I’ve been monitoring the Association of British Drivers (ABD) for some time. I’ve refrained from reporting on their longstanding assault of the UK’s transportation policies, based (as it so often is) on their deep skepticism about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). TTAC’s Best and Brightest tend to get a bit “enervated” about AGW, and I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire (and thus raise global temperatures). But WTH. We haven’t had a good punch-up on this topic in some time. So I’m letting loose the dogs of war. On yer bikes, boys!
The imposition of more taxes and restrictions is the real agenda behind computer modelled climate alarmism via the unjustified demonization of CO2.
The car’s 11% contribution to the UK’s 2% contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions has been placed at the forefront of government attempts to meet arbitrary emissions targets and deadlines in a strategy announced by Lord Adonis (1). There is a growing body of international academic opinion (2) pointing to the fact that CO2 targets don’t and won’t work as a tool for reducing CO2 emissions, regardless of what science currently does or doesn’t tell us about the causes or future trajectory of climate change. Instead, efficiency and technology should dictate the pace of decarbonisation of economic growth. Carbon taxes should be low and policy should also include adaptation to inevitable climate change. Most importantly, policy should be based on the uncertainty of future climate change, which could include significant global cooling, rather than on unverifiable computer modelled alarmism presented as fact (3). Emissions targets will inevitably require unacceptable political forces, as opposed to the politically feasible policy proposed by the 12 international academics in their 6th July paper entitled ‘How to get climate policy back on course.’
ABD Environment spokesman Paul Biggs said, “Energy and transport policies are being blighted by CO2 emissions targets that are unachievable without restrictive laws and a huge amount of financial pain for no climate gain. We have a new type of climate sceptic emerging that questions the policy rather than the science. Adopting the policies outlined by Professor Gwyn Prins and his 11 co-authors would enable significant decarbonisation of economic growth without leaving the government open to accusations of having ulterior motives that include the likes of social engineering and high taxation. With a general election due in 2010, a future ‘open-eyed’ government will have a clear choice of following policies lacking political feasibility that are doomed to fail (4), or politically feasible policies that have worked in the past.”
Notes for Editors [TTAC commentators]:(1) Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future (DfT) http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/carbonreduction/
(2) How to get climate policy back on course (pdf)http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6E0B4E96-3ECA-427B-8D86-1C241D04AACC/0/climatepolicybackoncourse.pdf
(3) The Government’s own Stern Review was dismissed by prominent economist Richard Tol as ‘alarmist and incompetent.’ In a peer reviewed paper, disaster losses expert Professor Roger Pielke Jr concluded that, “The Stern Review’s treatment of extreme events is misleading because it overestimates the future costs of extreme weather events in developed countries by an order of magnitude. Because the Stern Report extends these findings globally, the overestimate propagates through the report’s estimate of future global losses.” Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change by Roger Pielke Jr., Global Environmental Change, Volume 17, Issues 3-4, August-October 2007, Pages 302-310
(4) The British Climate Change Act: a critical evaluation and proposed alternative approach by Roger A Pielke Jr 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 024010
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/2/024010/BBC News website, 11/02/2009: UK’s CO2 plan ‘certain to fail’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7881868.stm
Spot on! Cap and Trade is precisely geared to do two things: raise taxes and allow governmental control over vast swaths of the economy.
Does anything in this press release (or in the citations given) attempt to refute the notion of AGW? The citations criticize the UK’s approach to “decarbonization” and do not question AGW.
Here’s the data…http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
I would be surprised if the ABD were not the British automotive equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.
They use flawed logic regarding the contribution of cars in England to global warming. EVERY source of greenhouse gasses can be broken down to units that justify depiction as being too small to bother with.
This is one of the most common tactics of the deniers.
These people will be nattering away as the Thames floods London, which already has a huge and expensive system to block storm surges.
They’re actually making a valid point… Carbon tax is less about preventing global warming than filling government coffers. They’re not questioning global warming per se, but are touching on a point that I’ve often found quite disturbing.
