Newspaper column: Reid, Obama playing fast and loose on ‘green’ energy

When President Obama took the stage to close out Harry Reid’s traveling planet salvation show this past week in Las Vegas, he accused opponents of his sweeping clean energy plans of spreading misinformation.

“We refuse to surrender the hope of a clean energy future to those who fear it and fight it, and sometimes provide misinformation about it,” he charged at the National Clean Energy Summit 8.0.

But it was Obama who was spreading the misinformation, including his constant drumbeat about the immediate and devastating threat of climate change. There has been no significant increase in global temperatures in 20 years, despite what the climate change models all predicted. And his own EPA estimates its new rules on carbon emissions will cut global warming 0.018°C by 2100.

Obama also had the audacity — on the same day his administration announced billions of dollars in new loan guarantees for renewable energy projects — to claim renewables can compete in the free market against fossil fuel power generation.

“A lot of Americans are going solar and becoming more energy efficient not because they’re tree huggers — although trees, you know, are important — just want you to know — but because they’re cost-cutters. They like saving money,” Obama said. “And I’m all for a consumer saving money, because that means they can spend it on other stuff. Solar isn’t just for the green crowd anymore — it’s for the green eyeshade crowd, too.”

Without tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies, renewable portfolio requirements and high sell-back rates, solar and wind do not yet pencil out.

Obama also lashed out at opponents he claimed were “trying to undermine competition in the marketplace, and choke off consumer choice, and threaten an industry that’s churning out new jobs at a fast pace.”

Study after study have shown that for every “green” energy job created by taxpayer subsidies and higher power cost at least two jobs in the rest of the economy are lost.

Earlier this year Obama linked an increase in hurricanes to climate change, even though no major hurricane has hit the U.S. in nine years.

In introducing Obama, Reid also repeated the false hurricane narrative, “Protecting the earth’s climate is the greatest challenge of our time. Does everybody agree? (Applause) You see this climate change doesn’t affect a particular people or industry or region or country. Climate change affects everybody, every American, every human being on the face of the earth, no matter where they live. From record break droughts in the Southwest to coastal flooding in the East, we’re seeing the impacts of increasing temperatures and rising sea levels. Hurricanes are becoming more frequent and that’s an understatement. …”

He then claimed that rising temperatures are breeding ticks that have killed 30 percent of the moose population in the Northeast. That nexus is tenuous at best.

“Warm weather is preventing in some places bears from hibernating,” Reid said. FactCheck.org rated the hibernation claim a falsehood.

Obama and Reid never let the facts get in the way of their drive to dole out taxpayer money to their cronies and contributors in the green energy industry.

Obama even joined Reid in his attacks on the Koch brothers: “But when you start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards or prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding — that’s a problem. That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent seeking and trying to protect old ways of doing business and standing in the way of the future.”

In the same building where Reid held his clean energy show, a coalition of people countered with a group of speakers at what they called the Affordable Energy Summit 8.0 to point out the highly subsidized clean energy is prohibitively expensive and produces few environmental benefits.

“Forcing Americans to spend increasingly high amounts of money on energy deprives us of the means to purchase health care, education, better nutrition, and a wide array of goods and services that make life happier and healthier,” said Heartland Institute senior fellow for environment and energy policy James Taylor. “It also kills jobs throughout the entire economy when people have less money to spend on these desirable goods and services.”

But Reid and Obama never let the facts get in the way of their transformative schemes.

Barry and Harry (AP photo)

A version of this column appears this week in the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel, the Lincoln County Record and the Sparks Tribune — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Advertisements

106 comments on “Newspaper column: Reid, Obama playing fast and loose on ‘green’ energy

  1. nyp says:

    Another 171,000 jobs added to the U.S. economy in August. Unemployment now down to 5.1% — essentially, full employment.

    I blame that job-killing ObamaCare.

  2. Rincon says:

    “There has been no significant increase in global temperatures in 20 years…” This has been said here a dozen or more times and each time, I have to correct it. The problem with editorial writers is that they routinely tell only part of the truth (so inconvenient to do an honest analysis). Why is it that it is never mentioned that 14 of the 15 hottest years ever recorded (since 1900 or so) have been in the last 15 years? The 17 hottest years on record have all been in the last 20. https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+temperature+graph&biw=1542&bih=767&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCMQsARqFQoTCJu43tjQ3ccCFYxWPgodWuQBkA#imgrc=d6s3xVtauTGjBM%3A Not important to a Conservative. It interferes with their world view, so it is best ignored.

