Just to get started, below is a quote from "safe". I think it speaks for itself and should win a price!
If you find any even more outstanding examples of insight, knowledge and wisdom about anthropogenic global warming, then please reproduce it here so we can build a fabulous treasure trove of insights.
Look we've all studied the science on this by now.
A "recap":
In the beginning the concept was "global warming" and no one even considered any historical data relating to long term cycles.
The new term was "climate change" and that sort of permitted that things went in cycles, but then said man was responsible for altering it's rate.
After that we (all) came to realize that "climate cycles" are driven by a variety of forces and that the ocean currents are the dominant feature of the cycles.
Finally we are left with the "realization" that we were "doomed" from the start that no matter what we would do the climate has no intention of remaining consant for long.
---------------
After that we move on to political observations of humans in the past and how "control" is assumed to be held by those in power. When faced with a changing climate the political forces drive "compensating reactions" that hope to correct the situation.
This leads to things like "human sacrifice" to "appease the gods".
We no longer believe in "gods" (at least us scientific types don't) but the human dynamic is the same.
The "kick in the gut" at the end is that China pollutes (CO2) at a rate 5 times the US... so even if we "sacrificed" we cannot control events.
-----------------
But those that seek a "political cause" in this should not worry at all. Think of how many human sacrifices the Mayans did even though it had no effect at all. If someone complained you can imagine what they did... they would "sacrifice" the person that complained.
Think of that scene in Schindlers List where the educated woman was trying to tell the Nazi's that they were building a foundation incorrectly. What happened?
They took the advice... and killed the woman.
It's "nice" when power also has truth... but power can have just power and still win.
The whole point about this whole "climate scare" from the beginning was to gain political power. Well, the left is very powerful these days, so the goal of getting power was achieved. The struggle for power was a success... now if the truth comes out it doesn't matter anymore.
Control was the original motivation... just as with the Mayans the "crisis" allowed certain people to gain power over others.
So human beings are always the same.
.
Wait a second...
I'm saying climate CHANGES.
My argument is that climate changes ALWAYS and can never be assumed as constant.
--------------
The point is that it's unrealistic to think you can avoid an inevitable process.
The "climate scare" was simply political... like the Mayans... it was a way to gain political power.
Human sacrifice was simply the tool of their (Mayan) times, we use other tools.
--------------
Surely no one thinks there wasn't a political aspect to all of this. (that would be naive)
.
But let me add...
To the Mayans the change in their climate was hard to comprehend.
Despite their intensive study of the stars they didn't have a clue how the weather patterns worked. Their "science" was simply to observe that the rains were not as frequent and their crops were failing. As their leaders struggled to provide explanations for WHY they could not protect their people the importance of "assigning blame" increased.
By making the "human sacrifice" it shifted blame away from the politicians and got the people thinking they could do something about restoring the climate.
Obviously the "human sacrifice" had no effect because the "cause" of the change in climate had little to do with anything they were doing. It was a cyclical change in weather patterns that was the true cause of the diminished rains. (with a little resource depletion added in on top)
We (as modern man) tend to look down on the Mayans for their dishonesty... I'm sure that many of their leaders were cynical about the effectiveness of "human sacrifice", but what choice did they have?
Look at our own American politics these days...
See anyone accepting blame for anything?
No, we see everyone dodging blame and trying to "sacrifice" their political enemies.
Humans are humans.
.
.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/23/fakegate_global_warmists_try_to_hide_their_decline_113225.html
But if you are an actual global warming skeptic, this is a big red flag, because we skeptics view ourselves as the defenders of science who are trying to protect it from corruption by an anti-capitalist political agenda. We never, in our own private discussions, refer to ourselves as discouraging the teaching of science. Quite the contrary.
...anyway, another scandal taking place.
.
Mik,
Yes, pretty hilarious.
