopped off the quote right beneath yours. "Greenland, as its name implies, was at one time a fertile land and supported a colony of Vikings until colder weather forced them to move elsewhere."

So this is indeed the time period you are referring to. This paper is the relevant one. Relevant graph is:

Well, that's a great set of data to make sweeping policy changes on.

See above graph.

Moreover, he said in 1998 that "The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." Proceedins of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 95 (1998) 12753-58.

I seemed to have missed your point here. Are you arguing that, *gasp*, more knowledge and understanding has been gained since then? Also – including links makes it much easier for others to view your sources.

First, most models include an increase in agricultural outpout. See Parry, M. L. et al "Effects of CLimate Chnage on Globlal Food Production under SRES Emissions and Socio-economic Scenarios" Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 2004

page 64.

Also, total global GDP models for agriculture vary from decrease to increase. See Fischer, Shah, and Nachtergaele" Global Acro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century: Methodology and Results International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 2002.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdf
This uses both Parry et al. and Fischer et al. as sources.
Key conclusions from the above (page 299):

Projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climate events will have more serious consequences for food and forestry production, and food insecurity, than will changes in projected means of temperature and precipitation
(high confidence). Modelling studies suggest that increasing frequency of crop loss due to extreme events, such as droughts and heavy precipitation, may overcome positive effects of moderate temperature increase [5.4.1]. For forests, elevated risks of fires, insect outbreaks, wind damage and other forest-disturbance events are projected, although little is known about their overall effect on timber production [5.4.1].

Climate change increases the number of people at risk of hunger (high confidence). The impact of chosen socio-economic pathways (SRES scenario) on the numbers of people at risk of hunger is significantly greater than the impact of climate change. Climate change will further shift the focus of food insecurity to sub-Saharan Africa.
Climate change alone is estimated to increase the number of undernourished people to between 40million and 170million. By contrast, the impacts of socio-economic development paths (SRES) can amount to several hundred million people at risk of hunger [5.6.5].Moreover, climate change is likely to further shift the regional focus of food insecurity to sub-Saharan Africa. By 2080, about 75% of all people at risk of hunger are estimated to live in this region. The effects of climate mitigation measures are likely to remain relatively small in the early decades; significant benefits of mitigation to the agricultural sector may be realised only in the second half of this century, i.e., once the positive CO2 effects on crop yields level off and global mean temperature increases become significantly less than in non-mitigated scenarios [5.6.5].
While moderate warming benefits crop and pasture yields in mid- to high-latitude regions, even slight warming decreases yields in seasonally dry and low-latitude regions (medium confidence). The preponderance of evidence from models suggests that moderate local increases in temperature (to 3ºC) can have small beneficial impacts on major rain-fed crops (maize, wheat, rice) and pastures in mid- to high-latitude regions, but even slight warming in seasonally dry and tropical regions reduces yield. Further warming has increasingly negative impacts in all regions [5.4.2 and see Figure 5.2]. These results, on the whole, project the potential for global food production to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3ºC, but above this range to decrease [5.4, 5.6]. Furthermore, modelling studies that include extremes in addition to changes in mean climate show lower crop yields than for changes in means alone, strengthening similar TAR conclusions [5.4.1]. A change in frequency of extreme events is likely to disproportionately impact small-holder farmers and artisan fishers [5.4.7].

What I AM saying is that doing something just for the sake of doing something is not a good idea, and that Kyoto is an example of this.

“ There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. ”
I’ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

To be clear:
1) I won’t allow you to strawman by divorcing Kyoto from its role in a global response to climate change.
2) I won’t allow you to strawman by divorcing emissions targets from the national policies and technologies they stimulate.

 

[Oberon]

&#8220; There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. &#8221; I&#8217;ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

I already have. Quote it all you want. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT MY POINT! WHERE IS THE DATA THAT THE EMISSIONS REDUCTION WILL BE SIGNIFICANT! WHERE IS THE DATA THAT IT WILL NOT BE EXPENSIVE!!!!!!

