Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

[rushmc 23]

Please don't respond by asking for a link.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Plenty have made billions developing countermeasures to gravity or other
>ways to defeat it's limitations, like the aerospace industry.

Yep. Does it therefore follow that gravity probably doesn't exist, and its existence is just a fiction created by the aerospace industry to line their pockets?

Or is there underlying science that really doesn't change whether or not Boeing exists?

Of course.

Quote

>The science behind the possibility of millions dead worldwide? Solid as a rock.

Please post a link to the science suggesting that millions would die from this flu.

No. I didn't say scientists said millions would die from this flu. But, there was the possibility that millions could.

If this strain was as deadly as initially feared, millions worldwide could have died. This strain appears to be less virulent than feared.

Here's quade: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3554935#3554935

Here's quade "pretty sure" that more people will die from this than a normal flu season. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3555062#3555062

There was very little evidence to suggest that Paul would be wrong. Indeed, it is still too early to tell whether Paul will be proven right.

Check this out: http://www.livescience.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=FluSpike_Visualization

This is a simulation of a flu pandemic. I believe I saw something similar (if not the same one) years ago. Assuming a 5% mortality, we would expect from those similation of a minimum of 5 people per thousand in the US dead from it. That would be 1.5 million.

Normal processes would indicate that the disease would spread quickly and the rate of infection would still be steadily rising. It has not. We don't know why. Perhaps it's all over but just less virulent.

Quote

>With global climate change? We have to wait. The question is not whether
>the climate will change in the coming centuries or millenia.

Correct. The question is - which will it be? Will we see very significant climate change in 30,000 years (which happens regularly) or in 100 years (which is very unusual climactically, and is generally associated with mass extinctions?) If the current trend continues, it will be in 100 years.

Yes. And if the trend seen in Mexico continued, we would be in the thousands or tens of thousands of deaths right now. We're looking at between 4% and 10% in Mexico.

In Mid March, 60% of La Gloria, Veracruz had fallen ill. Within a month there were a lot of deaths - how many we don't know. I think the number is in the 40s now. And it was expected to get a lot worse - near exponential.

It didn't. The early trend did not continue.

Quote

We are not 100% sure that smoking causes cancer, although we are 99% sure that it is a strong predictor for lung cancer and heart disease. Would you advice a friend of yours who is a heavy smoker to continue smoking, since you cannot be certain he will get cancer?

No. I would not. We are not 100% sure that any smoker will ever get cancer. It doesn't mean I advise to do it. On the contrary, I think that the mney can be better spent elsewhere. Yes, smokng is a good predictor. But it is often wrong.

I am a "denier" because we aren't sure. Some believe (one here even said it) simply the chance of it is enough to warrant taking steps to change it. Obviously, these steps include a radical change in our way of life. In a sense, arguing that if we don't change our lives now we will have to change our lives in the future.

In 2029, 99942 Apophis is set to pass between the earth and the moon. If may pass through a gravitational keyhole that will put it on a collision course with earth in 2036. There is that chance. Should we take all action necessary to prevent it now? Or should we wait for further observations (hey, just a centimeter per minute of change in the orbit can make it miss us entirely.)

Or do we study it more, make minor changes and make preparations to implement a plan once it is known?

Or perhaps we just say, "Look. We are making the decision to move toward renewable and long term solutions. Within twenty years, we intend to complete 23 nuclear power plants and replace coal fired-plants." Okay - now we're talking.

"Forget about global climate change for a minute. Coal-fired plants are responsible for roughly 30,000 deaths every year, and innumerable cases of emphysema. Think about as having the same public health effects as eradicating the flu. And, we can have cheap electricity, cleaner air, and not rely on fossil fuels. And maybe put off global warming."

Okay. Now we're talking. no abstract future theories - we're talking 30k deaths today. But, that just isn't sexy, is it?

Call me a denier. I call myself a skeptic. I'll even call myself a pragmatist.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Actually I don't want anyone to ask for a link because as you and many others have proven time and time again, any evidence provided will be dismissed without consideration, so I'll not waste my time.

- Dan G

[rhys 0]

Quote

The "debate" has been settled scientifically and rather conclusively. The only reason the "debate" continues is politics and money.

And by fuckwits that want to not feel bad about driving their poxy ass, penis extention, eldorado pick ups.

