Democrats & Liberals Archives

Climate Change Leadership

Since global warming is an urgent world-wide problem it cannot be solved without world-wide leadership. Who can best exercise this leadership? United States, of course. This is a made-to-order problem for the leader of the free world: the president of the U.S. And what does President Bush do? He presents excuses, talks about future studies and generally beats around the Bush.

Here is what Bush said about the Kyoto accord:

"Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush said, noting that the treaty didn't require other "big polluters" such as India and China to cut emissions.

This is no way to exercise leadership. Whether he liked Kyoto or not, Bush should not have dumped it unceremoniously. A decent leader would say that we should continue the effort and try to improve the accord.

As a result of this failure of leadership, China is saying the same thing as Bush:

"The first and overriding priorities of developing countries are sustainable development and poverty eradication," said the environmental plan issued by the National Development and Reform Commission. "China will continue to actively tackle climate change issues in accordance with its national sustainable development strategy in the future."

If economics is a good excuse for U.S. it's a good excuse for China - and every other nation. Where do we stand now? No place. Every country is pursuing its own self-interest to the eventual detriment of all countries on Earth.

The climate change problem calls out - screams - for good leadership. The Europeans are doing their utmost at the G8 meeting this week to convince Bush to lead.

With reference to China, for instance, U.S. and China could form an agreement to combine resources to pursue renewable energy sources together. We can do the basic research and China can do much of the real-life experimentation. They are building many power plants; why not use new approaches to these plants?

Let's stop the excuses. Let's instead think up ideas whereby countries can work together to develop new approaches to energy. Let's get everybody thinking and working toward keeping Earth healthy enough for all of us to live in it.

As the country that spews the most carbon dioxide emissions, U.S. owes the world a strong effort. As the technology leader of the world, U.S. should lead the way. Let's start our climate control leadership immediately. If Bush cannot be coaxed to lead, Congress must lead.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 5, 2007 11:58 PM
Comments
Comment #222393

Paul, Its scary pinning our hopes on W for well anything. The G8 leaders will have to pick a different leader and maybe in 09 the US can step up to the plate. As you know its all politics and only the most enlightned righties will even admit we may have a problem to deal with. Despite their blustering about backbone Bush doesnt have one when it comes to upsetting his base. Global warming is after all some kind of a socialist/communist sonspiracy according to more than a few on the right. Bush will flap his wings but he wont fly on this issue, to much at stake for his oil buddies.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #222403

Paul

Carbon tax. It can be applied unilaterally and wlll being to work immediately.

Re China et al - do not be fooled by that rhetoric. This year, China will emit more CO2 than the U.S. They have long produced more pollution such as SO2, shoot, methane etc. They are pursuing their own goals. They are not copying us.

But re your suggestion that the U.S. and China agree to combine resources to work for better ways to use energy, we did that a couple years ago. Countries like India, Japan & Australia are also part of the club. Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development.

See, you advocate what George Bush is doing already. I am surprised to find a Bush supporter on the blue side.

Posted by: Jack at June 6, 2007 8:03 AM
Comment #222405

I run a website that discusses global warming http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com so I feel that I have a handle on most of the pertinent issues.

In my opinion, Mr. Bush is simply giving into politics. This isn’t surprising - he is a politician. With the elections coming up in about 18 months he needs to set up for a successor from the Republican party. He cannot allow the Democratic candidates to make global warming a huge issue so it only makes political sense to agree to some types of talks and discussions.

It is interesting though that when Mr. Bush acts as an administrator (the job he gets paid for) he has said that the science does not support dramatic changes in our economy - hence the US did not sign the Kyoto document.

Posted by: Sean O at June 6, 2007 9:06 AM
Comment #222407

So,

The US shouldn’t be the world’s policeman and should stop telling anyone else how to run their government/country/whatever.

EXCEPT when it comes to the environment?

Stopping dictators, going after terrorist supporters, encouraging democracy, etc are bad, but pushing the rest of the world to adopt environmental policy is good?