    In the past 100 years, the temperature has risen sharply for 25 years or so twice and then plateaued twice for 25 years or so. For all of you nonscientists, this is exactly what we might expect if global warming is superimposed onto a regular temperature cycle, if one exists. Do you really think the climate is so simple that the only way temperature can rise is in a linear and consistent manner? If so, it’s a good thing you didn’t go into science.

    “Without tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies, renewable portfolio requirements and high sell-back rates, solar and wind do not yet pencil out.” According to Consumer Reports, “Solar panels are usually warranted to last 20 to 25 years, and the systems often pay for themselves after 5-10 years…” (10/15, p. 41) This includes subsidies, but the only way the two quotes are compatible are if subsidies run 50-70% of the cost, which I find doubtful. And this completely neglects the external costs of fossil fuels. Given the analysis of some conservative think tank or Consumer Reports, I’ll take the word of Consumer Reports. Sounds like solar is on a par with fossil fuels in cost, especially if external costs are considered. And of course, solar costs keep falling.

  3. Rincon says:

    Sigh, this is what Conservatives do best. According to Wikipedia, Anthony Watts is a blogger who is also a television weather bunny (wouldn’t want to be sexist, would we?) who never graduated college, so naturally, Brien bows at his altar, not because Watts has any brains, but because he says what Brien wants to hear.

    The graph I referred to was drawn from NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. The data did NOT come from Michael Mann, nor does it even cover the same time period as the controversial “hockey stick”, so Brien’s comments are misdirected anyway. The original data from NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29 Don’t know why I bother though. In the conservative fantasyland, one college dropout is smarter than a whole bunch of phD’s. Hard to fight that kind of nonlogic.

  4. Vernon Clayson says:

    I heard TVs spavine faced Obama propagandist Scott Pelley speaking of the 5.1 unemployment rate, in all seriousness as if it were the entire story, no mention of the millions of people that have given up looking for work or have never looked for work. Onerous government regulations and taxation are the problem, the government has a hand, as in laws, rules, and regulations, in the most menial of jobs, no burger comes off the grille in a fastfood joint without meeting some government mandate. We can’t forget green energy as much as we’d like to, every one of those firms operate on a federal grant for as long as the money lasts.

  5. So then, are you admitting that Michael Mann and his so-called “hockey stick” graph that was once considered gospel by the minions of Climate Change/Global Warming fanatics…is a total fraud and a complete hoax? (Which incidentally was the point of the post…Mark Steyn and his new book “A Disgrace to the Profession – The Worlds Scientists In Their Own Words on Michael E. Mann, His Hockey Stick and Their Damage to Science.”)

  6. Rincon says:

    Anyone not looking for work now is just plain lazy. I see help wanted signs all around and get maybe 10% of the job applications I got 3 or 4 years ago. Even in the depths of the recession, Americans still wouldn’t study engineering or machine operation in the numbers required and most nursing home and assisted living personnel were immigrants as were fruit pickers. Finding handymen willing to do small jobs was difficult as well. Americans don’t just want work. It has to be fulfilling.

  7. Rincon says:

    Steyne is now defending himself in a libel lawsuit brought by Mann. Bringing on a libel lawsuit is hardly the action of a fraudulent scientist. If Steyne’s words are true, Mann is opening himself up to some huge publicity and in jeopardy of ruining his reputation. Steyne, on the other hand, has nothing to lose:

    “Now, you might think it astonishingly stupid for Steyn, in the midst of his defense against a libel suit by Mann, to publish a book full of quotations attacking Mann and his work, gleaned from a bunch of non-experts and out-of-context comments by experts who actually think the Hockey Stick is pretty accurate. But you would be wrong. First, even if Steyn loses the lawsuit, the rubes might well buy enough copies of the book to cover any eventual legal bills and judgment. Second, Steyn will look like a hero to the rubes no matter what, as long as he never lets on that he might be a teensy bit in the wrong. Third, you never know, some jury might be stupid enough to buy the defense. And finally, a jury might let Steyn off the hook out of pity, inferring that he doesn’t have the intelligence to be considered culpable for his actions.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/misfit_of_science056301.php

    Any idiot can publish a book (and there are plenty of other idiots ready to buy it). It’s a lot harder to earn the trust of the scientific and journalist communities. As a member of the scientific community, I am constantly amazed at the lack of trust people have in science (Jenny McCarthy and autism come to mind), and how willing so many are to buy into crap. I see it every day in my animal hospital: Herbs, natural remedies, megavitamins, doggie chiropracting, vegan and raw diets, laser treatments, homeopathy, grain free dog food – the list goes on. Although there are a few pearls in there, 95% of what’s on the market in these categories is garbage so far as we can tell.

