Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?

[Eclipse Now]

There are two major errors in the Precautionary Principle fallacy. The most serious, it tell you nothing of how to fix the "problem". Emission controls? Sequestration? CO2 Capture projects like reforestation? The Precautionary Principle argument tells us nothing about fixing a problem, that's the argument for experimental tests, to find out what works.

 

I've never said "we can't prove with 100% certainty the consequences of stopping a potentially harmful thing", I've said we need experimental tests to find the best way to stop a potentially harmful thing or if the potentially harmful thing needs to be stopped. It's not about 100% certainty, where are the tests with 95% certainty, or 90% or 75%? Where are any experimental tests on climate change mitigation?

 

The second problem is, in day to day life we mitigate against probable risks, not the most extreme serious risks. You have lightning rods on your house because a fire caused by lightning strikes is a probable risk, you don't have meteorite shielding on your roof, because even though that worst case risk would be disastrous, it's not a probable event.

 

Those are my two problems with your video.

 

Hey Brian,

how about you demonstrate what you think will go wrong if we DO try to avoid global warming? As far as I can tell, America retrieving some of the $600 billion dollars a year (or $6 trillion a decade) lost in oil imports will help America become energy independent by moving to baseload renewables / nuclear & electric transport, give America better jobs growth at home, circulate your own money through your own economy faster, help prepare you for peak oil, make your cities cleaner, eliminate coal-cancer related deaths and lung disease, eliminate that portion of coal-related health costs, beautify your cities, protect biodiversity in old growth forests and rainforests, stimulate new technologies, repair broken soils (through biochar as sequestration in our soils rather than wasting the Co2 in expensive sequestration underground), etc.

 

Where are any experimental tests on climate change mitigation?

Which particular area of mitigation are you talking about? Energy, forests, economy, transport, what?

 

If you have a particular untested area in mind, please raise it because as far as I can see billions are being spent on mitigating climate change right now. Wind turbines are getting bigger and more efficient, there's new building materials for using higher temperatures in storing solar thermal heat in giant 'thermos flasks' underground, and dozens of other experiments. (There's even a new graphite block that can store solar thermal heat for weeks!)

 

In Co2 neutral transport (if powered by nuclear/renewables), China just built a 1100km fast-rail project that can do the trip in just over 3 hours! That would get us from Sydney to Melbourne in just over 2 hours! (about 800km). That's FASTER than a flight time there after including checking in and baggage both ends!

 

And it would make our long-distance transport more immune to the peak oil shocks when they hit.

 

In other words, I find your attitude just like this cartoon.... so please try and be specific to what you are talking about, and maybe even link to a source that demonstrates there could be grounds for concern, rather than just endlessly repeating your opinion, please?

 

[BrianG]

Hey Brian,

how about you demonstrate what you think will go wrong if we DO try to avoid global warming? ...

Which particular area of mitigation are you talking about? Energy, forests, economy, transport, what?

...

In other words, I find your attitude just like this cartoon.... so please try and be specific to what you are talking about, and maybe even link to a source that demonstrates there could be grounds for concern, rather than just endlessly repeating your opinion, please?...

 

 

My post was addressed to Modest's Precautionary Principle argument. Will climate mitigation work? Which Climate Mitigation scheme would work best? Is energy emissions control better than carbon sequestration or forest management or carbon neutral transportation? What will produce optimum climate change mitigation?

 

I haven't a clue though I suspect since there are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, it might not work. How many times do folks develop a hot new prototype, only to find it fails?

[Donk]

My post was addressed to Modest's Precautionary Principle argument. Will climate mitigation work? Which Climate Mitigation scheme would work best? Is energy emissions control better than carbon sequestration or forest management or carbon neutral transportation? What will produce optimum climate change mitigation?

 

I haven't a clue though I suspect since there are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, it might not work. How many times do folks develop a hot new prototype, only to find it fails?