BTW, Sean O, the reason that Kyoto wasn’t signed is because it was a terrible terrible oh so terrible treaty that Clinton and the democratically controlled congress wouldn’t support (nearly unanimously) so it seems odd to me that democrats now abuse Bush for not signing the same treaty they wouldn’t touch…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2007 9:35 AM
Comment #222409

Control of oil has been control of power for some time.It has become the basis for geo-politics. The oligarchs that have this power will not give it up without a fight.It appears they have seen the writing on the wall and are moving to gain control of alternates.Wether they will allow other energy sources to gain prominence or not remains to be seen.They may choose to keep them from reaching full potential.Maybe not.But they will move slowly. One problem they have is that many energy solutions work on a small scale but do lend themselves to large production. That is one reason we are seeing a great push for nuclear power. The capitalization required also requires we keep them in control. Please. I am not wanting to sidetrack the discussion here. That is just an example.The exent that the oligarchs are able to pursue this course of action will be exactly the extent that the Bush regime pursues energy reform.

Posted by: BillS at June 6, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #222416

Let’s have hard, scientific proof that “humans” are indeed causing global warming; then we can get the World-wide leadership involved. Yet, if we are not causing it, leave our way of life the f*ck alone!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 6, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #222417

Paul,

Since global warming is an urgent world-wide problem it cannot be solved without world-wide leadership. Who can best exercise this leadership? United States, of course. This is a made-to-order problem for the leader of the free world: the president of the U.S.

Hum, I beg to differ on the reason why US should take leadership. I even beg to differ on why US should take leadership, instead of just *join* the fight.

US, being the #1 world polluter, is involved in climate change issue. That why US should join the fight, the sooner the better. Taking leadership or not doesn’t matter. Being polluting the most does.
The world don’t wait on US to *lead* the climate change. It ask US to take its major polluter responsabilities.

It’s up to US to lead or not the fight. But it’s up to the whole world to fight climate change issues. Every polluters are involved, and none, in particular not the top ones, should be allowed to escape its global environmental duties.

Jack,

re your suggestion that the U.S. and China agree to combine resources to work for better ways to use energy, we did that a couple years ago. Countries like India, Japan & Australia are also part of the club. Asia Pacific Partnership for Clean Development.

Too bad that since the AP6 agreement went into effect, none of the parties have lowered emissions of greenhouse gases. Very easy to understand why (no mandatory targets), though.

rahdigly,

Let’s have hard, scientific proof that “humans” are indeed causing global warming; then we can get the World-wide leadership involved. Yet, if we are not causing it, leave our way of life the f*ck alone!

So, this time, you’re for waiting the smoking gun. Nice double standard.
Oh, and I’ve a bad news for you: climate don’t care ONE BIT about your f*cking way of life. Deal with it.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #222418
“climate don’t care ONE BIT about your f*cking way of life. Deal with it.”


If that were true, then these “World Leaders” don’t need to do anything about global warming b/c the “climate doesn’t care about our f*cking way of life.” The (politically) motivated media and “consensus” scientist certainly care about it with their assertions and scare tactics. Prove that humans are causing global warming!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 6, 2007 1:12 PM
Comment #222419

rahdigly, I’ve read several replies to your request for proof, and each time you seem not to understand the very nature of science. Why should this time be any different? In the meantime, you can take solace that many of the steps discussed also serve to get us off foreign oil, which I’d presume is the goal of any rational person.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 6, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #222420

All some of you are proving is that you cannot answer that question. What are (some of) you afraid of? You are the ones with the “consensus”; your (so called) proof. Prove the (‘Earth is flat’) “man-made” global warming theory. Prove it!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 6, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #222422

Sean O:

I visited your site and placed it on my blogroll. Good to know somebody is paying real attention to this problem.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 6, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #222425