You quote your strawman junk all you want. I read what the IPCC has to say about the emissions reductions. They don't think it will do anything.

All they point to is the "first step" crap you keep regurgitating. TALK ABOUT STRAWMAN!

It addresses NOTHING I have said. Your quotation says NOTHING about how the emissions reduction, which is the expensive part of the treaty, will do anything.

But lets take your quote apart bit by bit, and show who really has the strawman argument:

&#8220; There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, "

Translation: The kyoto protocal gets a lot of people together.

Well, thats just ducky. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with what it will ACTUALLY accomplish, which is exactly zippo. But at least it will cost a lot.

stimulation of an array of national policies,

Well, great. National policies are implemented. Of course, none of the models offered by the IPCC expect the reductions to amount to anything. Which make these "policies" expensive and worthless.

the creation of an international carbon market

Here we go! Something about the carbon itself! Oh wait, nothing about how the reductions will be effective. Oh Darn! And here I thought we were making progress. But, alas, all we have is really expensive policies that won't do anything.

and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. &#8221;

Yeah! WOOHOOO! Establishment of new mechanisms! AWESOME! Of course, we could do all that WITHOUT the expensive emissions reduction that your source doesn't think will work.

I&#8217;ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

You go ahead. I will keep showing who has the strawman. Your quote addresses NOTHING I have said. It still leaves us with ENORMOUS expenses for NO gains. All of the positive crap has NOTHING to do with what the trillions are being blown on.

 

[Oberon]

To be clear:
1) I won&#8217;t allow you to strawman by divorcing Kyoto from its role in a global response to climate change.
2) I won&#8217;t allow you to strawman by divorcing emissions targets from the national policies and technologies they stimulate.

HAHAHAHAHA!

DIVORCING kyoto from its role in a global response!

Translation: a bunch of people get together and set policies that are really expensive and nobody expects them to work.

My point, which you have continously FAILED to address by regurgitating the same quote, is that Kyoto is enormously expensive. What is expensive about it? Countries getting together plan ahead? Global response? NO!

NONE of that is the expensive part.

The reductions are the expensive part, and they won't do anything.

So why are they there?

 

[Oberon]

This paper[/url] is the relevant one.

Ok, let's just use this source, and see if they come to conclusions that are better for making sweeping policy changes that won't do any good.


According to their reconstruction: "Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels."

So, they conclude that we are PROBABLY warmer than it has been for around 1700 years, using the latest reconstruction techniques. Using actual temperature readings (which go back less than 200 years) the picture is a bit different, but lets assume they are right.

Humans have been living on this earth for tens of thousands of years. They have been through ice ages and warming. Even your source above states that the warming period in the middle ages (according to their reconstruction anyway) was close to modern temperatures. Yet humans have survived all of this. Now it appears that all of our best evidence leads us to believe that we are contributing to a warming cycle that will eventually have serious problems. Of course, we are in a better position now than ever before to survive climate changes. Technology allows us enormous adaptability. This is hardly a good reason for implementing bady policies. It is a great reason for more research and development.

I seemed to have missed your point here. Are you arguing that, *gasp*, more knowledge and understanding has been gained since then? Also &#8211; including links makes it much easier for others to view your sources.

I don't have links. I am not simply searching the internet for whatever sources I can find. I have actual articles or already downloaded PDFs from online databases that aren't free. I can't give you links, because you don't have access to the same databases. Also, despite an increase in knowledge, we still don't have any good solutions. It seems fairly clear (the IPCC says "high degree of certainty) that we are contributing to a warming cycle. What is far less clear is what to do about it. Spending trillions to no effect isn't a good solution.

This uses both Parry et al. and Fischer et al. as sources.

Yet not coming to the same conclusions. The relevant point is that there will be an increase in food production. More importantly, although 3rd world farming is likely to be negatively affected, 1st world farming will likely be positively affected. Now why not, rather than spending the billions on kyoto which won't do anything, combat hunger itself directly.
GASP!!!
I know I know, it sounds radical, but it is so crazy it just might work.

