I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[twa]

Okay, but even moderate affects are going to have costs, and unless you stop generating CO2 or come up with some drastic/permanent drastic efforts, you are going to be paying those costs indefinitely into the future.

 

Even for moderate affects that doesn't make sense.

 

assuming co2 is really a major factor,and that alt energy won't advance.... yes

 

I have faith it will advance and doubts co2 is as large a factor as some project

 

either way cutting our throats is not the best path

[PeterMP]

assuming co2 is really a major factor,and that alt energy won't advance.... yes

 

I have faith it will advance and doubts co2 is as large a factor as some project

 

either way cutting our throats is not the best path

 

Who is talking about cutting our throats?

 

I believe the last cap and trade bill that got any serious attention was this one:

 

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/06-19-capandtradecosts.pdf

 

The CBO put the costs at 2010 $175/household in 2020 so unless something changes and, it wouldn't even really be $175 in 2020.

 

And there is a pretty extensive history of the government OVER ESTIMATING costs associated with environmental regulations (and industry and associated organizations REALLY REALLY badly over estimating costs and affects of environmental regulations).

 

Would $175 per a house hold cut our throats?

 

Yet even that is a non-starter for the Republicans.

Edited March 27, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

ask Spain,Germany or the UK.

 

you are focusing on one aspect despite the fact our co2 has gone down here, and will continue to even w/o a carbon tax.

 

the science guy's colors are bleeding through

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6397

 

 

• Nye told University at Albany students that America needs a tax on energy use to ‘redistribute wealth.’

 

• The former Disney actor also told students that the government's real role is to 'run things.'

[PeterMP]

 

ask Spain,Germany or the UK.

 

you are focusing on one aspect despite the fact our co2 has gone down here, and will continue to even w/o a carbon tax.

 

the science guy's colors are bleeding through

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6397

 

 

• Nye told University at Albany students that America needs a tax on energy use to ‘redistribute wealth.’

 

• The former Disney actor also told students that the government's real role is to 'run things.'

 

 

And if our CO2 emissions continue to go down (at a reasonable rate), then the cap and trade bill essentially has no affect.  

 

Is $175/house hold cutting our throat?

 

If not, why is it a non-starter for the Republicans?

 

What Germany is doing is not what anybody here is talking about doing as I've stated multiple times as they are trying to cut out both CO2 and nuclear energy simultaneously.

 

AND they are in a much worse position to get energy out of alternatives (Germany gets about as much energy from the sun every year as Alaska).

 

I know less about Spain and the UK, but from a quick search, I don't see a lot to suggest that their economies are struggling because of climate change regulations.

 

You take every argument in isolation, just like I did Cruz's with respect to NASA.

 

Nye trying to connect climate change regulations to wealth redistribution isn't related to or relevant to my point.

Edited March 27, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

a carbon tax is wealth redistribution.

[mcsluggo]

a carbon tax is wealth redistribution.

 

every single economic transaction is wealth redistribution.

[PeterMP]

This includes the US government buying different things, including military equipment, but also free trade agreements, and things like the Fed raising interest rates.

 

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/trade-and-the-fed-making-the-rich-richer

 

Yet, I don't see Republicans vigorously fighting to defeat those things.

 

Is the problem only wealth redistribution in a certain direction?

 

In fact, they seem to be more related to wealth redistribution than the last cap and trade bill likely was to me.

 

Realistically, I doubt on any sort of real level the law that I linked to the CBO to above would generate any significant wealth redistribution.

 

There are going to be new/different companies that benefit from the changes, but they are going to be mostly owned by the most wealthy so the benefit is going to go to them.

[twa]

every single economic transaction is wealth redistribution.

 

Yes, but not every economic transaction is a tax aimed supporting a pet project.

 

glad you agree with me though 

[Predicto]

a carbon tax is wealth redistribution.

 

A carbon tax can replace other taxes that are economically worse.

[twa]

A carbon tax can replace other taxes that are economically worse.

 

and are they proposing replacing which taxes?....they certainly can, but rarely do replace one

 

carbon taxes impact the low income ,just as alt energy subsidies do  , but hey I can get a Telsa at a discount

[btfoom]

No, but political games certainly can be played to obscure and discredit science...  you of all people know that.  

 

And in this case, these games are being played to obscure and discredit science, as you said.  These politics use bad models and a worse statistic to bolster their beliefs in AGW.