Rah, what’s the point? Go re-read some of Stephen D.’s excellent responses to your request. Look, we both know that nothing I say will convince you, so why should I waste my time? You’ll just throw out Mars, for god’s sake, or the initial lag in temperature and CO2 levels in the geologic record, etc., and then all that must once again be explained to you. You don’t want to believe, so your tactic is to throw out some plausible-sounding objection without the apparent awareness that they are not new and have not been considered. If you really want to be educated on the topic, there are a host of resources available to you.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 6, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #222427

rah. Define what you woulsd consider enough proof. Define, in very specific terms, what it would take for you to alter your current position. You seem to disregard any evidence that proves the man made link to global warming and seem to say its a conspiracy but other than vague general terms can never name any conspiritors. Name a person and/or organization that has roughed up climate scientist to the point where they are forced to lie about the situation. Yours and other counter arguements have been discredited in previous threads. Ample proof has been given in previous threads to give credence to the threat of global warming yet you still deny it is a very real possibility.
Do you also deny that energy independence is good for this Country? Do you believe it is in the best interest of this Country to continue belching carbon by-products into the air at ever increasing amounts? Do you agree with those special interests that only want to continue to support the middle eastern countries that we are dependent upon for the oil while we send troops over there to defend our addiction to oil? Do you not see any advantage in reducing the amount of carbon by-product spewing into the atmosphere? If you think its good for us, even without the global warming point, to breathe this by product then sit in your car in your garage for a while, but only a little while, because it just might affect you in a negative manner. Finally, what is the downside to reducing these gases that you are so worried about?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2007 2:21 PM
Comment #222428

rahdigly-
The proof is in atmospheric pudding: an unnatural balance in the isotopes of carbon measured from various sources that demonstrate that the large rise in CO2 could only come from the burning of fossil fuels. Unless you know some other species that likes to burn fossil fuels in large quantities, that implicates us with hard evidence.

Jack-
I don’t think we should wait for the Chinese to see the light before we decide to head for it ourselves. We can lead better on environmental issues if there is no man behind the curtain we have to distract people from. We can preach basically what we practice, and be all the more persuasive for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #222429
“You don’t want to believe, so your tactic is to throw out some plausible-sounding objection without the apparent awareness that they are not new and have not been considered.”


That is asolutely correct! I do not “believe” b/c it has not been proven that humans are causing global warming. When it is “proven”, then I will believe. “Belief” and “faith” are both a religious thing; not a scientific one. What is the big deal about “proving” that humans are indeed causing global warming? I mean, if you are going to make that claim and make nations change (drastically) around this “data” (or I should say belief), then the least you could do is show hard, scientific proof.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 6, 2007 2:59 PM
Comment #222430

rahdigly,

If that were true, then these “World Leaders” don’t need to do anything about global warming b/c the “climate doesn’t care about our f*cking way of life.”

They need to because, while climate can’t care less about human, human f*ucking way of life rely on climate some stability. Humankind won’t resist to sudden +30° world temperature, but the climate will still exists after such raise.

It’s not a working dichotomy. We needs a human-friendly climate. Climate don’t needs us.

The (politically) motivated media and “consensus” scientist certainly care about it with their assertions and scare tactics.

Yeh, the global temperature increase is motivated by political agenda. You have a really weird Occam Razor interpretation.

Prove that humans are causing global warming!

May I suggest, AGAIN, that you consider the huge amount of climate researches that provided since years enough facts to back this claim?
Or should I resort to the smoking gun case, aka “who care about proof, let’s be pre-emptive about urgent threat”?. Maybe not, as it seems to works for you only when it comes to break a foreign nation, not when it comes to fix human impact on the environment. Way to double talk about hidden political agenda!

BTW, if you claim that there is no *hard* proof that global warming is man-made, you must consider that there is neither *hard* proof that it’s not, otherwise that specific issue won’t be up to debate anymore!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #222431

Rahdigly-
Care to check the entry just before yours?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2007 3:08 PM
Comment #222435
What is the big deal about “proving” that humans are indeed causing global warming? I mean, if you are going to make that claim and make nations change (drastically) around this “data” (or I should say belief), then the least you could do is show hard, scientific proof.

0.1% of world GDP per year.

That’s the amount of “drastically” change on global economy the IPCC have estimated it would take nations to reduce CO2 concentration in enough proportion to reach prior industrial period level.

If you take into account the health benefits of reduced pollution and the avoidance of climate impacts such as extreme weather and coastal damage, then the effect on GDP is even lower. The cost of letting climate change happen is a lot more than the cost of mitigation.
Doing *nothing* could force us, all of us all over the world, to bigger change, though. The kind that, this time, could be called drastic.