It’s the increasing trend of viewing CO2 as a “pollutant”… an oversimplification of the mechanics of climate change on the same level as ethanol subsidy… using an actual, existing issue to fund a different, more personal, agenda.
Climate change is real. Global Warming is real. As is the current cooling trend, which has been anticipated by science and is most likely temporary. What is at issue here is the way it is addressed.
My last shred of respect for the ludicrous notion of climate change disappeared when I realized we were talking about a few parts per million, and yet somehow this magically malignant trace gas has sufficient reflective power to influence climate. Yeah. Sure. I strongly suspect many of these adherents are reacting on a gut level to the idea that warm gas from a tail pipe must be warming the air…
BTW, to those who are still referring to AGW: your compatriots have moved on from that embarrassingly precise phrase, they’re now using the vague “climate change” that can be used for any pattern that supports their legislative agenda of tax and control.
And yes, I would imagine the climate is changing as it always has, but the warming stopped years ago. I believe this is now referred to as a “hiatus”. Seriously, do you people listen to yourselves anymore?
EVERY source of greenhouse gasses can be broken down to units that justify depiction as being too small to bother with.
This is one of the most common tactics of the Mensheviks.
True, but statistics can be twisted however the individual wishes. Besides, while the total pie may have a large amount of small slices, some of those slices have much less emission regulation than others. In the United States, for instance, cars are already buttoned down pretty damn tight emissions-wise, whereas trucking and shipping are not. If reducing emissions really is the central goal, why continue to squeeze juice from a rock when there’s a fresh grapefruit just waiting for the same treatment?
China, Russia and India have all made the decision – their future power plants are going to nearly all be coal. So China, Russia, India are not really concerned about global warming. I guess if we want to stop “Global Warming” we have to nuke those three countries – where is Dr Strangelove when we need him?
Cap and Trade is just a tax increase.
Its true that nothing gets a politician off more than imposition of more taxes and restrictions on people. Its a power trip, therefore whenever they do these things the first reaction must be to mistrust their motives.
Who owns one of the most prosperous cap and trade companies? Why, our old “friend” Al Gore no less.
Lying with statistics 101.
Reminds me of The Lancet.
Knocked on 33 doors in Iraq; extrapolated the results to show one million dead Iraqis.
Bought hook line and sinker by Saddam’s lovers.
Philbailey,
would you like to document this “cap and trade” company? I have never heard of such a thing. If you are talking about companies that sell offsets (sort of like the church selling indulgences so your dead relatives could go to heaven) that is something else entirely, something that most environmentalists involved in policy strongly oppose, particularly at the high levels in the Waxman Markey bill. Offsets are a way for the CO2 emitting companies to avoid reducing emissions. For those unfamiliar with offsets, you essentially pay some company which provides money for co2 emissions projects–such as planting trees or installing solar collectors–that supposedly would not happen without the money from the offset company, and this allows you to “offset” a certain amount of your emissions. It is very hard to verify whether these projecst would not have happened without the money, especially when they are in third world countries. In other words, its a bit of a racket. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/117-2/focus-abs.html
CO2 is a tiny component (fractions of one percent) of the many greenhouse gases. Of that, man-made CO2 is miniscule (in the range of 1 part in many thousands) and is dwarfed by animal sources, rotting vegetation and the oceans. The theory of AGW is not quite as scientific as reading tea leaves or burning witches.
So why has AGW become a defining political movement? Social engineering, an opportunity for anti-capitalists/anti-globalists to return us to a medieval society, a massive new arena for tax revenue.
Select any or all of the above.
How would we rationally figure out whether or not this is a good idea? In general, when contemplating a change in the law, one tries his best to predict the long-term values of some metric or index of “welfare” both with, and in the absence of a new policy, with all else being equal. Then one tries one’s best to compare the marginal benefit achieved with the costs of implementing the new policy.
