Talked to some relatives about global warming.....

[jmdrake]

Okay. I'm going to preface this by saying that the particular relative that disagreed with me on this is in many ways smarter than I am. My point is that sometimes you can't get people to see your point of view even when the facts are on your side. So my nephew was asked by my mom about ways man is destroying the earth, and he included carbon dioxide. I pointed out that man made global warming is a hoax propogated by people who want to control the economy through carbon credits. Later at Thanksgiving dinner, he asked my aunt if she knew global warming is a hoax. She said "I know some people believe that but I think its real." I pointed out that even the IPCC has had to admit that the earth hasn't been warming for the past 15 years. She was like "They SAY that, but we don't know that's true." I was like "But they're the ones that were pushing this thing the hardest." She was like "Well why are the ice caps melting". I said "They're melting, they're expanding." She's like "So you say". I'm like "No. I don't say. It's been in the news. I can look it up." (I pull up a story from the Washington Post on the artic ice expanding.) She was like "If the Washington post says rain doesn't fall, does that mean it doesn't fall?" I'm like "That makes no sense. You can see the rain fall. Neither you nor eye have witnessed the polar ice caps so we have to go from someone else's report. The Washington post is a liberal newspaper. Why would they make something up to attack global warming?" She was like "It's propaganda."

At the end of the day, once someone has fully convinced him or herself that something is definitely true it is very difficult to get that person to see a different point of view.

[oyarde]

I have burnt about two ricks of wood since Sat afternoon, I could have used a little warming , been night time lows like Jan.

[RJB]

Me personally, I'm more suspicious of events the media won't talk about. Such as arresting reporters on the beach after the BP disaster in the Gulf. There is very little talk about the Fukushima incident. I don't necessarily believe the doom and gloom from the alternative media, but (here is my argument) I'm more interested in ecological disasters that are hidden by corporate controlled media when there is a threat to their bottom line (like BP) and more skeptical of the natural gas carbon that is less than 4% of the greenhouse gases with water vapor at 95% and you have people like Al Gore lining up to profit from carbon trading and carbon taxes.

This argument sometimes works with diehard liberals because of their suspicion of corporations and big money. If it doesn't work, it at least gets the gears turning.

[specsaregood]

//

[Natural Citizen]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by RJB http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=3907134#post3907134)

I'm more interested in ecological disasters that are hidden by corporate controlled media when there is a threat to their bottom line (like BP) and more skeptical of the natural gas carbon that is less than 4% of the greenhouse gases with water vapor at 95% and you have people like Al Gore lining up to profit from carbon trading and carbon taxes.





Yeah, not a peep from them about all of those earthquakes in Texas. Some are saying it's from all of the fracking.

[RJB]

I usually keep quiet politically with only minor nudges to direct people's thinking. I talk most my trash online :)

You guys must be the dreaded uncle/aunt/etc. who people dread seeing on the Holidays :)

[jmdrake]

I usually keep quiet politically with only minor nudges to direct people's thinking. I talk most my trash online :)

You guys must be the dreaded uncle/aunt/etc. who people dread seeing on the Holidays :)

LOL. Hey, I didn't bring the subject up. I usually don't. I just have a hard time idling listening to some of this stuff.

[Natural Citizen]

jmdrake, how is it that you personally define "man made" if I may ask? Or "Man", to be clear?

[specsaregood]

//

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, how is it that you personally define "man made" if I may ask? Or "Man", to be clear?

I don't buy the theory that humans are the primary cause of global warming due to carbon dixoxide emissions or any other reason. I used to believe that. Why do you ask?

[Natural Citizen]

I don't buy the theory that humans are the primary cause of global warming due to carbon dixoxide emissions or any other reason. I used to believe that. Why do you ask?

A lot of times when I talk to people about man made destruction they tend to speak in terms of the basic things that humans do and so they only place the man made language into things that they can relate to. This limits their position in scope. They don't tend to place a multi-national corporation's poisons and disruptions into the man made category but, as we have come to foolishly accept, corporations are people too. You see?

Now, I'm just talking about average joes here, Not people who actually study this stuff. But the average joes are the ones soliciting the dumbing down discussion on it and then all we hear about is farts and whatnot. Wood stoves and other things they can relate with which doesn't really do the phenomenon any justice in scope.

[Neil Desmond]

I'm not saying that this human-caused global warming claim, or claims that main is destroying the planet with carbon dioxide, is a hoax or something fraudulent, but it does seem to me that those who believe or accept those claims are devoted to it in a practically religious sense - and Saint Al of the Gore is their messiah.

[Christian Liberty]

Jmdrake, you're definitely humble. I doubt these people are as smart as you are:)

[Czolgosz]

I have burnt about two ricks of wood since Sat afternoon, I could have used a little warming , been night time lows like Jan.

:D

[oyarde]

I will be splitting wood Sat afternoon thinking about all of this golbal warming.

[Antischism]

This website (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) would have been useful to them if they want to engage in debate on this particular subject.

[fearthereaperx]

This website (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) would have been useful to them if they want to engage in debate on this particular subject.

Skepticalscience only cares about promoting one side of the story. Stay away from it.

[squarepusher]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. However the scientific consensus is lie 98% of scientists believe Climate Change to be real. You get a few oddballs who are possibly oil funded scientists who post on blogs about how its fake. Am I really one to question a scientific majority though?

[Cutlerzzz]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. However the scientific consensus is lie 98% of scientists believe Climate Change to be real. You get a few oddballs who are possibly oil funded scientists who post on blogs about how its fake. Am I really one to question a scientific majority though?

Yeah, because big oil is horrified that cap and trade could pass.

/sarcasm

[Dr.3D]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. However the scientific consensus is lie 98% of scientists believe Climate Change to be real. You get a few oddballs who are possibly oil funded scientists who post on blogs about how its fake. Am I really one to question a scientific majority though?
Yeah, at one time, the scientific majority thought the sun traveled around the earth.

[LibertyEagle]

Drake, you planted the seed. It will stay at the back of her mind.

[Antischism]

Skepticalscience only cares about promoting one side of the story. Stay away from it.

Why? It does a fantastic job presenting research and studies. Not only that, but there's a comments section for each topic where people can pose questions and many chime in with answers. You can make up your own mind and have your own beliefs, but I'm not going to limit what I read. So far, this site has been one of the best resources on the net regarding climate change and is constantly being updated/revised as new information is made available. It uses peer-reviewed scientific literature to present arguments and refute claims.

You can read both this site and others that promote skepticism and their rebuttals to peer-reviewed scientific studies. You don't have to be on either extreme end of the debate. No cognitive dissonance here.

[robert9712000]

we had our first ever white Thanksgiving here that i can recall.I keep reading were breaking records for earth warming ,but this whole year has been the coolest i remember.This summer in Ohio we had about 4 90+ days when we normally have about 12.I saw my first snow flurry in September when its usually in October and now like i said we had a white Thanksgiving.Ill go by what i see and not what im told.

[Philhelm]

we had our first ever white Thanksgiving here that i can recall.I keep reading were breaking records for earth warming ,but this whole year has been the coolest i remember.This summer in Ohio we had about 4 90+ days when we normally have about 12.I saw my first snow flurry in September when its usually in October and now like i said we had a white Thanksgiving.Ill go by what i see and not what im told.

You've never seen "The Day After Tomorrow?" It gets so hot that an Ice Age is initiated.

[jmdrake]

A lot of times when I talk to people about man made destruction they tend to speak in terms of the basic things that humans do and so they only place the man made language into things that they can relate to. This limits their position in scope. They don't tend to place a multi-national corporation's poisons and disruptions into the man made category but, as we have come to foolishly accept, corporations are people too. You see?

Now, I'm just talking about average joes here, Not people who actually study this stuff. But the average joes are the ones soliciting the dumbing down discussion on it and then all we hear about is farts and whatnot. Wood stoves and other things they can relate with which doesn't really do the phenomenon any justice in scope.

Okay. I don't think activity by humans, whether individuals or corporations, are a major driving force of climate change. I believe the climate has had wild swings since there has been a planet earth driven mostly by the sun. The scientific method is based on testable hypotheses right? One of those testable hypothoses is that global tempertures still should be going up since carbon emissions have not been significantly reduced. That hasn't happened. The ice caps should still be melting and, by some accounts, should be gone by now. That hasn't happened. So at this point the underlying idea that carbon emissions cause global warming is extremely suspect.

[aGameOfThrones]

we had our first ever white Thanksgiving here that i can recall.I keep reading were breaking records for earth warming ,but this whole year has been the coolest i remember.This summer in Ohio we had about 4 90+ days when we normally have about 12.I saw my first snow flurry in September when its usually in October and now like i said we had a white Thanksgiving.Ill go by what i see and not what im told.

Racist! BTW, I blame The Gods for Global Warming.