Those that can't put 2 and two together, and ignore the haze and lack of natural environment surrounding them.

and by those that think they can prove fact wrong by using legal beagal terminology to skew reality.

For many reasons, people do not like to face relity as it is too scary/complicated to comprehend. I.E the massive following for many religons that seem to contradict each other.

if they could use thier brain for themselves, with an open mind they would soon work it out.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Actually I don't want anyone to ask for a link because as you and many others have proven time and time again, any evidence provided will be dismissed without consideration, so I'll not waste my time.

Sort of like how the GW advocates dismiss anything that hasn't come from the "consensus" sources?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>No. I would not.

So you would ask a friend of yours to make a decision that could be very hard for him - and could cost him a lot of money, if he uses one of the many programs that help him quit - based on unproven science on which there is no consensus? Just because you're a believer in the opinion of the surgeon general, who is no doubt part of the billion-dollar anti-smoking lobby? I am shocked that you would advocate a change in someone's behavior just because of what science says MIGHT happen!

> In a sense, arguing that if we don't change our lives now we will have to
> change our lives in the future.

Right, again akin to smoking. Why change now (quit smoking) just to avoid changing later (i.e. dying a painful early death?) Both are changes. One is painful now, the other might never happen.

>Or do we study it more, make minor changes and make preparations to
>implement a plan once it is known?

?? Why would you implement a plan if you thought it was going to hit? Even if science was fairly sure it was on a collision course, using the best data we have? There's always a chance it might not - and I'm sure someone, somewhere, would claim that it's all a government lie funded by the asteroid-interceptor lobby.

>Or perhaps we just say, "Look. We are making the decision to move
>toward renewable and long term solutions. Within twenty years, we
>intend to complete 23 nuclear power plants and replace coal fired-
>plants." Okay - now we're talking.

>"Forget about global climate change for a minute. Coal-fired plants
>are responsible for roughly 30,000 deaths every year, and
>innumerable cases of emphysema. Think about as having the same
>public health effects as eradicating the flu. And, we can have cheap
>electricity, cleaner air, and not rely on fossil fuels. And maybe put off
>global warming."

>Okay. Now we're talking.

Well, now you're talking about what the deniers are opposing with all their might. Because those nuclear plants cost money, and the coal plants closing put coal miners and powerplant operators out of business. (And it will raise the cost of electricity compared to mountaintop-removal mining and burning coal with no pollution controls.)

>no abstract future theories - we're talking 30k deaths today. But, that
>just isn't sexy, is it?

It may not be sexy, but supporting something like that puts you squarely in Al Gore's pocket according to many.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Actually I don't want anyone to ask for a link because as you and many others have proven time and time again, any evidence provided will be dismissed without consideration, so I'll not waste my time.

Sort of like how the GW advocates dismiss anything that hasn't come from the "consensus" sources?

It's an effective technique for ending any and all dissent.
"Prove it."
"You'd just dismiss it."
"So you can't prove it."
"You just wouldn't understand it."

note: not all do this. It's why I respect bill and jcd.
further note: this is not something unique to the climate change consensus position
additional furtherther note: it isn't unique to any ideological bent

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

good news from china now...

Quote

China is ready to abandon its resistance to limits on its carbon emissions and wants to reach an international deal to fight global warming, the Guardian has learned.

According to Britain's climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, who met senior officials in Beijing this week, China is ready to "do business" with developed countries to reach an agreement to replace the Kyoto treaty.

Miliband said he was encouraged by the change in tone since late last year in the country that emits more greenhouse gases than any other. "I think they're up for a deal. I get the strong impression that they want an agreement," he told the Guardian.

"They see the impact of climate change on China and they know the world is moving towards a low-carbon economy and see the business opportunities that will come with that."

The shift in the Chinese position significantly improves the chances of an agreement being reached when world leaders meet in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a deal that scientists say is critical if dangerous warming is to be avoided.

While Britain and the European Union – which have a large historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions – are pushing for ambitious reduction targets at home, no global climate deal will be possible in Copenhagen without the agreement of China and the US, which together are responsible for more than 40% of the world's annual carbon emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/06/china-seeks-climate-change-deal

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DanG 1]

Quote

note: not all do this. It's why I respect bill and jcd.

