Possible refutation of human influence on climate change

[PKRudeBoy]

Potential natural causes?
This seems to be a plausible argument against global warming being anything more than a natural cycle, but the references to the 'Climategate' emails set off a warning bell for me. As math isn't exactly my strong suite, I leave it to the more mathematically inclined members to decide if the data and equations are accurate, or if it's just Exxon sponsored better lying through (distorted) science.

[Formless]

There are natural causes AND there are human causes, and they both have an effect on the earth's climate. Don't be fooled by false dichotomies, especially ones sold by the kind of liar who thinks that he can bamboozle you with a misrepresented graph that only extends to 1985 (thus obfuscating the very damning trend from the last hundred years that cannot be explained naturally) and lies about emails that were stolen and hacked in violation of the law. Some climate deniers think that they can appear more legit if they can present an alternative natural explanation for the warming, but fail to understand that most of the things they propose have already been accounted for or tested, and fail to recognize the significance of the words "NATURAL DISASTER".

[PKRudeBoy]

Some of the graphs later on in the article, do extend further back, but they seem only to suggest that it's not taking place as quickly as we may think, while still supporting an overall warming trend.

However, it's starting to seem like both sides have stopped caring altogether about the actual problem, and are just trying to use it to push through their own agendas. The Dem's are intent on passing legislation that, provided the problem is as extensive as they say, will have about as much effect as trying to dampen the Sahara with a plant mister, will probably hurt the economy, and will help them with their base. The Republicans, on the other hand just want to stick their fingers in their ears and make themselves look ridiculous by attacking science in general, which will help them with the large anti-intellectual chunk of their base, and of course make the US look even dumber. So it's a win/win for the parties, and a loss for everyone else. Gotta love hyper-partisanship.

[bobalot]

PKRudeBoy, a small word of advice. Please don't make posts that reek of the golden mean fallacy.

That guys long post looks like a mish-mash of old denialist bullshit. The plot that only extends back to 1985 is particularly dishonest.

[Formless]

I'm a registered green: what does that say about my politics?

I have to ask: have you actually reviewed the evidence for anthropogenic climate change?

[PKRudeBoy]

Oh I'm hardly advocating splitting the difference between the Dems and the Reps, quite the opposite. I think that the Republicans are being idiots for trying (again) to denounce science, but the Democrats are even bigger fucking assholes for pushing ideas that are going to do jack shit other then kick the economy while its down, and stall any actual potential solutions. Things like cap and trade are going to absolutely nothing, while solutions that may actually have some benefit such as a tax on meat, would alienate a huge chunk of the electorate, which means that the Dems would never consider it. If the Democrats have proven anything, its that they are too spineless to attempt to buck public opinion. The fact that the econut part of their base is dead opposed to nuclear power doesn't help much either.

[PKRudeBoy]

I'm a registered green: what does that say about my politics?

I have to ask: have you actually reviewed the evidence for anthropogenic climate change?

Well, that you put principles before practicality, and as a lolbertarian registered with the republicans I can certainly sympathize.

Yes, I have, and as much as I would prefer to ignore it, that little voice in my head that insists on silly things like 'logic' and 'facts' make me agree that we are a big part of the problem. Doesn't stop me from getting hopeful whenever something that says we can just keep on going like we always have rears its head now and again, one to have them crushed by reality, although I do believe that people like Gore, and Ehrlich are scaremongering.

[Samuel]

The Dem's are intent on passing legislation that, provided the problem is as extensive as they say, will have about as much effect as trying to dampen the Sahara with a plant mister,

Remember when we dumped CFCs in the atmosphere and they started eating the ozone layer and people talked about how it was too late?

[bobalot]

Oh I'm hardly advocating splitting the difference between the Dems and the Reps, quite the opposite. I think that the Republicans are being idiots for trying (again) to denounce science, but the Democrats are even bigger fucking assholes for pushing ideas that are going to do jack shit other then kick the economy while its down, and stall any actual potential solutions. Things like cap and trade are going to absolutely nothing, while solutions that may actually have some benefit such as a tax on meat, would alienate a huge chunk of the electorate, which means that the Dems would never consider it. If the Democrats have proven anything, its that they are too spineless to attempt to buck public opinion. The fact that the econut part of their base is dead opposed to nuclear power doesn't help much either.

So the side that acknowledges the problem is worse than the side that outright denies its existence? How exactly does that work? A half-hearted attempt to solve the problem is better than ignoring it's existence, I would have thought.

Where is your evidence that cap and trade will "kick the economy while its down economy"? (This makes the assumption that the Democrats are seriously advocating implementing such a scheme right now)
Where is your evidence that cap and trade will do "absolutely nothing"?
Where is your evidence that a tax on meat is superior to cap and trade?

[Formless]

Well, that you put principles before practicality,

So I guess you haven't read any of my posts. Interesting to know where your bias lies.