[jmdrake]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. However the scientific consensus is lie 98% of scientists believe Climate Change to be real. You get a few oddballs who are possibly oil funded scientists who post on blogs about how its fake. Am I really one to question a scientific majority though?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s320/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

Okay, assuming you aren't just pulling our legs, where do you get your "98%" statistic from? Because I've never seen that from a reliable source. That said, look at the predictions from these "scientists" and note that they aren't coming true. Also note that back in the 1970s the same scientists were claiming that carbon emissions were going to cause global cooling!

http://electiondebates.com/images/time-mag-hot-and-cold.jpg

I mean really. Trust your common sense. You've been lied to. We all have been. The one thing my aunt got right is that the media is full of propaganda. What she doesn't understand is how to tell the difference between the propaganda and the truth. Here is an easy way. When a media outlet allows a fact to slip through that goes against what they are typically saying, that's the truth. When Fox news lets something slip that attacks the neocon position, that's the truth. When MSNBC reports on some negative aspect of Obamacare, that's the truth. The fact that the global warming cheerleading media has to admit that the earth hasn't gotten warmer for the past 15 years shows that is the truth.

[jmdrake]

Drake, you planted the seed. It will stay at the back of her mind.

Thanks for the encouragement! And hey, she voted for Ron Paul in the primary (Obama in the general) so I guess I should be happy with that. :D (Note: I believe Ron Paul could have won the GOP primary if we had done more outreach to democrats in open primary states instead of only targetting "likely republican voters.")

[XNavyNuke]

Me personally, I'm more suspicious of events the media won't talk about. Such as arresting reporters on the beach after the BP disaster in the Gulf. There is very little talk about the Fukushima incident.

Do you live under a rock? The mainstream and alternative media can't help but tie everything into a Fukushima angle. In the wake of Super Typhoon Haiyan, we get headlines like this: Typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/an-typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout/5124084)


. Typhoons that hit Japan each year are contributing to the spread of radioactive material from the Fukushima nuclear disaster into the country's waterways, researchers say.

OMG! The end is near. The end is near.

XNN

[JK/SEA]

well, there must be something to this climate change nomenclature. Its cold and rainy, and it might snow next week....very strange weather for this time of year in Seattle.....wait...it is November right?....



nevermind....

[jmdrake]

Do you live under a rock? The mainstream and alternative media can't help but tie everything into a Fukushima angle. In the wake of Super Typhoon Haiyan, we get headlines like this: Typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/an-typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout/5124084)



OMG! The end is near. The end is near.

XNN

Umm....so are you saying that a typhoon couldn't spread fallout? At least the MSM isn't trying to say Fukashima is causing the typhoons. Global warming gets blamed for eathquakes.

[FSU63]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

[Wooden Indian]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

No... that's still the wrong argument. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Remember that the goal of the Global Warming alarmists is to pressure Government into even more regulation and taxation in order to "protect our environment".

Do I want to breath stinky air? No. I've been to cities like LA, and it's foul.
Do I want the gubmit to protect me from breathing "dirty" air? Heck no.

/discussion

[FSU63]

No... that's still the wrong argument. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Remember that the goal of the Global Warming alarmists is to pressure Government into even more regulation and taxation in order to "protect our environment".

Do I want to breath stinky air? No. I've been to cities like LA, and it's foul.
Do I want the gubmit to protect me from breathing "dirty" air? Heck no.

/discussion
I'm not ignoring it. I believe we should get the government out of it. However, I still believe we should be encouraged to "go green". Not to help global warming, but because I doubt people want to be breathing in smog.

[Wooden Indian]

I'm not ignoring it. I believe we should get the government out of it. However, I still believe we should be encouraged to "go green". Not to help global warming, but because I doubt people want to be breathing in smog.

We should "be encouraged"? In what ways? What types of incentives or programs would you support?

[jmdrake]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

1) Do you believe the polar ice caps are melting or expanding?

2) Do you believe the report, admitted to be true by the IPCC, that for the past 15 years there has been no warming period?

3) Are you aware of the fact that in the 1970s these same "scientists" were claiming that CO2 emissions were causing global cooling?

4) Do you understand that CO2 is not "dirty"?

5) Do you understand that one of the main "solutions" to cutting greenhouse emissions is increased investment in nuclear power? Do you think nuclear power is environmentally responsible?

6) Do you understand that some environmentalists are now turning against wind power because wind turbines kill birds?

7) Do you understand that the whole "carbon footprint scheme" that is the main proposed solution to global warming doesn't actually reduce CO2 emmissions?

Sorry, but you can't goet to a real solution by focusing on fake problems. The money being wasted on "CO2 scrubbers" should instead be spent on cutting down on real pollutants like sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide. Focusing on stopping CO2 emmissions is about as helpful for saving the environment as focusing on cutting dihydrogen-monoxide emissions.

[jmdrake]

I'm not ignoring it. I believe we should get the government out of it. However, I still believe we should be encouraged to "go green". Not to help global warming, but because I doubt people want to be breathing in smog.

CO2 has absofucking nothing to do with "smog". Smog kills trees. Trees thrive on CO2.

[parocks]

Okay. I'm going to preface this by saying that the particular relative that disagreed with me on this is in many ways smarter than I am. My point is that sometimes you can't get people to see your point of view even when the facts are on your side. So my nephew was asked by my mom about ways man is destroying the earth, and he included carbon dioxide. I pointed out that man made global warming is a hoax propogated by people who want to control the economy through carbon credits. Later at Thanksgiving dinner, he asked my aunt if she knew global warming is a hoax. She said "I know some people believe that but I think its real." I pointed out that even the IPCC has had to admit that the earth hasn't been warming for the past 15 years. She was like "They SAY that, but we don't know that's true." I was like "But they're the ones that were pushing this thing the hardest." She was like "Well why are the ice caps melting". I said "They're melting, they're expanding." She's like "So you say". I'm like "No. I don't say. It's been in the news. I can look it up." (I pull up a story from the Washington Post on the artic ice expanding.) She was like "If the Washington post says rain doesn't fall, does that mean it doesn't fall?" I'm like "That makes no sense. You can see the rain fall. Neither you nor eye have witnessed the polar ice caps so we have to go from someone else's report. The Washington post is a liberal newspaper. Why would they make something up to attack global warming?" She was like "It's propaganda."

At the end of the day, once someone has fully convinced him or herself that something is definitely true it is very difficult to get that person to see a different point of view.

You see these relatives last year? I'm getting old. If it's the same people as last year, there's really no point. "Oh, so we're talking politics now? Anybody switch from Obama in the last year? No? So then everything is pretty much the same then."

[parocks]

Thanks for the encouragement! And hey, she voted for Ron Paul in the primary (Obama in the general) so I guess I should be happy with that. :D (Note: I believe Ron Paul could have won the GOP primary if we had done more outreach to democrats in open primary states instead of only targetting "likely republican voters.")

or if we had done more outreach to people with cell phones. The guy, I can't remember his s/n offhand, the one from Australia, did a fantastic job with calling cell phones. People with cell phones tend to be young. And young people tended to support Ron Paul.

[FSU63]

We should "be encouraged"? In what ways? What types of incentives or programs would you support?Certainly not any government ones. But I believe that people should recycle, should opt for clean energy when given the choice, should switch to "cleaner" cars, etc.

As I said, I don't give two shits about global warming. But why do people feel that not believing in global warming gives them an excuse to dirty up the air? All I'm saying is that we should want to NOT pollute our environment.


1) Do you believe the polar ice caps are melting or expanding?

2) Do you believe the report, admitted to be true by the IPCC, that for the past 15 years there has been no warming period?

3) Are you aware of the fact that in the 1970s these same "scientists" were claiming that CO2 emissions were causing global cooling?

4) Do you understand that CO2 is not "dirty"?

5) Do you understand that one of the main "solutions" to cutting greenhouse emissions is increased investment in nuclear power? Do you think nuclear power is environmentally responsible?

6) Do you understand that some environmentalists are now turning against wind power because wind turbines kill birds?

7) Do you understand that the whole "carbon footprint scheme" that is the main proposed solution to global warming doesn't actually reduce CO2 emmissions?

Sorry, but you can't goet to a real solution by focusing on fake problems. The money being wasted on "CO2 scrubbers" should instead be spent on cutting down on real pollutants like sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide. Focusing on stopping CO2 emmissions is about as helpful for saving the environment as focusing on cutting dihydrogen-monoxide emissions.I never specifically mentioned CO2 at all.


CO2 has absofucking nothing to do with "smog". Smog kills trees. Trees thrive on CO2.
I never said it did. I'm not talking about global warming, I'm talking more about pollution in general.

[FSU63]

I'm a libertarian, but I absolutely hate associating myself with most libertarians, to be honest. I believe that it is right to question authority, but, from what I've read here, most libs think that EVERYTHING is propaganda and EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Yes, because the big bad scientists want to brainwash people into doing who-knows-what the libertarians say they want people to do. The big bad scientists are just puppets that want to watch the world burn, and they're ALL involved in the NWO :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Certainly not any government ones. But I believe that people should recycle, should opt for clean energy when given the choice, should switch to "cleaner" cars, etc.

