Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Twisties

Cap and Trade vs Other Mechanisms for Limiting Carbon Emission

Recommended Posts

Twisties

Here in Oregon the proposal for a cap and trade program on carbon emissions is dead, following a GOP Senate walkout, their second this year,  that denied the majority Dems a quorum.  The Bill would have reduced Oregon's carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 levels [EDIT]  I think that's by 80% of 1990 levels, eg  to 20% of 1990 levels, sorry [\EDIT]  by 2050 by joining Oregon with CA, BC, Nova Scotia and Quebec in their carbon credits market. The GOP generally represent conservative/libertarian rural Oregon and they managed to raise to the countryside in the days before and during the walkout.  We had truckers convoying to the Capital in Salem, and logging companies were backing them.   The III%'ers mobilized to the Oregon-Idaho border to "protect" the GOP Senators who were rumored to be in Idaho, and as well shut down the government in Salem with threats of violence.  The GOP Senate Caucus Leader was quoted threatening to murder any Oregon State Police sent to round them up.  

 

The Bill had been years in the making and was supported by a number of industry and environmental groups, as well some segments of the logging industry, including the three largest private logging landowners in the State.  A State commissioned independent study of the proposal showed it resulting in net GDP growth, and found that mitigation for negatively affected sectors was carefully and judiciously applied.  There are no other studies or rigorous analyses that I am aware of.

 

However, the GOP raised the cry, joined by a few coastal and rural Dems, claiming that it would kill jobs and industry in rural Oregon, and it was seen as furthering the urban/rural divide.   As well, people were concerned about the price of fuel, electricity, and other goods going up, the potential for misuse of revenues (they were originally supposed to go to green infrastructure/energy with set asides for rural investment, but the final language allowed other uses and was said to be vague), leakage (when businesses leave to avoid the cost),  concerns that it would not actually reduce carbon,  and concerns that Oregon's carbon emissions are insignificant or very low already, concerns about the use of an "emergency" clause (in Oregon "emergency" legislation is not subject to voter referendum and all other legislation is, but we always have right of initiative which can accomplish the same things, a referendum would have delayed implementation of the bill for over a year and blown a bunch of the deadlines in it).   Of course the usual global warming denial and deflections regarding China and India were in fine fettle.  In the end, corporate supporters were fleeing amid calls for boycott's and other pressure tactics.  

 

What struck me towards the end of the debacle, as the GOP senators began trickling back into the Capital this morning, and a planned marathon session this weekend to complete the rest of the legislative agenda by our Sunday midnight deadline for the session, is the emerging call for a carbon tax as a better alternative than cap and trade.  It's too early to see if this proposal will gain much traction.  

 

I think the real reason the GOP opposed the cap and trade proposal was that it didn't boost the logging industry enough... they want to use lumber as an offset....  eg counting lumber as net carbon reduction and use that then to work for increased timber harvest, particularly on the much maligned Federal lands.  Of course, some just oppose any carbon reduction action as well, but for the GOP moderates, I think this is what was at the heart of it.  A similar bill failed in Washington, however, an Eastern and Mid-Atlantic group consisting of 9 states plus D.C. has committed to implement a cap and trade program in the near future.

 

With that background, my question is this:  If you are going to implement a carbon reduction program, how should it be done?  What are the pros and cons of the various approaches?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

There might be two issues that you may want to consider, the first is "Why is the government setting policy? " This is a global issue, not to be solved by the US alone.  While it appear that the deflection to China, India, Russia, Poland etc. lacks a fix in this country, the facts support that they pollute far more than we do. So, it is a big government vs small government issue, which do you prefer?

 

The second issue and this is painfully obvious, the issue has become and continues to be a political football, everyone is positioning the solutions along political alignment. There is always a profit motive, so the lobbyists are representing their constituents, the elected officials want to stay elected so they represent the popular feelings. 

