Whatever you do, do not get frightened at climate change. It is only pollution. The same voices that tell us that Al Gore is a fraud also tell us that the solutions to climate change will ruin our economies; it's a massive climate science conspiracy that climate change is a myth or that it won't be good for us. These people are confused.Truthout | Opinion
Cornell and Stanford have published a plan for a fossil-fuel-free New York state by 2030. The plan seems big at $569 billion. But upon completion, by 2030, the savings from health and environmental issues (not inclusive of climate change impacts), plus the higher profit margin from alternative energy sources, will equal $114 billion per year. This pays off the capital investment in less than five years. And each year thereafter, savings and profits will be higher under an alternative energy infrastructure because under a fossil fuel energy infrastructure, environmental and health costs go up only as profits diminish because of rising fuel costs.12
Don't get frightened; get mad. Get really mad. … Get motivated. Take action. Tell your political leaders what they need to do.
Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013"
Bruce Melton
22 comments:
"Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'", article by BBC News from 2007. Talk about fear mongering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Apparently, the climate models are completely inaccurate or should I say deeply flawed. Kind of reminds of economic models.
Just in time for peak oil next decade, nature uncovers a vast new expanse of rich untapped hydrocarbons resources previously guarded by layers of ice in the arctic. Human ingenuity will exploit the abundant, cheap fuel for another generation or two of humans to consume and carry us through until we find our way off this blue marble. Off the planet only to discover vast quantities of every element and chemical humans can turn into resources, where we will only be limited by human ingenuity. What an exciting turn of events.
Wait until people start bringing large masses of resources to this planet from elsewhere and the interior of the planet begins the heat up and convect again from the added mass. The plates will move and shift and the environmentalists will have a new issue to work on. The future is full of possibility.
"Wait until people start bringing large masses of resources to this planet"
Planet earth gains weight every day and has been since the very beginning from asteroid impacts and a constant rain of space dust that gravity pulls to the earth's surface.
That aside, I believe the Chinese are going to the moon for Helium 3 (H3), which is extremely rare on earth but abundant on the surface of the moon owing the constant bombardment of electrons from the solar wind.
H3 will be the ideal fuel for thermonuclear fusion energy. The US will be buying power generated from Chinese fusion energy in the future to fix broken down windmills an obsolete solar panels.
The mass that accretes to earth naturally hasn't increased the size of the planet's radius in billions of years. It is not enough to reverse the planets slow and steady cooling.
Bullish_Bear,
I've been having the same thoughts lately… climate science models (and bad predictions) reminds me of economic models.
I've also been trying to figure out how MMTers can focus such a sharp critical eye on mainstream economic models, but not on mainstream climate models.
The best answer I can come up with is Willful Ignorance.
Climate change is associated with various "left-wing" goals like cleaning up the environment, getting on to renewable energy, etc. etc and a lot of MMTers tend to lean "left" on the political spectrum.
So I wonder if, Tom Hickey for example, doesn't allow his sharp crticial eye to zero in on the flaws in the mainstream climate science… precisely because he supports the solutions for the crisis, whether or not the crisis is actually real. I think it was just a few days ago Hickey suggested shit is really going to hit the fan by 2020 for the global climate; And when it doesn't, much like the Hyperinflationistas, it will just around the corner.
p.s. Much respect Tom Hickey. Besides your views on climate science, I very much enjoy and respect your thoughts.
Even if you are not concerned with climate change, which I think is foolish, there is still the negative externality of pollution, the real cost of which is huge wrt to health and environment.
Cornell and Stanford have published a plan for a fossil-fuel-free New York state by 2030. The plan seems big at $569 billion. But upon completion, by 2030, the savings from health and environmental issues (not inclusive of climate change impacts), plus the higher profit margin from alternative energy sources, will equal $114 billion per year. This pays off the capital investment in less than five years. And each year thereafter, savings and profits will be higher under an alternative energy infrastructure because under a fossil fuel energy infrastructure, environmental and health costs go up only as profits diminish because of rising fuel costs.12
"Not inclusive of climate change impacts."
I purposely left city living in 1973 and located in low pollution areas since, owing to concern about pollution. This was a bit of wrench at first, since I was a confirmed city-dweller, but in time I not only got used to it but now I look at time I must spend in cities as necessary but regrettable.