As I said, I don't give two shits about global warming. But why do people feel that not believing in global warming gives them an excuse to dirty up the air? All I'm saying is that we should want to NOT pollute our environment.

Straw man argument. Nobody has said that not believing in global warming gives them an excuse to dirty up the air. That said, your claim that you "don't give two shits about global warming" contradicts your earlier statement.


Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.


I never specifically mentioned CO2 at all.

So what pray tell do you believe causes man made global warming since you are already on record saying that you believe in man made global warming?


I never said it did. I'm not talking about global warming, I'm talking more about pollution in general.

Then start a new thread talkinga bout pollution in general. I'm all for fighting pollution in general. Some technologies, like clean coal, do not cause pollution in general. But they are not being given the attention they deserve because some useful idiots believe the CO2 they release cause global warming.

[Reason]

You can't reason someone out of a belief that they were not reasoned into.

[FSU63]

So what pray tell do you believe causes man made global warming since you are already on record saying that you believe in man made global warming?


I did not come in here to debate whether man-made global warming exists or not, as I feel the argument is irrelevant. It really does not matter if it exists or not, we should still strive to preserve our environment.

[jmdrake]

I did not come in here to debate whether man-made global warming exists or not, as I feel the argument is irrelevant. It really does not matter if it exists or not, we should still strive to preserve our environment.

Of course. Nobody said otherwise. Do you know what a straw man argument is? Because that is what you are engaging in. Further some things that can be done to actually help the environment (like clean coal) actually go against the "global warming" dogma. So to help the environment, debunk global warming.

[robert9712000]

I did not come in here to debate whether man-made global warming exists or not, as I feel the argument is irrelevant. It really does not matter if it exists or not, we should still strive to preserve our environment.


I do agree that striving to preserve the environment is a good thing,but it needs to be on a volunteer basis .The problem with alot of environmentalists is they want to mandate all these restrictions that have hardly any effect on the environment,but has a huge effect on the costs towards consumers,putting a unnecessary burden on them.When environmentally friendly products are able to compete with regular products on the open market then i will gladly buy it.I think a great example is the tesla Cars.There still too pricey ,but when the price gets more reasonable id love to have one.

[Dr.3D]

I learned around five years ago, not to talk to my relatives about political stuff. I guess my brother didn't figure global warming was a political subject so he broached it and I fell for the subject. I expressed what I thought of the subject and I haven't been invited back for any holiday festivities since.

Edit: Actually they haven't spoken to me more than a couple of times since.

[green73]

The Elite must absolutely hate Thanksgiving, the people coming together and pernicious truths getting spread.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The solution to pollution are the recognition and enforcement of NP-Lockean property rights. Nuisance laws were eroded in the mid 19th Century and the expansion of State-sanctioned 'pollution' levels further eroded property rights. As for Global Warming...what a bunch of hubris and arrogance. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas, but the claims made by those looking to profit from it are insane. Armageddon is a light term to describe their claims. I am sure the Carboniferous period of the Earth was the sight of Venus. In fact, if they were honest and we took their assumption at face value (that the Earth is warming due to increase of CO2), you'd think they welcome it because such environmental conditions are BOONS to the environment, to farming, to plants, trees, and greens of all sort. The Carboniferous was the best time in the history of the planet for plants, trees, forests, jungles, etc. something these people supposedly 'support'.

They're just using 'Global Warming' as backdoors to depopulation, extortion, and power.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I learned around five years ago, not to talk to my relatives about political stuff. I guess my brother didn't figure global warming was a political subject so he broached it and I fell for the subject. I expressed what I thought of the subject and I haven't been invited back for any holiday festivities since.

Edit: Actually they haven't spoken to me more than a couple of times since.

My family knows I'm an anarchist/irreligious and they're fine with it (and my Dad largely agrees with me on a lot of issues). Only petty people 'disown' their family over political views.

[RJB]

Do you live under a rock? The mainstream and alternative media can't help but tie everything into a Fukushima angle. In the wake of Super Typhoon Haiyan, we get headlines like this: Typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/an-typhoons-spreading-fukushima-fallout/5124084)


OMG! The end is near. The end is near.

XNN

Listen, Rockman, we're talking strategy. I can see by your name you took my strategy personally. Navy nukes are smart but not when ego takes the place of thinking.

I said in my post I don't necessarily believe the doom and gloom. The strategy I was talking about is bringing up the mistrust of corporations by lefties. On odd days, yes the MSM mentions Fukushima. However, I watch the weather channel every morning before work and everyday (Or just about) they work in something about global warming. They may have mentioned Fukushima once or twice in the last year.

I'm not playing chicken little. My point is that lefties would probably freak out more over radiation VS carbon dioxide. Carbon taxes and Carbon trading benefits the corporations while hurting the little guy. Corporation (media and industry) on the other hand minimize news reports on incidents that harms them.

[jbauer]

mehh...

Had to get separated over obamacare from my brother in law. Dude is a smart guy and is completely clueless about whats going on.

[jbauer]

Umm....so are you saying that a typhoon couldn't spread fallout? At least the MSM isn't trying to say Fukashima is causing the typhoons. Global warming gets blamed for eathquakes.

Pretty sure if there was fallout we'd see dead people by now. The press makes its money by reporting disasters. If there was a story to tell it'd be out there. Not saying it isn't an ongoing problem.

[jbauer]

Whether or not man-made global warming exists (I believe it does), why would we want dirty streets and dirty air? Why would you NOT want a clean society? Arguing whether man-made global warming exists or not is pointless. Rather, we should be arguing whether people want to be inhaling dirty air.

Bingo!!

Its not about whether the planet is warming or not. Its about doing as little harm as possible while "living life" to the planet we and our children and their children are going to inhabit.

[CaptUSA]

At the end of the day, once someone has fully convinced him or herself that something is definitely true it is very difficult to get that person to see a different point of view..
Voltaire said it best. See my sig line.

[libertarianMoney]

HAHA

This guy posts a thread about how impossible it is to change peoples minds referencing global warming and we get a thread stuffed with people failing to change other peoples minds about global warming. :rolleyes:

Whenever my family starts to talk about politics I give them a little warning that I'm going to start talking. That's when they usually change the subject.

If they don't, I usually try to focus on the points that they agree with me on. Then I try to make every other arguement the emotional high ground. "You're willing to let people starve because businesses can't hire them for less than what YOU say is fair?" I can usually get them to say some pretty stupid things just so they don't have to change their mind. It doesn't do much for the person I'm debating but everyone around suddenly thinks I'm the reasonable side of the arguement.

Oh, and if they give me the old, "my opinion" thing. I just agree with that they're using their opinion instead of the facts.
That doesn't help but it gives me immense pleasure.

On the positive side; I get the impression my mother has always been an anarchist but never knew it.

[Chester Copperpot]

I met my cousin in laws, father in law for the first time today. He was a banker for some 30+ years. We had quite the discussion, he kept claiming to believe in the free market but every argument he made was against the free market and I called him on it. I think I blew his mind a bit; I'm gonna get him a copy of the creature from jekyll island for Christmas.
Nice.. Id love to see a video of him unwrapping that gift

[Lord Xar]

Does anyone have any peer reviewed, scientific references to show that the earth is cooling? I've been reading this lately, but haven't seen the sources of said stories. Anyone have these off the top of their heads?

[Natural Citizen]

Does anyone have any peer reviewed, scientific references to show that the earth is cooling? I've been reading this lately, but haven't seen the sources of said stories. Anyone have these off the top of their heads?

I've seen quite a few good papers on the cooling phenomenon. Really good ones too that simply cannot be refuted among peers. Of course any old body can "debunk" you on the internet so it's really a waste of time and nothing to be had in sharing them out in the wild.

If you want I can gather a few. I just don't feel like it right this second.

[bolil]

Climate change is a natural fact. Its a duh. Weather, that shit changes.

[Dr.3D]

Does anyone have any peer reviewed, scientific references to show that the earth is cooling? I've been reading this lately, but haven't seen the sources of said stories. Anyone have these off the top of their heads?
What good is "peer reviewed" when it's like the Three Stooges and one of them writes a paper and the other two review it? Our so called scientists don't have the integrity they used to have. When it's money that makes them come to agreement science ceases to be science but instead becomes politics.

[Lord Xar]

What good is "peer reviewed" when it's like the Three Stooges and one of them writes a paper and the other two review it? Our so called scientists don't have the integrity they used to have. When it's money that makes them come to agreement science ceases to be science but instead becomes politics.

Well, I guess "peer reviewed" would garner a bit more of validity. But mostly, just looking for various studies. I can't locate em' - I'll look further.

[Acronies]

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a good idea. Global warming is real and manmade.

[Origanalist]

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a good idea. Global warming is real and manmade.

Hey Big Al, howsit goin'?

[Acronies]

Hey Big Al, howsit goin'? The 97% consensus is going great.

EDIT: I am not for big government and I am not Al Gore.

