Peak Oil, Climate Change, and the Transition towns movement

To paraphrase gasdive, that's rubbish. Complete hogwash. How do you assess expenditure? In the case of the California elections and Prop 23, you count TV ads and multiply by the cost of airtime. You then add a little bit for organizational expenses and such. Or, sometimes the groups just tell you how much money they raised. The oil companies didn't disclose, but they spent about $70 million on air time. The environmental groups did disclose, and they raised less than half that amount.

As usual, lot's of arrogant invective, supported by selective examples to achieve a distorted result! I referred to a world wide phenomenon, you cherry pick one US, California at that, example! It may surprise you to know that the world does not exist solely of the US !

When it comes to actual lobbying in the US government, all lobbyist have to be registered and their spending disclosed, as a matter of law. I showed you the study before, but it was very clear that the side of the oil companies spent 13 times as much as the side of the environmental groups. Oh, the poor little financially disadvantaged oil companies, only outspending the other side by a single order of magnitude.

More distortions, Oil, companies like all industry, employ registered lobbyists. Most 'environmentalist' movements don't, since such lobbying is not of the same nature. The makers of the film 'Avatar' are not required to be registered, nor are Government departments, 'green volunteers', groups that act as political pressure group through the media etc, to affect voting patterns on individual politicians within individual electorates. All those who attended the Kyoto or Copenhagen conference, and the cost of such conferences, that generate enormous publicity and vast media coverage providing a platform for climate change advocates.

Your so called 'number crunching' is a just a poorly constructed distorted, conspiracy theory. The 'facts' you are so proud of, are easily shown as wild distortions. A good example of the selective and distorted way you misrepresent anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint, is confirmed by your own words.

How you can imagine that oil companies aren't rich is simply beyond me. The Koch brothers are personally worth 22 Billion dollars,each Big oil companies typically report profits in the 10 to 20 Billion dollar range, per quarterAnd you are trying to compare them to wind and solar companies that desperately need a tax incentive just to break even.

That's dishonest distortion of what I wrote! I did not compare oil companies with wind companies!

I replied to examples Jason provided,among them, Berkshire Hathaway. I compared investment by Berkshire Hathaway in Gas Utilities with Berkshire Hathaway's investment in Alternate Energy and EV production! Likewise, I relied to Jason's cited example of Nissan Ford, Honda etc, drawing a comparison between vested interests in those companies to favour oil, with those companies investments in EV,(alt energy) production etc..

I also enquired as to the allowance made for the massive investment by oil companies in solar production.

Does your hatred of the Koch brothers, blind you to all reason and intellectual honesty?

If you quote someone, at least quote them correctly! With a rational person, I would expect an apology, but fanatics never admit errors, do they?

If you are so disingenuous about issues such as these, it's small wonder that people like Safe, don't trust your scientific analysis!

This is the real trouble with all fanatics, you lack the capacity to comprehend or even admit the existence of any enquiry that doesn't fit in with your preconceived belief's.

When you are presented with facts, you simply arrogantly dismiss them as irrelevant. To you, the only 'facts' that qualify as 'facts', are those that support your position! I say, what value do we place on the propaganda coup of the 'concerned school children for climate change'?,.. you reply, ignore all that, look at how much money the Bogey-man ( Koch bros,etc) possesses.

It's this sort of 'closed mind' attitude and lack of intellectual curiosity, that is losing support for the Climate Change advocates. Joe Public is quite rightly suspicious of Prophets of Righteousness.

To often these prophets have turned out to be false, resulting in great cost and pain to Joe Public.

Gore may not be very scientifically accurate, but his charm and seemingly overtly open and honest approach greatly assisted the science of climate change to be accepted in the area of public opinion. Since then, support has lost ground, due in part to the unpleasant fanaticism of advocates, and the confusion of leftist politics with 'green' concepts.

I know all about potential salinity effects on ocean currents, and I dismiss it because it's entirely irrelevant to the warming we're looking at today.

Gee, that was the debate topic.

So you don't want to debate the effects of the ocean currents or are you willing to maybe change your mind and come out and debate it now that I've brought it up again?

We can't really get any kind of a debate without at least isolating a specific topic to talk about.

The Climate Cycle looks like this:

...this is square one.

The ocean currents determine the distribution of heat. When the current is rapid the oceans near the poles are warmer and that makes the land warmer. When the ocean currents stop flowing the oceans at the poles get colder and that makes the lands colder which allows more snow to remain from year to year. This build up of ice will then create more reflection and also prevent more methane from emerging from the permafrost. It's natures way to "flip" the climate switch the other way.

The fascinating thing about the Climate Cycle is the "CO2 Lag" on the negative side of the cycle. (the positive side is slight) The oceans become the larger influence and CO2 becomes more of a lagging indicator in the normal cycle. It takes about 20,000 years after the ocean currents stop flowing before the CO2 finally is reduced as dramatically as the temperature. The oceans really are the biggest influence on the climate. (which really should not be a huge surprise given how large the oceans are relative to land)

Marcopolo, I made my comments with reference to the Australian situation, so for our American cousins...

Where the environmental, Green Political, Governmental 'climate change' movement has the advantage, is that all the revenue, and in fact all, activity is dedicated to the advancement of Climate Change acceptance.
Now even to you, the above must make some sense?

So (for the Americans) lets do that very irritating thing and go to the source.

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2010/2010bib.pdf

Goal 1 for the 2010 budget (hey, it's their Number One Goal!!! maybe you're right!)