And his idea that the left is "very powerful" is just preposterous. Aside from tiny groups - literally handfuls in the urban areas, the is no "left" in the US that would be recognizable as such to anyone in the rest of the world. The US congress is fully 55% flying-monkey fringe, and Obama would be far to the right of Nixon or Reagan. Aside from a few South American countries, I don't see any real left anywhere else either. Even Sweden is becoming a laboratory for Ayn Rand's dog-eat-dog society.
It's also pretty funny that after coming up with the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" as part of a strategy of denying and minimizing the understanding of global warming, they now point to its adoption as something done by the "other side." Ironically, their term, while less indicative of the overall problem, actually makes it easier to explain the current weather anomalies to people. Maybe *that's* why they are ticked off about it and now want to disavow it...
Mik,
While I don't agree with 'Safe', he makes some valid points, not about the science, but the way that the climate change debate has become highly politicised.A weird sort of new religion seems to have arisen, where the faithful scream "heretic" "denier" Fascist", at anyone who questions any aspect of the studies.
In the last few years this intolerant abuse, has alienated vast numbers of people from listening to the science, and worse has discredited the entire environmental movement.
The more people turn away, the louder and more strident the 'faithful' true believers become. The rhetoric is reminiscent of the old socialist-left in it's heyday. As a result of the activities of these extremists, the vast middle section of the populace, has become alienated. This is most unfortunate, since the support of the majority of people, is essential if anything practical is to be accomplished.
The most arrogant statement often repeated, was the comment by George Monbiot of the Guardian Newspaper,
" Scientific consensus has now been reached, that's the end of all debate ! 'Sceptic's' should be silenced !"
That's not science !
marcopolo
Exactly.
The political right - specifically large, well funded and influential political lobby groups representing the fossil fuel industry have politicized the scientifically established issue of AGW.
Sure there is room for skepticism in the details - refining the numbers for sensitivity and the various forcings and feedbacks - but for practical purposes, these amount to a debate of whether AGW is a danger requiring urgent action to prevent large loss of life, and event that will end human civilization, or an event that will end humans and almost all other species altogether. There is also the much neglected issue of ocean acidification.
We all know what needs to be done - impose a stiff worldwide carbon tax - at the wellhead and tipple, for use in a publicly funded development of non-fossil fuel energy. Banning through a complete overhaul of land-use planning practices, car-oriented suburban development and replace it with transit and walking-oriented urban development. Develop an all-electric long distance transportation infrastructure - and look into the ways that agriculture can be electro-mechanized too.
But the aforementioned lobby groups scream "socialism!!!" when such measures are proposed. Like you and safe said - the issue is highly politicized.
Where We Find Agreement
Progressives, conservatives, liberals, idealists, pragmatists alike... we all can agree on ONE thing.
The climate was never and will never be constant.
We can throw our own "spin" on which way things will go and in the end that's like betting on something, but at the end of the day all we can really say is that climate change is an inevitable process that has existed since the beginning.
The idea of a "constant climate" is a myth.
(despite the fact the every civilization seems to think THEIR particular climate is "forever")
----------------
The "denial" of a perpetually changing climate is the most common error.
"Climate Change Denial" means someone imagines the climate can be constant. (which it cannot)
.
PJD,
I see, so it's all the fault of the political right, huh? That's why it's politicised, because anyone who disagrees with the left is wrong ! How very open minded of you! Both the crazy right and the loony left are equally irrelevant. But the left does more damage, since that have hi-jacked the environmental platform as method of re-positioning worn out and discredited political concepts.
Your reply is exactly why the environmental movement is losing, more and more, support. The intolerance and bloody-mindedness of the left, has only served to confuse environment causes with leftist political agenda's.
Even that might not be so bad, if only the left had any effective policies. But the left doesn't ! Just the usual old utopian wish list which is no practical value !
Look at some of your own concepts:
1) Impose a stiff world-wide carbon tax. How ? Such a measure would never gain popular support, and no country is powerful enough to enforce such a policy on other nations. Without countries the active and willing participation of nations like Russia, India, the PRC and other developing nations, such a tax is unworkable.