[Acronies]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

[Henry Rogue]

A revenue neutral carbon tax is a good idea. Global warming is real and manmade.Governments have a huge carbon foot print. How are you going to tax governments? How do you stop governments from polluting?

[Acronies]

Governments have a huge carbon foot print. How are you going to tax governments? How do you stop governments from polluting? If it a revenue neutral carbon tax becomes politically profitable then it should be politically profitable for politicians to reduce non-military government pollution.

[Henry Rogue]

If it a revenue neutral carbon tax becomes politically profitable then it should be politically profitable for politicians to reduce non-military government pollution. Why is military pollution exempt?

[Acronies]

Why is military pollution exempt? Making the military go green will not help America in future conflicts. I am not saying that wars are good but it seems inevitable that America will be in wars in the future.

[Henry Rogue]

Making the military go green will not help America in future conflicts. I am not saying that wars are good but it seems inevitable that America will be in wars in the future.Conflicts that America's government creates through imperialism. Wars create poverty, death and destruction, society creates prosperity, improves living conditions and saves lives. You want to hamper society and advance the war machine. Even if the purpose of the state's war machine is to protect society, what good is it, if society is already destroyed via a carbon tax? There would be little left to defend and all the while the state and it's war machine continue to pollute.

You can pick and choose the winners and losers of the carbon game, but that doesn't make a difference to the planet. The Planet doesn't know the difference between my car's carbon and the state's M-1 tank carbon.


If it a revenue neutral carbon tax becomes politically profitable then it should be politically profitable for politicians to reduce non-military government pollution.This still didn't answer my question. How does a carbon tax on society, reduce the state's carbon foot print? If the state destroys society's ability to sustain it's self, then the state will assume the functions to sustain society, in this way, the state's carbon foot print will only increase.

[Acronies]

Conflicts that America's government creates through imperialism. Wars create poverty, death and destruction, society creates prosperity, improves living conditions and saves lives. You want to hamper society and advance the war machine. Even if the purpose of the state's war machine is to protect society, what good is it, if society is already destroyed via a carbon tax? There would be little left to defend and all the while the state and it's war machine continue to pollute.

You can pick and choose the winners and losers of the carbon game, but that doesn't make a difference to the planet. The Plane doesn't know the difference between my car's carbon and the state's M-1 tank carbon.

This still didn't answer my question. How does a carbon tax on society, reduce the state's carbon foot print. If the state destroys society's ability sustain it's self then the state will assume the functions to sustain society, in this way the state's carbon foot print will only increase. The individual income tax, capital gains and divident taxes, corporate income tax, estate and gift taxes and so forth are all taxes on society. A revenue neutral Carbon tax will not cause society to stop being able to sustain itself. Green fighter jets and green tanks to balace the burden of reducing pollution between the state and the rest of society is not a great idea when the rest of society can bear the burden of reducing pollution just fine.

EDIT: Simply reducing the size of the military to a non-excessive size should reduce military pollution alot without forcing it to have inferior equipment and vehicles. And I am not in favor of heavy taxation.

[Henry Rogue]

The individual income tax, capital gains and divident taxes, corporate income tax, estate and gift taxes and so forth are all taxes on society. A revenue neutral Carbon tax will not cause society to stop being able to sustain itself. Green fighter jets and green tanks to balace the burden of reducing pollution between the state and the rest of society is not a great idea when the rest of society can bear the burden of reducing pollution just fine.You forgot the currency inflation tax, the barrier to entry tax, the intellectual property tax, these along with the ones you have mentioned are a burden on society and society has shown that it can not bear these burdens. Because of these burdens, many parts of society have lost their ability to prosper, have lost their ability contribute, have lost their ability to be self sustaining, have lost their ability to function. Only the tumor grows, the carbon excreting tumor that is the state and the state created corporations. One of the subjects we have been discussing, the state's military, is proof that society has lost a function. The state robbed society of it's ability to protect it's self. It becomes the exclusive role of the state, an inefficient one at that.

[Acronies]

You forgot the currency inflation tax, the barrier to entry tax, the intellectual property tax, these along with the ones you have mentioned are a burden on society and society has shown that it can not bear these burdens. Because of these burdens, many parts of society have lost their ability to prosper, have lost their ability contribute, have lost their ability to be self sustaining, have lost their ability to function. Only the tumor grows, the carbon excreting tumor that is the state and the state created corporations. One of the subjects we have been discussing, the state's military, is proof that society has lost a function. The state robbed society of it's ability to protect it's self. It becomes the exclusive role of the state, an inefficient one at that. Heavy taxation comes from it being politically profitable for politicians to vote for big government even if that means having to fund it with heavy taxation. The key to less taxation is reduce the role of government in society and not oppose any suggestions of more efficient tax system.

[Henry Rogue]

Heavy taxation comes from it being politically profitable for politicians to vote for big government even if that means having to fund it with heavy taxation. The key to less taxation is reduce the role of government in society and not oppose any suggestions of more efficient tax system.
The state is very efficient at extracting wealth from society. It is extremely good at manipulating and distorting society. Democracy is a curse, not a cure.

[Acronies]

The state is very efficient at extracting wealth from society. It is extremely good at manipulating and distorting society. Democracy is a curse, not a cure. Democracy is a curse, that is something I agree with.

[Henry Rogue]

In the April 8 issue of the Wall Street Journal George Schultz and Gary Becker advocated a massive new carbon tax. Their arguments are based on very poor economic reasoning and an extremely naïve view of politics and politicians.

Schultz and Becker argue for a “revenue-neutral” tax on all forms of energy that burn carbon. “Revenue neutrality” is Washington-speak for the notion that a change in tax policy should neither increase nor decrease total tax revenue collected by government. It is a pure fantasy, in other words. No central planners in world history have ever been so brilliant and so omniscient as to be able to restructure a major portion of the tax system in a country of more than 300 million people in a way that produces exactly the same revenue next year as this year. In reality, “revenue neutrality” is always just a smokescreen for “tax increase.” Politicians will always “err” on the side of raising taxes despite all their diversionary lingo.

In advocating heavy new taxes on energy Schultz and Becker completely ignore the fact that there are already myriad taxes of all kinds, along with the implicit tax of regulation, on all aspects of energy production and distribution. There are excise taxes, corporation income taxes, payroll taxes, and the regulatory prohibitions on drilling for oil in the outer-continental shelf and in much of Alaska where there are known to be massive oil reserves. One can just as easily make the case that the energy industry is over-taxed as under-taxed, as Schultz and Becker do.

They do make one good recommendation – elimination of “subsidies” to energy producers, but they fail to mention even one example of such subsidies to illustrate their point. One would hope that they do not refer to tax deductions or “loopholes” as “subsidies.” To do so is to assume that government owns all of our income and is “subsidizing” us whenever it does not tax all of it.

Schultz and Becker advocate the worst possible form of tax collection – hiding their new energy tax from the public by imposing it “at the level of production,” which they call “administratively more efficient” than imposing the tax at the point of consumption. Hiding the tax in this way will fuel anti-capitalistic bias even more since the average citizen faced with a higher energy bill will naturally blame the greedy energy companies instead of the tax-hungry government. Worse yet, such a tax would be regressive, imposing a disproportionate burden on lower-income citizens.

It gets worse. Shultz and Becker also advocate an expansion of the welfare state by paying people on welfare even more than they are paid now for not working by distributing the proceeds of their carbon tax as part of the ludicrously mis-named “Earned Income Tax Credit.” Government can play Santa Claus by sending out such checks to welfare recipients and calling the checks “your carbon dividend,” say Schultz and Becker.

And it gets even worse. The rate of the new carbon tax should keep increasing forever, “approximately at the real interest rate,” they say. They claim that this would be only fair by plundering future generations at a similar rate of plunder being imposed on the current generation (although they do not, of course, use the perfectly accurate word “plunder” in their article).

If there is revenue left over after subsidizing welfare parasites with “carbon dividends,” Shultz and Becker believe that government should further politicize research and development with “sustained support for research and development in the energy area.”

George Schultz and Gary Becker are old lions of the Chicago School of economics. It is mystifying how that school of thought ever became associated with “free market” economics. http://mises.ca/posts/blog/chicago-school-market-socialism/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo252.html

[Origanalist]

Heavy taxation comes from it being politically profitable for politicians to vote for big government even if that means having to fund it with heavy taxation.
The key to less taxation is reduce the role of government in society and not oppose any suggestions of more efficient tax system.

Pure doublespeak.

[Henry Rogue]

Joe Romm Somehow Views a Carbon Tax as a Reward
Tuesday, December 3rd, 2013 by Robert P. Murphy posted in Economics, Environment.

rommThose following the climate change policy debate know that the Center for American Progress’ Joe Romm is one of the most vociferous bomb-throwers out there. Romm warns of true calamity from unmitigated climate change, and regularly attributes perfidy to his intellectual opponents. Not surprisingly, he is one of Paul Krugman’s go-to guys when it comes to this stuff.