Now these predictions are extremely difficult and controversial, but whatever model one uses – in the climate change realm – you have to proceed through three steps. 1. The policy’s effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at some future date 2. The marginal change in climate achieved by that reduction – 3. The costs of that change in climate on the welfare of the population.
So, lets just focus on the UK – and say the new policy proposed is to permanently reduce the rate of CO2 emissions from automobiles by 90% from today. I think we can all agree the costs of achieving that in the UK in the short-to-medium-term would be quite high no matter how you want to calculate them.
But lets go through the three steps.
1. If the drop in the UK’s use of oil weren’t immediately compensated by the use of that same oil elsewhere in the world (an unlikely assumption), then policy would have the effect of removing about .18% of global emissions – about 60 million tons out of over 30 billion. So, by 2050, if the concentration of CO2 would have gone up from 385 to 500ppm – this policy would yield a change of about .2ppm, for a final concentration of 499.8 – not a huge improvement.
2. What is the effect on the average temperature, rainfall, and climate in general of a difference in concentration of 499.8 vs. 500? We can safely conclude that it is 0. Let’s go further, let’s say the UK were to just shut down entirely. That final result would still be 497.7 – also with no marginal effect on climate.
3. Since the effect is zero, the benefit is zero.
In other words – nothing the UK can do within it’s own country – up to and including completely shutting down – has any effect whatsoever on the welfare of the citizens of the UK insofar as climate is concerned because it is too small a player in the emissions game.
The only thing within the UK’s power is to somehow convince, maybe pay, the major emitters to change their behavior – or perhaps to dedicate the entire scientific and industrial might of the UK to developing radically better and cheaper technologies.
The point of all this is: it’s doesn’t matter what you think about global warming, or climate change, because even if you think the absolute worst – you can’t do anything about it but prepare for, and adapt to change.
1. I am not a scientist.
2. It is my understanding that the scientific community is not as solidly behind global warming theory as we are led to believe.
3. Even if I am wrong about No. 2, here is our situation. Western Europe and the US can stop all economic activity today and it will make virtually no difference so long as India, China and the entire developing world continues its current trajectory.
So, why is it a good idea to voluntarily and unilaterally eviscerate our own economy? This is like a soldier on a battlefield standing up and shouting “I am going to end the war” then flinging his weopon away. He does not end the war, he just gets killed. The sentiment may be laudable, but it is stupid and pointless.
Indy2010 – You’ve described a sort of tragedy of the commons.
Meanwhile the Alpine glaciers retreat – uncovering villages overwhelmed by their last advance at the beginning of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. Climate fluctuation – it’s a bitch.
These people will be nattering away as the Thames floods London, which already has a huge and expensive system to block storm surges.
Given the sea level has risen 130 meters since the last 1ce age 13000 yrs ago then generally water finds its own level irrespective of what humans are doing.
Death to Glaciers.
Since Al Gore became science teacher for the world, we have learned that the only way to stop the sky from falling, is to tax the air we exhale (C02).Even veteran politician’s wouldn’t try to pull off an inhalation tax, but exhalation is fair game. Reminds me of the old Bar promotion gag, the Beer is free but $20liter to pee. His book and movie were promotional material for his Carbon Credit operation (Generation Investment Management). Now it is taken as science fact, not advertising. We deserve everything we get when buy (and elect) this hogwash.
The Earth is not warming it is cooling...
That is pure bullshit. The overall balance is toward warming, period. You might not like it because it take intervention other than what the free market will provide, but that is irrelevant to what the science says. We shall see because most of us will still be here to see the shift continue…and if you are right and this site still exists so you can be contacted, I’ll send you $100.
Just what exactly did the Neanderthalers do to bring on the last great global warming that ended the Ice Age? I think that we humans credit ourselves with too much influence on climate change. What happens on the Sun has infinitely more to do with global warming than what we can ever do here on Earth. In any case, we are due for another Ice Age, according to some scientists.
1. I am not a scientist.
2. It is my understanding that the scientific community is not as solidly behind global warming theory as we are led to believe.