I don't have the patience of Job like Bill and jcd obviously do. Regardless of all the evidence that has been provided here, no one from the denier side has changed their position one iota, so it's really quite useless.

Money and politics are driving this debate, not science.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Money and politics are driving this debate, not science.

[DanG 1]

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

The first two you list, along with GE.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Ahh. You think think this whole thing is just a plot by certain entities to make money.

Have you considered the possibility that anthopegenic climate change is real and the fight against green energy is just a plot by other people to make money?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Ahh. You think think this whole thing is just a plot by certain entities to make money.

Have you considered the possibility that anthopomorphic climate change is real and the fight against green energy is just a plot by other people to make money?

A plot? Well, GE and Al Gore are certinly lobbying to set themselves up to get rich(er). The UN is wanting to use the GWing hype to get more tax dollars.

This is about control and money, you are correct in that but, you want to tell the rest of us how we should live based on what? Science? No, more like green living consensus.

Records and data do not support your side if looked at in the big picture. Anartic ice levels come to mind as recent scientic reports show.


So, if you were asking who would make the most money in a ligit endevor when then Exxon/Moble would be the correct answer. Hype dollars goes to Al Gore and GE.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Ahh. You think think this whole thing is just a plot by certain entities to make money.

it appears his hobby is collecting tin hats

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ahh. You think think this whole thing is just a plot by certain entities to make money.

it appears his hobby is collecting tin hats

Only to provide those of you who need them with a free service.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

Exxon-mobil stands to make more by sticking to the non-anthropegenic climate change model.

Al Gore stands to lose substantially if the problem does not or no longer exists.

Think of it this way - Jesse Jackson was visibly sobbing during Obama's acceptance speech, for he just lost 90% of his business and credibility. The worst thing that could have happened to Jesse Jackson was a black president.

I have a huge amount of respect for Al Gore - he invented the enviromental industry. He took it from a movement and turned it into an actual industry - a multi-billion dollar per year industry with financial and political clout.

Gore, however, is different. He does not merely shake down. He provides a service and products. Of course, the best way to build his market is to get the government(s) to help stifle his competition.

The easiest way is to help build public hatred of the competition. Gore is a genius.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

The first two you list, along with GE.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

The first two you list, along with GE.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Talk about irony!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

Exxon-mobil stands to make more by sticking to the non-anthropegenic climate change model.

Al Gore stands to lose substantially if the problem does not or no longer exists.

Think of it this way - Jesse Jackson was visibly sobbing during Obama's acceptance speech, for he just lost 90% of his business and credibility. The worst thing that could have happened to Jesse Jackson was a black president.

I have a huge amount of respect for Al Gore - he invented the enviromental industry. He took it from a movement and turned it into an actual industry - a multi-billion dollar per year industry with financial and political clout.

Gore, however, is different. He does not merely shake down. He provides a service and products. Of course, the best way to build his market is to get the government(s) to help stifle his competition.

The easiest way is to help build public hatred of the competition. Gore is a genius.

Yet again well stated.

Genius or not, it aint right.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks. And who stands to make more money by ignoring this issue: Al Gore and green energy start-ups, or Exxon-Mobil?

The first two you list, along with GE.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Talk about irony!!!

I really do need to write a screenplay....


"Clueless in Iowa"

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

So, then, you agree that this is political?

Can we afford to take that chance?

Hey, if you are right and we are responsible for global warming, then cool.

If you are partially right and we see global warming and we are not responsible, then we've done a lot for nothing.

If you are wrong and global warming didn't happen then we have done a whole lot for nothing.

If you are way wrong and the earth starts cooling and we helped it along then we have done a whole lot for a whole lot less.

And what if, as seems highly likely given the abundance of evidence, you and rushmc are way wrong?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Can we afford to take that chance?

Hey, if you are right and we are responsible for global warming, then cool.

If you are partially right and we see global warming and we are not responsible, then we've done a lot for nothing.

If you are wrong and global warming didn't happen then we have done a whole lot for nothing.

If you are way wrong and the earth starts cooling and we helped it along then we have done a whole lot for a whole lot less.

Re: boldfaced passage above

How would that be a lot for nothing? If something is threatening the environment in which we live, and we take action to mitigate that threat, the value of that action is not dependent upon the cause of the threat.

Quote

Which choice? It's political.