However, Joe Romm is an actual scientist–he has a PhD in physics from MIT–and so he usually respects technical nuances. Yet in a recent discussion of carbon taxes, Romm gets the issue exactly backwards.

Romm was commenting on an experiment that showed people are less likely to contribute to stopping climate change if the rewards are distant–particularly if they only accrue to future generations–and which concluded that people needed either short-term rewards or punishments to influence their behavior. Romm agreed with this conclusion, and wrote:

[W]e need a price on carbon to have the long-term harm from carbon pollution reflected in the short-term (i.e. current) cost of fossil fuel-based energy. The obvious reward is to return the money collected from, say, a carbon tax back to individuals and businesses, thus rewarding those who reduce their carbon pollution.

Yet this is backwards. In the framework of the experiment, Romm should have said a carbon tax acts as a punishment on the present generation, causing them to scale back their emissions in order to reduce the pain (of the new tax). From the standpoint of society as a whole, introducing a new tax on carbon emissions makes the economy less efficient, in terms of conventional production and output; there is a new constraint where there wasn’t one before. Romm can justify this in terms of averting an even greater string of damages in the future, but make no mistake, a new carbon tax is a punishment, not a reward.

Indeed, even if we get completely inside Romm’s framework, he is still wrong. The way the carbon tax “gets the incentives right” is to penalize emissions. If the government wants to keep everything revenue neutral, it can send the new receipts back to taxpayers in some way, perhaps through lump-sum checks or through other tax reductions. But the amount of refund somebody gets can’t be tied to his or her carbon emissions directly, since that would screw up the marginal incentives.

In short, Romm doesn’t even get the basic economics right when he describes a carbon-tax-with-refunds as a “reward” to citizens. No, it’s a punishment. If a drill sergeant says, “You have to give me 100 pushups if I don’t like the way you made up your bed,” then that’s a punishment used to influence the cadets’ behavior. You could try to argue that he “rewards” cadets who make up their beds by not making them do as many pushups as the others, but that’s Orwellian. Of course it’s a punishment. The same with a carbon tax.

Robert P. Murphy is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, and has written for Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, and EconLib. He has taught at Hillsdale College and is currently a Senior Economist for the Institute for Energy Research. He lives in Nashville.

http://mises.ca/posts/blog/joe-romm-somehow-views-a-carbon-tax-as-a-reward/

[Henry Rogue]

William Nordhaus is a professor at Yale University and one of the pioneers in the economics of climate change. Earlier this year Nordhaus wrote a piece in the New York Review of Books entitled, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong.” Because of Nordhaus’ stature in the profession, and because of his supposedly definitive claims, the article was an instant hit in certain circles, even being assigned by economics professors as an excellent introduction to the case for policy activism to fight climate change. Yet as I’ll demonstrate in this post, Nordhaus’ position isn’t nearly as airtight as he leads the reader to believe. There really are good reasons for being skeptical of massive government intervention to fight climate change.

Nordhaus Takes on Sixteen Opponents

To frame his debate with the global warming skeptics, Nordhaus picks a specific target: the January 26 Wall Street Journal op ed titled, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The op-ed was signed by sixteen scientists from various fields, including Princeton physics professor William Happer, MIT professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology William Kininmonth, and former director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service Henk Tennekes.

Nordhaus identified six allegedly misleading claims made by the skeptics in their WSJ article, and proceeded (in his mind) to dismantle their bogus views. In the interest of brevity, I will in this post focus on just four of the claims. As we’ll see, it is Nordhaus who is playing fast and loose with the readers. Many of the objections raised by the skeptics are indeed legitimate.

Skeptic Claim #1: Global Temperatures Have Been Flat for a Decade

Nordhaus first tackles the claims about the temperature record. He writes:

The first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

It is easy to get lost in the tiniest details here. Most people will benefit from stepping back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements. The figure below shows data from 1880 to 2011 on global mean temperature averaged from three different sources. We do not need any complicated statistical analysis to see that temperatures are rising, and furthermore that they are higher in the last decade than they were in earlier decades.

[FIGURE REPRODUCED FROM NORDHAUS.]

Notice the rhetorical sleight-of-hand: Nordhaus attributes the claim that “the planet is not warming” to his critics, and then at least has the courtesy to follow-up with their actual statement that “the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

Those are different statements. Yes, it’s easy to knock down opponents when Nordhaus is allowed to change their position. The 16 signatories to the WSJ piece never claimed that “the planet is not warming,” relative to preindustrial times. No, what the 16 signatories to the WSJ piece claimed—and which is true, at least depending on which data set one uses—is that there has been no global warming in well over the last ten years. Indeed, look at Nordhaus’ own graph: It shows that the current temperature deviation (of about 0.8 degrees Celsius) is the same value as it was back in the late 1990s. And yet Nordhaus somehow thinks this chart should embarrass his opponents.

It’s also interesting that Nordhaus invites his readers to not get caught up in the tiny details, and instead to take a step back and survey the grand picture of global temperatures. I agree. In that spirit, I suggest it can be misleading to focus—as Nordhaus does—on deviations of temperatures. Instead, let’s look at a graph of actual global temperatures, using the same three standard data sets that Nordhaus used for his own graph. (All we’re doing here is adding a base of 14 degrees Celsius to the deviations that Nordhaus plots.) The graph looks like this:

SOURCE: Data sets cited by Nordhaus, with 14C base global temperature added to deviations.

Seen in this light, it’s still true that temperatures of the last decade are higher than at any point since the late 19th century, yet this chart isn’t nearly as scary as the one Nordhaus showed.

To be clear, I’m not accusing Nordhaus of anything deceptive regarding the format of his temperature chart. There are good reasons that climate scientists tend to work with temperature deviations, rather than absolute levels.[1] Furthermore, without more information to guide our charting decisions, choosing a y-axis range of 0–20 Celsius degrees—as I’ve done in the graph above—is just as arbitrary as Nordhaus implicitly choosing a range of 14–15 degrees in the graph he used. Even so, when experts such as Nordhaus are presenting their material to the layperson, these nuances can get lost in the shuffle. Nordhaus thought his readers would “benefit from stepping back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements,” and I agree.

Skeptic Claim #2: Actual Global Warming Has Been Smaller Than What the Models Predicted

Next Nordhaus tackles the argument that the computer simulations have thus far greatly exaggerated the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperatures. Nordhaus defends the track record of the models in this way:

What is the evidence on the performance of climate models? Do they predict the historical trend accurately? Statisticians routinely address this kind of question. The standard approach is to perform an experiment in which (case 1) modelers put the changes in CO2 concentrations and other climate influences in a climate model and estimate the resulting temperature path, and then (case 2) modelers calculate what would happen in the counterfactual situation where the only changes were due to natural sources, for example, the sun and volcanoes, with no human-induced changes. They then compare the actual temperature increases of the model predictions for all sources (case 1) with the predictions for natural sources alone (case 2).

This experiment has been performed many times using climate models. A good example is the analysis described in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate…. Several modelers ran both cases 1 and 2 described above—one including human-induced changes and one with only natural sources. This experiment showed that the projections of climate models are consistent with recorded temperature trends over recent decades only if human impacts are included. The divergent trend is especially pronounced after 1980. By 2005, calculations using natural sources alone underpredict the actual temperature increases by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade, while the calculations including human sources track the actual temperature trend very closely.

In reviewing the results, the IPCC report concluded: “No climate model using natural forcings [i.e., natural warming factors] alone has reproduced the observed global warming trend in the second half of the twentieth century.”

The above quotation from Nordhaus is lengthy, but I wanted the reader to trust that I was capturing the context. Notice what Nordhaus has done: When faced with a skeptic challenge that the climate models predict more warming than has actually occurred, Nordhaus retreated to defending the view that the prevailing suite of climate models explains past temperature movements better when they attribute a sizable impact to human activities, than if these computer models are run with natural influences (“forcings”) alone.

These are entirely different claims. The WSJ scientists were not claiming that anthropogenic changes to the atmospheric composition have not given rise to an increase in the global average temperature, but that the increase has been less (considerably so) than that produced by the standard collection of climate models. It should come as little surprise that the climate models do not well capture the actual climate, because the climate is fiendishly complex, incompletely understood, and hence difficult to model. Consequently, it is reckless to go forth with trillion-dollar taxation schemes on the basis of our limited understanding. Until models are able to more accurately replicate the climate behavior of the observable past, it is foolish to think that they will produce reliable climate projections of an uncertain future.

To repeat, Nordhaus didn’t even attempt to show how well the standard suite of climate models can replicate observations. He instead made the weaker claim, that the climate models do a better job matching the observations if they include a role for human activities in (partially) driving global temperatures.