Look at page 15. They break down their budget and 143 511 000 dollars (143 million) is being spent on number 5, “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” Hey, you are right, “all the revenue” (your emphasis) is being spent on this one goal of eliminating fossil fuel. Oh, no, hang on, you're wrong. The total budget for the environmental protection agency is 10.5 Billion dollars. Oh, I see, so by “all the revenue” you mean “less than 1.4%” Still that 1.4% is pretty significant. Just go to the EPA website. Climate Change is right there on the front page as a two word link, right below “Bed Bugs”

So every time we look past the hype and go to the source, everything you say (and you're not alone in this) turns out to be incorrect.

Cheers Jason =:)

(snip a metaphor about AC and DC current)...The debate really needs to be about how much we are altering the AC cycle verses any straight line thinking where theories run off into infinity.

Well I see where you're coming from Safe. I also see the climate as being a bit like AC current in that it has a cycle. However the AC current metaphor is too simplistic. The environment is a complex system. Very much unlike an AC current that has a strong external force holding it to a cycle that can be somewhat disturbed by “static” as you put it. Instead it would be closer to a ball rolling around on a curved surface. It's a big surface, the local dip keeps the ball in the same general area. Small external pushes (such as the changes due to the orbital cycles mentioned elsewhere) keep the ball moving. Now we are giving the ball a shove in a never before experienced direction and force. This may just cause the ball to continue to move around as it did before in the current energy “depression”. It may however knock it out of that depression into another one. It's possible that the “shape” of this surface is like a volcano. The ball is rolling around in the crater at the top. Small pushes send it to a different part of the crater. Perhaps a big push will send it right out of the “crater” and down the slope of the volcano in a never ending feedback in a direction we cannot predict.

You must never think that there are things such as: “natures way to "flip" the climate switch the other way.” The climate is not designed, it's not evolved, it just happens to be that way and nothing more. We on the other hand are evolved to live in the current climate. If we wreck this one life will go on fine. The animals that live in the rocks will neither know nor care. We may however find it not to our liking.

Just waiting to see how bad we have made it and then fixing it later might not be an option.

I'll put it another way. If you are on a boat you're used to the boat rocking around. If you start to move all the cargo to one side then the boat will list. It *seems* that the list is within the previous rocking. After all you're used to the boat rocking to say 30 degrees and it's always come right back. However it's not alright, and the boat capsizes. Once the boat has capsized no amount of moving the cargo around (which is now vastly more difficult than it was) is going to put the boat back up the right way. It's done. It's now reached a new stable point. Sure it continues to rock with the waves, but it's never going to be right way up again.

Cheers Jason =:)

It's taking pages to refute each sentence of what you're saying and I just don't have the energy. Normally people say things like "if you would just read what I wrote"... Instead I'm going to ask you to just read what you've written.

Sigh, I was trying in my second post to correct any misconception I had created. I believe I clarified my position.

You've made the point that fossil fuel based business have more things to spend their money on than just lobbying. That's correct, but so do the organisations that you lump together as the “green lobby”. The green parties do very little to zero "lobbying". They're not taking out advertising to make the government change their policy, they advertise to get people to vote for them. In fact if the government of the day takes on green policy “green” parties will cease to exist. The ministries for climate change don't lobby anyone. They do things like oversee development applications from business, administer National Parks, allocate water, control forestry industry.

Firstly, I find your new definition of 'influence or propaganda', peculiar. You seemed to have narrowed the definition to encompass only formally registered lobbyists. Secondly, I did make allowance for other activities. I carefully separated 'climate change' from other environmental activities. Thirdly, the green parties exist to propagate the green cause! They exist to effect, among other, climate change policies! To claim they are not involved in converting the public to climate change acceptance is just plain silly.

Sigh, the sentence, "I do not include bureaux of meteorology, ...I also include the vast budgets of specialised government ministries for 'Climate Change'... dedicated to to furthering the Climate Change movement" , would read better as, "I do not include bureaux of meteorology, ...but I include the vast budgets of those sections of specialised government ministries for 'Climate Change'... dedicated to to furthering the Climate Change movement

I would have felt that it was obvious, to any fair minded reader, I was making allowances for non-climate change activities, such as the bureau of meteorology etc.. However, three points must be considered, firstly if you are correct, and these Ministries have nothing to do with advocating climate change, why the title the 'Ministry of Climate Change'?? Secondly, the very existence of such ministries gives Government imprimatur to the acceptance of climate change as an established fact! Thirdly, these ministries produce an astonishing amount of Climate Change material.(valuable information if you are a climate change supporter, irresponsible tax-payer funded propaganda if you are a sceptic.)

Now, I am not saying that this is not a legitimate government activity, nor am I claiming the sceptics correct, but the sceptic side of the debate would argue that a Ministry,with the term 'Climate Change' in its' title, is proof of climate change advocates employing the organs of government to further acceptance of climate change.

After all,the sceptic would argue, "why do you have a Government Department named "Climate Change',?" The sceptic would also cite evidence of government bias in the words of a Minister(s) who stated " the debate is over! Man-Man made Climate change is a scientifically established Fact!", Sceptics cite this as evidence of insidious propaganda, and that the inclusion of respectable organisations such the 'Met' Parks, etc are just tricks to cloak a dubious policy in respectability.

The climate change advocate would argue that since climate change affects the Met, Parks, Rivers, etc it makes good commonsense to include them all in the same Ministry.

Both points of view may be correct depending on where you stand.

More disappointingly, apart from nit-picking my phrasing, you failed to explain why you think Berkshire Hathaway, is an ardent supporter,(and financial contributor), to anti-climate change propaganda? For that matter you make no comment on the value of other pro climate change propaganda issues I raised, such as the value of Avatar films, " children for climate change" etc etc....

You seem to share MikeB's hatred of large corporation, and this has blinded you from seeing both sides of any issue.

