Topic: Global Warming

[Hootenany]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over global warming, but Climategate was real and "highly respected scientists" were caught lying and trying to cover up their lies.  Isn't that concerning?

Yes, it's concerning, but let's not blow it out of proportion.  Take it for what it is; a specific group of scientists' personal emails lead us to believe that they manipulated and/or "hid" data to make their case.  The degree to which they did this is largely unknown.  In my experience, when dealing with proxy and "real" data on the same graph a certain degree of "tweaking" is necessary to make them match.  Proxy data is great at showing trends over the years, but it doesn't tell you what the actual temperature was that year unless you "calibrate" it.

Personally I believe that they manipulated the data beyond simple "tweaking" to support their assertions about global warming.  This group of scientists is clearly biased in favor of the AGW theory and this should be understood before reading their articles, just as you would for an article written by The Heritage Foundation or some other conservative think-tank.

[Hootenany]

Here's some Monday morning global warming fodder.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

...

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

[Hts121]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over global warming, but Climategate was real and "highly respected scientists" were caught lying and trying to cover up their lies.  Isn't that concerning?

Yes, it's concerning, but let's not blow it out of proportion.  Take it for what it is; a specific group of scientists' personal emails lead us to believe that they manipulated and/or "hid" data to make their case.  The degree to which they did this is largely unknown.  In my experience, when dealing with proxy and "real" data on the same graph a certain degree of "tweaking" is necessary to make them match.  Proxy data is great at showing trends over the years, but it doesn't tell you what the actual temperature was that year unless you "calibrate" it.

Personally I believe that they manipulated the data beyond simple "tweaking" to support their assertions about global warming.  This group of scientists is clearly biased in favor of the AGW theory and this should be understood before reading their articles, just as you would for an article written by The Heritage Foundation or some other conservative think-tank.

Couldn't have replied much better myself Hoot.  Actually, I couldn't have replied better.  Thanks.

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

Also advanced degrees.

In what field(s)?

Law.  I am a patent attorney.  I deal with scientific/technological innovation and have done so every day for the past 25 years. 

Does it matter? How educated do you have to be to read a graph?

No.  It doesn't matter.  But I thought I smelled the scent of a lawyer in your educational background disclosure

P.S. your Area 51 comment is insulting. 

As I'm sure are many of your comments to actual scientists who legitimately hold different beliefs with respect to global warming.  I'm not one of them, but I personally know a few.

[Scrabble]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over global warming, but Climategate was real and "highly respected scientists" were caught lying and trying to cover up their lies.  Isn't that concerning?

Yes, it's concerning, but let's not blow it out of proportion.  Take it for what it is; a specific group of scientists' personal emails lead us to believe that they manipulated and/or "hid" data to make their case.  The degree to which they did this is largely unknown.  In my experience, when dealing with proxy and "real" data on the same graph a certain degree of "tweaking" is necessary to make them match.  Proxy data is great at showing trends over the years, but it doesn't tell you what the actual temperature was that year unless you "calibrate" it.

Personally I believe that they manipulated the data beyond simple "tweaking" to support their assertions about global warming.  This group of scientists is clearly biased in favor of the AGW theory and this should be understood before reading their articles, just as you would for an article written by The Heritage Foundation or some other conservative think-tank.

Couldn't have replied much better myself Hoot.  Actually, I couldn't have replied better.  Thanks.

Yes, but we all know of Heritage's bias.  "Scientists" are not scientists when they have a bias which they deny and collude in hiding.

The onus of proving the theory lies on science and just like Galileo's condemnation, the truth should be heard even if it doesn't align with our political interests.  If Heritage was trying to prove that nuclear radiation wasn't a threat to human life and was caught doing what the Climagate scientist were doing, how would you react?

[Hootenany]

^That's a very fair point.  It is fair to ask "how many have been influenced by their fuzzy science"? 

I would say that most scientific papers are biased in one way or another... I mean, the paper is being written to prove SOMETHING.  So you selectively choose which data to present to make your point, but you cite your sources so others can analyze the full data set if they so choose.  When people start manipulating and/or deleting these original data sets so that they aren't available to the scientific community, that's when a line is crossed IMO.