Yeah, I said COULD. As you should have said regarding your “drastically” claim.

But be our guest, and keep waiting for the “hard” proof. As you should have done for Katrina.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #222436

Rahdigly,

Let me help you with your question.
Start your car let it run and leave the garage door closed. The earth is a big garage with a lot of cars running. You can tell in a few minutes that there could be a problem with your environment. It just takes longer to fill up the earth atmosphere than it does your garage.

We all know that bush is the world’s roadblock to success for anything positive for mankind.

Ca$h profit must come before all else.

Posted by: Outraged at June 6, 2007 3:44 PM
Comment #222437

Stephen, I read your source and it says nothing (NOTHING) about “humans causing global warming”. It does say that “recent CO2 increases are due to human activities”; yet that is not proof humans are causing global warming. Nice try though.


Posted by: rahdigly at June 6, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #222441

We all know that bush is the world’s roadblock to success for anything positive for mankind.

You have a pretty low opinion of mankind.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 6, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #222444

“We all know that bush is the world’s roadblock to success for anything positive for mankind. Ca$h profit must come before all else.”


The Kyoto agreement, which tried imposing this Bullsh*t on the world (without proof!), was denied by Clinton and the dems in the 90’s. The main reason was b/c China and India wouldn’t get onboard; making it a “dead letter”. Yet, you don’t want to here that do you?! You go on believing the humans are responsible for global warming and Bush is responsible for everything bad. That’s the ticket!!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 6, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #222445

We all know that bush is the world’s roadblock to success for anything positive for mankind.

You have a pretty low opinion of mankind.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 6, 2007 04:42 PM

It is bush I have the low opinion of.
Mankind will be better off without his roadblocks.
In 2009 we will all be better off!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at June 6, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #222446

rah,

What would you accept as proof? We can’t “prove” the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it’s not unreasonable to assume it will. In science we often have to assign probabilities. The IPCC said it’s “highly likely” man is contributing to climate change; it reached that conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence. We have some pretty good models for climate change — when you don’t factor in man’s contribution, the models less accurately account for past (since the industrial revolution) and present climate change.

It’s your privilege to hold out for absolute certainty, but I believe it is a moral imperative to act upon our best understanding, particularly when the consequences of not acting may be incredibly dire. I know that won’t satisfy you. I used to play similar games as a young man, demanding that people “prove” that what I was experiencing was real instead of a demon-caused hallucination (I had just read Descartes; what can I say, I was young). Finally one of my friends asked why I didn’t step in front of a moving car.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 6, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #222447

Take a look at this, then: estimates of the forcings clearly show CO2 Dominating others, including solar.

Modelling of the climate’s change with and without our contribution, which we’ve established as ours, shows that only with Anthropogenic forcings do the models match observed reality.

Whether you like it or not, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There’s hard data to back that. Our emissions are dominating CO2 accumulation, and CO2 is dominating the warming trend. All other factors are too weak to explain the sudden warming. Therefore, we’re responsible.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2007 5:15 PM
Comment #222449

Outraged,

Perhaps mankind can simply drive around them with their finger out the window… That’s what I usually do when I encounter roadblocks!

You think Mankind can’t achieve anything with out having Bush(???!!! Of all people!) hand success to them on a plate? You do have low opinion of Mankind.

Take the issue at hand, for example. Why would you even want Bush to do anything? Are you inspired by his glorious victory in Iraq or something?

The truth is, you don’t want Bush to do anything about the environment because it helps cover the fact that the Democrats in Congress (who, by the way, could be much more effective than Bush if they would just sit down and do their damn jobs) are not planning to do anything but talk the issue to death. I guarantee that nothing substantial will come out of Congress regarding the environment before the ‘08 election. But we will hear a lot of hypocrites complaining about Bush also doing nothing.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 6, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #222458

TheTraveler, As we write Bush is refusing to work with the other nations at the G8 summit to set any goals for reducing greenhouse gases. He is the leader of our Country and as such is speaking for the US on this matter. It is obvious that as a nation we can only wait until his time is up to do much positive. You can try to blame the Dems but without a veto override majority now may not be the time to introduce legislation to improve our chances at reducing the gases. Bush is the the flat tire on the wheel of progress.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2007 6:52 PM
Comment #222462

As we write Bush is refusing to work with the other nations at the G8 summit to set any goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

That’s funny. A few days ago, Bush made a speech calling for limits. You’re right that nothing’s going to happen, though.