As I said to MikeB, it's this very intolerance which is a major contribution factor why the pro-climate change politicians are losing support.

P/S

Why do you keep quoting irrelevant material? The EPA is a regulatory authority. It exists to implement the law, not create law. I would not expect a regulatory authority to have a large budget for what is essentially a political issue.

A more relevant organisation would be the 'Climate Institute the 'Global Climate Network', and a myriad of others. None of these organisations(to the best of my knowledge), employs registered lobbyists, but the vast majority of their considerable budgets are dedicated to the furtherance of climate change objectives.

Even the so-called 'climate consultants' are a vested interests in spreading the climate change message. Although these businesses exist to assist in providing 'climate solutions' to industry, it is always on the premise that man made climate change exists.

I am not arguing that these organisations are not performing a worthwhile service, but simply they must be factored in any equation.

My observation that the primary purpose of Industry is not addressing issues of climate change in the public awareness, but to produce products is valid. So too is the proposition that many other organisations exist for the main part to further the cause of climate change acceptance.

Why can't you accept the very reasonable proposition, that while resource funding is easily identified, climate change advocates appear in so many different guises, and the value of their contributions are very difficult to assess?

I repeat, do you consider the blatantly pro climate change propaganda films, like Avatar, 2012, etc.. part of climate change funding, or what portion ?

Try considering the difficult issues, rather than cite irrelevant examples, easily researched on the net.

Plenty of homework from Marcopolo. I'll see if I can answer each point rather than just working on one sentence at a time. My responses will be brief then...

It's taking pages to refute each sentence of what you're saying and I just don't have the energy. Normally people say things like "if you would just read what I wrote"... Instead I'm going to ask you to just read what you've written.

Sigh, I was trying in my second post to correct any misconception I had created. I believe I clarified my position.

I didn't pick up on you clarifying. Having re-read your posts I still can't see that as a clarification. Just looks to me like you're shifting from one foot to another. This may well be my lack in comprehension.

You've made the point that fossil fuel based business have more things to spend their money on than just lobbying. That's correct, but so do the organisations that you lump together as the “green lobby”. The green parties do very little to zero "lobbying". They're not taking out advertising to make the government change their policy, they advertise to get people to vote for them. In fact if the government of the day takes on green policy “green” parties will cease to exist. The ministries for climate change don't lobby anyone. They do things like oversee development applications from business, administer National Parks, allocate water, control forestry industry.

Firstly, I find your new definition of 'influence or propaganda', peculiar. You seemed to have narrowed the definition to encompass only formally registered lobbyists. Secondly, I did make allowance for other activities. I carefully separated 'climate change' from other environmental activities. Thirdly, the green parties exist to propagate the green cause! They exist to effect, among other, climate change policies! To claim they are not involved in converting the public to climate change acceptance is just plain silly.

My contention is that green parties exist *because* of public sentiment rather than your contention that green parties exist to drive public sentiment. The current concern for the damage being done to the environment (not only from fossil fuel) has lead to the creation of green parties rather than as you contend, the other way around. I don't remember defining either influence nor propaganda. If I was to do so I think I'd be talking about people who disseminate information with the intention of changing public opinion. The green parties sure distribute their own propaganda but all their propaganda I've seen is along the lines of “if you think this then you should vote for us”. I've never seen anything from any of them that try to make you think that way, nor anything that could be considered to be trying to get the major parties to take their standpoint. What would their platform be if the other party just adopted it wholesale? Indeed that's the tactic that has resulted in the Labour (leftwing) governments gaining power in (at one stage) every level of government in Australia. They simply became more right wing. That forced the right wing party to an even more right wing platform. Since Aussies are Centreist by nature, that pushed the Liberal (rightwing) government out of power.

Sigh, the sentence, "I do not include bureaux of meteorology, ...I also include the vast budgets of specialised government ministries for 'Climate Change'... dedicated to to furthering the Climate Change movement" , would read better as, "I do not include bureaux of meteorology, ...but I include the vast budgets of those sections of specialised government ministries for 'Climate Change'... dedicated to to furthering the Climate Change movement

Well if that's how it's better read, then that's how it should have been written. You can't really blame me for responding to what you wrote rather than what you were thinking when you wrote it.

I would have felt that it was obvious, to any fair minded reader, I was making allowances for non-climate change activities, such as the bureau of meteorology etc.. However, three points must be considered, firstly if you are correct, and these Ministries have nothing to do with advocating climate change, why the title the 'Ministry of Climate Change'?? Secondly, the very existence of such ministries gives Government imprimatur to the acceptance of climate change as an established fact! Thirdly, these ministries produce an astonishing amount of Climate Change material.(valuable information if you are a climate change supporter, irresponsible tax-payer funded propaganda if you are a sceptic.)

I didn't say these ministries have *nothing* to do with advocating climate change (if by “advocating climate change you mean making the public aware that the climate is changing). I said that these ministries do no lobbying. That is to say they don't advocate changing your vote to a green party, pestering the government for a change of law or indeed anything of the sort. They do generally have some sort of public awareness campaign, however for most of those ministries that public awareness is a small part of their total portfolio. It's generally limited to energy efficiency initiatives which really are spurred more by a reluctance to increase infrastructure than a true desire for an improvement in the environment.

Now, I am not saying that this is not a legitimate government activity, nor am I claiming the sceptics correct, but the sceptic side of the debate would argue that a Ministry,with the term 'Climate Change' in its' title, is proof of climate change advocates employing the organs of government to further acceptance of climate change.