[PKRudeBoy]

Remember when we dumped CFCs in the atmosphere and they started eating the ozone layer and people talked about how it was too late?

Yes, but I think that if they pass it, a large section of the electorate will think that it was 'solved' and will stop caring.

Where is your evidence that cap and trade will destroy the economy?
Where is your evidence that cap and trade will do "absolutely nothing"?
Where is your evidence that a tax on meat is superior to cap and trade?

I sincerely doubt it will destroy the economy, but when we may or may not be starting to recover might not be the best time to add more restrictions.

As to cap and trade doing jack shit, I believe that the results in Germany serve to illustrate the problems with cap and trade quite well, unless for some reason you think that the lobbyists won't get their hands on it, which if you happen to believe after Citizens United you must have an IQ hovering somewhere around room temp.

Finally, considering that raising animals for meat happens to be one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, as well as the fact that agriculture is one of the smallest sectors of the US economy, I would say it would be one of the best places to cut back, while keeping any potential economic difficulty to a minimum

So I guess you haven't read any of my posts. Interesting to know where your bias lies.

I tend to get enough shit for being a libertarian from some of my friends to make sure to avoid SDN's politics section like the plague for the most part.

[Formless]

I tend to get enough shit for being a libertarian from some of my friends to make sure to avoid SDN's politics section like the plague for the most part.

So you are closed minded. Interesting.

You realize that I was actually deriding you for the stereotyping implicit in your thinking, right? A reasonable person who had never read my posts would have answered "I can't conclude anything about you except perhaps that you value the environment." But nope! I must be anti-pragmatic like you (that's not a compliment). Rather than, say, someone who's particularly informed about the subject and feels that existential threats take priority over the petty shit that most people consider the news of the day.

Oh, and I hate the two party system.

[bobalot]

Seriously what the hell?

Here are my questions, I will put numbers next to them to make this easier to follow.

(1) So the side that acknowledges the problem is worse than the side that outright denies its existence? How exactly does that work? A half-hearted attempt to solve the problem is better than ignoring it's existence, I would have thought.

(2) Where is your evidence that cap and trade will "kick the economy while its down economy"? (This makes the assumption that the Democrats are seriously advocating implementing such a scheme right now)
(3) Where is your evidence that cap and trade will do "absolutely nothing"?
(4) Where is your evidence that a tax on meat is superior to cap and trade?

I sincerely doubt it will destroy the economy, but when we may or may not be starting to recover might not be the best time to add more restrictions.

As to cap and trade doing jack shit, I believe that the results in Germany serve to illustrate the problems with cap and trade quite well, unless for some reason you think that the lobbyists won't get their hands on it, which if you happen to believe after Citizens United you must have an IQ hovering somewhere around room temp.

Finally, considering that raising animals for meat happens to be one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses, as well as the fact that agriculture is one of the smallest sectors of the US economy, I would say it would be one of the best places to cut back, while keeping any potential economic difficulty to a minimum

In response to (1), you completely ignore this question.

In response to (2), you admit you made you exaggerated claim and completely ignore my point about your assumption that the democrats want to introduce such a scheme while the economy is a fragile state. You still fail to provide evidence that Cap & Trade would be detrimental.

In response to (3), you fail to expand on your statement that cap & trade would do "absolutely nothing". You make some vague reference to Germany. Explain why cap and trade failed there.

In response to (4), you fail to show a direct tax on meat and agriculture would be superior and make a new unsupported claim that economic difficulty would be kept to a minimum because it is one of the smaller sectors in the US economy. You fail to take into account what effect raising the prices of food would have on the rest of the economy... or poor people.

On a separate note,

I tend to get enough shit for being a libertarian from some of my friends to make sure to avoid SDN's politics section like the plague for the most part.

Is Libertarianism so fragile that it can't stand criticism?

[Bluewolf]

Is Libertarianism so fragile that it can't stand criticism?

Maybe not everyone likes to get constantly savaged over their views or get dog piled? I am not justifying any of his views but not everyone wants to try and debate them.

PS: In fact he is just in it for the Science/Sc Fi/Math

[PKRudeBoy]

So you are closed minded. Interesting.

You realize that I was actually deriding you for the stereotyping implicit in your thinking, right? A reasonable person who had never read my posts would have answered "I can't conclude anything about you except perhaps that you value the environment." But nope! I must be anti-pragmatic like you (that's not a compliment). Rather than, say, someone who's particularly informed about the subject and feels that existential threats take priority over the petty shit that most people consider the news of the day.

Oh, and I hate the two party system.

No, the idealism over pragmatism would come from going to a third party over working within one of the two and being able to influence it through primaries, as well as the fact that voting for a third party in a two party system is at best symbolic and at worst splits the votes in a close election, just ask Al Gore. This is why I choose to work within the Republicans, but if they throw out batshit insane candidates, like 08, ill go third party as a protest vote. I do agree with you on the two party system though, proportional representation or at least IRV would be better.