You can try to blame the Dems…

I do that all the time. It’s fun!

…but without a veto override majority now may not be the time to introduce legislation to improve our chances at reducing the gases.

Excuses. Excuses for people who only pretend to care about the environment.

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 6, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #222463

Bush is the the flat tire on the wheel of progress.

So that’s why he can’t make it past his own roadblock. But if Bush is the roadblock as well… Ahh, it’s not even worth trying to figure out.

What’s up with Democrats and meaningless metaphors, anyway?

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 6, 2007 7:22 PM
Comment #222467

The Traveler, I agree Bush will talk like he is attempting to do something, it just doesnt happen. Read todays Yahoo news about the G8 summit and Bush not wanting to set limits. That is excuses my friend. He has the opportunity to start us and other countrieson the right path, to lead the way but instead chooses to well “stay the course” speaking of useless metaphors.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #222480

Traveller-
Right. You’re explaining his failure by blaming us for his inaction. I don’t know why you feel it necessary to attribute so many Democratic actions to some conspiratorial desire to burn Bush, rather than face the fact that his inaction is a consequence of his own system of beliefs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #222495

Stephen

Yes. We should not wait for the Chinese. We need a carbon tax. As far as I know, only Chris Dodd among Dems agrees with me. Nobody with a chance of being elected in either party is on board. I hope they will be soon.

Posted by: Jack at June 6, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment #222515

rahdigly,

The Kyoto agreement, which tried imposing this Bullsh*t on the world (without proof!), was denied by Clinton and the dems in the 90’s. The main reason was b/c China and India wouldn’t get onboard; making it a “dead letter”. Yet, you don’t want to here that do you?! You go on believing the humans are responsible for global warming and Bush is responsible for everything bad. That’s the ticket!!

Oh, so Global Warming is not man-made BUT the main reason for US to denied Kyoto agreement was because China and India wouldn’t get onboard, not because it’s “bullshit”?!?

Bush’s famous “American Way Of Life is not negociable” line is his (and your, it seems) best argument against fighting climate change and reducing man impact on its environment, when he could have said (like you’re) just “it’s crap!”?

Make sense. Not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 7, 2007 7:27 AM
Comment #222520

American way of life is not negotiable? Tell the people in New Orleans that. As advanced as we are, we are still at our climate’s mercy, among other things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2007 8:15 AM
Comment #222529

Jack,

I am happy to see you working on solving this problem!!!
Your idea of having a carbon tax does make sense. We could apply your carbon tax to help solve the problem. Many other people have good ideas like yours. We must use them all. There is no single solution to the problem. As long as the carbon tax is not so harsh that it causes economic problems for some of us. It will take a well balanced plan to be affective and fair to all. Although I wish we did not need this kind of solution. Your idea could force us to use conservation and develop other alternative energy sources. It seems that every time this problem comes up we just complain and then do nothing. It does no good to obstruct progress and attempts by others to solve the problem. We can all do something at home to help solve the problem. Purchase energy efficient products etc. etc. Talk to people about energy efficiency. It makes sense to save your hard earned money. I do see progress and efforts being made by engineering, science and industry to help solve this problem. Help support the effort and keep them on the right track and this will work out. I hope it does not come down to a new tax to get things moving in the right direction. But it could be used if we need to. Good luck to all of you.

Posted by: Outraged at June 7, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #222556
“What would you accept as proof? We can’t “prove” the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it’s not unreasonable to assume it will. In science we often have to assign probabilities.”


Acceptable proof:
E=MC2 has been proven; it’s not a “probability”. The Earth revolves around the sun (not the other way around) and the earth is not flat; remember, a “consensus” believed the opposite for both and they (even) laughed and ridiculed the scientists that thought otherwise.


“The IPCC said it’s “highly likely” man is contributing to climate change; it reached that conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence.”