What would you define as failure? Using less oil will hurt the oil companies: that's why they're funding all this crackpot science and buying all those lawmakers. Will it hurt the rest of us? How exactly?

[Eclipse Now]

I haven't a clue though I suspect since there are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, it might not work. How many times do folks develop a hot new prototype, only to find it fails?

 

You're hiding an assertion behind a question. You assert that there's not experimental tests of climate change mitigation, but you don't prove it.

 

What is a wind farm? What is a fast-train? What is a Generation 3 nuclear reactor? What is an Eco-city? What is walkable New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Developments? (TODs). Why does the average European use half the oil of the average American?

 

You say we haven't experimented with the means to mitigate climate technology and I submit all the above to say we have, the mitigation technologies are ready to roll out, we can count how much Co2 a given technology will prevent, we can count how long our Co2 emissions will take to stabilise under given scenarios, and we can estimate what courses of action are economically possible under different scenarios (such as the recent SCIAM article which says we can go renewable in 20 years!).

[BrianG]

What would you define as failure? Using less oil will hurt the oil companies: that's why they're funding all this crackpot science and buying all those lawmakers. Will it hurt the rest of us? How exactly?

 

Would using less oil hurt the oil companies' customers? I suspect so. What would you replace oil with? Would it increase the price of transportation and heating fuel?

[BrianG]

...

You say we haven't experimented with the means to mitigate climate technology and I submit all the above to say we have, the mitigation technologies are ready to roll out, we can count how much Co2 a given technology will prevent, we can count how long our Co2 emissions will take to stabilise under given scenarios, and we can estimate what courses of action are economically possible under different scenarios (such as the recent SCIAM article which says we can go renewable in 20 years!).

 

What is the measurable climate change from the billions we've already spent on climate change mitigation?

[Donk]

Would using less oil hurt the oil companies' customers? I suspect so. What would you replace oil with? Would it increase the price of transportation and heating fuel?

Why on earth should it? If they had their vehicles impounded it might, but nobody's saying that. If they go for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, it will save them money, not hurt them.

 

Does it hurt much to turn down the heating a couple of degrees, or have the heating on for one less hour a day? It didn't hurt me - just made me move around more and helped me to keep fit - and saved me some cash! :)

[Eclipse Now]

Brian, you haven't answered my questions. Why do you say there's no testing in lowering Co2 emissions when all I can see is whole industries developing which are dedicated to doing just that?

 

Why do you ask what would replace oil when I've done nothing but explain that to you? (Fast rail to replace airlines and a lot of trucking, trolley buses in cities are 5 times cheaper than trams, and where all else fails and various individuals and business still need the car — not my favourite solution — Electric Cars can provide transport at a cheaper per mile/km rate than petroleum can).

 

I suggest you spend 30 minutes reading the Scientific American article here.

Powering a Green Planet: Sustainable Energy, Made Interactive: Scientific American

 

The real question is what would it cost America NOT to wean off oil? You're currently paying $6 trillion dollars a decade to import the foul polluting, lung disease causing and global warming fuel, and as I've already demonstrated with credible sources in the peak oil thread, oil is only going to rise in price. (If you wish to debate that please take it to the peak oil thread where you haven't answered my discovery trends questions).

 

The cost could be in buying the oil, and the cost to America if we do actually burn all the world's remaining oil, which alone would push us over the edge in terms of the climate emergency.

 

EG: Do you like America growing your own food?

[modest]

I've never said "we can't prove with 100% certainty the consequences of stopping a potentially harmful thing"

It's not important if you said "prove" or "experimental testing", actually you said both,

Without proof, or any experimental testing of climate change mitigation, waiting is an excellent strategy.

but, either way the argument is clearly fallacious because it is antinomic. Someone can just as easily say,

Without proof, or any experimental testing of climate change instigation, waiting [to instigate climate change] is an excellent strategy.