There are PLENTY of credible scientists who dispute the mainstream global warming theories. Here’s one of many prominent scientists – one who hasn’t been bought – who begs to differ:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
Since Al Gore became science teacher for the world, we have learned that the only way to stop the sky from falling, is to tax the air we exhale (C02).Even veteran politician’s wouldn’t try to pull off an inhalation tax, but exhalation is fair game.
Uh, wrong. Whether tax, or cap and trade, it will be (or is being) done upstream: at the refinery, the mine, the utility, etc. Everyone realizes it would be fiendishly and needlessly complicated to try to tax it at the level of the user.
A joke club. Wikipedia:
“In 2004 the association claimed “more than 9,000 members” and later admitting that their total membership was “2,256 paying subscribers and 3,775 “affiliate” members who it said were automatically included by virtue of their membership of eight connected associations”. Those organizations, including the Fiat Motor Club and the Renault Clio Owners’ Club, have since distanced themselves from the ABD.
In response to the controversy surrounding its representation of its membership numbers, the ABD’s chairman, Brian Gregory said, “It doesn’t matter a fig to me whether we’ve got 1,500 members or 5,000 members.” and adding “What’s important is that if you go into any pub and listen to the views of the people at the bar, you’ll find that their opinions are very much in line with ours.”
The ABD’s membership currently accounts for 0.007% of Britain’s 31.7 million drivers.”
So, what we’re reading is the opinion of a club that thinks it represents the views of people in a pub. Well, why not just get your opinions from Joe the Plumber?
And Tailpipe Tommy, your link points to a guy who does not dispute AGW.
What he actually said, was: “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.”
Christy says the 2007 IPCC is alarmist, and that we don’t know enough about climate yet. Fine with me. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to take action.
“That doesn’t mean we don’t have to take action.”
Exactly wrong. As others have said, what the Brits and Americans do will not change whatever is going to happen. China and India are the giants of the future, and they have chosen coal.
Sometimes the best action is to not take action, until you know what you are doing and why. Global Warming is Global Con Job.
@Martin Schwoerer
Christy says the 2007 IPCC is alarmist, and that we don’t know enough about climate yet. Fine with me. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to take action.
I assume the last sentence is your own conclusion. I think that Christy might feel that given that we don’t know enough about climate, then we also don’t know enough about any consequential actions we might take. But cap and trade is an inconsequential action with respect to climate fluctuation. I would be happy to see you experiment with it if it didn’t affect me financially. But it will and adversely too, all for nothing.
I thought I wrote the PR in simple enough language – but it seems some don’t understand it or didn’t read the references. Climate alarmism is based on unverifiable projections using computer modelling, but regardless of what the science does or doesn’t say current CO2 policy based on unachievable, arbitrary targets is WRONG and will fail. 12 international academics not scpetical of the science, but of the policy, agree.
As for the GISS temp – it has been ‘adjusted’ yet again by global warming, anti-coal crackpot James Hansen. The satellite data for 1979 to June 2009 shows a ‘huge’ warming in the lower atmosphere of +001C.
No more AGW related articles please. It just makes me sad that people who relate to scientific data on a partisan basis are allowed to vote.
I’m with gzuckier on this. The hubris required to so blithely opine on such matters (when only the shallowest of knowldege underpins it) is breathtaking. In other words, all of a sudden, everyone’s an expert. The Luddites are loose in the land and no amount of reasoning will persuade or dissuade them of anything. RF, is this beginning of the end?
Matt51
China and India are the giants of the future, and they have chosen coal.
In fact, the US is likely to be buying our solar collectors and other renewable energy devices from China if we don’t hurry up and get serious about dealing with climate change. They are innovating like crazy. They, and India, are also very frightened of climate change, because most of their agriculture is watered by rivers that depend for summer flow on glaciers which are disappearing, like most of the rest of Earth’s glaciers, due to climate change.
I’m also with gzuckier on this.
So what caused all the other global warmings?