So we come back to the question: Just how well do the prevailing climate models describe the observations? In a January 2012 post at MasterResource, published climate scientist Chip Knappenberger discusses the 2011 paper of Dr. Benjamin Santer (and co-authors) who reviewed the predictions of major climate models, and contrasted them with observed temperatures, over the last few decades. Here is the central result, with Knappenberger’s commentary underneath:

[The figure above is a] comparison between modeled and observed trends in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere, for periods ranging from 10 to 32 years (during the period 1979 through 2010). The yellow is the 5-95 percentile range of individual model projections, the green is the model average, the red and blue are the average of the observations, as compiled by Remote Sensing Systems and University of Alabama in Huntsville respectively (adapted from Santer et al., 2011).

Over the full record (1979–2010) the real world has only warmed about two-thirds as much as models indicate that it should have. If this continues to the end of the century, the IPCC’s 21st century warming range of 1.1°C to 6.4°C becomes about 0.75°C to 4.25°C—with a central value of 2.5°C. But what’s worse is that a model/observation disparity could indicate that the climate models are not faithfully reproducing reality, which would mean that they are not particularly valuable as predictive tools.

My [i.e., Chip Knappenberger’s] conclusion (which, is different from that of the authors) based upon the research presented by Santer et al. [is] that the models are on the verge of failing… [Bold added.]



It may be difficult for a newcomer to interpret the graph above, but let me attempt to explain it: There are of course uncertainties in any climate model. But over several decades, these variabilities and uncertainties would be expected to largely cancel out, so that the underlying trend (if accurately captured in the model) manifests itself in the actual measurements. This is why the yellow envelope—showing the 90% confidence interval of the projections from the various models—shrinks over time. Note that the red and blue series (three different sets of observations) are consistently below the green series (an average of the models’ projections of global warming, based on global emissions of greenhouse gases and other factors). Moreover, as time progresses, the actual observations threaten to breach the lower boundary of the yellow envelope, which should only happen 5 percent of the time if the models were accurate descriptions of nature. This is why Knappenberger says that the models are “on the verge of failing.”

Skeptic Claim #3: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant / CO2 Poses No Harm to Humans

Thus far we’ve been arguing in terms of the physical science, but now Nordhaus gets into the area of human welfare:

The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.” By this they presumably mean that CO2 is not by itself toxic to humans or other organisms within the range of concentrations that we are likely to encounter, and indeed higher CO2 concentrations may be beneficial.

However, this is not the meaning of pollution under US law or in standard economics…

In economics, a pollutant is a form of negative externality—that is, a byproduct of economic activity that causes damages to innocent bystanders. The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than 2 degrees Centigrade. Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.

In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies. [Bold added.]

In the present post, I am not interested in the semantic issue of whether CO2 should be classified as a “pollutant.” Instead, I want to explore those sentences from Nordhaus that I put in bold, in the quotation above. The innocent reader could understandably infer from Nordhaus’ description that Richard Tol’s work shows that there are clearly net damages from global warming, both now and in the future, and that the literature shows a wide range of the mechanisms for such harms, including more intense hurricanes and ocean acidification.

Yet this is not at all what Tol’s paper actually shows. Nordhaus provides the citation in his footnotes, and he has conveniently placed a PDF of Tol’s 2009 Journal of Economic Perspectives paper at his (Nordhaus) own website. In the survey article, Tol looks at more than a dozen studies (published from 1994 through 2006) that used different methods and assumptions to estimate the impact of climate change on human welfare. Tol summarizes the results of his survey in the following figure:

SOURCE: Figure 1 from Tol (2009)

As Tol’s diagram quite clearly indicates, the consensus of economic studies finds that global warming would be on net beneficial to human welfare, at least through 2C degrees of warming (and this is relative to the current baseline, not to preindustrial times). This is not at all what the innocent reader would have taken away from Nordhaus’ description of Tol’s findings.

Furthermore, using the latest IPCC AR4 report’s own estimates, we can get an idea of when this tipping point would likely occur, in the absence of government policies to mitigate emissions. Here is the relevant diagram from the IPCC:

Eyeballing the chart, and without taking a stand on which emissions trajectory (B1, A1T, etc.) is most plausible, it looks like 2C of warming would most likely occur around the year 2060 or 2065. However, since the IPCC warming is calibrated against a baseline of the average 1980–1999 temperature, while the economic impact studies were calibrated against a later baseline, we can pick a nice round number and say that using Nordhaus’ own preferred studies, in conjunction with the standard IPCC simulations, the best estimates currently predict that unregulated greenhouse gas emissions will provide net benefits to human welfare for the next sixty years.[2] The reader will surely agree with me that that message doesn’t leap out of Nordhaus’ discussion.

Skeptic Claim #4 [#6]: Nordhaus’ Own Work Shows Harms of Government Intervention

In the interest of brevity, I will skip the next two claims Nordhaus addresses, and proceed to his final argument. Here he takes on the 16 WSJ contributors when they claimed:

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

Now here, the WSJ contributors admittedly goofed. From skimming their bios, it doesn’t appear that any of them is trained in economics, so their mistake is understandable. Nonetheless, they did screw up here, and Nordhaus obviously pounces. He gives a simple numerical example to show that proper policy should try to maximize benefits net of costs, which is a different objective from maximizing the benefit-to-cost ratio. Nordhaus is correct when he claims that his own work in the field makes the cost-benefit case for an “optimum carbon tax” that slows greenhouse gas emissions relative to the laissez-faire baseline.

However, the instincts of the 16 scientists were right when they claimed that Nordhaus’ own work—which, to repeat, sets the orthodox standard in the field of the economics of climate change—should give policymakers serious pause before enacting carbon taxes, “cap-and-trade” permits, or other restrictions on the energy sector. In 2009 I published a journal article showing the weaknesses in Nordhaus’ case for a carbon tax. Here was one of my main points, referring to Nordhaus’ “DICE” model of the global economy and climate system:

The 2007 DICE model contains simulations not just of the baseline (no controls) and the optimal carbon tax scenarios, but of many other policies as well. These calculations show that the dangers of an overly ambitious or inefficiently structured policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted one (that is, the optimal carbon tax scenario). As table 4 indicates, Nordhaus’s optimal plan yields net benefits of approximately $3 trillion (consisting of $5 trillion in reduced climatic damages and $2 trillion of abatement costs). Yet some of the other popular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. The worst is Gore’s 2007 proposal to reduce CO2 emissions 90 percent by 2050; DICE 2007 estimated that Gore’s plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than it would be if there were no controls on carbon. [From Murphy 2009, bold added.]

The interested reader should read my paper for the full story, but in a nutshell: When Nordhaus claims in his New York Review of Books article that his work shows the benefits of a carbon tax, the reader must realize that he means an optimally calibrated tax that is simultaneously implemented by all governments around the world, and is maintained at the (time-varying) optimal level through the year 2100. Nordhaus is saying that the best science tells us that that outcome would be better than governments doing nothing to restrict the market’s emissions of greenhouse gases.

Obviously, this standard of a textbook-optimal, decades-long, world-comprehensive carbon tax is quite an unrealistic benchmark to contrast with the real-world market outcome. Using Nordhaus’ own model, we can test the robustness of his result by looking at what happens when (say) only half the world participates in a carbon-limitation program, or when (say) governments penalize carbon emissions at more than the economically efficient rate. These tweaks can significantly reduce the “net benefits” flowing from a carbon tax. As the quotation from my 2009 paper above illustrates, Nordhaus’ own model shows that Al Gore’s proposal would inflict seven times as much net damage on the world (relative to the laissez-faire baseline), as the textbook optimum approach would yield in net benefits.

Conclusion

Although leading climate economist William Nordhaus tries to cast himself as the messenger of objective science, his attempt to rebut the “global warming skeptics” is itself filled with misleading arguments. The actual situation is that the physical climate models have indeed predicted more warming than has actually occurred, while the economics literature casts serious doubts on the case for immediate government mitigation efforts.

[1] The lack of a long-term, continuous, and consistent series of temperature measurements makes a chart of levels less defensible. In other words, the deviation data that Nordhaus used, were composed of readings taken from many different sources over the time span involved. Since a local thermometer reading would differ from place to place, the absolute level would differ, depending on which station were used. If a long-term data set is constructed of (averages of) observed changes in local temperature readings, then the integrity of the data set is much better, even if the observations come from different sources throughout the series.

[2] I note that just because global warming might arguably confer net benefits on the world for the next sixty years, doesn’t by itself mean that no mitigation efforts should be undertaken beforehand. If the standard climate models are correct, then the trajectory of global temperatures will only respond sluggishly, even with drastic changes in emissions down the road.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/11/what-nordhaus-gets-wrong/

[jonhowe]

There is no doubt that climate changes all the time. There is also no doubt that humans CAN and DO have an effect on the speed and direction of that change.

Even if you don't happen to believe that our emissions are a problem, you must admit our fresh water consumption and irrigation drains lakes, inland seas, rivers, etc. That alone alters weather patterns. Deforestation changes weather patterns. Many human activities can alter weather patterns without taking emissions into account.