Well there's absolutely no doubt on either side of this debate that the climate is changing. The Australian ministry for climate change says that one of their main roles is getting people ready for that change. Their four goals are: “reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, Promoting energy efficiency, Adapting to climate change and helping shape a global solution. All admirably vague in that “Yes Minister” sort of way. However I wouldn't say that they're “advocating” climate change any more than the Department of Aging is “advocating” getting old. So basically, no, I don't accpet that having a department of climate change is proof of anything other than proof that everyone accepts the climate is changing just like everyone accepts that there are old people.

After all,the sceptic would argue, "why do you have a Government Department named "Climate Change',?" The sceptic would also cite evidence of government bias in the words of a Minister(s) who stated " the debate is over! Man-Man made Climate change is a scientifically established Fact!", Sceptics cite this as evidence of insidious propaganda, and that the inclusion of respectable organisations such the 'Met' Parks, etc are just tricks to cloak a dubious policy in respectability.

Now we're repeating ourselves. I've answered that twice in this post alone

The climate change advocate would argue that since climate change affects the Met, Parks, Rivers, etc it makes good commonsense to include them all in the same Ministry.

Both points of view may be correct depending on where you stand.

More disappointingly, apart from nit-picking my phrasing, you failed to explain why you think Berkshire Hathaway, is an ardent supporter,(and financial contributor), to anti-climate change propaganda?

I didn't claim Berkshire Hathaway is an ardent supporter and financial contributor to anti-climate change propaganda. Careful, you're straying into strawman territory here. Discrediting claims I didn't make does you no favours.
You were discussing the resources available to the “green” groups (so much more than the oil faction). Berkshire Hathaway has many sources of income. It's a large and diverse company. It owns Northern Natural Gas. It would no doubt survive the failure of NNG however it would not benefit the company to have draconian green legislation passed. Should it wish to protect it's gas arm it has considerable resources upon which it can draw.

For that matter you make no comment on the value of other pro climate change propaganda issues I raised, such as the value of Avatar films, " children for climate change" etc etc....

We were discussing the monetary resources available to green groups vs the resources available to fossil fuel based groups.

You seem to share MikeB's hatred of large corporation, and this has blinded you from seeing both sides of any issue.

I don't hate large corporations. Nor do I trust them. I think I have a clear understanding of what they are and what they do. Each corporation is composed of people. People like you and me.
Those people act basically in their own self interest. When those large groups of people take large numbers of individual decisions then an appearance of group (flocking) behaviour can arise. Those flocks may operate for the greater good of mankind, or they may not. They may operate for the good of the corporation, or their shareholders. Equally, they may not operate for the good of the shareholders. Emergent behaviour is difficult to predict and I do believe that corporations need to be held on a quite tight leash. BP deepwater drilling practice is an example. Individuals made decisions that saved their division considerable money each quarter, produced good results and corporate advancement. However the result of those decisions was bad for the community and very nearly caused BP (one of the top earning companies in the world) to go broke. Emergent behaviour was bad both for the world and for the corporation.

As I said to MikeB, it's this very intolerance which is a major contribution factor why the pro-climate change politicians are losing support.

P/S

Why do you keep quoting irrelevant material? The EPA is a regulatory authority. It exists to implement the law, not create law. I would not expect a regulatory authority to have a large budget for what is essentially a political issue.

You brought up green ministries. Ministries (departments in the US) don't create law. You used them as an example of the vast amount of money flowing into the climate change industry.

A more relevant organisation would be the 'Climate Institute the 'Global Climate Network', and a myriad of others. None of these organisations(to the best of my knowledge), employs registered lobbyists, but the vast majority of their considerable budgets are dedicated to the furtherance of climate change objectives.

As I said, I was responding to what you said.

Even the so-called 'climate consultants' are a vested interests in spreading the climate change message. Although these businesses exist to assist in providing 'climate solutions' to industry, it is always on the premise that man made climate change exists.

Look I think I've found a basic point of disagreement here. It's completely clear that man made climate change exists. CO2 in the air changes the way light is absorbed. We put more there, it's changed the way light is absorbed. The “premise that man made climate change exists” is about on the same level of certainty that the world is an oblate spheroid. If you're disputing such a completely obvious point as that then there really isn't anything to discuss. I thought we were in disagreement over how big the change would get, if it would spark a runaway condition to a point that the earth cannot support complex organisms or aerobic life, that sort of thing. If you actually doubt that man made climate change exists at all, I apologise for having wasted your time.

I am not arguing that these organisations are not performing a worthwhile service, but simply they must be factored in any equation.

Ok, factor them in. The fossil fuel dependent industries (did I mention western agriculture?no I think I forgot that one, so add that in as well) still *dwarf* the green groups.

My observation that the primary purpose of Industry is not addressing issues of climate change in the public awareness, but to produce products is valid. So too is the proposition that many other organisations exist for the main part to further the cause of climate change acceptance.

I'm having difficulty parsing that statement, but if it means what I think it means, then yes, I don't dispute that industry's primary purpose is not addressing issues of climate change and there are organisations that exist for the main part to let people know how the world works.

Why can't you accept the very reasonable proposition, that while resource funding is easily identified, climate change advocates appear in so many different guises, and the value of their contributions are very difficult to assess?

I think I can and do accept that. Large levels of uncertainty exist in the size of both sides of the question. However my best estimate is that the oil/coal/automotive (and lets not forget mechanised farming) industries together are at least 1000 times bigger than the green groups. Even if the anti green lobby has under estimated the size of the green lobby and it's 10 times bigger than what I consider inflated claims. Even if I've over estimated the size of the oil/coal/gas/automotive/farming industry and it's one tenth the size I estimated. That still means it's 10 times bigger than the green lobby.