Tom,
I'm interested in the truth, regardless of whether it fits with my previous beliefs. I'm a lefty at heart, but if I see the Mainstream Left manipulating the masses even in pursuit of policies I actually agree with (renewable energy, etc), then I'm gonna call bullshit where I see it. And the more I look into climate change, the more skeptical I become of it.
I know you think it's foolish to no be concerned about climate change. I was suggesting you believe that becuase you haven't applied the rigor of your (normally) critical eye toward the area of climate science. I think if you do - if you honestly give the science coming from "skeptics" a chance - I think you'll become more skeptical yourself.
Here is the shortest summary of the most general case being made by skeptics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CiGa82CthU
The website Watts Up With That is one of the leading skeptic websites. There's a lot of interesting conversation that goes on there : http://wattsupwiththat.com/
JK, I believe my lying eyes, watching glaciers collapse on YouTube and the Northwest Passage open, as well as weather extremes in this area (Midwest) that are unprecedented. Ocean temps are rising, too, and sea water becoming increasingly acidic, threatening extinction of key species.
Maybe there is a better explanation. If so, I am all ears, but climate change seems to me to be the best candidate.
BTW, Dr. David Evans in that video is also a conspiracy theorist:
the continued use of phrases such as “international bankers”, “banksters”, “banking families”, “gold smiths”, references to centuries long conspiracies, the Rothschild’s and the use of climate change as a cover for one-world government” are – to say the least – highly problematical
Watching the deniers
Sound like a right-wing nut case with an axe to grind to me.
Tom,
Your lying eyes live in a milisecond of a time scale compared to Earth and Climate. Earth's climate is hugely complex and probably fluctuates on time scales way beyond a human life. We're talking about trends that last hundreds and thousands of years. Further, to cite what you see with your eyes in the real world as good evidence... is bad science. Don't forget we are all susceptible to confirmation bias...
-Glaciation waxes and wanes. But even if ice is melting in the North, what if it's increasing in the South? Here's PBS, hardly a bastion of skepticism: "Satellite images from 2012 showed that Antarctic sea ice reached its highest levels extent on record"
(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/why-climate-change-means-more----and-less----ice-for-the-antarctic.html)
-Is your local weather really that extreme? Unprecented in your short lifetime or in Earth's long lifetime?
etc.
Appearances can be deceiving! You know this as an MMT supporter. It appears that taxes fund our federal government spending, but when you dig deeper, that's not true.
Also, attacking Dr. David Evans is a cheap shot. I offered that link to show you the very general argument layed out by skeptics. And you attack the messenger instead of the message? Come-on. These are the tactics of people who haven't given much thought to the issue.
How about Freeman Dyson: "Freeman John Dyson..a theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering."
Is he a skeptical voice of reason?…
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU)
Is your local weather really that extreme? Unprecented in your short lifetime or in Earth's long lifetime?
We've had three five hundred year floods in the last twenty years, just as climate scientists said we would. The cost has run into billions. The last one cost University of iowa $250 million.
HJK, the number of scientists on the side of human caused global warming vastly exceeds the # of skeptics. That's not proof, but I'll side with the predominant view.
Moreover, many of the world's militaries, including the Pentagon, are saying that the greatest threat to global security is climate change.
"the number of scientists on the side of human caused global warming vastly exceeds the # of skeptics. That's not proof, but I'll side with the predominant view."
That's what people say in economics too!
I'm not saying the predominant view is wrong. I don't have the expertise to make a good judgment. What I am saying is that much like MMT is marginalized by the mainstream - can't get published in mainstream journals, etc. - I think it's possible the same may be true in climate science.
If you look for them, there are a lot of reputable scientists that are very skeptical of AGW, the IPCC, etc. Just like it's hard to find MMT views unless you get lucky or know where to look, the same seems to be true for climate science.
I'll say this… the climate is VERY complex. Our investigation of it is still in it's infancy. A lot of the scary predictions are based on models… and you know (in economics) how models can oversimplify and misrepresent reality.