[Hts121]

I don't think that anyone denies that there were a few scientists in England caught with tainted data... or maybe better put - tainting data.  But I have read tedolph post over and over again how we have data going back millions of years that proves what he is advocating.  How do we have reliable data going back before man was even on this earth, but yet whatever these scientists did destroyed the reliable data from just a decade or two ago?  Something is not adding up for me here.

[Scrabble]

^That's a very fair point.  It is fair to ask "how many have been influenced by their fuzzy science"? 

I would say that most scientific papers are biased in one way or another... I mean, the paper is being written to prove SOMETHING.  So you selectively choose which data to present to make your point, but you cite your sources so others can analyze the full data set if they so choose.  When people start manipulating and/or deleting these original data sets so that they aren't available to the scientific community, that's when a line is crossed IMO.

Agreed, but when you're more interested in proving SOMETHING than in analysis, you lose all credibility.

I've always assumed scientific papers reported what was happening and drew conclusions from the facts.  In many ways this is how the hysteria around the 70s ice age, hole in the ozone, greenhouse effect and climate change has gone awry.  A few facts point in one direction and then the assumptions of people start being validated and then everyone becomes so invested in the 'problem' they refuse to admit their is data that counters the point.

And in this case of global warming and Al Gore & Co., there are trillions of dollars at stake in a grand scheme that few understand and even fewer want you to understand.  Couple that fact with the extreme measures many so-called 'environmentalists' have taken to 'save the Earth' (ecoterrorism, Climategate, etc.) and one is left with the sinking feeling that what once made a whole heap of sense is nothing more than nonsense.  The fact that most opposition comes from counter-ideological sources, doesn't help reassure me.  How many honest, untainted scientists are out there really?

I just don't want us all to feel like we've been had one day because we failed to listen to all sides of the debate/research.

[Hts121]

Agreed, but when you're more interested in proving SOMETHING than in analysis, you lose all credibility.

And the most disappointing aspect of this whole debate, is that non-scientists on BOTH sides with considerable more influence over the public than actual scientists are doing just that.  They are trying to prove the conclusion they desire.  And I'm sure they have gotten a few scientists to play ball with them.

And if you think this is limited to the people advocating for climate change, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

[Scrabble]

Agreed, but when you're more interested in proving SOMETHING than in analysis, you lose all credibility.

And if you think this is limited to the people advocating for climate change, you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

Agreed there too.  That's why I said "The fact that most opposition comes from counter-ideological sources, doesn't help reassure me."

It's quite a mess we're into because the left says the world will end if we don't go back to the Stone Age RIGHT NOW and the right says this is nothing but a Communist transfer of money and power to the Comintern.

I'll let my bias be known: I'm a conservationist who cares about the land and health of the planet.  I also believe in freedom and the free-market and the role voluntary associations must play in combating the problems of our time.  I have a feeling the left and the right are both being a tad paranoid and the middle way of conservation and innovation will keep us all alive long enough to realize the ideologues on both sides were proven wrong...again.

[Hootenany]

I found this intersting piece today.  It is written by David Crowe, the former CEO of the Alberta Green Party (now defunct Political Party in Alberta Canada).  He is an environmentalist who also happens to disagree with the AGW consensus.  This is an excerpt from his piece on why he changed his opinion on the issue and what he now believes.  I found this particular excerpt very relevant to the current discussion.

Q12. Can't we Trust Scientists?
There is a lot of evidence that the activity often called science, and the scientists who practice this activity (as opposed to those few who have a monk-like dedication to the scientific method), are not trustworthy. Peer review is a bankrupt process, for example. It is lousy at detecting fraud but very good at suppressing innovative thought. Financial conflicts of interest are frequent and rarely disclosed. Scientists often fall into the trap of focusing on their next grant rather than what important questions need to be asked (including questioning their own assumptions and biases). The prejudices of the system are amplified in this way. Those who conform are rewarded with grants which inform the granters that this is a subject of great interest.