2)publicly funded development of non-fossil fuel energy Economic suicide and self defeating. Any major country that attempted such a policy would find it economy uncompetitive, and it's 'tax revenue' disappear! Governments are not good managers of such programs, it always ends in tears, with the money disappeared, and no tangible results.
3) Banning through a complete overhaul of land-use planning practices, car-oriented suburban development and replace it with transit and walking-oriented urban development. Apart from logistically impossible, and politically impossible to 'force' such a program on a population, it's unnecessary. Urban renewal, re-population and gentrification, of inner city areas is already occurring throughout the western world, with ageing populations and better returns on investment in urban redevelopment, than can be acheived in outer subdivisions.
4)look into the ways that agriculture can be electro-mechanized too. Your a little out of date ! Capital investment in the development of agricultural EV technology measures in the billions ! My own investments in this direction are significant, but minuscule in comparison to the giant investors in this area, however they do provide an insight into the progress of development.
The biggest problem is the development of an ESD that can store and discharge enough power. But big progress is being made ! American companies like Polaris and Jacobsen, already have small agricultural products available. Agriculturally based Bio-mass generators, are becoming practical. (although the initial capital cost is too great for most farmers).
It's all very well to draw-up a 'wish list', and like most leftist thinking, have no idea how to pay for the utopian items. But in the end there must be some fiscal responsibility. You just can't spend other peoples money forever !
The US is heavily in debt. Most of it's traditional industry is obsolete,neglected or undercapitalised.In addition, the US needs massive infrastructure and social reform. That's expensive. The US is building more prisons, and less jobs.
Hopefully, the US has been given a short term "get out of gaol card ". The US may rebuild it's economy due to vast deposits of Natural Gas energy supply. Cheap, plentiful,and less pollutant energy could buy the US time for economic reform.
Preparing for a 'post oil' era, will be very painful and complex for every national economy. Mexico will soon run out of oil. This means thatan already disorganised, and underdeveloped nation, will lose 65-75% of it's total economy.. This will become a real security problem for the US.
It won't help to waste time and energy expounding unrealistic, simplistic, utopian solution that have no chance of actually happening. Concentrate on achievable priorities.
marcopolo
Marco,
"Because anyone who disagrees with the left is wrong."
No, the disagreement is that of right-wing ideologues, with completely non-ideological science.
What you are basically calling "achievable priorities" is no effective action. The US's intransigence is the main reason there has been no effective international action. Of course, if the US took aggressive action, a new treaty with teeth could be put together quite quickly. Any country that does not join will be made a pariah state.
Recent studies show that the new shale-gas fields are losing 6% to 9% of the gas produced to the atmosphere - which wipes out any GHG advantage over coal, which was always an utterly inadequate advantage anyway. And, the claims of no damage to the local environment to high-volume drilling and fracking operations are dubious when those making those claims refuse to verify it with even simple cheap measures like installing water quality monitoring and sampling wells around the drilling site - like any gasoline station has to do around the underground tanks. I do know that our surface water supply, from the Monongahela river, was rendered dangerous to drink in summer due to extremely high dissolved solids and bromides, from to direct-dumping of fracking brine wastewater upstream, As always, the corporate media, and the local privatized water works ignored the problem and largely covered it up. The problem has abated by sheer fortunate circumstance - drillers found that re-using the brines improves the well performance, so most of it is re-used - the rest is going .
So, If you are right, we will be seeing 6C by 2100, possibly much more, as we still know too little about feedbacks except that are almost all net-positive, and much more after that. We will be seeing both warming and and ocean acidification comparable to the P-Tr mass extinction or worse. So, looking to the centuries beyond 2100, there is a significant risk that absent an effective plan action NOW, humanity will die off and probably go extinct. Doesn't the threat - even of a small threat of human extinction make all this playing with symbolic green pieces of paper rather unimportant? How in the world can you think that your economic system somehow is more real than physical laws?