 

Lumber plays a small roll in the overall CAP and Trade deal, its purpose is to try to find and implement the least expensive way to cut emissions. It is designed to spur growth through efficiency. Most of the  States who have ratified it are in the North East where the CO-2 emissions from  older inefficient power plants are regulated. California adopted it in 2013 and struggled with it, they appear to be brining into alignment with the costs required to implement it, it has taken better then 8 years and great expense {$626 Million} to achieve marginal results and recognize that it requires a ton more cash inflow to be a success. Allowances are the government way of increasing the revenue, by selling bypasses to the requirements. It is like letting a fox in the henhouse.   Meanwhile all are realizing that these power plants are not the only cause of the problem in the US or the World so the question still exists as to why the burden is ours.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rinkydink

My problem with all of this is first, we are constantly told in 30-40-50 years we are past the point of no return. Ok, providing that is true, and I am not totally convinced of that, as the date of doom is always set so far out in the future. We have heard that one many times before. In the 70s,  I believe it was Popular Science forecasting an ice age due to man’s transgressions, and then all of Al Gore’s failed predictions. All mostly horse hockey so far. With all this cap and trade, carbon tax etc being proposed is there any guarantee said tax will really fix the problem? Do we just blindly shell out money to the government abyss (again!) and watch the absurd waste (again!) take our hard earned dollars down the drain and just accept failure? 

 

Please don’t flame me for my hesitation as I absolutely want my kids kids to have a wonderful earth as much as you do. I am certainly no climate scientist and openly admit to my own stupidity on this subject, but I also need China and India etc. to participate equally in whatever the solution ends up being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

The United States has done more then any other country to clean up its act in regards to carbon emissions, contrary to the Liberal political talking points. So, to your point, unless the other countries fix their issues and we all march to the same drum, taxing us or implementing more regulation is like shooting an elephant with a 22. Painful, but useless. I don't think we are failing, I think the picture is being painted as the glass is half empty.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
On 7/2/2019 at 7:25 PM, Rinkydink said:

My problem with all of this

...is that you're believing the conservative media's twisted take on it, which was paid for by oil company money.  Most of what followed the quoted phrase above was not actually true.

Yes, in the 70s some scientists were predicting global cooling, and the media had a field day with it.  That prediction was based on particulate emissions in the atmosphere blocking sunlight.  And then what happened?  We enacted limits on particulate emissions, and kept the prediction from coming true.

 

All of Gore's failed predictions?  Which ones?  I've seen one where he said the Arctic "may be" free of ice by a certain year (I forget the year), which conservative media reported as "will be" and thus a failed prediction.

 

And yes, we ARE already past some points of no return.  We will never again see the climate our grandparents grew up in.  The climate system has momentum.  If we stopped all carbon emissions cold turkey today, the planet would continue warming for another 40 years.  So the sooner we stop, the less bad it will be.

 

Other nations, including China and India, are taking action to reduce emissions.  China is rapidly deploying renewable energy, and even just sent 60,000 soldiers to plant millions of trees to absorb CO2 (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/china-army-soldiers-plant-trees/).  Europe is far ahead of the US on this, and has always had far lower per capita CO2 emissions.  Why should we do it?  How about world leadership?  We have, until the current administration, been world leaders in many areas.

 

On 7/2/2019 at 7:25 PM, Rinkydink said:

I am certainly no climate scientist and openly admit to my own stupidity on this subject. 

If you want to learn, NASA has a pretty good high-level site on the subject at https://climate.nasa.gov .  Pay particular attention to the items under the "Facts" menu in the upper right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
On 6/28/2019 at 12:39 PM, Twisties said:

If you are going to implement a carbon reduction program, how should it be done?  What are the pros and cons of the various approaches?

 

Well, first you have to convince the GOP, the world's only major political party that denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change, that it's worth doing.  Polls suggest that GOP constituents are slowly coming around due to the increasing frequency and severity of climate-related disasters, but the politicians and conservative media seem still to be beholden to fossil fuel interests.

 

Cap-and-trade and some form of carbon tax are, of course, the "market-based" approaches meant to attract support from free market conservatives.  But they don't, because nobody wants to pay more for gas, and a large part of the conservative constituency live in rural areas, where modern life without gas and diesel is essentially impossible.