I’m too lazy to find the link, but there is a system of submerged sensors that measure oceanic temperatures. Recently, when the sensor data indicated cooling rather than warming, since AGW is a religion, not a science, the “scientists” in charge decided that there must be something wrong with the sensors.
Real scientists reject theories that don’t comport with the data.
Of course if all the glaciers were still intact, there wouldn’t be the Great Lakes and much of North America would still be under ice.
“The Earth is not warming it is cooling…
That is pure bullshit. The overall balance is toward warming, period. You might not like it because it take intervention other than what the free market will provide, but that is irrelevant to what the science says.”
Science says? What exactly does the science say when you filter out all the shenanigans, outright lies and fraud committed by the IPCC?
The earth was cooling for a 30 year period 1940 – 1970 during a period of great economic expansion that pumped millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This ought to be a pretty clear indicator that CO2 is not the driving force behind any supposed warming. It’s a trace gas that has not been shown scientifically to be the major factor driving temperature.
And, accurate temperature data does not even exist for the US going back more than 30 years (we only have satellite data for that long) let alone accurate temperature data for the whole world. It’s all BS. There is no accurate scientific way to conclude that the world as a whole is even 1C warmer than it was 100 years ago. Only general trends over the centuries can be somewhat ascertained, but even those trends contain a lot of assumptions.
Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable … …
” …We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher…….”
The further one digs into this AGW, the more of a farce the whole thing becomes. Even the cooling period between 1940-1970 is likely being understated because of urban heat effect — which means bad or unreliable data.
And then there is this video1. Where the IPCC scientists were caught using bad/fraudulent methods to reconstruct historical temperature scenarios to support AGW. And this bad/fraudulent data was probably cited by hundreds of IPCC papers, which basically renders all these papers junk science.
More evidence that the climate data is inaccurate … Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know …
” …They present detailed evidence that climate data is inaccurate, … …The science itself has become riddled with bias, which then is channeled through the sensationalism-seeking media. … …they demonstrate that potentially negative effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been exaggerated or even fabricated, whereas any positive effects have been ignored. …”
So you want to turn over control (and taxation) of almost every economic activity to the government based on this garbage?
I could go into the many details of how and why AGW is bogus, but I’ve got other things to do. Thanks to Blastman and others for saving me the time. This is just a small jesture to add my vote to the scrap-AGW pile.
Lying with statistics 101.
Reminds me of The Lancet.
Knocked on 33 doors in Iraq; extrapolated the results to show one million dead Iraqis.
Bought hook line and sinker by Saddam’s lovers.
Unfortunately this is the level of information and understanding people get fed from conservative media.
The lancet’s first, smaller study did 33 regions of 30 households. This is consistent with epidemiological standards.
–
There are PLENTY of credible scientists who dispute the mainstream global warming theories. Here’s one of many prominent scientists – one who hasn’t been bought – who begs to differ:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
It’s also not exactly a coincidence his partner in crime, Roy Spencer, is big on Intelligent Design, for religious reasons.
—
Frankly the typical man on the street is not educationally equipped to understand most of modern science, but in typical rube fashion thinks himself “informed” once he’s read a blog post validating his opinion post-hoc. (note it’s an opinion paid for).
The prior posts on AGW are here:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/omb-memo-criticizes-epa-co2-ruling/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/nyt-global-warming-to-submerge-2400-miles-of-gulf-roads/
I would encourage Blastman to take the challenge laid out within, because another beatdown of deniers is always good clean family fun. (first he may want to check out watt’s credibility). I mean, science has never lost one of these in the entirety of human history, yet knuckle-dragging fools looking to drag us all back into the stone age always seem true to their namesake.
—
In other news, making the external costs of pollution explicit is generally a good thing. The problem with some of these schemes is the usual companies are looking to take advantage and cash out. For example in the US, offsets were supposed to be auctioned off, but instead ended up getting given away because modern politicians generally cannot hold out against the monied class.