 

And now the best description of the delusion that is AGW leading to the destruction of the planet reallyi soon:  AGW Maleware.

 

As Harsanyi points out, an entire ideological framework is implicit in left wing talk of “climate change”. And it is implicit in two ways. One, in the acceptance (and sole recognition of) the catastrophic scenarios considered by the IPCC. And a necessary corollary to this first aspect is ignoring how unlikely the IPCC actually considers these catastrophic scenarios to be.

Edited March 29, 2015 by btfoom

[Redskins3D]

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

[Larry]

(Clicks link.  Goes to actual study.  Reads the abstract, on the cover page.  Figures that there will be a translator along, in a while.)

[Redskins3D]

(Clicks link. Goes to actual study. Reads the abstract, on the cover page. Figures that there will be a translator along, in a while.)

I always appreciate when these type of articles include a link to the study. From what I gather the article was a fair representation.

[No Excuses]

That is a highly technical, really long paper and was a pain in the ass to get access to through university (it's still in early release).

 

I haven't read through it entirely (and I definitely won't) but it seems to be getting the usual hype that scientific studies with extreme predictions generally receive (i.e regardless of political/religious affiliation, they are overblown and not understood with the reservations that even the authors of the paper might have).

 

My initial reaction is that the findings of his work likely eliminates the idea of aerosols playing a major role in the cooling observed in the middle of the last century. And in terms of overall AGW, it really doesn't dispute the theory nor does it drive a "nail in the coffin". It essentially argues that we are overestimating the radiative forcing from aerosols and need to adjust climate models to account for a change in value constrains assigned to aerosol forcing. And the likely result would be climate models that predict less warming as a result of increased Co2.

 

The irony is that people who have long **** on using models in climate science are now getting orgasms in their undies because of... climate models. 

 

It is interesting nonetheless and in ways, draws conclusions that are quite contrary to some key papers on aerosol forcing, such as this one:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/abs/nature04348.html

 

These results suggest that present-day direct radiative forcing is stronger than present model estimates, implying future atmospheric warming greater than is presently predicted, as aerosol emissions continue to decline¹⁰.

 

 

But even the best climate scientists would tell you that understanding aerosol forcing is really difficult and has lots of limitations.

Edited April 1, 2015 by No Excuses

[PeterMP]

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/scientists-say-new-study-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

 

The paper is putting the lower limit of aerosols forcing at:

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

 

"The individual terms of the model are interpreted in light of comprehensive modeling, constraints from observations, and physical understanding, to provide further support for the less negative ( −1.0 W m⁻² ) lower bound. "

 

 

The IPCC already had it at larger than -1.0 W m-2 and have even admitted it could be as large as -0.1 W m-2.

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

 

"The total aerosol effect (excluding BC on snow and ice) is estimated as ERF of –0.9 (–1.9 to –0.1) W m–2."

 

As I've already posted in this thread, the IPCC is already predicting less warming than models.  They actually aren't predicting (potentially) less warming that most of the models.  They are predicting less warming (potentially) than EVERY model.

 

It seems odd to claim something that is completely consistent with what the IPCC is saying is now considered a game changer.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/?p=10160221

 

And of course, the author of the paper has recently given a talk on why (effective) climate sensitivity will be > 2.

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRP_Grand_Challenge_Workshop/Ringberg_2015/Agenda_Ringberg_2015_23_3.pdf

 

"Bjorn Stevens (MPI-M, DE): Some (not yet entirely convincing) reasons why 2.0 < ECS < 3.5"

 

(Which would be greater than that required for the IPCC lower limit of warming going forward and very much in line with some of the models.)

 

http://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/Media/interviews/AS/stevens.1204.pdf

"What do you think about the presence of people, who label themselves as skeptics, in the scientific and in the public discourses?

 

Assuming that this question is meant to be taken in the context of debates about our understanding of the climate system, it is probably useful to distinguish between skeptics and those who deny that there is robust evidence of an anthropogenic influence on climate. The distinction is useful because the latter, despite calling themselves skeptics, are characterized by a profound lack of skepticism - - particularly for their own ideas. The disingenuous and self-serving nature of much of what is passed on as skepticism has a corrosive influence on the public discourse and the scientific process. Through fear of association this false skepticism makes the broader scientific community more guarded in its own application of criticism. It can also divert the field away from the questions that really require critical attention. This is unfortunate, because constructive criticism is the lifeblood of the scientific process, and there is plenty to be critical about in climate science; after all, it is science."