That's the whole point that the "deniers" make. Political decisions are being made for which there is disagreement.

That global warming is real, with a high probability of a large anthropogenic component is not politics; it's science. Discussion of that topic should take place, primarily, among scientists, with the aid of respected, peer refereed journals. Debating that reality in public opinion forums is asinine. It isn't inaccurate to refer to people who are in denial of the underlying science as deniers.

OTOH, public policy w/r/t climate change is political. There should be public discussion about what policies should be adopted, how the implementation of those policies will be paid for, etc.

Quote

After all, we could not afford the risk that Iraq had WMD's. All the deniers out there just wanted us to wait until we got attacked.

The evidence that Iraq had WMD's was hardly conclusive in early 2003. That's much different from today's state of knowledge w/r/t global warming.

Quote

Isn't the world glad that the US did what it did? And the American public, too? Talk about a zenith of responsible government. We just couldn't take that chance. To not support it was simply unpatriotic. Case closed. End of discussion. Period.

There should have been more discussion regarding policy. Even if there actually had been solid evidence that Iraq had WMD's, the policy adopted to deal with such a threat should have been more open to public discussion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>No. I would not.

So you would ask a friend of yours to make a decision that could be very hard for him - and could cost him a lot of money, if he uses one of the many programs that help him quit - based on unproven science on which there is no consensus?

???

You first asked if I would recommend that he smoke/keep smoking. I said I would not. Would I ask him to stop smoking? No, I would not. It's his choice. If he asked me for my opinion I would give it to him. If he did not ask my opinion I would not.

Quote

Just because you're a believer in the opinion of the surgeon general, who is no doubt part of the billion-dollar anti-smoking lobby?

No. Because I happen to be more convinced with that science than with the science of climate change. I'm more likely to believe my wife's story of trouble than a client's.

Quote

I am shocked that you would advocate a change in someone's behavior just because of what science says MIGHT happen!

I didn't advocate it. If asked to advocate, I would. Then again, I am nothing if not inconsistent. This comes from examining issues independently.

Quote

> In a sense, arguing that if we don't change our lives now we will have to
> change our lives in the future.

Right, again akin to smoking. Why change now (quit smoking) just to avoid changing later (i.e. dying a painful early death?) Both are changes. One is painful now, the other might never happen.

Indeed. Incidentally, I can see arguments in favor of smoking. It does have a tendency to relax people. It does often help people be relaxed and focused - which definitely is positive. It also has a tendency to increase blood pressure, lung disease, etc. I see both sides.

I think that all sides should be acknowledged. If a person wants to flare up a cancer stick, have a few beers, light up a doobie, take an 8 ball, well, I won't stop you.

I am nothing if not honest.

Quote

>Or do we study it more, make minor changes and make preparations to
>implement a plan once it is known?

?? Why would you implement a plan if you thought it was going to hit? Even if science was fairly sure it was on a collision course, using the best data we have? There's always a chance it might not -

Because I believe that there are some relative certainties out there, as well as other matters that are fairly free of other variables. We have proven ourselves to be fairly good at computing trajectories. Indeed, we've shown this simply through our experience in space flight. In space there are fewer variables - fewer variables meaning less margin for error and fewer assumptions leading to increased accuracy.

Thus, I have a higher level of trust in those calculations. Yes, they can be wrong, but they have been pretty accurate (so long as they do things like ensure that feet per second and meters per second are not mixed up in calculations).

If I am anything, I am selective in levels of scrutiny with certain things.

Quote

and I'm sure someone, somewhere, would claim that it's all a government lie funded by the asteroid-interceptor lobby.

And claim it is a sign from God. And claim that we should not interfere with natural processes. Etc.

If I am anything, I am cynical.

Quote

Well, now you're talking about what the deniers are opposing with all their might. Because those nuclear plants cost money, and the coal plants closing put coal miners and powerplant operators out of business. (And it will raise the cost of electricity compared to mountaintop-removal mining and burning coal with no pollution controls.)

Indeed. Nuclear power plants cost money to build and operate. There will be startup costs. True - coal fired plants keep coal miners employed, as well as ebvironmental restoration workers. True - nuclear would be more expensive than coal without pollution controls. Issue - coal in the US has pollution controls.