 

Dr. Hansen warned Congress about global warming in 1988, and we should have started taking action then.  Policies like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax might have been sufficient.  What's needed now, having put off action for so long, is a global World War II level of mobilization to rapidly build and deploy renewable energy and storage, restructure our transportation systems, and revamp our buildings for efficiency (and maybe even tear down and redesign some of our transit-hostile suburban neighborhoods).  But things are going to have to get really bad before enough people recognize the necessity.  Humans aren't wired to respond dramatically to seemingly far-off consequences.  The problem, as mentioned in my other post above, is that the climate system has momentum.  If we stopped all CO2 emissions today, the planet would still continue getting hotter for another 40 years.  So, it's like trying to stop an Alpine avalanche.  In 1988, we probably could have caught the one snowball that was starting down the slope.  In 1998, we could have stopped most of it with some snow fencing.  Now, we'd better hope we can build some walls to direct it to the part of the village we've decided to sacrifice.

 

So, cons: both policies, along with simple regulation of carbon emissions, are probably too slow-acting.  Cap-and-trade needs careful design.  California's cap-and-trade system, IIRC, is finding that they've put too low a price on carbon to have the desired effect (recalling that we're dealing with the most profitable companies in the history of companies, which can easily absorb quite a bit of cost).  Carbon taxes would probably be more effective, but opponents will always denounce anything they can call a tax, even if the scheme includes a dividend or rebate to offset the cost for lower-income users.  And the problem with that rebate is that you have to wait for it, after having already paid extra at the pump, so it doesn't avoid the hit to monthly cash flow.  Also, I've just heard that a study showed that gasoline consumption was remarkably resilient in the face of price changes. People gotta go where they gotta go.

I think the key is that we have to give people attractive alternatives to burning fossil fuels.  That'll take more than just making fossil fuels less attractive by increasing their price.  If I can't afford an EV and there's no public transit where I live, what choice do I have for getting where I want to go?  If my home burns natural gas for heat, hot water and cooking, where will I get the money to switch it all over to electric?  So, we need to radically revamp our energy and transportation systems and even homes, all of which costs money.

 

There is, of course, a cost of doing nothing, and the investment folks are catching on:

"The consulting firm Moody’s Analytics says climate change could inflict $69 trillion in damage on the global economy by the year 2100, assuming that warming hits the two-degree Celsius threshold widely seen as the limit to stem its most dire effects.

 

Moody’s says in a new climate change report that warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, increasingly seen by scientists as a climate-stabilizing limit, would still cause $54 trillion in damages by the end of the century.

 

The firm warns that passing the two-degree threshold “could hit tipping points for even larger and irreversible warming feedback loops such as permanent summer ice melt in the Arctic Ocean.”

 

The new report predicts that rising temperatures will “universally hurt worker health and productivity” and that more frequent extreme weather events “will increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property.”"

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/moodys-analytics-says-climate-change-could-cost-69-trillion-by-2100/2019/07/02/f9fb94ac-99cb-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html?utm_term=.a95dbfc5843f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

I am positive I would not be using the Washington Post, a bastion of liberal journalism, as a source after suggesting that this is a GOP problem and that the GOP is a bunch of deniers.  Just doesn't work!  Aside form that small political difference, the causes of Carbon emissions are many, they include Transportation, {13%} residential and commercial buildings, {8%} Agriculture,{13.5%} Forestry,{17.5%} Waste,{2.8%} and Industry,{19.4%}Energy Supply {25.9%}  they all contribute and the impact differs by country and sector.  Russia, and China and India lead the world in this regard, with Russia being ranked 3rd behind China and India.  The European region, encompassing 52 countries, bears a significant responsibility for its historical contributions to global warming pollution. This region is home to six of the top 20 annual global CO2 emitters.  Solutions do not need to be taxes, technology can improve the energy efficiency we utilize for our homes and for industry. The growth of Hybrid autos or electric vehicles is a step in the right direction as they come down in costs, and increase their range, some use of renewable energy can be implemented, reduce deforestation as trees help clean the air, and lastly Nuclear power. So very clearly the issue is not a GOP issue, it is a World wide issue. Taxing Americans is not the solution, just ask the Californians who now pay 80 cents per gallon in gas taxes, if that has stopped them from driving, or if tax payer dollars thrown at a rail system that never materialized was a good use of tax dollars.  Taxes increase government spending, the government is a wealth transfer agency.  The solutions will be implemented by private industry. All countries need to be on board or it will not work, America throwing a lot of money at this, when Europe, India and China are not committed or are giving lip service to the problem it is not feasible.  Why are we carrying the guilt inspired by liberal publications? The issue is not ours alone, we are doing our part and developing solutons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rinkydink
On 7/4/2019 at 10:43 AM, Bill_Walker said:

...is that you're believing the conservative media's twisted take on it, which was paid for by oil company money.  Most of what followed the quoted phrase above was not actually true.
 