 

[themadhair]

Even your source above states that the warming period in the middle ages (according to their reconstruction anyway) was close to modern temperatures.

To quote from the paper – “ Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels. ”

Yet humans have survived all of this.

Surely you can see the asshattery in this line of argument? A population of 6 billion relying on agriculture, forestry, etc. is really comparable to population that is significantly smaller. Also – still waiting on the evidence that there existed historical temperatures comparable to modern days.

This is hardly a good reason for implementing bady policies. It is a great reason for more research and development.

“There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts ”

Spending trillions to no effect isn't a good solution.

“There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts ”

Yet not coming to the same conclusions.

That tends to happen when, rather than taking specific areas in isolation, the bigger picture is looked at.

The relevant point is that there will be an increase in food production.

As previously quoted – “These results, on the whole, project the potential for global food production to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3ºC, but above this range to decrease [5.4, 5.6]. Furthermore, modelling studies that include extremes in addition to changes in mean climate show lower crop yields than for changes in means alone, strengthening similar TAR conclusions [5.4.1]. ”

Now why not, rather than spending the billions on kyoto which won't do anything, combat hunger itself directly.
GASP!!!

“There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. ”

 

[Oberon]

You can keep regurgitating the same quote over and over again as an excuse to not actually address the argument. I went through that quote piece by piece. You had nothing to say about it other than repeat it. You want to waste money nobody thinks will do anything, that is your affair.

But lets take your quote apart bit by bit, and show who really has the strawman argument:

&#8220; There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, "

Translation: The kyoto protocal gets a lot of people together.

Well, thats just ducky. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with what it will ACTUALLY accomplish, which is exactly zippo. But at least it will cost a lot.

stimulation of an array of national policies,

Well, great. National policies are implemented. Of course, none of the models offered by the IPCC expect the reductions to amount to anything. Which make these "policies" expensive and worthless.

the creation of an international carbon market

Here we go! Something about the carbon itself! Oh wait, nothing about how the reductions will be effective. Oh Darn! And here I thought we were making progress. But, alas, all we have is really expensive policies that won't do anything.

and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. &#8221;

Yeah! WOOHOOO! Establishment of new mechanisms! AWESOME! Of course, we could do all that WITHOUT the expensive emissions reduction that your source doesn't think will work.

I&#8217;ll keep quoting this until you drop the strawman or until you show the IPCC to be false.

You go ahead. I will keep showing who has the strawman. Your quote addresses NOTHING I have said. It still leaves us with ENORMOUS expenses for NO gains. All of the positive crap has NOTHING to do with what the trillions are being blown on.

 

[yossarian22]

Are you two really going to go back and forth over your arguments saying "Your argument is a strawman. "Nu-uh, your's is the strawman" ad nauseum?

Translation: The kyoto protocal gets a lot of people together.

Well, thats just ducky. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with what it will ACTUALLY accomplish, which is exactly zippo. But at least it will cost a lot.

Considering that one of the goals of Kyoto is to foster international cooperation that is an "actual" accomplishment regardless of how much utility you happen to place on it.

Well, great. National policies are implemented. Of course, none of the models offered by the IPCC expect the reductions to amount to anything. Which make these "policies" expensive and worthless.

Except for the fact that we actually agreed on these policies. Even assuming you are entirely correct, "it wont do much" is hardly an argument. The fact that a bunch of countries actually agreed to do something about anything is quite an accomplishment, especially considering that said something is costing them money. For somebody who is a self proclaimed realist, you seem to expect all of these people to sit down and be perfectly rational and act in the interest of mankind as a whole.

Here we go! Something about the carbon itself! Oh wait, nothing about how the reductions will be effective. Oh Darn! And here I thought we were making progress. But, alas, all we have is really expensive policies that won't do anything.

Well at least you hit something with your intellectual stick flailing. The problem with carbon offsets in their current form is that we don't really have a global market insomuch as dozens of systems that are kind of compatible but really dont blend too well together. This is not so much a flaw in Kyoto as a testament to how stubborn politicians can be.