    Scientists spend their lives painstakingly gathering evidence and experimenting in their search for knowledge and have to overcome a great deal of skepticism from their own community to earn acceptance for their findings, but some idiot publishes a book (or a weather bunny puts out a blog), and there are lots of people who quickly run away from the scientists into the open arms of the quacks. Sorry to see that you’re one of them.

  8. So you’re sticking to the hockey stick…typical, a loyal true believer in the second greatest hoax ever to be perpetrated on the public at large.

  9. The Climate Change/Global Warming Al Gore gameboard posted above…is a far more precise portrayal of the ridiculous conflicting claims made by the warmist minions…(with a hint of satire and humor). I’m proud to stand with the likes of Mark Steyn who has more common sense in his little finger than the hordes of junk scientists clamoring and falling all over themselves to acquire more research grants to bolster the progressive leftist government climate myths.

  10. Rincon says:

    My claim is far more modest than yours. I say global warming is a risk. Nothing more, nothing less. You, on the other hand, insist that you know for a fact that global warming will never cause us any major problems. Please correct me if I am putting words into your mouth.. Your greater claim requires much greater proof than my modest claim. My claim does not require the infamous hockey stick at all. I rely on a few noncontroversial (well, except for the wing nuts) facts:

    1) Increased greenhouse gases will cause the earth to become warmer. No one can know the magnitude of this effect, except of course, for Conservatives who say there’s no major impact. They can’t explain how they know this.
    2) Carbon dioxide has not been above about 310 ppm for at least 800,000 years. It has now climbed above 400ppm. Other greenhouse gases have increased as well.
    3) We humans are responsible for all or nearly all of this increase. Even Conservatives don’t argue about that. This means we are monkeying with something we do not understand.
    4) Either by coincidence or because of us, the earth’s temperature is about a degree and a half higher than it was 100 years ago.
    5) Conservatives are absolutely certain that the rise is pure coincidence, but they have no reasonable explanation for it.. Liberals scream that it’s all us. Rincon says both are arrogant. News flash to both groups: No one knows the future. Since there is a clear risk, cheap insurance is the best option.

    The only reason you’ve given me to doubt the scientists is the opinion of a college dropout weather bunny. Sorry, I don’t find that very convincing. Jenny McCarthy, another kind of bunny, has an equally valid opinion about vaccines.

  11. Please tell me how you retrieved your measured carbon dioxide ppm level 800,000 years ago. And to say that humans are responsible for all, or nearly all of this supposed increase…is simply preposterous.

  12. Nyp says:

    Today’s fun fact: under President Obama the unemployment rate today is lower than at any time under the presidency of Saint Ronald Reagan.

  13. Rincon says:

    The 800,000 year old air is trapped in bubbles in the ice in Antarctica. Scientists merely withdrew a sample from the deepest layer and measured the carbon dioxide. That’s why it isn’t controversial.

    How do we know humans are responsible? Also not controversial. There are two ways: First, we can calculate how much carbon dioxide we’ve put into the atmosphere from the historic records of the sales of fossil fuels. Knowing the mass of the atmosphere, it’s pretty easy to see if we’ve put enough into the air to account for the rise. We have. The second method, which confirms the first, is that fossil fuels contain less carbon 14 than the carbon of living plants, so the carbon dioxide from burning them contains less than the natural carbon dioxide created today. By measuring the carbon 14 ratio of the Antarctic gas bubbles, we can determine what percentage of the carbon dioxide in today’s air comes from fossil fuel.

    It does though, illustrate the political problem. The science of climatology and paleoclimatology is complex and the average person doesn’t know even the basics, yet many of these average people have very firm opinions about global warming. Because of their limited knowledge, the only way they can acquire these opinions is by choosing who they want to believe. The wide disparity of opinion means that either Liberals or Conservatives or both are being fooled. The science is pretty straightforward and there isn’t a lot of disagreement in the scientific community, but most responsible scientists acknowledge that while they are doing the best they can to gauge the degree of risk, no one can be sure how great it is. That’s where the talking heads leap to dramatic and unwarranted conclusions, turning it into a political football. The shame is that the more years that we ignore it, the more we handicap our ability to prevent it if it turns out to be a big problem. It’s academic though, because the day will not come when meaningful action will be taken to prevent it. Hopefully, the Conservatives will be right. If not, it will make their mistake about invading Iraq look puny.