So the side that acknowledges the problem is worse than the side that outright denies its existence? How exactly does that work? A half-hearted attempt to solve the problem is better than ignoring it's existence, I would have thought.

Yes, a halfassed fix will only delay the problem, not solve it. If the Republicans keep acting like the anti-intellectual idiots that a large portion of them are, nothing will happen, but the issue will still be up in the air. If the Democrats push through something like the Waxman-Markey bill, which already passed in the House, it wont solve the problem, but the public, with its generally short attention span, may very well move on to the next issue of the week.

(2) Where is your evidence that cap and trade will "kick the economy while its down economy"? (This makes the assumption that the Democrats are seriously advocating implementing such a scheme right now)

Considering that a discussion of economics will likely devolve into right leaning economists being called shills for big oil and left leaning economists being called commie sympathizers, which, while entertaining, won't be particularly useful, so here is an article by the CFR that presents both sides fairly. However, it will cause the expectation that energy costs will increase, which is rarely a good thing. As to the seriously implementing it part, well, it already passed in the House.

(3) Where is your evidence that cap and trade will do "absolutely nothing"?

Cap and trade will only shift emissions around, not eliminate them, as has already happened in Europe, demonstrated here, created a lobbyist's paradise and helped some of the biggest polluters as shown here. If you think that there will be any less lobbying in the US after the Citizens United case, you are an utter idiot.

In response to (4), you fail to show a direct tax on meat and agriculture would be superior and make a new unsupported claim that economic difficulty would be kept to a minimum because it is one of the smaller sectors in the US economy. You fail to take into account what effect raising the prices of food would have on the rest of the economy... or poor people.

Meat is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gasses, and even a small tax would help curb it, or even just eliminating some of the massive agribusiness subsidies might help. The net effect on consumers would not be particularly large, shown here. I'm dreadfully sorry, I had the temerity to assume that someone getting involved in a debate might actually posses some small amount of knowledge on it, my mistake.

Is Libertarianism so fragile that it can't stand criticism?

No, it's not, but SDN isn't generally where I come to talk politics, it's where i come to read discussions about 7 foot tall superman shooting mini rocket launchers with one hand at stormtroopers, and kilometers long space dreadnoughts blowing each other into little pieces. I posted the article because math is not my strong suite and I had a glimmer of hope that the world won't turn into a total shithole. SDN has people who are far better at number crunching than I, and I thought either way it might provide some interest.

[Samuel]

Yes, but I think that if they pass it, a large section of the electorate will think that it was 'solved' and will stop caring.

Short of a philosopher king you aren't going to end human stupidity.

but when we may or may not be starting to recover might not be the best time to add more restrictions.

Actually, it is the best time. Politically it will be covered up by the current down and economically it means that the economy starts running again, people will buy compatible machinary instead of having to replace the old stuff.

As to cap and trade doing jack shit, I believe that the results in Germany serve to illustrate the problems with cap and trade quite well, unless for some reason you think that the lobbyists won't get their hands on it,

So policy's don't work if they aren't designed to work? Who would have thought so!

as well as the fact that agriculture is one of the smallest sectors of the US economy,

Consumers are one of the largest sectors of the US economy.

as well as the fact that voting for a third party in a two party system is at best symbolic and at worst splits the votes in a close election,

Only because people believe that to be true. If people thought a third party would win, they would win. Or if the election system was set up differently...

Yes, a halfassed fix will only delay the problem, not solve it...it wont solve the problem, but the public, with its generally short attention span, may very well move on to the next issue of the week.

So what? No solution is perfect- it just needs to be good enough to buy more time.

Considering that a discussion of economics

Actually all you have to do is show how a sustained increase in energy costs will permanently slow down the economy. While an increase in the cost of inputs will drive up prices, it is reasonable to assume in the long run firms will adjust and take that into consideration.

Cap and trade will only shift emissions around, not eliminate them, as has already happened in Europe,

That is the whole point of "cap and trade"! Shift them around to people who need them and gradually raise up the price to reduce usage. Prices will be passed onto consumers, thus giving them an incentive to reduce usage of wasteful goods.

If you think that there will be any less lobbying in the US after the Citizens United case, you are an utter idiot.

That holds true for ALL GOVERNMENT POLICY. Do you have an objection that can't be made for every other attempt to fix the problem?

[A-Wing_Slash]

About Cap and Trade plus lobbyists, I've heard several people lately argue for a straight up tax on carbon, rather than a cap and trade system, for the reason that it would remove the ability of lobbyist and porky politicians to get free carbon credits for their favored companies. I haven't kept up with the details of the current legislation, but I do remember that some of the cap and trade systems being talked about back during the 08 election included large numbers of carbon permits being given away to certain industries, and even if that would still lead to decrease in carbon usage long-term, it'd slow down the process considerably.