Hard, Scientific proof is not the same as “Highly Likely”, no matter which way you spin it! It was “highly likely” that the earth was flat. It was “highly likely” that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But, some of you don’t want to hear that; you want to continue to “preach” this “Consensus”,”highly likely” religious rhetoric to get everyone onboard this scam. You guys can’t prove man is (actually) responsible for Global Warming b/c it’s not true. The Earth has been around billions of years rotating,evolving, warming, cooling, etc without humans and are insatiable thirst for burning “fossil fuels”. Some of you are going to have to accept that fact at some point…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 7, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #222559

rah, well, like I said, this was pointless. The evidence seems compelling to me and to most scientists. We have to operate under our best understanding especially when the consequences of not acting could be dire. You’ve been shown the evidence; you’ve been shown the modeling. You presumably accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas, so presumably you accept that climate change is occuring. Presumably you could accept that whether we contribute or not that lowering C02 emissions would be beneficial — actually, I guess you don’t believe that or your argument is pointless. You even state with absolute certainly that humans have no effect on climate change, a position that requires unbelievable hubris. So, congratulations, you have access to total and perfect knowledge. Why should we bother with science at all when we can just go to you?

Posted by: Gerrold at June 7, 2007 4:55 PM
Comment #222570

rahdigly,

BTW, it’s not “proven” that the earth revolves around the sun. That’s simply the most parsimonious account of the observed phenomenon. Ptolemaic systems were highly accurate in accounting for the observations. The problem was, they were very clunky (all those spheres within spheres), and as we learned more about the heavens, the system became even clunkier. Recasting the model with the sun at the center made accounting for the phenomenon much easier. At any rate, it’s largely an issue of perspective.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 7, 2007 6:15 PM
Comment #222584

Gerrold,

“The evidence seems compelling to me and to most scientists.”


“Compelling” is not the same as “proven”; big difference.


“BTW, it’s not “proven” that the earth revolves around the sun.”


Oh, ok. Then “prove” otherwise; show us the “consensus” that doesn’t believe the earth revolves around the sun. I am glad I don’t have to know how it feels to be in the camp that thinks the “Earth does not revolve around the Sun”!! :-)

By the way, you, along with other bloggers, still have not proven that humans are (indeed) causing global warming. All some of you have done (up to this point) is show evidence that the CO2 levels are higher from a century ago. That is not the same as (acutally) proving that humans are indeed causing global warming.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 7, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #222598

rahdigly,

You’ve been shown the computer modeling with and without the human factor. You’ve been shown the evidence for man-caused carbon in the atmosphere. You understand that C02 is a greenhouse gas. You’ve seen the charts about the historic record. You’ve heard the discussions about feedback loops. At this point, I think it behooves you to explain why the massive dumping of C02 in the atmosphere wouldn’t have an effect, particularly since you claim absolute certainty. Seriously, all we can do is make the strong case for man’s contribution; if you know something no one else knows that proves your case, then you have a moral imperative to enlighten us.

Btw, your comment about the earth and sun reveals that you do not understand how modern science looks at the phenomenon. The sun-centered (and even that phrase mistates the case) view is the most elegant; that’s why we use that model. But in a universe with no absolute points of reference, it’s to some degree arbitrary. We say the earth revolves around the sun because that most elegantly accounts for the observed phenomenon. However, systems using different frames of reference can be constructed that also account for the phenomenon. “Proof” in this context is not possible; we look for elegance in choosing our frames of reference. Look it up before you mock.


Posted by: Gerrold at June 7, 2007 11:37 PM
Comment #222604

Rahdigly-
Accept what fact?

You suggest chaos in order to discount the ability of people to predict climate change, but you also discount that climate could be sensitive to relatively small influences.

Despite the fact you discount that relatively small influences could shift climate, you suggest the Milankovich cycles and the Solar variations, especially those cycling around with the sunspots, not to mention cosmic rays causing cloud cover to change as alternatives to that theory. In all cases, the influences are either not well understood or known to be valid (cosmic ray cloud formation), or they are known to be relatively small- meaning that its more likely small influences like us are capable of making differences on that order.