The proof of this is that there have been many scientific errors that have survived for decades – Piltdown Man, Radical Mastectomy, (opposition to) continental drift, irradiation of the thymus, the germ theories of scurvy, pellagra and SMON. We, like all generations before us, falsely believe that all false beliefs lie in the past.

The ClimateGate scandal illustrated this problem well. Without access to data scientists cannot fully evaluate the work of others. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, at the center of this scandal, said, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" That is exactly why the data should be released. If it can pass scrutiny from a skeptical, critical, cynical scientist then our confidence in the data and interpretations drawn from it will be much higher. It is a waste of time to give data to a scientist whose intention is to prove that previous interpretations are correct.

I thought it was a good read.  He even makes the argument that climate change actions goes against "traditional environmental principles".

The entire piece can be found here:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/left-environmentalist.html

[Scrabble]

Very good article.  The entire thing is linked at the bottom of the link you supplied.  All of it is very level-headed in my opinion.

This paragraph sums it up rather well:

The ClimateGate scandal illustrated this problem well. Without access to data scientists cannot fully evaluate the work of others. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, at the center of this scandal, said, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" That is exactly why the data should be released. If it can pass scrutiny from a skeptical, critical, cynical scientist then our confidence in the data and interpretations drawn from it will be much higher. It is a waste of time to give data to a scientist whose intention is to prove that previous interpretations are correct.

Thanks for sharing.  LewRockwell.com pulls through again.

[tedolph]

"How do we have reliable data going back before man was even on this earth...",

Core samples. 

"...but yet whatever these scientists did destroyed the reliable data from just a decade or two ago?" 

Can't get core samples for recent events. 


"Something is not adding up for me here."

Take an introductory course in Geology-"rocks for jocks" would be good enough.   

[tedolph]

Also Hts. please list which of my comments were/are insulting to scientists so that I may apologize. 

Are you going to appologoze for your Area 51 comments?

I didn't think so. 

[Hts121]

Also Hts. please list which of my comments were/are insulting to scientists so that I may apologize. 

Are you going to appologoze for your Area 51 comments?

I didn't think so. 

Ummmmm.... my Area 51 comments were in response to Seth's post wondering how we could not see this giant "scandal" being perpetrated on us by so-called scientists to push the GW agenda.  I was just saying that I don't see a "scandal" here just like I don't believe there was a "scandal" in Roswell.  So no.  I will not be apologizing.  It wasn't directed at you and it wasn't in response to anything you wrote.  Geez... I'd think you would have thicker skin as a lawyer.  How have you survived in the practice for 25 years? 

And if you are still insulted after that clarification, than you just answered your first question.  My scientist friends are very insulted when they hear that their honest beliefs and conclusions are purpotedly nothing more than a giant "hoax" and not based in any level of rationality (which you have continually insinuated).

[tedolph]

"Geez... I'd think you would have thicker skin as a lawyer.  How have you survived in the practice for 25 years?"

Hts:

i)  Insulting opposing counsel is a good way to get youself sanctioned, fined and/or banned from a Federal Judge's court room; 

ii)  You never want to poison the well that you are going to have to drink from (e.g. settlement);

iii)  Insulting your audience is not particularly persuasive. 

You might be surprised that in 25 years of private practice I can count on one hand the number of times I have been professionally insulted.  Always by someone young and inexperienced.   


Still waiting to hear where I insulted scientists.  I never said there is a "hoax" and I never said they were irrational.  I have assiduously avoided making any statements as to the motivations of Catastrophic Global Warming proponents as I do not have incontestable evidence of those motivations. 

To the extent you "read" something into my "insinuations" may I respectfully suggest that your assumptions are wrong. 

I continue to contend that the Wikipedia graph clearly shows that CO2 concentrations lag temperature increases. 

Do you disagree?

Anyone else?

[Scrabble]

Why doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the "hide the decline" Climategate scandal?

For me, the reasoning is similar to why I don't acknowledge the Roswell-UFO-Area 51 scandal.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over global warming, but Climategate was real and "highly respected scientists" were caught lying and trying to cover up their lies.  Isn't that concerning?

I'm still waiting for Hts to acknowledge Climategate.