  14. I love how climate change/global warming afficionados so cavalierly accept conjecture, theory and explanations as science “gospel.” And I also notice…no mention that supposedly a million years ago…the CO2 levels were markedly higher than the 800,000 year old ice bubble benchmark.

  15. Rincon says:

    “I love how climate change/global warming afficionados so cavalierly accept conjecture, theory and explanations as science “gospel.” I agree. What we may not agree upon is that the Conservatives also “cavalierly accept conjecture, theory and explanations as…gospel. As I stated, both groups blindly follow their leadership and generally know next to nothing about the science.

    “And I also notice…no mention that supposedly a million years ago…the CO2 levels were markedly higher than the 800,000 year old ice bubble benchmark.” Hmmm…first, you were skeptical that we could know the carbon dioxide content of 800,000 year old air, but now, you’re suddenly ready to swallow hook, line and sinker, the words of someone claiming to know the CO2 content of million year old air without having any idea of the methodology or its reliability. You appear to be just a touch biased. In truth, the 800,000 year old air merely proves that today’s sudden rise is unlikely to be natural in origin. What the content of million year old air was would not negate that in any significant way.

  16. My point is, that a lot of what’s called “science” is at times in actuality, a matter of a “scientist’s” interpretation. If the CO2 levels were much higher one million years ago from ice core samples…then dropped significantly two hundred thousand years later…surely the higher levels at the million year mark were not from human activity but mother nature’s… and I would suspect that many other such fluctuations may very well have occurred from then until now. So the interpretation that human activity is the main source of today’s increase in those levels may also be suspect. I tend to believe that mother nature has a far more profound impact on those levels than we humans as would be indicated by the million year samples…but I know that goes against warmist orthodoxy.

  17. Rincon says:

    To my knowledge, there are no million year old ice core samples, but if you can find a reliable source, I’ll be happy to check it out. And no, there haven’t been any fluctuations above about 310 ppm (today, it’s 400 ppm) in the past 800,000 years. As you can imagine, they didn’t just check out the oldest samples. They checked out the whole time span from then to the present. And you can bet your butt that the whatever change in CO2 there MAY have been a million years ago didn’t take place in 100 years as it has today. There is no doubt at all that what we’re seeing would be truly exceptional if indeed mother nature is responsible. The odds are way, way against it occurring this way.

    So is it true that you don’t accept that we’ve raised the CO2 levels dramatically in the past 100 or so years? If so, then you still have some explaining to do: 1) What are the odds that this past century would be the one where nature suddenly raises the CO2, even if she could? (for the mathematicians in the crowd, it’s 1 in 8,000. Even that assumes that nature always increases CO2 within 100 years, which is highly doubtful). That alone should perk your ears up, but wait, there’s more. 2) If we aren’t raising the CO2, then where did all of the CO2 that we have produced go? Why wouldn’t the natural CO2 go to the same place? And of course, 3) How does one explain the lower carbon 14 in today’s atmosphere compared to thousands of years ago? Like I said, it isn’t controversial. Even the conservative think tanks don’t touch this one.

  18. Rincon says:

    Us nerds don’t like uncertainty, so I checked on the possibility of high CO2 levels a million years ago. I consider Scientific American to be a reliable source: “February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago,..” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/ Today’s levels are exceptional indeed.

  19. Then why aren’t tempertures soaring?

  20. Nyp says:

    “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record, at 0.81°C (1.46°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.08°C (0.14°F). As July is climatologically the warmest month of the year globally, this monthly global temperature of 16.61°C (61.86°F) was also the highest among all 1627 months in the record that began in January 1880. ”
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

  21. Rincon says:

    They are. 1.5 degrees in a century is a very rapid rise so far as we can ascertain. As for the temperature plateauing during the past 15 years or so, I find it interesting that Conservatives dismiss the rapid warming of 1979 to 2005, saying short term changes are to be expected. They even dismiss the larger rise over the last 100 years on the same basis, but suddenly they change their mind when the warming slows and say that a short term change couldn’t possibly be part of the normal ebb and flow of temperature, but must mean that there can be no more warming. You can’t have it both ways.

    Of course there are normal ebbs and flows. The whole question is whether the warming of the last 100 years is strictly part of that norm or that it’s due to the increase in CO2, but the extra CO2 certainly doesn’t erase the impact of normal variability. It’s certainly possible that without the increased CO2 the earth would have cooled some short term.