Hopefully we don't have to go over why cap and trade winds up saving more money than just cap, but I'm guessing you dont buy the need for a cap in the first place.

Yeah! WOOHOOO! Establishment of new mechanisms! AWESOME! Of course, we could do all that WITHOUT the expensive emissions reduction that your source doesn't think will work.

Except we really can't. The 2009 IPCC is drafting up a Kyoto replacement for 2012 and guess what they are going to use for a guideline? Kyoto.

Stop using the medieval warm period. Just stop.

1: the medival warm period was not global. It was isolated to the northern hemisphere. So it doesn't shoot some hole in global warming because it was NOT GLOBAL.
2: Even if you were correct, we are not living in the friggin dark ages (exaggeration I suppose) and we are extremely interdependent. So the only real claim you might be able to assert with absolute certaintly is "Hey, if we revert to the same lifestyle we had in the 1700s we will all be just fine." Good luck with that one.

Also, your "global warming is good for us" besides ignoring ocean acidification (and everything that brings up--ie collapse of the biosphere etc etc), boils down to " **** the third world." As a human being, I see some morally troubling issues with that stance.

You know how we fix Africa and the rest of the third world? The answer sure as hell isn't to sell them our food. It isn't to throw money at them. Its to try and foster political stability. And you know what will be bad for political stability? A significant decrease in food supply. And oh look what global warming will do to them...

 

[Oberon]

Considering that one of the goals of Kyoto is to foster international cooperation that is an "actual" accomplishment regardless of how much utility you happen to place on it.

What is it with you guys!!?? I don't object to this or other parts, nor is that what is so friggin' expensive.

It is the plan for reduction in carbon emissions which is so expensive, and so useless, and it is THIS which I object to.

You know how we fix Africa and the rest of the third world? ... It isn't to throw money at them.

You want to throw money at global waming instead? Well, that ought to do a whole lot. Great plan.

 

[yossarian22]

What is it with you guys!!?? I don't object to this or other parts, nor is that what is so friggin' expensive.

It is the plan for reduction in carbon emissions which is so expensive, and so useless, and it is THIS which I object to.

Because for some reason you don't get it.

We worked together on carbon offsets (ie the plan for reducing carbon emissions). You seem to think that we could accomplish the same thing without the plan to reduce emissions, but without that plan we wouldn't have Kyoto.

I know throwing money at global warming won't help.

We AREN'T throwing money. Our governments are not cashing in billion dollar checks for Kyoto. We are reducing efficiency perhaps but that doesn't sound as good on a press release so instead people parade around dollar signs like its some sort of gospel.

 

[Oberon]

We worked together on carbon offsets (ie the plan for reducing carbon emissions). You seem to think that we could accomplish the same thing without the plan to reduce emissions, but without that plan we wouldn't have Kyoto.

So your argument is that it is better to have an expensive plan nobody expects to work, than no plan at all. Not only is that ridiculously absurd, it misses a third option. "but without that plan we wouldn't have Kyoto." What we could have is a better plan. All of the same countries coming together to sign a bill dedicated to research, or development, or whatever. Not an expensive treaty nobody expects will do anything.

We AREN'T throwing money. Our governments are not cashing in billion dollar checks for Kyoto. We are reducing efficiency perhaps but that doesn't sound as good on a press release so instead people parade around dollar signs like its some sort of gospel.

I already gave peer-reviewed sources for the expense. You want to address those rather than spouting soundbites go ahead. It will cost trillions, and it won't do anything.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Hansen and his models are politicalized pseudo-scientific clap-trap. And the IPCC is a fear mongering polito-bureau. Check it: there are more than a few scientists are raising serious scientific concerns over the claims made by the IPCC. I particularly like this quote: ""‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause" And before I get any "its just the US" non-sense: the Aussies don't buy it either.

And using models based on bad data or missing data or ignored data constitutes good science? And lets look and see what doing this gets us shall we? Oh look all the predictions in the past he made ended up with temperatures well above what we actually have recorded. And we think it is a good idea to continue using his models because they give such accurate predictions right? Bad Hansen. Bad global warming alarmist groupies :slap:


Climate change is a loaded word. Yes the climate changes over time. Global warming is a kind of climate change, but it is not the only kind. Sometimes climate change makes the temperature drop like it has been over the past few years; in direct contradiction to the IPCC's predictions I might add.