[Hts121]

Still waiting to hear where I insulted scientists.  I never said there is a "hoax" and I never said they were irrational.  I have assiduously avoided making any statements as to the motivations of Catastrophic Global Warming proponents as I do not have incontestable evidence of those motivations. 

But your insinuations have been pretty strong on that issue -

I think the real problem you have with my attitude is that it doesn't explain how if things are really so simple and already understood  in the 70's how do I explain the fact that  a number (I really don't know how many) of "scientists" still support the concept of catastrophic global warming in view of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

That is a far more complex question.

That is just as insulting to those "scientists" as my Area 51 comment should be to those who think this whole GW fiasco is just one big conspiracy.

I'm still waiting for Hts to acknowledge Climategate.

Maybe you should look back at my post from 1:20 pm... depending on how you define "Climategate"

[tedolph]

Still waiting to hear where I insulted scientists.  I never said there is a "hoax" and I never said they were irrational.  I have assiduously avoided making any statements as to the motivations of Catastrophic Global Warming proponents as I do not have incontestable evidence of those motivations. 

But your insinuations have been pretty strong on that issue -

I think the real problem you have with my attitude is that it doesn't explain how if things are really so simple and already understood in the 70's how do I explain the fact that a number (I really don't know how many) of "scientists" still support the concept of catastrophic global warming in view of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

That is a far more complex question.

That is just as insulting to those "scientists" as my Area 51 comment should be to those who think this whole GW fiasco is just one big conspiracy.

I'm still waiting for Hts to acknowledge Climategate.

Maybe you should look back at my post from 1:20 pm... depending on how you define "Climategate"

 


Can you not read? I did not state any conclusion.  I merely stated that it is a "complex" question. 

So, if that is all you can find I think an apology is in order. 

What's the matter, can't do it?

Also, Hts. still no comment on the Wikipedia graph? why not?

[Hts121]

I responded in PM.  I suggest we take it there if you need further clarification.  No need to overtly insult eachother.

[Foraker]

The discussion seems to have gone off track.  The questions raised are (1) is climate change happening? and (2) can we do anything about it?

I think there is consensus on the first question, that yes, climate changes are happening. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

There also seems to be consensus (although not universal agreement) in the scientific community that human activity has pushed climate change past the range of recent fluctuations in Earth's history.  Even if one group of scientists presented biased conclusions in favor of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming, other studies by other scientists using other data came to similar conclusions. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html

The degree to which human activity has affected the climate change, and the causes of that climate change may still be in debate. 

Carbon dioxide lasts longer in the atmosphere, and there is a lot more of it in the atmosphere, but carbon dioxide contributes less to warming than methane.  So some have suggested that we ought to be focusing on methane emissions rather than carbon dioxide.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704039704574616130812043404.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

On the other hand, large reserves of methane frozen in the artic and sub-artic already seem to be thawing, and faster than expected.  It will be difficult (if not impossible) to capture all of this methane, which is spread over a wide and inhospitable area.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8437703.stm

People do not like to change their behavior.  The political situation seems to suggest that any attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which would be expensive and probably require lifestyle changes for at least some people, would be resisted even if it makes sense to do so.  So we probably should be planning for climate change rather than trying to prevent it at this point -- doing so would seem to be politically futile even if it is technically possible to prevent climate change.

And having said all that, in my opinion there are good reasons for reducing carbon dioxide emissions even if doing so will not prevent changes in our climate.  Significantly, reducing our DEPENDENCE on foreign sources of energy should be a national priority for our national defense and national economic health. Greater energy efficiency also would reduce all emissions, including those that are harmful to our health, and local and regional environments, not just the global environment.

If we accept that it is beneficial to minimize and continually reduce emissions of all kinds, and plan for climate changes, such as by increasing home insulation, and push for increases in energy efficient devices and transportation, we can make the changes over time and find ourselves in a better position in the future, even as the climate changes around us. 

Assuming climate change happens, what do you propose to do about it?

[Scrabble]

Assuming climate change happens, what do you propose to do about it?