Not true. I don’t let any political party make my decisions for me. But since you brought up the GOP and Al Gore, this is from the Huffington Post, a left leaning source. 

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

 

Moreover, for me, its not whether the earth is warming but is man causing it and is some new progressive tax really going to fix it. On the subject of AL Gore and oil money, you do remember he sold his failing tv channel (Current TV) to Qatar based Al Jazeera Media for a reported $500 million...read oil money. Old Al has sold out, but hey, evidently that’s ok. 

 

Again, I’m not sold on it being man-made. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
3 hours ago, Rinkydink said:

Again, I’m not sold on it being man-made. 

So, I guess that means that either you DON'T want to learn, or you don't trust NASA.  If the latter, what possible reason could they have for lying about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rinkydink

Wrong again. I learn everyday. I just don’t necessarily trust studies that are dependent on government funding ($21 billion annually) to survive. Sorry, still not proving it’s man-made AND no one guarantees that when the good old gooberment pickpockets us that they will reverse it.

 

Let’s just agree to disagree. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
3 hours ago, Rinkydink said:

I just don’t necessarily trust studies that are dependent on government funding ($21 billion annually) to survive.

Nobody else funds pure research that has no expectation of producing a profit, so if you don't trust government funded research, you don't trust research.  I'm far more skeptical of corporate-funded research, where the funders nearly always have a vested interest in a particular outcome.

 

Re Al Gore, you realize that your argument is "Politician Al Gore got a few things wrong in his movie and talks, so that means 150 years of climate research must be wrong."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
5 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

Nobody else funds pure research that has no expectation of producing a profit,

 

 

But government DOES fund research with an end outcome in mind,.....take it like you want.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

Did you really suggest that Al Gore got a few things wrong?  He started with a premise that was more false than true and then tried to support the hypothesis with more un-truths and exaggerations.  What part of "A few things wrong" does that represent?

 

Suggesting that the government does pure research is like suggesting that the earth is flat and lets prove it.  The premise is wrong from the get-go.  There is always an agenda, and please remember, the government produces nothing, it is a wealth transfer agency, so it is always funded by either business,  business lobbyist's or tax payers. There is very little pure about their research except the expense which is borne by all of us.   Their research is no more honest or dis-honest from anyone else's.  By definition, research is research.  Outcomes are motivated, or tilted by the desired perspective.  You have been around long enough, Bill, to not be buying into that B.S. about "Pure Research!"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
3 hours ago, Patallaire said:

He started with a premise that was more false than true and then tried to support the hypothesis with more un-truths and exaggerations.

 

That's a ridiculous statement.  What "more false than true" premise are you claiming he started with?  He was simply reporting what climate science had concluded.  He's guilty of occasionally choosing the worst-case projected outcomes to report, which is perfectly reasonable, since his intent was to sound an alarm.

 

But again, why the hell are we talking about Al Gore?  Climate science didn't start with him, he didn't invent it, he's not a climate scientist.  He made a freaking movie.

 

Exxon did their own climate research in the 1970s and 80s.  Here's an internal Exxon briefing from 1979, confirming the rise in CO2 due to fossil fuel consumption and accurately predicting today's atmospheric CO2 concentration, while warning about future climate change: http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/CO2 and Fuel Use Projections.pdf. It does stress the uncertainties, which are considerably less today than they were then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker

Here's a timeline of global warming research from the American Institute of Physics.  Arrhenius posited warming from human emissions of CO2 in 1896, 110 years before Gore's movie.