But of course, that can’t be the case. You just can’t believe that would be the case. You say people can’t prove the attribution of CO2 to humans. Trick is, attribution is a probability. Getting 90% likelihood or better means they’re pretty sure. They’ve sorted out the forcings from CO2, and it dominates every other forcing. This has been a laborious process, and though chaos theory doesn’t make it impossible, it does make it very difficult to sort things out.

As for all that stuff about what the Earths been doing for billions of years? We can cause landslides and avalanches, just as nature can. We can blast hillsides into the ocean with high pressure water, just like a Tsunami can.

The problem is, you’re stuck on the notion of artificiality. Reality is, if you can do it, it’s because it’s not braking a law of physics. Natural laws govern our activities and regular, natural events alike.

We use the force of gravity to hold in place dams, which in turn hold back rivers. nature create natural dams and also holds back the force of the water as well Just because nature once dammed the colorado, doesn’t mean we couldn’t go back and repeat the deed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #222608
By the way, you, along with other bloggers, still have not proven that humans are (indeed) causing global warming.

BTW, you hard-proof integrist, along with other ones, still have not proven that humans are NOT causing global warming too. Why one hard-proof lack matter more to you than the other?

If you only believe in hard proven stuffs, as you claim, you should not believe global warming is not caused by man, as it’s not proven either.
You can’t have it both way, sorry.

Let’s try to resume:

If we are wrong, the global warming is still a reality but we’re not causing it.
In such case, we just have wasted money and time trying to fight global warming for nothing.
Except that we make people adapt gently their way of life to the quick climate change, which they have to do anyway.

If you are wrong, global warming is still a reality and we’re causing it.
In such case, you just have lost precious time in NOT fighting global warming, making it more far more costly to do it later/too late.
And you don’t make people gently adapt their way of life to the quick climate change, making the adaptation more drastic and unfair, as they have to do anyway.

Let’s hope you will be the last one with his head in the sand.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 8, 2007 6:38 AM
Comment #222613

Rahdigly-
I think this Wikipedia entry demonstrates the problem with your assertion:

Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Attribution, as described above, can therefore only be done within some margin of error. For example, in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report dated 2007, the statement is made that “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is ‘very likely’ due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” where ‘very likely’ is quantified as more than 90% certain.

In short, you can’t dump the entire climate into a lab to study it, so you can’t get perfect causation from it. You will always get a percentage point.

Science does not shy away from subjects that can’t be examined directly by laboratory subject. We look at hurricanes, at black holes, at species in the field, and other phenomena and objects that we cannot control. Climate cannot be stuck in a lab, to perfectly understand things.

That’s the value of scientific models, and the necessity, to be sure. What my links were telling you is that climate forcings, as estimated, are dominated by greenhouse gases, and those are dominated by CO2, whose production is in turn dominated by us. When we try to model a world where CO2 is not driving the change, the results don’t follow the track of the real world. Tell me: where are the models that show us that other forcings are responsible? Whether you’re aware of it or not, your point of view requires just as much scientific support as mine does.

Given the fact that we can’t yank climate into a lab to examine it perfectly by experiment, your certainty itself is unscientific, especially when you’re exercising a double standard for Global warming, by asking for scientific proof of my position (which there is), while not offering any of your own for your position. If I can figure out what your position actually is from the mess of alternatives you throw at the wall, that is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #222615
“If we are wrong, the global warming is still a reality but we’re not causing it. In such case, we just have wasted money and time trying to fight global warming for nothing.”


EXACTLY!! That is a big “IF” to be throwing around and taxing nations over it. This is why we must find out, one, what is causing it and, two, what can be done to stop it; before taxing nations and “alarming” everyone without the facts (or PROOF!). Keep this in mind though; humans are insignificant when compared to Earth, Sun, the Universe, etc. And, do you honestly think the “fearmongers” of the (religious cult) “man is causing global warming” crowd are going to leave this issue alone when it is proven that this is just a cycle that the Earth is going through; humans have no effect and cannot do anything about global warming. You think that crowd will say they were wrong?!!! Hell no! They will just move onto the next issue with no shame (at all) for what they have done. It is bullsh*t!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 8, 2007 8:45 AM
Comment #222634
EXACTLY!! That is a big “IF” to be throwing around and taxing nations over it.