I repeat, do you consider the blatantly pro climate change propaganda films, like Avatar, 2012, etc.. part of climate change funding, or what portion ?

I've never heard of 2012. I did see Avatar and consider it to be a poor remake of Pocahontas. I can see what you're talking about however again I think you've confused cause and effect. Avatar taps into a dissatisfaction with the degradation of the world we live in and pastes on top the Victorian idea of the noble savage. In the end I think it's insulting to both the audience and indigenous people everywhere. However I did like the special effects. So I guess I'd say, no it's not part of any kind of pro climate change propaganda and I wouldn't consider it in any analysis of climate change funding.

Try considering the difficult issues, rather than cite irrelevant examples, easily researched on the net.

I really think having carefully studied what you've written in this post that I've been wasting both our times. I do apologise for that. It's now apparent to me that you actually believe that the the CO2 being released into the air either has no effect or we don't know what the effect is. If you've failed to follow the basic principles of what's going on at that level then discussion with you is just going to annoy us both. I think that's perhaps why you feel the people who've tried very patiently to explain what's going on have been perceived at your end as “arrogant” or “full of themselves”.

Sorry about that.

Cheers Jason =:)
(edit formatting, too many quotes!)

You must never think that there are things such as: “natures way to "flip" the climate switch the other way.”The climate is not designed, it's not evolved, it just happens to be that way and nothing more.

I couldn't agree more. There are some non-linear aspects to the way the climate behaves and sometimes a switch metaphor is used, but we shouldn't let this get in the way of understanding.

We on the other hand are evolved to live in the current climate. If we wreck this one life will go on fine. The animals that live in the rocks will neither know nor care. We may however find it not to our liking.

It is worse than this. I have little doubt that humans will go on in some form almost indefinitely. When resources start to become globally short, however, civilization is in trouble and these do not fall apart gently. And the maddening thing about all of this is no single storm, fire, flood, drought, cold spell, or warm spell can every be blamed on global warming. We can't, for example, point to the fires in Russia and say, "See. The climate scientists were right!" There will always be just enough doubt for the know-nothings in government and the know-very-littles that are lurking in this thread to argue that it's not going to get too bad or it's all natural or it is a problem but we don't need to work on it right now.

AMEN

Well I see where you're coming from Safe. I also see the climate as being a bit like AC current in that it has a cycle. However the AC current metaphor is too simplistic. The environment is a complex system. Very much unlike an AC current that has a strong external force holding it to a cycle that can be somewhat disturbed by “static” as you put it.

...

Just waiting to see how bad we have made it and then fixing it later might not be an option.

I appreciate your willingness to look at my metaphor.

The climate is a complex system. It very well MIGHT be true that we have achieved enough of a CO2 imbalance to create long lasting and irreversible effects, but we also might simply see a longer "CO2 Lag" as the excess CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans. The effect might not be that large.

The day it suddenly dawned on me that there will be a point in the future when ABSOLUTE knowledge about what is going to happen will be available was the "moment of clarity" for me.

When the ocean currents stop... we will know.

This very well could be the point where things are too far gone to have any effect, but it would be the data that would silence all debate.

--------------------

The key thing is the post-peak "CO2 Lag" in past cycles. To me that suggests that a surplus of CO2 can hang around for a long time without preventing the other forces from functioning.

We really don't know for sure... people that claim certainty are deceiving themselves. (but again, in the not too distant future I think data will exist to give solid proof)

Economics and Ecology

In a "perfect world" where there is a balanced budget and unlimited free medical care and social security at age 55 the ecology naturally becomes a topic where dollars are going to be spent freely.

What?

What world is that?

...that's my point, we don't live in that "perfect world" and in fact things seem to be getting more and more grim with each day. Worldwide (with the exception of Russia and China) most countries are about three years behind in debt if you take all forms of debt which includes government, corporate and private. What this means is that the world has in effect bankrupted itself spending beyond it's ability to pay. Only Russia (because of it's oil) and China are not in deep, deep debt these days. It's kind of ironic since the West prefers the self deception that it "won the Cold War" against communism some time ago. (that history is wrong)

What is the "bottom line"?

Science about climate or not the simple fact is that the world does not have the economic stability to invest in things that might have effects on the climate in a way that people perceive as positive.

------------------------

My advice (opinion) is that all thoughts about the climate need to pass through an "economic reality" filter first. It does make sense for Americans to reduce the dependence on foreign oil for use in automobiles, so there is an economic reason to pursue electric vehicles if they can be made economically competitive.

Oil prices are rising again... the time for clear thinking pragmatism is here. The age of dreams of perfection are probably gone for our lifetime. I just can't see any scenario where "perfect world" visions ever come back to the majority of Americans.

When the ocean currents stop... we will know.

Try this for a metaphor then, given that economics speaks to us both.

We're in charge of a co-operative company. We've been using a new business practice that has cut costs dramatically. However customers are leaving at a steady and never before seen rate. Now the number of customers has fluctuated before. The total number of customers is higher than it has been at the lowest points in the past, but falling faster than it ever has in the past. We don't want to abandon our new business practice, we adopted it for good reasons, worker (and management) satisfaction has never been higher. It would be a big wrench to change to something else. I suggest we wait 'till the recievers take over the business and suggest it to them. That way it won't be the current management that indroduces an unpopular change and I'm nearly sure that the recievers will be able to bring the company back from the brink. (as long as they implement the suggestions that we're too chicken to do now, but implement them at a level much higher and much more of a wrench than we need to do now).

Does that metaphor speak to you?

Cheers Jason =:)

We may however find it not to our liking.

It is worse than this. I have little doubt that humans will go on in some form almost indefinitely.