    Nobody seems to remember that we’ve been here before. The temperature rose from 1880 until about 1942, then plateaued until 1978 or so, then rose again even faster, and now we have another plateau. The possible explanations: 1) Coincidence (your favorite choice) is still a distinct possibility, although the odds are not great. 2) The postulated warming is superimposed on a normal up and down cycle so that instead of a normal up and down, we’re seeing a steeper than normal up followed by a plateau. 3) The warming may not be smooth due to variability in ocean currents. With the deepest ocean water being about 35 degrees, any large upwelling would affect the earth’s air temperatures substantially. Conversely, if we got unlucky, a slowing of normal turnover of deep and surface waters could have the opposite effect. And lastly, 4) The period of the earlier plateau came when air pollution was great. It was followed by a time of cleaner air and since 2000 or so, the air over Asia has become greatly polluted. Could the haze shade the surface, thereby cooling us somewhat?

    My bottom line is that nobody knows the future, but since we’ve raised the CO2 by a hundred ppm, we’ve been messing with something we don’t understand. There are cheap ways to slow the increase. If it turns out that there really was no hazard, no harm done, but if warming does turn out to be trouble, slowing it down buys us time to adapt.

  22. Steve says:

    OK, lets just try this again.
    NOT ALL Conservative people insist the climate is not changing. In fact just about everyone I know is certain the climate IS changing, HAS ALWAYS changed and WILL always change.
    The question is, just HOW MUCH EFFECT is human activity contributing to the ever changing climate and in what manner is this adding to the change in climate?

    When asked that way, there is NO CONSENSUS of ANY scientists to quote…they are in severe disarray on what percentage human activity is having on the EVER CHANGING climate!

    So you smart nerdy guys, what is the answer? How much effect is anthropogenic and how much is “natural” (quotes added due the FACT humans have been a part of the system for about 40,000 years? Or mjore? Human activity is as natural as anything else, so I ask again what is the percentage????

  23. nyp says:

    Most peer-reviewed studies that have expressed an opinion on the matter agree that putting massive amounts of heat-trapping substances into the atmosphere year after year, decade after decade, does indeed tend to trap heat in the atmosphere.

  24. nyp says:

    Abstract

    “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=CEC4F8815B0F2F7DF1A8FF0EA08D8FEB.c1

  25. Steve says:

    Again, that does not put the question of to what percentage are humans effecting the climate.
    It does make the same old claim that AGW is real and that 97% of climate scientists is fully in agreement that AGW exists.
    It does not even begin to answer the question I posed.

  26. You can include me in that camp Steve…”In fact just about everyone I know is certain the climate IS changing, HAS ALWAYS changed and WILL always change. The question is, just HOW MUCH EFFECT is human activity contributing to the ever changing climate and in what manner is this adding to the change in climate?” I wholeheartedly concur…

  27. Rincon says:

    As you said Steve, OK, let’s just try this again. I quote from myself above: 4) Either by coincidence or because of us, the earth’s temperature is about a degree and a half higher than it was 100 years ago.
    5) Conservatives are absolutely certain that the rise is pure coincidence, but they have no reasonable explanation for it.. Liberals scream that it’s all us. Rincon says both are arrogant. News flash to both groups: No one knows the future. Since there is a clear risk, cheap insurance is the best option.

  28. nyp says:

    American Geophysical Union:

    “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.”
    http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

  29. nyp says:

    Oh, and this:

    “While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.”

    On the other hand, Thomas Mitchell believes that the idea that placing massive amounts of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere has the effect of trapping heat is an absurd hoax.

    So, it is really hard to determine who to believe.

  30. “We are what is wrong, and we must make it right. Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
    “Seven years from now.” Al Gore, December 10, 2007…the first of many false predictions by the “Pope” of the First Church of Climatology that will be documented here…

  31. nyp says:

    Those of you interested in the complicated topic of sea ice measurement will wish to pursue this link:
    http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/arctic-erratic-as-expected/
    “The expected outcome is that the long-term decline in Arctic sea-ice will continue as global temperatures increase. There will be further bounces, both up and down. Individual years will become ice-free sometime in the 2020s, 2030s or 2040s, depending on future greenhouse gas emissions and the natural variations. But, even at the bottom of the hill the ball will continue to bounce – not every year will have zero ice in summer. The bounces will become smaller if global temperatures continue to increase, and other summer and autumn months will also become ice-free. “

  32. nyp says:

    In this week’s New York Magazine Jon Chait has a surprisingly optimistic take on the prospects for concerted global action on controlling greenhouse gas emissions:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html

  33. Steve says:

    So, now we have a link to an article claiming human activity is causing the “majority” of change ion climate. STILL no percentage…STILL no consensus on what percentage.

    oy, indeed.