Edited April 2, 2015 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

What would you know, hack journalism from the right once again blew something out of proportion (as I mentioned earlier would be the case).

 

The author of the paper released an official statement through the Max Planck Institute.

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

 

As fond as I am of my own ideas, one should resist concluding too much, too soon, from a single study. In the long run I certainly hope that my findings will help constrain the climate's sensitivity to CO2 but they do not, on their own, relieve society of the threat of dangerous warming arising from anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Indeed, even a warming of only 2ºC from a doubling of CO2 poses considerable risks for society. Many scientists (myself included) believe that a warming of more than 2ºC from a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is consistent with both my new study and our best understanding. Some insight into our reasoning can be found in a number of excellent blogs reporting on a workshop on Earth’s Climate Sensitivities, which I co-organized just last week, e.g., http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/reflections-on-ringbergSo contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely

[chipwhich]

I kinda checked out for a month or so, but where is Mad Mike on the whole Billary email server fiasco.  Working in government agencies as I do this is kind of a big deal, but I know on ES it's probably considered a Faux News manufactured silliness.

 

You work in the gov, they don't really like that.  Not surprised the tailgate doesn't care. 

[Mad Mike]

And in this case, these games are being played to obscure and discredit science, as you said.  These politics use bad models and a worse statistic to bolster their beliefs in AGW.

 

And now the best description of the delusion that is AGW leading to the destruction of the planet reallyi soon:  AGW Maleware.

 

As Harsanyi points out, an entire ideological framework is implicit in left wing talk of “climate change”. And it is implicit in two ways. One, in the acceptance (and sole recognition of) the catastrophic scenarios considered by the IPCC. And a necessary corollary to this first aspect is ignoring how unlikely the IPCC actually considers these catastrophic scenarios to be.

 

IF ANYTHING is based in an ideological framework it is climate change denial. Look at the links you provide as "proof".  Breitbart is gushing over the latest propaganda, and JoNova is a blogger without the credentials to dispute NASA. (her major was microbiology, molecular biology).

 

Meanwhile back in realityland the deniers in politics are far right wing nut jobs like Ted Cruz who are paid for by big oil to try to get NASA to not even study the earth. Here's a thought.... If Cruz is so positive that climate change is not happening, is not man made, and/or cannot be effected by humans, why wouldn't he want NASA to study the issue further to get to the truth? 

 

I'll tell you why. Because he is a corrupt, lying POS who represents oil and coal industries, NOT the american people.

 

 

 

“The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public” 

― Adam Smith (the father of capitalism), An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volume 1 of 2

[Mad Mike]

Oh and about Jo Nova....

 

How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change

 

The comments section is worth the read.

[Redskins3D]

Oh and about Jo Nova....

 

How Jo Nova doesn't get past climate change

 

The comments section is worth the read.

any response to Max Planck's research?

[Mad Mike]

any response to Max Planck's research?

 

Yes. Its a study. When and if it is corroborated by other studies it will be big news. Until then it is only big news to people looking for any little thing to hang their hat on. 

 

For another view...

 

‎web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt78.pdf

 

Meanwhile....

 

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA

 

2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics - NYTimes.com

 

 

 

“Obviously, a single year, even if it is a record, cannot tell us much about climate trends,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “However, the fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.”

 

Global Analysis - February 2015 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

 

Big Shelves Of Antarctic Ice Melting Faster Than Scientists Thought : NPR

[Mad Mike]

I kinda checked out for a month or so, but where is Mad Mike on the whole Billary email server fiasco.  Working in government agencies as I do this is kind of a big deal, but I know on ES it's probably considered a Faux News manufactured silliness.

 

You work in the gov, they don't really like that.  Not surprised the tailgate doesn't care. 

 

I'm sorry, you seem a bit confused. This thread is about global warming. 

 

You seem further confused in thinking I'm some sort of Hillary fan. And more confused still in thinking I care about democrats in general. I don't. I care about issues. .... like global warming.

[No Excuses]

any response to Max Planck's research?

 

Did you not bother to read anything Peter and I posted?

[Mad Mike]

Did you not bother to read anything Peter and I posted?

 

I have to say, I missed it too. Now I think I'll pat myself on the back for saying essentially the same thing as the author. LOL

 

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

 

 

 

As fond as I am of my own ideas, one should resist concluding too much, too soon, from a single study.

 

I'm shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that the denial-sphere has not reported the authors clarification.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Mad Mike