[Srelex]

The influence of human emissions on climate change can be very simply proved by comparing graphs measuring temperature and emissions over the years. However, I'm sure righties would start screaming about 'LIBERAL BIAS!111!' or some shit like that in response.

[Jeremy]

The Dem's are intent on passing legislation that, provided the problem is as extensive as they say, will have about as much effect as trying to dampen the Sahara with a plant mister,

Remember when we dumped CFCs in the atmosphere and they started eating the ozone layer and people talked about how it was too late?

Barely, could you explain this to me. Was it already too late? I am woefully undereducated on the climate debate.

[Samuel]

The Dem's are intent on passing legislation that, provided the problem is as extensive as they say, will have about as much effect as trying to dampen the Sahara with a plant mister,

Remember when we dumped CFCs in the atmosphere and they started eating the ozone layer and people talked about how it was too late?

Barely, could you explain this to me. Was it already too late? I am woefully undereducated on the climate debate.

Yes. CFCs last for an extremely long time and they take decades to get out of the atmosphere. We did succed in managing to eat a hole in the ozone layer over the poles and it continued to grow, even after the ban. The ozone layer still hasn't fully recovered, although it has improven.

It isn't exactly the same as global warming, but it could be because the mechanisms are alot more transparent and the problem is smaller scale- although I don't know how I could ever consider "eating a hole in the atmosphere" a small scale problem.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Meat is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gasses, and even a small tax would help curb it, or even just eliminating some of the massive agribusiness subsidies might help.

First off, "meat" doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses. The rearing of livestock produces 9% of anthropogenic CO2, 65% of nitrous oxide, and 37% of methane. Remember also this industry provides jobs to 1.3 billion people worldwide, and many poor farmers in developing countries rely on livestock for draft and fertilizer.

Now please explain why a tax is advisable, as opposed to the United Nation's decision to focus instead on improving animal diets, "soil conservation methods together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure; improving efficiency of irrigation systems; and introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities." (Note there is a tax involved, but NOT on meat ...)

[bobalot]

I'm dreadfully sorry, I had the temerity to assume that someone getting involved in a debate might actually posses some small amount of knowledge on it, my mistake.

I have to go to work now, I will post a response when I get back. Before pontificating to the rest of us about your level of knowledge, all you have posted as evidence is opinion pieces.

[Jeremy]

Yes. CFCs last for an extremely long time and they take decades to get out of the atmosphere. We did succed in managing to eat a hole in the ozone layer over the poles and it continued to grow, even after the ban. The ozone layer still hasn't fully recovered, although it has improven.

Is this what the "hole" above Australia is?

Are CFCs more concentrated in poles or are their effects more noticeable in the poles?

[Guardsman Bass]

A couple of comments on the linked article:

1. He brings up the "temperature has plateaued in the last decade" myth. That's technically true . . . if you only represent it from 1998 (the all-time high), and don't account for seven of the last ten years being the hottest on record (in other words, even though 1998 was the all-time high, the decade overall was hotter than the previous decade). I suspect he's also cherry-picking the CRU e-mails to make it seem like the scientists there said that temperatures had been stable since 2000, which is not really their point of view (Realclimate talks about this in the context of a Daily Mail article that tried to claim something similar).

2. He seems to contradict himself a bit, claiming that the 1940-1970 period is a "cooling phase" indicating the global warming is likely part of some type of natural cycle (and "backing it up" by citing a non-existent hypothetical cycle for the 21st century after 2000), even though he later admits that the 1940-1970 cooling was created by significant aerosol emissions, which had been masking the warming trend. This leads to a bizarre passage where he tries to refute the connection between increased CO2 and increased warming by lumping the 1940-2000 period (in which emissions rose considerably) in terms of overall warming, and comparing it to a period with the same amount of warming (1880-1940) with less emissions.

3. He spouts some of the typical sound-bites you see from "skeptics" of global warming, like the equivalent of "It's ridiculous that CO2, plant food, could be a serious risk to the climate", as well as some more general pro-capitalistic ones (like "Fossil fuels allowed man to live his life as a proud human").

I really can't go into more specifics, since my grasp of statistics is weak.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yes. CFCs last for an extremely long time and they take decades to get out of the atmosphere. We did succed in managing to eat a hole in the ozone layer over the poles and it continued to grow, even after the ban. The ozone layer still hasn't fully recovered, although it has improven.

Is this what the "hole" above Australia is?

Are CFCs more concentrated in poles or are their effects more noticeable in the poles?

As I recall, the extremely cold, high clouds present at the poles at winter greatly increase the speed of the ozone-destroying reaction. Which is why the effect is more noticeable at the poles, especially at the colder Antarctic, and also varies seasonally.