You understand that you too are thowing the opposite big “IF” around, taxing precious time over it?

Or am I the only one to see the irony?

This is why we must find out, one, what is causing it and, two, what can be done to stop it; before taxing nations and “alarming” everyone without the facts (or PROOF!).

Global warming is FACT. Whatever happened, found, done or not done, we can’t avoid facing it, as it’s already there and increasing.

… do you honestly think the “fearmongers” of the (religious cult) “man is causing global warming” crowd are going to leave this issue alone when it is proven that this is just a cycle that the Earth is going through; humans have no effect and cannot do anything about global warming.

First you say it’s not proven yet and second you assert it as a fact.
Way to be a hard-proof integrist!

It is bullsh*t!

Oh, the ultimate sciencific proof!
Okay, I’m convinced.

Not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 8, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #222647

Rahdigly-
I don’t know if you realize this, but you’re making scientific claims here:

That climate operates in clear cycles.

That this is simply natural variation.

That humans have no effect on climate.

Where is your evidence, your hard proof?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #222655
“You understand that you too are thowing the opposite big “IF” around, taxing precious time over it?”

I commented for you guys to “prove” that we are causing global warming before you go around taxing nations; I’ve been very clear on that point. You guys haven’t come up with anything other than the CO2 levels and that’s just does not prove that we are causing global warming or that changing that aspect (lowering carbon emmissions) is going to “change” the global warming (at all). We just don’t know. So, we owe it to humans to find out exactly what we can do and then (and only then) can we change it. The point is I am not willing to make these drastic changes without some “hard, scientific evidence”; to which, some of you and the “consensus” have yet to present. Oh well, this is what happens when Science is politicized or turned into a religion. It is wrong!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 8, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #222662

rah,

You want certainty from a science that deals with extremely complex and interrelated phenomenon, which, as Stephen D. notes, cannot be reduced to a laboratory. Given the chaotic and complex nature of the system, all we can ever have is probability, which in this case is 90+ percent (the scientists think the percentage is even higher, but politicians watered it down). I assume you don’t plan for a picnic when the weatherman tells you there is a 95 percent chance of rain; why should we continue business as usual when we come across such odds?

At any rate, don’t fear. It is highly unlikely that we’ll take more than babysteps toward climate change mitigation, and it will be all our descendents who suffer.


Posted by: Gerrold at June 8, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #222668

Rahdigly-
You’re taking it on faith that climate behaves in stable, cyclical ways, that there is any absolute nailing down of field conditions. You suggested any number of alternatives, without really looking at what you were suggesting.

We’ve shown you the science on the matter, that you can’t do hundred percent attributions outside of a laboratory, where conditions can be controlled, that attributions are statistical in nature, and therefore never hard evidence in the sense that the isotope relationship might be for man-made carbon emissions. The real trick here, is that like other fellow, what you’re asking for doesn’t make a whole lot of scientific sense.

Does that matter to you? I hope it does, given all your talk about the quality of the science, all your trumpeting of good science triumphing over bad. I’d hate for it to all be just a show.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2007 6:30 PM
Comment #222709

You guys are just dancing around the real issue; you cannot accept the facts (and reality). The Earth has been around for (approx) 4.5 billion years going through warming/cooling periods, cycles (hurricanes,volcanoes, ect.); and you’re going to (try and) tell us that the past 100 years trumps all the (previous) billions of years?! We all know that 90-120 million years ago the ocean temperature was 3x warmer than it is now and carbon and methane were higher (than the 20th century levels), as well. There have been 5 (major) ice ages. What caused them? What “warmed” them?! The fact is you and Your (gang of) “90%+” scientist don’t know; just as you don’t know about what is happening in the past hundred years. You are banking on the “Consensus” to continue to politize this issue and it is just not going to work. However, you can keep trying; it is amusing (as hell) watching some of you sound like you know what you are talking about. :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at June 9, 2007 1:54 PM
Comment #222721

rahdigly,

Please just examine the issue objectively.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 9, 2007 3:08 PM
Post a comment