Text is hard. Worse than this? Must be my protestant understated upbringing. By "not to our liking" I meant all oxygen breathing life would die, leaving only small extremophile anerobic life.

Life is constantly pulling carbon dioxide out of the oceans and putting it into rocks. If the CO2 level getts too high then the oceans will be too acid for them to be able to do that.

If we want to see a planet that lacks that ability to put CO2 back in the rocks Venus makes a great example. The layer of CO2 there is 90 atmosphere's thick (humans cannot survive, no matter how good the technology, past about 20 atmospheres). The surface temperature is 450 C (850 F) which is also "not to our liking"

Now you might just say (and rightly) that Venus is closer to the sun, so it isn't a good example of what could happen. Well the sun has been getting brighter. It's now the brightest it has ever been, so the energy falling on us now is similar to the energy that fell on Venus in the far past.

It's unlikely that things will go that way. It's not completely impossible. I think it's too much to risk.

=:)

Does that metaphor speak to you?

It's just a little too removed from the situation I think. The underlying science is about a Climate Cycle and whether one of many system inputs is capable of derailling the pattern.

We can agree as a FACT that all deviations in input will have effects on the output. We can agree that the Climate Cycle will indeed have a deviation.

However the "debate" is about how MUCH deviation in the Climate Cycle we will see. Will the deviation be so severe as to completely cause an end to the cycle?

And remember that earths history has no sign that any CO2 surge was able to have any lasting effect. Despite "CO2 Lag" in the past things did eventually get back into the pattern.

----------------------------

The "bottom line" debate still seems between an isolated focus on CO2 verses a focus on history and the Climate Cycle pattern.

Debt Commission

The Debt Commission has suggested that a 15 cent gasoline tax be added as a way to increase revenue and to drive people out of gasoline and into electric vehicles.

For once I think the government is introducing a good idea!

Government can do one thing REALLY WELL and that is to kill stuff. The military was it's first social task and their job is killing enemies. Now we have the ability to kill things with taxation since we know that if you want to kill anything you tax it more.

* * * Tax more ---> Things die

* * * Tax less ---> Thing prosper

...so this should be "good news" for electric vehicles.

15 cents seems smaller than it could be. A dollar tax addition could really put a serious dent into leveling the differences between electric and gasoline.

All that is needed is about $4 gasoline and electric is a practical choice. That's not that far away now, so we might be able to forget all the abstract arguments about climate and focus on the pragmatic issue of cost effectiveness.

Tax and Kill

All that is needed is about $4 gasoline and electric is a practical choice.

It's just under $5USD/usgallon here in Australia right now. It's still borderline if the only thing you consider is petrol price. Unless you're looking at a reasonably high performance dirtbike. The Zero I'm picking up next week will only need a battery and brushes every 5 years (I hope). That's about I like KTMs and in that same 5 years I'd need at least 10 (factory recommends 50) piston and ring changes. They're over 500 dollars each (installed), so the battery, brushes and electricity to charge is less than the maintainence alone. No need to factor in petrol price, it's already cheaper. (retail price is the same within a couple of hundred dollars)

Back to the less practical side for a second. I think we don't know what will happen if we disturb a chaotic system. I think war and famine are certain. However I think war and famine are always certain because we can't control our population and will always expand to a number higher than can be supported. It's the really bad outcomes that worry me, but as I said, I think it's a low likelyhood outcome. Still on a cost/risk/hazard assessment, the cost is low, the risk is low but the hazard is huge (extiction of all the interesting life on earth).

=:)

I think we don't know what will happen if we disturb a chaotic system. I think war and famine are certain. However I think war and famine are always certain because we can't control our population and will always expand to a number higher than can be supported.

I'm in total agreement with you there.

I have a very pessimistic view of human nature. We tend to want to believe that we are so advanced and "progressive" beings but in reality we are no different than the cavemen that are our ancestors. War is coming because worldwide all the free countries have bankrupted themselves with debt and the hybrid-communist countries are all doing great. (Russia and China) Deep down the communist countries are still eager to see the West fall and we seem to be falling as hoped for. All it's going to take is a spark and it's game on. (there's plenty of fuel for war now) Oh yeah, and there are crazy muslims too.

When worldwide nuclear war occurs (which it likely will at the end of a long economic downturn) it's possible that the effects could be so severe as to push things forward into an ice age more quickly. After all, the CO2 productive capacity will essentially halt once everything gets destroyed and the nuclear winter will quickly get us to a colder state.

If I was betting on the future based on everything I see I'd bet that 200 years from now is COLDER than it is now and not hotter.

Anyone want to take that bet? (like we will be around to cash in on it)

Anyone want to take that bet? (like we will be around to cash in on it)

I think it would be a good bet. If the industro complex keeps going then in 200 years it's *possible* (unlikely) that we will still be around. Medical and computer science is still advancing fast and we could be uploads by that time or living in semi artificial bodies. It's going to be hotter in that case. However if there is a nuclear winter then average life expectancy will fall back into the 20's again. In that case it will be colder but it's not going to worry you or me.

So Yeah, beers are on me if it's colder in 200 years, you're buying if it's hotter.

=:)

I believe that we need to lower the chances of peak oil and GW to prevent another dark age. Hopefully, man made perils won't stop us from developing what I believe is the best solution...

Competing robotic solar PV factories.

Ya, solar ain't noth'n yet. However, it has seen a 35% (or so) growth rate for some 30 years. Continuing, ALL THINGS would be powered by solar alone in less than 40 years. Obviously, This trend will not continue without cheap, I mean, dirt cheap panels that could only be made from robotic machines. They don't have to think and they don't need to know that they exist, thus free labor for those corps that invest the initial billions.