The plants, the oceans, the atmosphere and clouds, the ground, the sun, etc. There are a lot of variables in this science. I'm skeptical that the mainstream consensus has more than an elementary understanding of what is going on.
It's possible but unlikely because climate scientists are quite a different breed from economists in that they are actually scientists rather than impostors masquerading as scientists, like most economists.
It's moot anyway. If humans are a major factor in climate change, there's no saving us. It's like trying to turn a deep draft vessel moving at flank speed on a dime. Everyone on the bridge just in horror awaiting the inevitable collision.
The good news is that apparently solar energy is now less expensive than coal, but scaling up and replacing coal fired plants will take decades. And there is as yet no easily transportable source available other than batteries.
If the trajectory that most climate scientists are projecting is correct, humanity is already in deep doo-doo.
If there is no human factor involved, then there's not much that can be done to stave off the inevitable. But if there is a significant human factor, at least the damage can be mitigated by taking action.
If it were just a matter of climate change, that would be one thing. But factor in the other consequences of carbon emission as a negative externality, and it's a no brainer.
The safest bet would likely be introducing a worldwide, revenue neutral (underline this point) carbon tax.
If AGW is real, said tax will help mitigate it.
If it isn't, and the weather changes in ways contrary to present day climate models (say, there is a cooling instead of a generalized warming effect) then humans could simply scrap that tax.
The tax would be a flexible method for dealing with very complex phenomena whose scientific understanding appears to be at a relatively primitive stage.
And - above all - let us refrain from adopting so called "cap and trade" schemes with their tradable permits to pollute etc.
At heart, these seem to be clever and complicated mechanisms for enriching the financial sector and its usual apologists within mainstream economics.
Jose,
I completely disagree on the carbon tax. I think the carbon tax is the worst idea. Hear me out…
There's no way to institute it worldwide. We don't have a worldwide governing body and enforcer.
The 'first world' does not have the right, after having developed on fossil fuels, to deny poor countries that opportnity.
Energy is THE input-cost that goes into almost everything. Taxing enegy will make everyone poorer. It's a massive redistribution of wealth to the energy producers or… a massive reduction of wealth as that tax revenue gets sucked into the black hole of the currency issuer's bottomless well of money. Why do we want to make everyone poorer?
Here's my solution to AGW that gets around both of those and still reduces carbon…
The industrialized countries should, on their own, very heavily subsidize the R&D of renewable energies and requisite technologies to bring it all online. The goal should be to make energy cheaper, not more expensive. When renewables get cheaper, they will naturally 'through the price and market system' eliminate use of fossil fuels precisely because they will be cheaper and fossil fuels will be more expensive.
The fair and good way to get rid of carbon emissions is to make the world wealthier, not poorer. I'm very skeptical of those in power who push a carbon tax - an energy tax.
I think that a combination of a tax on negative externalities and a governments' funding of a global Manhattan Project to develop the next inexpensive and abundant source of clean, renewable and sustainable energy is the way to go. Everyone doesn't have to do it. The major users of carbon need to lead the way and provide the technology to others for free. Ideally, the approach would be as decentralized as possible, e.g., solar units on homes and buildings rather than using a power station and relying heavily on an energy grid. Eventually that grid will have to be regional and then global, and that's too much concentration without redundancy.
Regardless of climate change, this needs to be done ASAP due to negative externalities affecting the environment and health, as well as to supply the next phase of inexpensive abundant energy to fire global distributed prosperity. The return will greatly exceed the cost, even excluding climate effects,
Climate change is real and always have been since long before humans walked the face of the earth. I grew up on Long Island which is a geological landmark for the last two continental ice sheet advances as recently as 40-50 thousand years ago. Many factors can fuel climate change including solar activity, volcanic activity, asteroid impacts and yes, industrial pollution. Hard to separate out which factors are the dominant factor. However, consider that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are logically a windfall to photosynthetic plants, the proliferation of which could conceivably absorb and store much of the extra heat build up, not unlike the way refrigerators work.
Right, which is why deforestation is depriving the world of its CO2 sinks, especially the Amazon currently. The oceans are also sinks and they are heating and becoming more acidic. As these sinks fill up or are depleted, the remaining sink is the atmosphere.
Post a Comment