Now to the politics. What sort of "social reform" are you proposing? I assume you mean instituting the sorts of things that Australians enjoy, right? Health-care for all, a living minimum wage, cheap or free university education, generous public pensions - generous unemployment insurance, that sort of stuff?
The reason the US is building so many prisons is that the wealthy have, through their political influence, prevented the US from adopting a livable minimum wage and basic social wage package that other democracies enjoy, have successful attacked and eliminated unions, and defunded and dismantled public education. In such conditions, crime pays better than most jobs.
But any any rate, the affairs of the the USA are none of your fucking business. Tend to your own baked-red-dirt pancake of a country.
PJD,
" right-wing ideologues" So, there are no "left-wing ideologues" !
I'm afraid the time of unilateral US imperial economic hegemony, has long since gone ! India, Russia, and the PRC are no longer willing (or able) to accept American dominance ! Your treaty would certainly not gain support from Russia, PRC, India, Africa, Eastern Europe,or South America, it's doubtful that even Japan and South Korea would pay anything but lip-service at the best. It's also highly unlikely that such a treaty would even get ratified by the US Congress.
As for the myths surrounding fracking technology, you have been watching too much 'Gasland' or "Promised Land" type propaganda. To gain some balance, maybe you show watch the equally sensationalist, 'FrackNation'.(if possible, with an open mind).
The technology of 'fracking' certainly needs a strong framework of regulation and monitoring, to ensure best practice. But that's true of almost all technology.
I'm afraid the US needs deeper and more comprehensive social restructuring and reform than just the items you mention. Nor do Australians enjoy any of these things. It's true the state provides free 'basic' healthcare, but anything more requires private insurance. University education is certainly not free, but depending on the University, are more affordable thanks to the huge numbers of fee-paying international Students. (pensions, unemployment benefits, are better than the US, but still very meagre). The social welfare system is not like he UK, it's designed to be a just a safety net, not an incentive to laziness.
Actually, the affairs of the US are very much the concern of not just Australia, but the rest of the world also. The US economy (and culture) affects the entire western world. The US desperately needs allies in it's trade war with the emerging powers of the PRC, Russia and India. Australia has proved over the years, to be a very loyal and useful ally. Australian soldiers, at US request, served in Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf wars, and are still fighting along side the US in Afghanistan ! Much of Australia's heavy industry is US owned. US mining and energy investments, finance a large part of Australian retirees. So the affairs of the US, are very much Australia's concern.
Australia, is fortunate to have entered the GFC with a highly disciplined banking sector, no national debt, and large economic reserves.
Oh, by the way, I am also a UK citizen, and since my principal business is international industrial venture finance, with active branch's in the US, the affairs of the US are very much my concern.
Incidentally, I live in the temperate south-eastern Australian State of Victoria, not a state usually associated with the 'baked-red-dirt pancake centre' over 2000 miles away !
Ranting,swearing, and shouting abuse, is exactly how leftist ideologues like your self, have alienated mainstream support from the environmental movement.
marcopolo
"Climate Change Denial" means one denies the climate can and does change.
Those on the political left and right both can be "deniers" if they embrace a constant climate philosophy.
What "should" matter is truth... the truth is that climate changes all the time whether we humans exist or not.
--------------
As I see it the principle difference between the political left and right is in the expected direction that climate change will go in. The left seems to think that warming will dominate, while the right seems to think oceans will slow and weather patterns will change in agreement with past deglaciation episodes.
In a sense "we" all believe climate changes... it's just HOW it will change based on our expectations that we disagree.
The scientific theories that underlie predictive expectations are only confirmed or denied by experience.
The scientific method means you create a "thesis" and then test it.
It's impossible to know (at this point) which of the two outcomes we expect could happen will happen.
...all we can agree on is that the polar ice is melting as predicted by both theories.
.