To some people it would seem sensible to wait before we cut down the Amazon rainforest or before we dig up and burn everything we can find underground that's flammable, until we have more information about how exactly it will affect the climate. To you it might seem sensible to do such things until someone can "prove" that not doing them will be effective climate mitigation.

 

But, if a person wanted to make either argument, it would require more information. You have to explain why the choice of mitigating AGW requires proof, but instigating AGW does not require proof. Or, you could argue that instigating AGW has less risk to society than mitigation.

 

Either way, it is *not* enough to just claim that waiting (to stop affecting the climate) is a good strategy until there is proof regarding mitigation. It's not a sensible argument.

 

It's not about 100% certainty, where are the tests with 95% certainty, or 90% or 75%? Where are any experimental tests on climate change mitigation?

Where are the tests with 95% certainty, or 90%, or 75% on climate change instigation? I should certainly hope we have done such an experiment before we go ahead with the practice.

 

Your argument is antinomic and implies your particular conclusion only because you began the argument assuming mitigation rather than instigation requires some kind of proof.

 

The second problem is, in day to day life we mitigate against probable risks, not the most extreme serious risks. You have lightning rods on your house because a fire caused by lightning strikes is a probable risk, you don't have meteorite shielding on your roof, because even though that worst case risk would be disastrous, it's not a probable event.

 

By saying "probable risks, not the most extreme serious risks" you assume 'probable' and 'most serious' are mutually exclusive. It's a false dichotomy. If you can demonstrate that AGW is too improbable to warrant mitigation then I welcome you to do so.

 

~modest

[BrianG]

...Your argument is antinomic and implies your particular conclusion only because you began the argument assuming mitigation rather than instigation requires some kind of proof...

 

Does it matter that we burn fossil fuel to light our way, warm our homes, cook our food, work, move us and our goods and communicate, rather than to change the climate?

 

Then is it correct to say climate change is caused by man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] emissions? Other man made factors, deforestation, land use albedo change, urban heat island effect, man made particulate emission changes and even heat release from combustion can be are not central to global warming discussions because we already 'know" anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are changing climate?

[Eclipse Now]

Does it matter that we burn fossil fuel to light our way, warm our homes, cook our food, work, move us and our goods and communicate,

Yes it does as burning fossil fuels causes climate change, as demonstrated by the equations in this thread.

rather than to change the climate?

This doesn't even make sense tacked onto the sentence above. No idea what you mean. Burning fossil fuels does useful stuff for us, but sadly causes climate change. So let's find other ways to get energy to do useful stuff for us WITHOUT causing climate change. Is it that hard?

 

Then is it correct to say climate change is caused by man made CO_2 emissions?

Yes, this has already been spelt out to you.

 

Other man made factors, deforestation, land use albedo change, urban heat island effect, man made particulate emission changes and even heat release from combustion can be are not central to global warming discussions because we already 'know" anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are changing climate?

They are all measured in the IPCC reports, and your suggestion that climatologist have somehow ignored them is fallacious.

 

Now the climate scientists are "sure enough" that burning fossil fuels is varying degrees of "bad" for the ecosystems of this planet, reliable rainfall and climatic conditions, and civilisation generally. Do you want to retract the argument that we should "run a test" on the planet to see if it really is bad? Because you haven't replied to Modest's core arguments in that regard. Right now your position reminds me of the punk Vyvyn (off the British Comedy "The Young Ones") trying to set off the A-Bomb in their kitchen.

 

Vyvyn: "Why won't it go off Mike?"

Mike: "Why do you want it to go off?"

Vyvyn: "Who can tell?"

 

BrainG, why do you want global warming to "Go off!"?

[stereologist]

WMDs did exist in the first Gulf War.

 

I still don't think otherwise. Are you saying that there can be large and wonderful oil reserves that are undiscovered that might have an affect on peak oil, or are you saying that there are small and insignificant to be made discoveries that don't affect peak oil. It sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position here.

