------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by imp

How many billions of anti-productive spending on CO2 mitigation will be required to satisfy the socialist/enviro-wacko desire for to stunt the global economy?

Some who want to see CO2 mitigation take place have altruistic motives, but many do not. And nearly all global warming alarmists have no understanding of the economic consequences of this mitigation.

Imp,

The socialist/enviro-wacko's are politically motivated and part of the problem. At least in some ways. I do like the attention (albeit misdirected) that they are bringing to the issues. The majority of ordinary people are scared. And rightfully so. When they look to leadership and science for answers they discover a stalemate exists. This doesn't help matters. They gravitate to Global Warming and CO2 initiatives because while not conclusive its the best we've got and a step in the right direction consciously.

Your vision of a warmer and more prosperous Earth in our future is not supported by historic or present trends. I wish it were. Insurers are losing hundreds of billions due to climate change. They predict more trouble ahead. And they are great risk assessors. We are entering a great unknown and the signals are not reassuring.

I'm not interested in beating the dead-horse of 'global warming' with you. You're a skeptic, congrats. I'm indifferent about "global warming". Maybe Crichton will come out with another book soon and give you some new material.

The flip side is that we may have to focus on the opportunities you mention in order to offset the disasters facing our current infrastructure. Maintaining adaquate drinking water will be one of our greatest challenges as rising seas contaminate aquifers and water supplies for billions of people. But at least trade routes will be shorter. Great trade-off.

~Paradox

[imp]

Paradox:

Your vision of a warmer and more prosperous Earth in our future is not supported by historic or present trends.

Really? The IPCC, a left-leaning organization, has stated that it believes that there could be a net benefit to GDP in developed nations as a result of global warming. Sure there will be specific losers. But there will be winners in global warming.

By the way, I am not a complete skeptic w.r.t. global warming. I just see the net economic benefit. Too much of this debate is focused on whether anthropogenic global warming exists, when it should be focused on how to provide society with a net benefit.

It just makes sense - life tends to flourish on planet Earth during times of warmer temperatures. Ice ages may be good for Polar bears but they are very bad for most species on this planet.

[Paradox]

Really? The IPCC, a left-leaning organization, has stated that it believes that there could be a net benefit to GDP in developed nations as a result of global warming. Sure there will be specific losers. But there will be winners in global warming.

By the way, I am not a complete skeptic w.r.t. global warming. I just see the net economic benefit. Too much of this debate is focused on whether anthropogenic global warming exists, when it should be focused on how to provide society with a net benefit.

It just makes sense - life tends to flourish on planet Earth during times of warmer temperatures. Ice ages may be good for Polar bears but they are very bad for most species on this planet.

Imp,

There are too many uncertainties. Scientific speculation pertaining to the dynamics of climate has been unreliable. I agree with you from the standpoint that warming is a better alternative to cooling. My reluctancy to embrace your optimistic perspective stems from the fact that (according to the ice-cores) many ice-age cycles are preceded by abrupt warming. My research leads me to believe this is related to disruptions to the global ocean currents caused by melting glaciers. We must identify these triggers. Like it or not something is going to give soon and I doubt it will be pretty.

I also agree that we need to look at the solutions (net benefit) rather than continue down this endless path of complacency. We must also start mitigating our damages. This brings up a point...our lack of understanding of climate change. We do not know enough to justify massive investment in preparation and mitigation or it would already be in the works. I could argue both sides of the debate and the result would be stalemate every time. We need more answers before the money will be spent and sacrifices made. I am confident science will deliver soon enough. [-o<

We need breakthroughs not gridlock.


~Paradox

[Paradox]

Warning on cost of climate change

Antarctic ice record warns of greater warming than today’s climate models predict

Positive feedbacks from the carbon cycle

[imp]

Paradox:

That first link talks about Australian farmers taking a hit. Who cares about one special interest group? Australia is one of the world's major coal producers. Those involved in the Australian coal industry stand to lose quite a bit if CO2 emission reduction becomes a global fad. The point is that Australia may very well be a net beneficiary if no attempt to reduce CO2 emissions is made. By the way, Tasmanian farmers would appreciate the longer grower season.