 

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

Bill, a "Ridiculous statement" really.  Actually, in the face of such brilliance, as you possess,  I am feeling rather diminished by my lack of it!  I may admit that he didn't invent climate, he stated that he did invent the internet, so what am I to believe as your reference point? I believe he used alternate facts to promote an alarmist agenda, so much so that the British Courts banned his film and referenced it as Political propaganda. “Every night on the television news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation and we’ve got to connect the dots between the cause and the effect,” Gore said. Seriously, we need to go back to donkey manure polluting. As a point of fact, the worst 2 hurricanes on record were,  1900-Galveston, and 1780-Barbados and Lesser Antilles. Do you believe, scientifically of course, that they were caused by man-made global warming, in 1780 and 1900?  When you look at the two Gore movies there was a very strong left leaning political agenda and he twisted half truths to fit his presentation.

That brings me back to the original discussion, whether you believe it is fact or fiction, why is it an American taxpayer problem?? We are doing our part, and doing it consistently.  The issue, is who is going to pay, how much and why is it our problem vs, all the other major polluters?  Who is going to monitor it, who is going to slap another country on the wrist for non-conformity?  How do you solve the growth issue in China, where more buildings, which utilize more climate emission devises, are erected monthly?  How do you solve and who pays for cleaning up India?  How do you bring Russia into the fold?  Where are the do-gooders in Russia? You see Bill, contrary to liberal thinking, this is an expensive issue requiring money, more money and lots of money as well as time and consensus to resolve. Explain where the money is coming from and perhaps we can all get aboard, except not on the failed train project in California, where the costs actually derailed the liberal agenda.  Private Industry  was not willing to pay, and thus it was doomed.  So who is going to pay for the climate issue?   I had offered solutions above, but recognize in this country it is a political issue.  I do hope that it wasn't a climate shift that caused the earthquakes in California.  That looked frightening.  Look to your own life, Bill, you have 2 motorcycles, no doubt a car or 2, air conditioning, heat, electric etc. You are a consumer and a polluter, what are you doing personally to make the world a better place??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
2 hours ago, Patallaire said:

British Courts banned his film and referenced it as Political propaganda

No, they didn't.  But the right-wing media claimed they did.

 

https://grist.org/article/erring-on-the-side-of-tabloidism/

 

And much of the rest of what you've said is just as wrong.  If the two worst hurricanes on record occurred in the past, that in no way changes the prediction that hurricanes will likely become more severe.  There is, and will continue to be, a very wide range of hurricane strength and frequency, but on average, they'll get more damaging, because there's more energy (heat in both the atmosphere and the ocean) and moisture available to build them.  Just as there will still be winter, and winter storms with snow, but on average, the global temperature will continue to increase.

 

It is a global problem, and leadership is needed.  We had a good start with that with the Paris Accord, which Obama managed to push through and Trump stupidly pulled us out of, abdicating America's position of world leadership.  The Paris Accord is inadequate, but it's a start, and it's the strongest agreement we've gotten.  But only Saudi Arabia and Australia have higher per capita fossil fuel consumption than the US.  We're not even close to doing our part, because we can't do our part within the systems that currently exist. We have inadequate public transit in most of the US, and vast areas that are designed to support only motor vehicle transportation.  We have huge suburban sprawls that lead to lengthy commutes.  We have an entrenched fossil fuel-based system for transporting everything.  We have entrenched fossil-fuel based power generation, although that's changing now that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel in most places.  In the face of these systems, individual actions don't mean squat.  I've got solar panels on my roof and I drive a plug-in car, but there's not a lot more I can do.

 

And as I posted above, if you think taking action to mitigate climate change is too expensive, look at what it's going to cost if we don't.

P.S. I'm glad you dropped the italics.  It made your posts hard to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patallaire