 

I still see that it would have been cheaper to buy the oil upfront instead of invading and occupying. Any claims as to unproven oil are just speculation at best. Extrapolation of costs and oil and future politics are again speculation at best. The 'far surpass' is conjecture.

[stereologist]

Yes it does as burning fossil fuels causes climate change, as demonstrated by the equations in this thread.

The claim is based on the GCM. It is not proven that it is causative. At best it is correlated. All of the IPCC report is based on modeling. The modeling uses what is known as the GCM.

[REASON]

WMDs did exist in the first Gulf War.

 

What's your point?

 

 

I still don't think otherwise. Are you saying that there can be large and wonderful oil reserves that are undiscovered that might have an affect on peak oil, or are you saying that there are small and insignificant to be made discoveries that don't affect peak oil. It sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position here.

 

Obviously you can and will think what you want. You may read about the amount of proven oil reserves and the unexplored territories in Iraq at the links I provided. I'm not asserting anything specifically about peak oil. I'm asserting what I believe about the motive to invade Iraq by the oil neocons based on the research I have done and what I consider to be a far more plausible explanation than what we were told. You clearly may choose to believe what we were told about axis of evil dictators, terrorists, WMD and mushroom clouds all you want. I'm sure it feels better. Personally, I'm more interested in the truth, even if it's an uncomfortable truth.

 

 

I still see that it would have been cheaper to buy the oil upfront instead of invading and occupying. Any claims as to unproven oil are just speculation at best. Extrapolation of costs and oil and future politics are again speculation at best. The 'far surpass' is conjecture.

 

Conjecture and speculation about unexplored territory with unproven reserves. Sure, I'll give you that. But it's not really out on a limb considering the enormous proven reserves throughout the entire region. Extrapolation costs in Iraq of light sweet crude relatively close to the surface are a fraction of what it costs to build offshore oil platforms and drill hundreds of meters into bedrock to find spotty deposits.

 

I could go on and on about this stuff, stereo, but this is just not the thread for it. I'd just assume we try and stay on topic here.

[Erasmus00]

Question- is there any evidence whatsoever that restricting carbon dioxide emissions will hurt the economy?

 

Also

 

The claim is based on the GCM. It is not proven that it is causative. At best it is correlated. All of the IPCC report is based on modeling. The modeling uses what is known as the GCM.

 

To doubt general circulation models you have to doubt Navier-Stokes. Does anyone really doubt the Navier-Stokes equations?

[BrianG]

The claim is based on the GCM. It is not proven that it is causative. At best it is correlated. All of the IPCC report is based on modeling. The modeling uses what is known as the GCM.

 

This seems to be the basis for man made climate change, computer models. The IPCC reported in 2007 doubling atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce] will cause a temperature increase, with 2 to 4.6 C increase, a 3.3 C increase with a plus or minus 1.3 C, or a 60% error margin.

[Eclipse Now]

Question- is there any evidence whatsoever that restricting carbon dioxide emissions will hurt the economy?

 

Also

 

 

 

To doubt general circulation models you have to doubt Navier-Stokes. Does anyone really doubt the Navier-Stokes equations?

 

Hi Erasmus,

can you please unpack the Navier-Stokes thang (in English, I'm not very technical and rely on the "executive summary" of these reports and phenomenon.)

 

Re: Iraq invasion

I think I agree with the prolific blogger and peak oil expert James Howard Kunstler that Iraq is not so much about 'stealing' Iraq's oil, or getting it to the market, as much as it was about setting up a huge 'police station' in the Middle East. Remember the Carter Doctrine!

 

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

 

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

 

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

 

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

 

Lastly, is this whole thread going to be about the Iraq invasion? I thought we were here to discuss does it matter if global warming is a fraud? My own reaction would be immense relief, because global warming is the one meme that has people reconsidering how to live a life without fossil fuels and we have to do that anyway one day... better to leave fossil fuels before they leave you!