Jobs security lies in the FACT that solar PV needs to be installed over tens of thousands of square miles {to do any real good offsetting peak oil}. Which is about the same amount of land that has been used by the {paving} machines of the last century. Post mounted panels don't need paved over land `~'

The problem is politics because we still DO have enough fossil fuels to do this, at least to where solar can exponentiate from there. Maybe not oil, but natural gas or methane hydrates... If one tenth of world FF supply was used to make this huge transition (more jobs), then there would be at least 15 times that in clean electrical availability knowing that the silicon PV panels will last the proven 30 years. Of course, we will need machine made utility scale batteries once renewable energy hits the "mess'n with the grid" level (due to it's intermittent nature).

Does anybody else here believe that humanity has the tech to do such a thing?

...
...

Does anybody else here believe that humanity has the tech to do such a thing?

Of course - this, and other similar achievements are quite possible.

But only if we find time between the futile attempts to convince hordes of knuckle-heads that there is a problem in the first place....

I must try to disagree in the name of hopeful optimism.
A few percent of the population can make these changes happen regardless of what the masses don't want or care to know. After all, "we" all think that "they" will fix everything. It's conceivable that the oil companies themselves will eventually invest in the next level when oil is too scarce.

I'm hoping that by merely talking about it, more people will want the electric infrastructure and cause competition and laws that will bring it about sooner. I know it gets more complicated since these things can be put on the ballot. The defeat of California's prop 23 (the one backed by oil companies) gives me some hope too.

Good grief!

A doomsday consensus! Y'all finally found something you can agree on? So, Mankind's going to hell in handcart, and pretty damn soon! Better saddle up the four horsemen!

It's very curious, that you have so little faith in the tanacity of your own species to survive. As a species humans are the most successful mammal (morality aside) on the planet. In fact from earliest times we have created endless new species (drove other to extictions also) and continually advance our mastery of our planet.

From our own creative intelligence we stand on the dawn of a new era, space exploration(a planet similar to earthe has just been located), energy development, and technical achievements undreamed of a mere lifetime ago. Our species has, one by one, eliminated most old enemies, and although human progress is certainly patchy, and nowhere near perfect, that's the price of a civilisation based on a combination of co-operative and individual creative sentient intelligence.

The end of the age of cheap oil energy, (fossil fuels) will not bring about Armageddon, (no matter how much the Utopians crave it) free enterprise capitalism will, and is, replacing the fossil based energy sources with new technologies.

Carbon based economies will disappear with need to restrict oil/coal/gas for more essential uses than transport and electricity generation.

Technology, is even assisting with the problems of economic boom/bust cycles. In 1929, the world economy went through a massive upheaval that lasted until 1938. The effects of last years meltdown, on a macro scale, lasted a few brief months.

Over population? Largely a myth, easily debunked in 1977 (the year the stork passed the plough) and just as easily debunked today.

Climate change? Well despite the right of sceptics to debate and question, it would be very unlikely that so many reputable scientist would get it so very wrong, not impossible, but very unlikely.

But Armageddon? Nope! Wild eyed GWCC extreme activist claims are always based on the most extreme, worst case scenarios. Such modelling is always flawed by bias and a desire to produce scientific justification for a (usually perverse) personal philosophy.

Over the ages, the populace has been roused to a frenzy of despair too many times by Prophets of Doom! Too many have cried Wolf! Today, the population look's around the planet, and sees the most peaceful, prosperous era in human history. Prophets of Doom always portray the very worst case scenario, but this seldom occurs. The last real catastrophe was the fall of the Roman Empire, but few would argue that the world ended, or that the collapse didn't have beneficial aspects! (it certainly dropped real estate prices in Rome!)

When considering the issues of the Twenty-First century, look not to Prophets of doom, and those who display a hatred of mankind, but rather to inspirational leaders like Boris Johnson (Lord Mayor of London), and those who are developing, advancing and embracing the solutions enabled by exiting new technologies emerging at an astonishing rate.

My advice is to stop concentrating on negative hectoring, sanctimoniously lecturing, grim, (but gleeful), prophesys of the inevitable end of humanity, and start inspiring (without self-righteous moral trappings), your fellow citizens with the glamour and selfish excitement of new and superior technologies, that will enrich THEIR lives, instead of demanding your fellow citizens to adhere to your concepts.

(P/s Even though the above follows Mik's post, it's not directed at Mik!..sorry Mike)

I must try to disagree in the name of hopeful optimism. A few percent of the population can make these changes happen regardless of what the masses don't want or care to know.

The Master Plan

Gather a group of "elites" that are well trained in correct political thought. We will call these great thinkers those that practice "political correctness". Next, select a scientific topic that has no real consensus to it like the future direction of the climate and invest heavily in moving the outcome towards something that will favor one side over the other. Once this is complete you then convince the public that only the "smart" people are going to go in the direction that you want them to go in. That way when someone is faced with opposition they become arrogant and simply dismiss criticism.

As long as our plot is not discovered we can rule the world!!! Boo aaaaaah.... Booo aaaahhhh... (Dr. Evil laugh)

...just too easy of a joke to make. (sorry)

The tribe has spoken already. In effect Obama has been "voted off" and has no ability to ram anything down anyones throat anymore. So as a practical matter the "hidden elite" plot has been defeated. From now on all ideas need to pass the common sense test of whether the facts are solid or not.

The Climate Cycle has not yet been broken, so it's a little early to be talking about having broken it.

Ya, that's the problem. The elite have the money but invests it on the wrong tech. I knew something was wrong with Obama when he subsidized the Solyndra solar thing. It is way too high priced per watt yet he still funded it. Assumingly, it must be linked to other interests. Now the plant is buckling under to cheaper silicon panels. He must have known that was going to happen because even I knew expensive little round tubes could never compete with conventional PV panels, and that the whole world is working on improving their mass production costs.