Of course if one were to actually look at the IPCC's own internal documents you won't find any concensus either. There will be some who contend that regional temperatures will go down while global temperatures will go up (some point the finger at water vapor others at aerosols, but aerosols break down more quickly than CO2...). The short version of this is: there isn't even a concensus of how "global warming" will occur at the IPCC. That certainly doesn't sound like the scientific rigor I am familiar with. Speculation is one thing; telling the public they need to be scared because the climate is going to kill us in 20 years is another.

MTF

 

[yossarian22]

So your argument is that it is better to have an expensive plan nobody expects to work, than no plan at all. Not only is that ridiculously absurd, it misses a third option. "but without that plan we wouldn't have Kyoto." What we could have is a better plan. All of the same countries coming together to sign a bill dedicated to research, or development, or whatever. Not an expensive treaty nobody expects will do anything.

Again, you are placing no value on the fact that most major countries got together and agreed about anything, which was arguably the point of Kyoto, and focusing on a rather poor attempt to reduce emissions. You are then pretending like the two can somehow be separated.

I already gave peer-reviewed sources for the expense. You want to address those rather than spouting soundbites go ahead. It will cost trillions, and it won't do anything.

What do you think you are spouting you gibbering idiot?

You are parading around a figure from predictive economics as if it were absolute truth. I doubt you are overly familiar with the field or you would realize how stupid that is.

Kyoto - Assessment of Economic Impacts

Kyoto - Comparing Cost Estimates for the Kyoto Protocol

Read both. If you still think that your trillion dollar estimate is as meaningful as you claim there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Oberon]

Again, you are placing no value on the fact that most major countries got together and agreed about anything, which was arguably the point of Kyoto, and focusing on a rather poor attempt to reduce emissions. You are then pretending like the two can somehow be separated.

They can. Countries can come together without coming up with an enormously expensive plan that won't work. Don't be so stupid.

What do you think you are spouting you gibbering idiot?

hahaha. Right, peer-reviewed journals estimating costs are "spouting."

You are parading around a figure from predictive economics as if it were absolute truth.

Wrong. I am parading around the best cost estimates we have for Kyoto. Expensive. And worthless. But lets do it anyway because at least it is something right?

Kyoto - Assessment of Economic Impacts

Kyoto - Comparing Cost Estimates for the Kyoto Protocol

Read both. If you still think that your trillion dollar estimate is as meaningful as you claim there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I do.

 

[yossarian22]

They can. Countries can come together without coming up with an enormously expensive plan that won't work. Don't be so stupid.

Yes because the UN is the friggin paragon of passing policies that work well.

hahaha. Right, peer-reviewed journals estimating costs are "spouting."

They aren't; you are. They aren't under any delusions about the reliability of their cost estimates, especially given current market conditions which have shot any predictive model to pieces.

Wrong. I am parading around the best cost estimates we have for Kyoto. Expensive. And worthless. But lets do it anyway because at least it is something right?

I think I'll just spell it out for you.

I can change the discount rate used in the cost analysis and wind up with a tremendously different figure. Since you love your peer reviewed sources you should know that there are maybe 5 different standard rates used (the last time i bothered to check), each of which is known to become divergent under certain conditions. There are countless nonstandard models used in specific cases

I do.

Then you have no understanding of economic concepts as basic as GDP.

Because you obviously did not read or understand either link I will summarize it for people reading the thread.

The figure of $1 trillion is worthless because it makes certain growth assumptions about gdp, assumes that because agents will act rationally the market will act rationally, and is based off of an essentially arbitrary discount rate. Furthermore, absolute net cost is fundamentally worthless as a measure of cost because the only way to objectively measure economic impact is through percentage of GDP.

But then you don't know any of this because you are just regurgitating a long debunked talking point.