Why is this movement so committed to denying that? Just because liberals use the fact that "the climate changes and we are affecting it" as an excuse to grow the scope of government doesn't mean that it isn't actually happening. They use EVERYTHING as an excuse to grow government...

[Snew]

There is no doubt that climate changes all the time. There is also no doubt that humans CAN and DO have an effect on the speed and direction of that change.

Even if you don't happen to believe that our emissions are a problem, you must admit our fresh water consumption and irrigation drains lakes, inland seas, rivers, etc. That alone alters weather patterns. Deforestation changes weather patterns. Many human activities can alter weather patterns without taking emissions into account.

Why is this movement so committed to denying that? Just because liberals use the fact that "the climate changes and we are affecting it" as an excuse to grow the scope of government doesn't mean that it isn't actually happening. They use EVERYTHING as an excuse to grow government...

Truth.

[jmdrake]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

:rolleyes:

http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-100-years.jpg

[jmdrake]

There is no doubt that climate changes all the time. There is also no doubt that humans CAN and DO have an effect on the speed and direction of that change.

Even if you don't happen to believe that our emissions are a problem, you must admit our fresh water consumption and irrigation drains lakes, inland seas, rivers, etc. That alone alters weather patterns. Deforestation changes weather patterns. Many human activities can alter weather patterns without taking emissions into account.

Why is this movement so committed to denying that? Just because liberals use the fact that "the climate changes and we are affecting it" as an excuse to grow the scope of government doesn't mean that it isn't actually happening. They use EVERYTHING as an excuse to grow government...

Well there you have it. Quite drinking water and eating. Problem solved. :rolleyes: Elephants in Africa are the main cause of deforestation that led to the African savanna. Let's kill all the elephants to stop global wamring!

Edit: And just to show I'm not making that up....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/elephants-may-contributing-deforestation-182839238.html

People destory forrests....bad. Elephants destroy forrests....act of nature.

[Ronin Truth]

Related Searches


Global Warming Means (http://index.about.com/index?q=Global+Warming+Means&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Effects of Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Effects+of+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Cause of Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Cause+of+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Facts on Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Facts+on+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Definition for Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Definition+for+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Consequences of Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Consequences+of+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Global Warming Research (http://index.about.com/index?q=Global+Warming+Research&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Ways to Prevent Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Ways+to+Prevent+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Global Warming Impacts (http://index.about.com/index?q=Global+Warming+Impacts&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Ways to Stop Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=Ways+to+Stop+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

True Facts about Global Warming (http://index.about.com/index?q=True+Facts+about+Global+Warming&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Climate Change (http://index.about.com/index?q=Climate+Change&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Greenhouse Effect (http://index.about.com/index?q=Greenhouse+Effect&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Air Pollution (http://index.about.com/index?q=Air+Pollution&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

Al Gore (http://index.about.com/index?q=Al+Gore&qsrc=6&o=5962&l=sem)

[Dr.3D]

:rolleyes:

http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-100-years.jpg
Sure looks like a strong correlation between the solar activity and global temperature. Hummm... seems like people should know, the sun is responsible for all global warming.

[Acronies]

:rolleyes:

http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/global-temperature-solar-activity-sunspots-last-100-years.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

[jmdrake]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

And in the past 15 years there has been no significant warming at all.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT4star700.jpg

So despite dire predictions by your side, global warming has leveled off. This has been an embarassment to the claims by your side that the ice caps would be gone by now (they are expanding) or that temperatures would be much higher than they are now.

[jmdrake]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html


Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong
Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.
The vast majority of scientists are persuaded that climate change is real - where there is scope for disagreement is over the solutions
The IPCC maintain that they are 95 per cent certain that global warming is caused by humans Photo: Reuters

By Hayley Dixon

3:45PM BST 15 Sep 2013

Comments749 Comments

A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.

The report, to be published later this month, is a six year assessment which is seen as the gospel of climate science and is cited to justify fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.

The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.

Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.

The governments which fund the IPCC have tabled 1,800 questions in relation to the report.
Related Articles

'Scientists urged to cover up slow in global warming'
20 Sep 2013

Row over IPCC report as nations 'try to hide lack of climate change’
21 Sep 2013

‘Hack the planet to counter climate change,’ says Lord Rees
12 Sep 2013

Climate change killed the woolly mammoth, researchers claim
11 Sep 2013

Summers are getting hotter – honest
11 Sep 2013

Graphene: the super-light material with heavyweight power Braun

One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”

The 2007 report included predictions of a decline in Antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high.

The 2013 report states: “'Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations ...

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.'

The 2007 forecast for more intense hurricanes has also been ignored in the new document after this year was one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history.

One of the report's authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University's Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.

Professor Allen, who admits “we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future”, said that he could not comment on the report as it was still considered to be in its draft stages.

However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.

“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."

Scientist were constantly revising their research to account for new data, he said.

Despite the uncertainties and contradictions, the IPCC insists that it is more confident than ever – 95 per cent certain - that global warming is mainly human’s fault.

Next week 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report and representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC will hold a meeting in Stockholm to discuss the finding to discuss any issues ahead of the publication. The body has insisted that this is not a crisis meeting but a pre-planned discussion.

[Acronies]

[
And in the past 15 years there has been no significant warming at all.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT4star700.jpg

So despite dire predictions by your side, global warming has leveled off. This has been an embarassment to the claims by your side that the ice caps would be gone by now (they are expanding) or that temperatures would be much higher than they are now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SeaIce.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalGlacierVolumeChange.jpg

[jmdrake]

Science is supposed to be based on the idea of testable hypothesis. The hypotheses build around the global warming mythology have not turned out to be true when tested. I guess it will eventually go back to "global cooling."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

[jmdrake]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

By Jason Samenow
September 23 at 3:23 pm

More

172
Comments
Antarctic sea ice extent Sunday compared to 1979-2000 normal (NSIDC)

Antarctic sea ice extent on September 22 compared to 1981-2010 median depicted by orange curve (NSIDC)

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.
(NSIDC)

(NSIDC)

The increasing ice is especially perplexing since the water beneath the ice has warmed, not cooled.

“The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”

But no one seems to have a conclusive answer as to why winds are behaving this way.

“I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger,” Zhang told Michael Lemonick of Climate Central.

Some point to stratospheric ozone depletion, but a new study published in the Journal of Climate notes that computer models simulate declining – not increasing – Antarctic sea ice in recent decades due to this phenomenon (aka the ozone “hole”).

“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.

A recent study by Lorenzo Polvani and Karen Smith of Columbia University says the model-defying sea ice increase may just reflect natural variability.

If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating.

“If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” Zhang said.

However, a conclusion of the Barnes study is that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer – now underway – may slow/delay Antarctic warming and ice melt.

Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Related: Arctic sea ice has *not* recovered, in 7 visuals

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”

Related: Antarctic sea ice reaches greatest extent so late in season, 2nd largest extent on record

[Acronies]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

By Jason Samenow
September 23 at 3:23 pm

More

172
Comments
Antarctic sea ice extent Sunday compared to 1979-2000 normal (NSIDC)

Antarctic sea ice extent on September 22 compared to 1981-2010 median depicted by orange curve (NSIDC)

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.
(NSIDC)

(NSIDC)

The increasing ice is especially perplexing since the water beneath the ice has warmed, not cooled.

“The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”

But no one seems to have a conclusive answer as to why winds are behaving this way.

“I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger,” Zhang told Michael Lemonick of Climate Central.

Some point to stratospheric ozone depletion, but a new study published in the Journal of Climate notes that computer models simulate declining – not increasing – Antarctic sea ice in recent decades due to this phenomenon (aka the ozone “hole”).

“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.

A recent study by Lorenzo Polvani and Karen Smith of Columbia University says the model-defying sea ice increase may just reflect natural variability.

If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating.

“If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” Zhang said.

However, a conclusion of the Barnes study is that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer – now underway – may slow/delay Antarctic warming and ice melt.

Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Related: Arctic sea ice has *not* recovered, in 7 visuals

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”

Related: Antarctic sea ice reaches greatest extent so late in season, 2nd largest extent on record

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.large.jpg

[Acronies]

The CBO has a report (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223) on the effects of a Carbon tax on the economy for everyone to see.

[jonhowe]

People destory forrests....bad. Elephants destroy forrests....act of nature.

I agree with your sarcasm. We have the ability to destroy on such a massive scale, and we also have the ability to harvest responsibly without permanent destruction. Animals don't have the capacity to think like that. So yes, I think it is immoral for humans to destroy the earth. Animals cannot be held to moral standards.

[jonhowe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

By Jason Samenow
September 23 at 3:23 pm

More

172
Comments
Antarctic sea ice extent Sunday compared to 1979-2000 normal (NSIDC)

Antarctic sea ice extent on September 22 compared to 1981-2010 median depicted by orange curve (NSIDC)

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.
(NSIDC)

(NSIDC)

The increasing ice is especially perplexing since the water beneath the ice has warmed, not cooled.

“The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

In a new study in the Journal of Climate, Zhang finds both strengthening and converging winds around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in ice volume which has been observed.