When ALL the masses start demanding "the best solution", then we have hope of overcoming political irresponsibility. Not to say that automated solar PV factories are, but that its got to be near the top of the list. Nuclear fission of thorium might be better from an energy point of view, but is not from a massive jobs and install point of view.

Here's an animation that definitely proves melting glaciers... I assume that the 100 cubic miles of FF's already burned and converted to an even larger amount of CO2 can not be ignored, and that the elite are not making this up even though they {are} using this fact, possibly, to further their money making schemes.
http://yesonsolar.com/index.html
Scroll near the bottom of the page.

I knew something was wrong with Obama when he subsidized the Solyndra solar thing. It is way too high priced per watt yet he still funded it. Assumingly, it must be linked to other interests. Now the plant is buckling under to cheaper silicon panels. He must have known that was going to happen because even I knew expensive little round tubes could never compete with conventional PV panels, and that the whole world is working on improving their mass production costs.

Human nature never changes.

The reason that the free market works is that Fear and Greed are always in perfect balance with one another. Every time someone tries to be "helpful" and tip the scales so that one entity has an advantage the result is that the entity will do just enough to get by. Once the government stops giving money away the business that was propped up always fails.

This lesson has been learned over and over again in history, but people forget history as often as it's made. (so we never become wise we just repeat)

-----------------------

Looking back on our most recent bubble the causes were:

* * * Federal Reserve maintained an "easy money policy" for too long.

* * * Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accepted the (Clinton Era) directive to extend loans to "all people" regardless of ability to pay.

* * * Common people saw free money with no down, interest only loans and borrowed more than they could handle.

...this whole scenario was "forced" top down by the government (Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the people were simply passively receptive towards it. Smart people found additional ways to profit from the disfunction, but it was the disfunction that drove the problem and not the other way around. (though some argue there was a lot of feedback too) It's only through revisionist history that the "criminals" are seen as the people who exploited the disfunction rather than seeing the true cause which was the disfunction itself.

Had we NOT allowed the government to give away "easy money" and prevented "lier loans" with a 20% down payment requirement (like in the old days) the bubble never would have happened. The source of the problem was with the government agencies because they were the ones giving the taxpayers dollars away.

Government tends to do more harm than good. (in most cases)

However, well meaning people are "born every minute" so we will continue with false hope to ask the government to solve problems it can't solve.

- Putting my moderator hat on -

This topic is wandering too far away from anything having to do with this forum. Bring it back to climate change or even electric vehicles please.

This topic is wandering too far away from anything having to do with this forum.

Agreed.

Let's move on to something like "Peak Oil" as it seems that nothing is going to prevent the use of fossil fuels but them running out.

-- removed by moderator --

So let's talk about "Peak Oil".

My feeling is that before we even get to "Peak Oil" we are going to see a devaluation problem that will artificially inflate the price of oil for those that hold dollars. This will mean that an imbalance will exist so that someone in Australia will get cheap oil and in America it will cost more than it does now. One can imagine a sort of "Black Market" of oil trade that somehow gets around the devaluation issue... thoughts?

I can't see anything stopping (or even slowing) the use of fossil fuels other than running out. I can't think of a single limited resource that we've ever just stopped using completely. Moas in New Zealand (where the moa dependent population exploded without pause 'till they ran out and the inflated population ended up eating their dogs, then each other). Passenger Pigeons in North America. Trees on Easter Island. I think the closest ever would be whales, that we reduced to 1/1000th of the population before a huge outcry managed to slow the exploitation of that resource, yet not managed to stop it completely. We passed peak Moa, Peak Tree, Peak Whale, Peak Passenger Pigeon without ever making any preparations for the end of any of those resources. Oil is almost completely unique in that there are a few people (us) who are doing something about preparing for the end of oil.

I'm sure it will be a total shock to most of the population when it runs out.

-- removed by moderator --

Green Technologies in the Age of Austerity

I was a little surprised that my "closing remarks" were censored. Austerity is the "elephant in the room" when it comes to Going Green because many people had once firmly believed that government was going to drive the process forward. (for those people it would feel as a painful loss of which I can feel sympathy)

Where should we go on this?

Can we openly discuss Austerity or not?

If not, then that's kind of inserting a big hole in the debate because that's the real world we live in now.

Note: I can understand how someone might have gotten the wrong message as a previous post related to the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, but I did that as a way to highlight examples of how "well meaning" government can lead to catastrophy.

I think people would be upset because government does the forward planning. Free enterprise or "the market" has it's place, but it's role is never forward planning nor public good. For instance NiFe batteries. Sure they're not efficient and they are heavy, but they also never wear out. So the free enterprise companies bought the companies up that made those batteries and closed them. Did this advance the public good? Trams rarely need replacing and never used tyres. So bus and tyre making companies bought tram companies up, ripped up the tracks, put in buses and sold them off again. Zero emmission public transport replaced with buses... That's the company good not the public good.

I often see "comunist" countries pointed to as examples of why big government is bad, but really they're examples of why big business is bad. Comunist countries generally don't excercise tight controls over their companies. Sure there are lots of rules, but no-one ever enforces them. So companies can have child labour, massive pollution, whatever they like to make a buck and get the goods out the door. (and they have to report production regularly). However tightly controlled (business being tightly controlled) socialist countries have good standards of living, extended education, early retirement, full employment, happy populations and clean healthy environments for the people to live in. Those are the sort of countries that have strong forward planning and they're also the countries we see investing heavily in energy independence.

=:)