I can name hundreds of groups that may lose out if global warming continues. I can also name hundreds of groups that stand to gain.

[Simple]

Paradox,

It seems to me that working from premise of doing no harm to the environement is a good point.

There is little doubt to me that extracting and buring fossil fuels is doing harm without CO2 considerations.

CO2 does seem related to world temp. to a point from paleoclimatic graphs. What that point is in ppm I haven't seen calculated. As the effect of raising CO2 levels seems to have been to increase global tempeatures in the last 200years or so (without CO2 changesfro models the world would be significantly cooler) adding to this seems fool hardy.

As for water vapour its conc. in the atmosphere is so high to change its concentration significantly enough to effectuate a change in its contribution to global temperature would take a huge influx of water vapour and therefore I think its reasonable to say that the Greenhouse gas effect from water although important to the world is relatively static.

Infra red raditation band width saturation is possible but remember CO2 has four bands due to the way it oscillates and can also absord in side bandwidths of thesse four.

Whether plants will bloom with increasing Co2 is debateable. It seems likely to me there will be a level to which growth will be enhanced and after that there will be no gain. That is there will be a optimal CO2 level for plants and the level for each plant will be different. What the optimal levels are is unknown although an easy experiment to do.

Therefore I feel reducing Co2 emissions seems a sensible approach.

As for all the actions of man that are causing harm (e.g. Pesticides, fertiliser, monoculture, overfishing, etc, etc, etc) just stop. It beggars beleive that on the whole organic farming once established can actually increase yields, improve soil (which hholds more CO2) and increases biodiversity.

Therefore do no harm, prevent actions that do harm, encourage actions enhance the environment.

Simple.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by imp

I can name hundreds of groups that may lose out if global warming continues. I can also name hundreds of groups that stand to gain.

Imp,

We don't have enough understanding to adopt such risky perceptions. Your point is valid but leaves a great deal to chance. It's the wind, drought, flooding, increased seas and other pesky natural events that I worry about. The transition may be perilous and result in no winners.

~Paradox

[imp]

Paradox:

you said

The transition may be perilous and result in no winners.

Replace "The transition" with "CO2 mitigation" and your statement would make more sense.

In general, government intervention in people's lives should follow the same idea as expressed in many variant's of a doctor's oath to "first do no harm". The economic harm caused by CO2 mitigation is massive, and any benefits do not outweigh the costs.

By the way, I can already see the replies coming now -" Imp, first do no harm means do no harm to the environment". Well I see the environment, and Earth, as a tool to further mankind. Remember, humans first.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by imp

Replace "The transition" with "CO2 mitigation" and your statement would make more sense.

In general, government intervention in people's lives should follow the same idea as expressed in many variant's of a doctor's oath to "first do no harm". The economic harm caused by CO2 mitigation is massive, and any benefits do not outweigh the costs.

By the way, I can already see the replies coming now -" Imp, first do no harm means do no harm to the environment". Well I see the environment, and Earth, as a tool to further mankind. Remember, humans first.

Imp,

Maybe we are missing each others points here. CO2 mitigation and enviro-politics are areas of indifference for me. 'The transition' I am referring to is one from balance to extremes. Not balance to balance.

You are obviously insulated from reality by the rhetoric which you proliferate. I cannot blame you for embracing what you perceive as a growing threat. That being CO2 mitigation. I am in agreement with you about government intervention in our lives. Let me assure you, if these trends continue unabated, you may be afforded much more autonomy than you desire. Ironic but true.

~Paradox

[imp]

Paradox:

No, I think I get your point. We are entering into a period of increased uncertainty, from an environmental perspective. There is a cost associated with uncertainty - just ask insurance companies, option traders, and anyone who understands finance and the rational risk-averse investor.

I just willingingly accept the increase in uncertainty because "hedging" the environmental uncertainty with CO2 mitigation is not worth the cost.