Bill ~ I will concede that the film was not banned, however it was released with a caveat that it was more fiction then fact in England.  The only way it was allowed to be seen by children in schools was with that caveat. Predictions are just that, predictions, not facts. When I deal with Liberal arguments it forever amazes me that the person making the argument knows more then their President and that they have really, really short memories.  So lets see if we can correct some of that .  I have already recognized your brilliance, so that is now, when you look in a mirror, self evident, to you.  So moving past that, when you stated that "Obama managed to push through and Trump stupidly pulled us out of, abdicating America's position of world leadership."  Your implication was that Obama was right, as you are, and Trump is wrong.  Obama pushed through is a correct statement, by fiat, not with the approval of Congress or the Senate. This was a treaty, it was costly and ineffectual. it had no Congressional approval and by law must have the advise and consent of the Senate before the U.S can join them. Obama declared it not to be a Treaty and decided that he alone can declare which are treaties and which are agreements, to evade Constitution review and did a run-around on the Constitutional mandate of checks and balance. Thus making environmental policies unaccountable to the people who vote. Our fossil fuels are plentiful and yet, Bill the Paris accord was progressively restrictive under the NDC and would make our price advantage ineffective. Also and to the point it would not have achieved anything near the stated goal. The withdrawal was a humanitarian imperative. It produced no detectable climate benefits, it would have driven trillions from investments into political usage, it hurt energy poor countries by limiting their access to affordable energy from fossil fuels. Countries that signed it can make the promises but are not bound to keep them thus making the entire expensive proposition a straw horse.

Bill, a solution that if it is too expensive now, look what happen if we don't is really not a solution, it is a scare tactic fed by liberal points of view, I understand, and recognize the left source. {When I use italics, tilt your head!!}

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrianM

Here is my take on the subject. I am a scientist (physicist). I have done research in the past (not sure I can discuss what I did).

 

Some background.

 

- Weather and climate are related but not the same thing.

 

- Weather and climate are chaotic systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory 

 

- About 0.1% of the atmosphere (trace gasses) contains all of the greenhouse gasses. 78% N, 21% O, 0.9% Ar

 

- current greenhouse gasses are responsible for about 60F of warming.

 

Simple explaination of why humans are responsible for current warming.

 

If 0.1% (maximum if all trace gasses are greenhouse gasses) accounts for 60F, really don't need much increase to gain 5F or more.

 

People argue it has been warmer, it has. That is not what is important. The rate of change is what is important. This where understanding of derivative calculus is important, it allows the understanding of the difference between values (x) and the rate of change of the values (dx/dt - this happens to be a time rate of change, hence the t in dt - simpliest terms it is the slope of x vs t). The point is not x but dx/dt.  Since climate is chaotic, its response to change can be very dramatic. Life cannot change (evolve) to keep up with rapid change (see past extinction events). Remember, variation in a population is purely chance. Pressure on a population does not create variation, it chooses the winning variation. If the winning variation is not in a population, the population dies. How long has agriculture existed? How much has climate changed during that time? Is monoculture a good idea (Monsanto wants you to believe it is a good idea)?

 

The temperature of Earth is rising (x is increasing), the rate of change is increasing (dx/dt is also increasing). There is no natural cause for the increase in the rate of change. The cause is the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel burning changes the balance of the different types of co2 (based on c12, c13, c14). Natural sources have a different balance. If it is not humans, what is the natural sources of the additional greenhouse gasses? Why would the balance change if the sources are natural?

 

According to some research, if it were not for burning fossil fuels, Earth would be cooling. If so, humans are 100% responsible for the warming. We are in an interglacial period - at least based on the climate for the last 2 million years or so.

 

Mentioning events such as past hurricanes being the strongest is meaningless - weather is chaotic. Those hurricanes were within the range of possible events. The fact no hurricanes in the near past have not been stronger doesn't point to anything (once again chaos). What is important is the average strength and number of events. Are those changing? If so, why?

 

Personally, based upon what I have read (scientific publications) we are past the point of no return. The question is how long will we wait and how bad will it be.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

I love the points about "chaos". I agree with that. What I also agree with is the rapid change in temperatures. Nature, on its own, wouldn't normally do that without some event ( asteroid hitting....). In this case, the event is human intervention. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Frickin' Friday
On 7/7/2019 at 9:03 AM, Patallaire said:

Bill ~ I will concede that the film was not banned, however it was released with a caveat that it was more fiction then fact in England.

 

Actually, the judge in that case felt that it was more fact than fiction:

Quote

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Dr. Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine of the statements that Dimmock's counsel had described as "errors" as inaccuracies; i.e, that were not representative of the mainstream.

 

 

 

On 7/19/2019 at 2:02 AM, BrianM said:

People argue it has been warmer, it has. That is not what is important. The rate of change is what is important.

 

I think this XKCD cartoon nicely sums up your point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...