Pragmatic attempts at conservation and innovation are a good start.  The best part of "greening" is that it saves money in the longterm so even if you don't believe in AGW, there's an incentive to cut down on your bottom line by going green.

Also, why can France, Japan, China, etc. have nuclear power and we have to clear cut our forests, demolish our mountains, and pollute our air with coal?  I'm not anti-coal, just anti-stupidity.  Save our coal, forests, air and mountains and go nuclear!

I'm mostly anti-windmill too since they defile the rural landscape.

[Keith]

I'm mostly anti-windmill too since they defile the rural landscape.

Really? You're opposed to using wind to grind grain into flour? Well fortunately most of that is done by electrically powered mills in todays age. (Yes, I feel like being a smarta$$ today.)

On a serious note though I agree that we should be using Nuclear more than we are.

[Scrabble]

I'm mostly anti-windmill too since they defile the rural landscape.

Really? You're opposed to using wind to grind grain into flour? Well fortunately most of that is done by electrically powered mills in todays age. (Yes, I feel like being a smarta$$ today.)

On a serious note though I agree that we should be using Nuclear more than we are.

  The Don Quioxte in me is completely ok with being the only one against monster windmill 'farms'.

I really want to know why we aren't building more nuclear plants to become energy independent.  That would be a great part of a real Manhattan Project-style national improvement plan that Obama could easily get started.

[Hootenany]

The discussion is taking a turn toward common sense.  I like it!

And having said all that, in my opinion there are good reasons for reducing carbon dioxide emissions even if doing so will not prevent changes in our climate.  Significantly, reducing our DEPENDENCE on foreign sources of energy should be a national priority for our national defense and national economic health. Greater energy efficiency also would reduce all emissions, including those that are harmful to our health, and local and regional environments, not just the global environment.

These are wonderful things to do and people would be more on board if environmentalists changed their marketing strategy.  Don't push CO2 reduction as a benefit of these things.  Push COST SAVINGS, reduced dependence on foreign oil (i.e. COST SAVINGS), etc.  It's been proven that most people aren't going to change their lifestyle to reduce their "carbon footprint", but there are tangable benefits to reducing the amount of energy we consume ($$$) that most people would latch on to.  They need to stop telling people we need to pump CO2 into the ground at great cost to reduce total CO2 output by 10%.  That's not a winning strategy.

I'm mostly anti-windmill too since they defile the rural landscape.

This I do not understand.  They "defile the rural landscape"?  What do you mean by that?  They ruin your view?  I find them to be very non-invasive and an extremely efficient use of land.  We can put these wind TURBINES in fields all across the great plains and lose very little agricultural output. 

I agree on everything nuclear.  We need to build more and with current technology breeder reactors can yield huge efficiencies in the use of nuclear fuel. 

[Hts121]

Are we running short on what I presumed to be an abundance of rural landscape in this Country?

[tedolph]

Foraker, a clever lawyer's trick:

"The discussion seems to have gone off track.  The questions raised are (1) is climate change happening? and (2) can we do anything about it?"

The first question question establishes an inarguable premise and the second queston presumes the answer. 

The proper questions should be, "(1) is climate change happening? and (2) should we do anything about it?

Big difference. 

Everybody knows that the Earth's climate changes so the first question is just a setup for the second question which presumes that it is beneficial to control the Earth's climate. 

[Hts121]

I understood what you meant Foraker.  But your "can" question and tedolph's "should" question are two totally different inquiries and both need to be addressed.  Of course, yours would need to be answered first to even bother considering the other.

[Foraker]

The proper questions should be, "(1) is climate change happening? and (2) should we do anything about it?

Everybody knows that the Earth's climate changes so the first question is just a setup for the second question which presumes that it is beneficial to control the Earth's climate. 

I'll defer to your greater expertise on lawyers and lawyering. 

Admittedly, I am more than a little slow -- but you did not directly answer your own questions.  I agree with you that climate change is happening. 

I don't understand your implication that controlling Earth's climate would not be beneficial. In business predictability is very desirable.  If we could control Earth's climate, even if we could maintain it within a pretty large range, that would be very beneficial for business, in my opinion.  I think that is a valid presumption.  I don't think that we have the political will to invest in technology for controlling Earth's climate that closely, if at all.    Can you give me some examples to illustrate why controlling Earth's climate would not be beneficial?