This is again a regional issue. We'd have a helluva time getting nuclear to replace coal east of the Rockies. It would be fairly simple here on the West Coast - California might have one coal-fired plant.

Nationwide, coal generates 49% of electricity in 2007. 53% of the additional power generation capacity in the US to 2030 is expected to be natural gas. Renewable resources constitute 22%. Coal is only 18% of expected capacity additions. Predictions are that electricity costs are that nuclear will be the least expensive by 2030.

Natural gas plants are, by far, the cheapest in capital costs but experience (by far) the most volatility in variable costs - the price.

Now - what I am referencing are only predictions that may not come true. They are estimates, which anyone who has ever done work knows, are subject to modification.

Still - most of those that would like to see changes because of the possibility/likelihood/probability/certainty of anthropogenic global warming have already been convinced, haven't they? So in a sense it is preaching to the choir. Most believe that the "deniers" cannot be convinced - so they keep trying to convince or otherwise stop any discussion.

Instead, perhaps a useful thing would be to actually understand the "deniers" and learn the reasons why they deny and figure out what deniers are interested in.

What are their interests? Why do they deny? It seems clear that it is not merely a trivial thing. There is something that they are protecting. Note that they are not all petrochemical industry hacks. They are not typically the type to survey the best piece of virgin land to dump radioactive waste.

Then may you find something in common - a policy that they can support that has the desired effect.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you are partially right and we see global warming and we are not responsible, then we've done a lot for nothing....

How would that be a lot for nothing? If something is threatening the environment in which we live, and we take action to mitigate that threat, the value of that action is not dependent upon the cause of the threat.

If it is worth 45 trillion dollars to prevent global warming because it is anthropogenic, then is it worth 45 trillion dollars if global warming is not affected or has little or no anthropogenic cause?

If I offer Joe $100,000 to stop smoking and he does, would I have a decent argument to say, "You got a million dollars worth of benefit from not smoking?" What if I offer him $100k to stop smoking and then I find out he never smoked to begin with?

I may, in fact, assign a 1 million dollar value for his stopping smoking - thus telling him he owes me $900k. He would disagree.

Does each person assign the same value to things? I don't care how most excellent a wine is, I won't pay $800 for a bottle of it, even though there are plenty of people who will. I don't think any wine is that valuable.

The value of that action is not dependent upon the cause of the threat. The value of that action is the value of the perceived benefit to the actor!

Quote

That global warming is real, with a high probability of a large anthropogenic component is not politics;

Do we care about global warming? Why? Should every person be concerned about it?

Quote

Discussion of that topic should take place, primarily, among scientists, with the aid of respected, peer refereed journals.

Cool. Then let us keep it among scientists and not among the public for discussion. That means that there should be no further discussion among the population - it doesn't affect them.

Quote

Debating that reality in public opinion forums is asinine.

Cool Contact the press. Contact publishers and realclimate. Get it passworded. The public has no business discussing this.

Quote

public policy w/r/t climate change is political. There should be public discussion about what policies should be adopted, how the implementation of those policies will be paid for, etc.

That's the political bent. What is it worth? $45 trillion by 2050?

It has a high degree of probability that it is anthropogenic. To what degree to we temper our choices with regard to that uncertainty?

That is where the uncertainty falls into it. In my job we do it all the time. What is it worth? Not to me - to the client. And each person is different.

Quote

The evidence that Iraq had WMD's was hardly conclusive in early 2003

Even you admit that evidence of anthropogenic causes is not conclusive - but "high probability."

Where you see differences I see similarities. It's a different perspective. I see your point in it.

Quote

There should have been more discussion regarding policy. Even if there actually had been solid evidence that Iraq had WMD's, the policy adopted to deal with such a threat should have been more open to public discussion.

Absolutely! And I wholeheartedly agree! Even assuming there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of WMD production, I personally did not think that the threat was worthy of the cost of the response to that threat. There was a pretty solid consensus among those with the information (the POTUS, his advisors, Congress, military, etc) that the threat was real. Those who disagreed with the policy just didn't know what the policymakers knew.

Thus, I can disagree with the proposed policies. And some additional reasons are my concern with the true nature of the athropogenic effect.

Frankly - with word coming out on China's signs of willingness to enter into some discussions about limiting their pollution. With the world - especially China on board, many of my concerns about the policies would be eliminated.

My wife is hotter than your wife.