Like many uninformed stances, that of the standard cookie cutter “conservative” on climate policies is woefully ironic. While true to form in hating the environment, they are rallying against the interests of crackpot capitalists that will profit from the typical political schemes. As anticipated by their information controllers, their efforts will barely fail thereby making them angry and motivated, and the “environmentalists” can be cast as scapegoats, their masters will profit, and all is right in the modern capital society.
The whole ordeal’s rather predicable, because the aims and methodology of the rich and powerful haven’t really changed much since humans started.
“In fact, the US is likely to be buying our solar collectors and other renewable energy devices from China if we don’t hurry up and get serious about dealing with climate change. They are innovating like crazy. They, and India, are also very frightened of climate change, because most of their agriculture is watered by rivers that depend for summer flow on glaciers which are disappearing, like most of the rest of Earth’s glaciers, due to climate change.”
I will be as polite as possible – this is total nonsense. China has no commitment to solar energy. China is building two new coal fired power plants EVERY WEEK. Only Germany has significant amounts of solar energy, and only because it is massively subsidized. Germany pays about $1.50 per KwH for solar, China pays about $.03 per KwH for coal generated electricity. Look at the 1.50 vs .03. China and India are not scared about climate change, or they would not have made ALL their future electric power plans based on COAL. They both insisted on being exluded from the Kyoto Protocol. One of the few wise things the Bush Administration did was taking a walk on this bullshit. China is currently the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and this will increase over time.
* China’s GHG emissions have increased by 120% since the beginning of the decade, while U.S. emissions have increased 16% over the same period;
* China now exceeds the United States as the single largest GHG emitter, and accounts for more than a fifth of global GHG emissions;
* China relies more heavily on coal-fired power plants, the most GHG-intensive energy source, than do most OECD countries. Between now and 2012, the increase in Chinese coal-based emissions will exceed the entire level of coal-based emissions in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
The Earth has warmed out of the LIA (we even can find proxy evidence for the LIA in Oz)but we don’t know exactly how much due to biases in data sets, but proof of warming isn’t proof of causation. Computer models are useful, if flawed, diagnostic tools, but they aren’t crystal balls. Recent papers by Tsonis et al, 2007, 2009, 2009 suggest natural climate cycles can account for the temperature shifts during the 20th Century, and 2001. Shaviv (2008) has shown that the effect on climate of changes in TSI are amplified by 5 to 7 times. The cosmic ray-cloud link is work in progress (CERN, and see an objective article in the latest edition of Science). I collect and publicise papers of interest on my ‘Climate Research News’ website. There is no ‘hidden’ or accumulating ocean heat in the climate system since 2003. That said, to a large extent, the science is irrelevant – we will eventually need to replace fossil fuels with viable alternatives. The pace of replacement, and therefore the pace of reduction in emissions of CO2, will be dictated, not by arbitrary unachievable targets that are not politically feasible in a democracy, but by continued efficiency and developing technology. In the UK the car accounts for 11% of the UK’s 2% contribution to man-made CO2. Cars and trucks in the EU as a whole account for just 2% of global man-made CO2 emissions. Taking all cars and trucks off the road in the EU would therefore make sod-all difference to atmospheric CO2, plus the likes of China and India would soon replace those emissions.
I agree that we must eventually move on from fossil fuels. We have missed 30 years of new nuclear plants that are clean and inexpensive because of these environmentalist Chicken Little’s. These safty-holics in our society are making things worse not better. Nuclear could be even cheaper than coal if the government regulation were reformed. Jimmy Carter outlawed breeder reactors which process nuclear waste into more fuel. No Yucca Mountain, just more fuel. Several other laws and regs need to be modified but I digress.
Jeff Waingrow :
I’m with gzuckier on this. The hubris required to so blithely opine on such matters (when only the shallowest of knowldege underpins it) is breathtaking. In other words, all of a sudden, everyone’s an expert.
No one here is pretending to be an expert that I have seen. Do global warming advocates prefer we not talk about or read about it because we are not experts? Or do you just not like when people start poking holes in theories you are so emotionally committed to? This forum is exactly the place to express ideas, opinions, and evidence. So please do not insult our intelligence and show some equanimity.