I also don't think that there is a presumed answer to the question of whether we can do anything about climate change.  Controlling C02 emissions, for example, isn't going to bring us back to some zero point on global warming, at least not until all the excess C02 currently in the atmosphere dissipates.  I don't know how we could "harvest" C02 very quickly or efficiently.  Some scientists have suggested placing large mirrors or screens in space to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth, thereby reducing warming.  Would that really work?  Can we control or capture the current methane releases in the artic?  Those are technical problems, and I am not convinced that we have the technology to solve those problems. (Patents present solutions to problems, right?  So an increase in research dollars in this area would be good for your business, eh?). 

Whether we should do any of these things is a different question, and I believe that there are some beneficial side effects from doing some of these things even if it doesn't effect the changes happening to today's climate patterns.  Reducing C02 emissions probably also reduces particulate emissions, for example, which effects rates of asthma and lung cancers.  Particularly in children.

Did you mean that we shouldn't try to change current behavior that might be contributing to global warming -- because our actions have minimal impact or because there is no political will to do so or no technical ability to take the actions necessary to do so or we shouldn't risk over-doing it and causing an ice age or that government shouldn't be mandating changes in behavior?  Can you elaborate on the reasons why we should not try to change Earth's climate? 

Is it just a question of costs?  If a powerplant could eliminate all emissions for $100 a year, should they?  I think there probably is a price point where the cost would be prohibitive for a business, but for some added costs I think it would be worth it.  Our costs points might be different, but wouldn't you agree that cleaner air, for example, generally is a good thing? 

Or is it a question of unintended consequences?  Reducing global warming to the point that we trigger an ice age? 

Or is it an aversion to government intervention in the actions of private businesses, and you don't want government mandating changes in corporate behavior?  (Assuming, for example, that we are talking about the government regulating the reduction in C02 emissions as a way to reduce global warming, however shortsighted that might be.)  We would disagree on this latter point I suspect.  Currently technology seems to be relatively expensive and companies don't voluntarily reduce emissions unless forced to do so.  One of the things Nixon did right was to establish the EPA -- without which I believe our cancer rates would be much higher than they are today.  Are you anti-Nixon?   

You've made some good points regarding the greenhouse-effect-strength of methane vs. carbon dioxide.  What else should we be discussing with regard to climate change, even if we are just talking about increasing the amount of insulation, adding additional air conditioning capacity, or building hurricane-resistant housing in Ohio? 

[Boreas]

It is replusive to do nothing to prevent climate change if humans can prevent it through policy changes.  So there's your answer to the "should" question, Tedolph.

How about we turn it on its head and ask if we "should" launch coal seams that took millions of years to form into the atmosphere in the next century?

[Hts121]

^^ I don't think we know nearly enough about the earth's climate to control it and expect predictability.  All we can reasonably aspire to do is control our "unnatural" (if you can call it that) influence on the climate.  But I truly believe, at this time, such aspirations are very far-fetched.

[Boreas]

Far fetched?  How do you mean??

[DanB]

Far fetched because there is no financially viable way to change policy without putting the entire worlds economy into a tailspin.  It would be unreasonable to expect society not to use the available resources while new ones are being discovered.  Are you one of those who believe everything that can be invented has already been?

[Boreas]

I wasn't asking YOU, and you are not even a light-year within the topic that Hts44121 was talking about.  Sad

[DanB]

That's it, you're off my Christmas card list!

[Hts121]

To me, it is far-fetched because not everyone will agree to the measures proposed and I do believe that a global agreement (or at least an agreement among the major industrialized countries) is necessary to make any significant impact.  Unilaterally imposing restrictions would put the US at an economic disadvantage to places like China and India who will keep building factories and increasing emmissions.  What good does it do to close down 5 factories in the US (or slow down their production) if 10 new factories will open in China to close the gap such action creates in consumer demand (which you can't reasonably expect the government to put a "cap" on)?