“The polar vortex that swirls around the South Pole is not just stronger than it was when satellite records began in the 1970s, it has more convergence, meaning it shoves the sea ice together to cause ridging,” the study’s press release explains. “Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth.”

But no one seems to have a conclusive answer as to why winds are behaving this way.

“I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger,” Zhang told Michael Lemonick of Climate Central.

Some point to stratospheric ozone depletion, but a new study published in the Journal of Climate notes that computer models simulate declining – not increasing – Antarctic sea ice in recent decades due to this phenomenon (aka the ozone “hole”).

“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.

A recent study by Lorenzo Polvani and Karen Smith of Columbia University says the model-defying sea ice increase may just reflect natural variability.

If the increase in ice is due to natural variability, Zhang says, warming from manmade greenhouse gases should eventually overcome it and cause the ice to begin retreating.

“If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” Zhang said.

However, a conclusion of the Barnes study is that the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer – now underway – may slow/delay Antarctic warming and ice melt.

Ultimately, it’s apparent the relationship between ozone depletion, climate warming from greenhouse gases, natural variability, and how Antarctic ice responds is all very complicated. In sharp contrast, in the Arctic, there seems to be a relatively straight forward relationship between temperature and ice extent.

Related: Arctic sea ice has *not* recovered, in 7 visuals

Thus, in the Antarctic, we shouldn’t necessarily expect to witness the kind of steep decline in ice that has occurred in the Arctic.

“…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice.”

Related: Antarctic sea ice reaches greatest extent so late in season, 2nd largest extent on record

Did you read the article? The ice is acting this way due to "unusual wind patterns". IE, climate change.

[Danke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB109lhkAyk

[Dr.3D]

LOL @ climate change people.

It doesn't matter if the change supports their argument or not, they can't lose, because no matter what happens, "it's because of climate change."

[Ronin Truth]

Why Global Warming Science is Nothing but Fraud (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434882-Why-Global-Warming-Science-is-Nothing-but-Fraud)

[jmdrake]

The CBO has a report (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223) on the effects of a Carbon tax on the economy for everyone to see.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'...keep those posts a flowin'...act like you be knowin'....troll onnnnnnnn,.....

Note that you haven't actually addressed anything I've posted. The IPCC's predictions were wrong. Deal with it.

[jmdrake]

I agree with your sarcasm. We have the ability to destroy on such a massive scale, and we also have the ability to harvest responsibly without permanent destruction. Animals don't have the capacity to think like that. So yes, I think it is immoral for humans to destroy the earth. Animals cannot be held to moral standards.

So the African savanah is the earth destroyed? Tell that to all of the animals that depend on it. :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

Did you read the article? The ice is acting this way due to "unusual wind patterns". IE, climate change.

:rolleyes: Come on dude. You can't be that slow can you? Really? The scientists made a prediction. Their prediction was wrong. Now they are prevaricating to keep gullible people like you believing in their wrong theories that led to their wrong predictions. I used to believe the global warming BS back before global warming was "cool." The very first global warming documentary I saw was on PBS and it was called "After the Warming". That propaganda piece was a futuristic documentary (mockumentary?) where global warming had already happened and we had to have a one world government to save the planet. Gullible me thought "Let's hurry up and stop global warming. I don't want a one world government". I had no idea that I was being snookered by the very people pushing for the one world government I feared. You know what cured me of believing this crap? Among other things finding out the same people had pushed the need to curb CO2 emmissions TO STOP GLOBAL COOLING! Seriously, how can you believe this crap? The same CO2 that's supposedly causing global warming now couldn't have been causing global cooling in the 1970s. The damn theory just doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

Here's the PBS propaganda film "After the warming".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw

Acronies is clearly a troll. Brand new account and all he's talking about is "climage change".

[Acronies]

:rolleyes: Come on dude. You can't be that slow can you? Really? The scientists made a prediction. Their prediction was wrong. Now they are prevaricating to keep gullible people like you believing in their wrong theories that led to their wrong predictions. I used to believe the global warming BS back before global warming was "cool." The very first global warming documentary I saw was on PBS and it was called "After the Warming". That propaganda piece was a futuristic documentary (mockumentary?) where global warming had already happened and we had to have a one world government to save the planet. Gullible me thought "Let's hurry up and stop global warming. I don't want a one world government". I had no idea that I was being snookered by the very people pushing for the one world government I feared. You know what cured me of believing this crap? Among other things finding out the same people had pushed the need to curb CO2 emmissions TO STOP GLOBAL COOLING! Seriously, how can you believe this crap? The same CO2 that's supposedly causing global warming now couldn't have been causing global cooling in the 1970s. The damn theory just doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

Here's the PBS propaganda film "After the warming".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw

Acronies is clearly a troll. Brand new account and all he's talking about is "climage change". Back in the 70s most climate scientist predicted global warming. As time went on the number of climate scientist that agree on global warming increased.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

[jmdrake]

Back in the 70s most climate scientist predicted global warming. As time went on the number of climate scientist that agree on global warming increased.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

:rolleyes: Somehow this information never made it to the MSM.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ECwMHWFIjdw/TyabTauvKHI/AAAAAAAAEsM/K_JN0tHae38/s400/Time-Global-Cooling.png

And FTR, I noticed that all of your stats come from skepticalscience dot com. I call bullshit. That's like posting information from Infowars.com to "prove" your case against global warming or pro 9/11 truth.

[Seraphim]

Man-made CO2 as the cause of global climate change is a hilariously retarded argument.

Three of the largest volcanoes in the world have produced more CO2 over the last few decades then all of the CO2 produced by humans is all of human history.

That figure does not even include all of the other CO2 spewing volcanoes and INNUMERABLE other NATURAL producers of CO2.

CO2= food for plant life.

Cellular respiration and photosynthesis run parallel to each other and are in constant rebalancing.

Clear cutting vast swaths of dense rainforest. NOW THERE"S A TANGIBLE PROBLEM.

[Acronies]

Somehow this information never made it to the MSM.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ECwMHWFIjdw/TyabTauvKHI/AAAAAAAAEsM/K_JN0tHae38/s400/Time-Global-Cooling.png

And FTR, I noticed that all of your stats come from skepticalscience dot com. I call bullshit. That's like posting information from Infowars.com to "prove" your case against global warming or pro 9/11 truth. And you consider a time magazine evidence. :rolleyes:


Man-made CO2 as the cause of global climate change is a hilariously retarded argument.

Three of the largest volcanoes in the world have produced more CO2 over the last few decades then all of the CO2 produced by humans is all of human history.

That figure does not even include all of the other CO2 spewing volcanoes and INNUMERABLE other NATURAL producers of CO2.

CO2= food for plant life.

Cellular respiration and photosynthesis run parallel to each other and are in constant rebalancing.

Clear cutting vast swaths of dense rainforest. NOW THERE"S A TANGIBLE PROBLEM. Natural emmisions of Carbon in Nature is countered with Natural absortions. But Human emmisions are not balanced with Human absorption of Carbon, and we reduce natural absorption of carbon in nature by deforestation. This upsets the natural balance of nature.

[Zippyjuan]

One cannot say anything about global warming on either side based on what has happened in ten or twenty or even 50 years.
Climate having natural changes over time does not rule out activities of man also having impacts on it.

[DamianTV]

No... that's still the wrong argument. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Remember that the goal of the Global Warming alarmists is to pressure Government into even more regulation and taxation in order to "protect our environment".

Do I want to breath stinky air? No. I've been to cities like LA, and it's foul.
Do I want the gubmit to protect me from breathing "dirty" air? Heck no.

/discussion

End result of Govt Solution to any actual or percieved problem will that extra burdens will be placed on the Common Man, not on the ones that actually do the polluting.

For example: Permits.

Global Warming and the Govts actions to "protect us" would requre a Permit to have a Wood Burning Stove. It might cost an individual say $500 bucks per MONTH to burn wood. Thats enough to cause a significant financial burden for an individual, but for a Power Company, it doesnt even qualify as chump change. Power company scoffs at both the Fee for the Permit, as well as any Fines for violations. Individuals will be treated MUCH more harshly.

---

Im trying to avoid taking any sides of Global Warming is fact or fiction, because the Reactions to BOTH Facts and Fiction are where the consequences for the individual are at. The thing is, the same can be said for almost EVERY Hot Topic we come up with. GMO Food. Vaccines. Vitamins. Gun Control. Abortion. We stay divided on each issue by taking one side or another, but in each case, the consequences to the individual are what cause the most harm to society. Some by requiring Permits. Others force Compliance and Obedience. Some are Fined. Some are Protested. Some result in Prison. In each of those cases, the sources of the problems are allowed to continue their actions. They wont shut down Vitamin Manufacturers, but eventually, you'll be required to have a Prescription to get a Vitamin. Do you have a Permit to poison the enviornment? NO? Jail Time. Oh youre a corporation? Heres a hefty 25 cent Fine, now continue with your actions.