There is not even a “concensus” (a useless scientific term) on the exact origin of oil. We have 10 times more known reserves than we did 25 years ago, and now they have several new and cost effective source’s (shale etc.). Why is it a “given” that we are running out?
“the standard cookie cutter “conservative” … true to form in hating the environment”
So true! Air — I hate it, and do all I can to avoid breathing it! Water — I hate it, and do all I can to avoid drinking it! The Ground — I hate it, and do all I can to avoid standing on it! I wish all three would just disappear and leave us alone!
Unsincerely,
Ad “Strawman” Hominem.
No one here is pretending to be an expert that I have seen. Do global warming advocates prefer we not talk about or read about it because we are not experts?
There are plenty of sources of summarized scientific data. Many of them do an excellent job considering the complexity of climate science.
As mentioned numerous time in the threads I’ve link above, there are also low-life’s out there who make up fake “studies” to confuse the public, because the average lay person cannot really tell the difference as long as you use the right language and once you start adding some numbers and heaven forbid some equations. Similarly for fake reviews of existing research.
Generally as soon as the fake studies or comments (which are not peer reviewed) get circulated, actual scientists find the “errors”, but average people don’t understand how that part of the scientific process works and generally don’t perform the basic due diligence to verify the accuracy of what they choose to read.
—
I will be as polite as possible – this is total nonsense. China has no commitment to solar energy. China is building two new coal fired power plants EVERY WEEK.
China for the most part doesn’t give a shit about the environment, which would be why significant parts of their country are being poisoned for the sake of making a buck.
Perhaps the lesson here is not what was expected.
Wow, and I thought computer models based on interpolated data were “garbage in, garbage out”.
Science in general is based on “models” of nature. The nature of climate is quite complex in large part because the stuff we’re interested in is very large and non-homogeneous (ie. the earth’s atmosphere). Therefore computers are used to help with the maths.
It’s somewhat disheartening the ignorance of science in society considering what we take for granted is in many ways based on its principles. It’s by far the closest thing humans have ever come to truth in the world, but still I guess more primitive instincts implore us to lead with our gut instead.
@Matt51
First of all, there is nothing incompatible about being ahead of us in the development of solar energy http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05friedman.html?_r=1
and finishing new coal plants on a weekly basis (if that’s true, and it may well be). China has five times as many people as the US, there’s a lot going on there, and they need energy badly.
Second of all, John Holdren, now head of the President’s Office of Science and Technology POlicy, former head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, went to china and india and talked to their leaders about these issues, and came back and said they were scared of climate change, and a big part of this had to do with fear of losing their agricultural production. If you want to call him a liar, go ahead. But I can’t think of a professor I had who had more integrity than he does.
But why do you think their gas mileage standards are much more stringent than ours?
“It’s also not exactly a coincidence his partner in crime, Roy Spencer, is big on Intelligent Design, for religious reasons.”
Ah, there ya go… try to deflect the inconvenient facts through peer pressure (calling names). Brilliant (not), Typical, loser enviro tactic.
“It’s also not exactly a coincidence his partner in crime, Roy Spencer, is big on Intelligent Design, for religious reasons.”
Ah, there ya go… try to deflect the inconvenient facts through peer pressure (calling names). Brilliant (not), Typical, loser enviro tactic.
It’s interesting you still call them facts, as I’ve linked in an analysis which shows the errors quite explicitly.
If you look at the denier movements in general, you start to notice common threads of exaggerated credentials and crackpot beliefs.
There is not even a “concensus” (a useless scientific term) on the exact origin of oil.
Because the Earth is only ~6000 years old and the Qur’an doesn’t mention it? (Or maybe it does, but I don’t read Arabic).
Why, RF, why?
You knew what would happen. Letting people blithely debate a topic they know little or nothing about–but have very passionate feelings about all the same–is just absurd. Why not open an argument about how quantum physics is wrong, or relativity is wrong, or the big bang is wrong?
The one argument that I do feel compelled to address is the one that says “climate has changed in the past, so clearly we have nothing to do with climate change now.”
Well, yes, of course climate changed in the past. There were also forest fires in the past, so people can never start forest fires? There were accidents in the past, so you can’t be killed in an auto accident? There was disease in the past, so there’s nothing we can do to keep anyone from getting sick today?
I just don’t understand this line of thinking. It’s passive and defeatist. We have the power to do harm to the planet, we have the power to do good. Now we have to decide which we want to do, and the best way to do it.
David – I never would call you a liar. What I am saying is – words are cheap. A lot of people in India and China may say they are scared of climate change. But actions speak louder than words. Both India and China are committed to coal for decades to come, as is Russia. It is not just for energy now, these governments long range planning is based on coal. Just as US long range planning is based on nuclear.
Sorry Pete it has nothing to do with the bible or the qur’an or any other work of fiction, the fact is the only thing they are sure about the source of oil is, it has nothing to do with dinosaurs. The 2 most accepted theories involve Diatom’s or pressure below the earths mantle. Until we know where it comes from we can’t possibly know we are running out. Google “where does oil come from?”
it has nothing to do with dinosaurs.
No shit. Most organic/biomass (that’s your carbon) is not animals.
–
Until we know where it comes from we can’t possibly know we are running out.
We have a pretty damn good idea from chemical composition of different types kerogen (did you even do the search you posted?), and we know we’re running out because the large existing easy to pump wells have a known lifespan, and we’re only finding small replacements.
That shale stuff is more costly not to mention messy, and carbon release in general is doing us any favors.
You can stop quoting from the Infinite Oil Society now.
I am not suggesting infinite oil, or any other fairy tale. Known accessible reserves change with technology, developing the technology to drill offshore increased the reserves by an order of magnitude. Similar technological changes are coming and we cannot expect to be able to predict them. Imagine trying to explain the internet to scientist’s 75 years ago, it would like trying to explain the world without it, 75 years from now. New energy sources will come along, but the foreseeable future involves internal combustion engines and petroleum. I am optimistic that I’ll finally get my f*%#ing flying car.
Known accessible reserves change with technology, developing the technology to drill offshore increased the reserves by an order of magnitude. Similar technological changes are coming and we cannot expect to be able to predict them.
How much do you really think the oil business has changed in the last few decades? Not everything is analogous to moore’s law in semicon’s. If anything, that analogy implies a non-petroleum future in the long term.
The rate of new finds is declining, and usage is anticipated to increase given development. This math problem is much more simple to derive than climate.
The more interesting problem is to discover how the cost of energy is priced into modern society. That has more implications on way of life than spending a bit more to keep a car running.
I worked in the Alberta oilsands in the 70’s at, that time many were dismissing them because they would never be cost effective. Some of the biggest investors walked away. 30 years later they discover that the oilsands are 2-3 times as large as originally thought and they are recovering much more oil per unit of tarsand. Profit drives technology, not policy. Current policy toward revamped old technology (wind, solar), is not the next step if it was, it wouldn’t need subsidies. There was a good reason for ships to change from wind to steam, profit.
You really think oil doesn’t get subsidized?
At this stage oil is a net gainer, taxes from sales exceed subsidies by a significant margin. Most of the oil is controlled by the governments, not private interest. This represents complete reversal from 30 years ago.
At this stage oil is a net gainer, taxes from sales exceed subsidies by a significant margin. Most of the oil is controlled by the governments, not private interest. This represents complete reversal from 30 years ago. New technologies often require startup subsidies, the sun and wind hardly qualify as new.
At this stage oil is a net gainer, taxes from sales exceed subsidies by a significant margin.
Did you include any external cost? Infrastructure subsidy? Those range in many many billions. Even without those, the oil lobby is no slouch, and I’m guessing it’s much closer (or even reverse of) than what you think depending on how it’s counted, especially for a mature industry.