  34. nyp says:

    The Daily Mail

  35. Rincon says:

    Anyone thinking they can be certain as to how much of the observed warming is due to us is being plain arrogant. That being said, does complete inaction make any sense even if there’s only a 10% chance of catastrophe? Anyone who is confident that the chances are less than 10% is also being arrogant.

  36. Steve says:

    So, nyp, what are you claiming is the percentage of effect on climate attributed to anthropogenic activity?
    Oy is not an answer, what is your claim? I see no percentage on that and that is my question. What is the percentage? Since you cannot find any study, article or even a quote, I am asking you what you think the percentage of effect anthropogenic activity has on climate change?

  37. nyp says:

    Some comments by scientists on the Heartland Institute bamboozlement to which you just linked:

    “look at an op-ed in Forbes magazine written by Heartland Institute’s James Taylor (yes, that Heartland Institute). Taylor has a history of cherry-picking and distorting results from real climate scientists, and he’s doing the same thing here.

    In the op-ed, he claims that global warming has not caused global sea ice retreat. This is a gross distortion of reality. The truth is that in the arctic we’re seeing record low levels of sea ice year after year, including just this year, when in March the North Pole saw the lowest maximum ice extent on record.

    It takes a very twisted view of the world to claim global warming isn’t doing anything to polar ice not two months after that record was broken. And as we know very, very well, Arctic sea ice is on a long, drastic decline that does not show any signs of recovery at all.

    But note how Taylor phrases it, using “global” ice. That includes Antarctic sea ice, but as I have written about over and over again, that is really unfair. Antarctic sea ice is very different than at the North Pole; Antarctica is a continent and conditions there are literally polar opposites. The southern sea ice fluctuates quite a bit year to year, and in fact wind-driven snow can be increased by global warming (warmer air can hold more moisture), so glossing over local conditions the way Taylor does is at best misleading.

    And in actual fact, land ice in Antarctica is melting away extremely rapidly, and worldwide we’re losing 450 billion tons of land ice every year.”

  38. nyp says:

    And this:
    “As you would expect from a lawyer trying to make a case, Taylor isn’t telling the full story, especially those inconvenient bits that refute his central premise. First, he’s combining Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. This is important because the two polar regions have very different dynamics. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents, the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. Sea ice is all the ice the Arctic has. Up until the 1970s, most of that sea ice was multi-year ice. The Antarctic, in contrast, has around 30 million cubic kilometers of land ice to go with a mostly temporary coating of sea ice.
    Each system of sea ice has a pronounced seasonal cycle, peaking in the polar winter and bottoming out in the polar summer. If anyone remembers geography, they also remember that the seasons at the poles are reversed. When the North Pole is experiencing summer, the South Pole is in the grip of winter and vice versa. This is one reason why merely adding just Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent is wrong. Doing so basically pretends that temporary Antarctic sea ice formed in the dead of a polar winter (read: little to no sunlight) which melts in the Antarctic spring is the equivalent to multiyear Arctic sea ice in the middle of an Arctic summer (land of the midnight sun, anyone?). As far as the energy balance of the planet, there is no way the two are the same. Yet that is precisely what Taylor pretends they are.

    If Taylor were being completely honest, he would at least attempt to align the seasons between the poles before adding them together. Of course, admitting that overall sea ice has declined, with a trend that, despite an increase since 2012, is still below its starting point won’t fit Taylor’s narrative. And he most definitely won’t show what is happening with multiyear sea ice (the ice that survives each yearly melt cycle).
    , Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979 whereas Antarctic sea ice has increased. Taylor’s little trick of adding Arctic and Antarctic hides the decline in the Arctic. If you’re curious as to why Antarctic sea ice has increased, part of the answer is meltwater from the 159 billion metric tons per year of land ice lost from the Antarctic continent is making the surface of the ocean less salty (Bintanja et al. 2013, McMillan et al. 2014). That meltwater is also leading to thermal stratification of the ocean around Antarctica, which insulates any sea ice from warm currents below the ice (Zhang 2007). A third piece of the puzzle appears to be stronger circumpolar winds which have opened up more gaps in the floating sea ice (i.e. Turner et al. 2009). But you won’t hear any of that from Taylor. All he cares about are those facts he can spin to make his argument.”

    http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2015/07/james-taylor-gets-polar-ice-wrongas.html

  39. nyp says:

    And this:
    “Global sea ice totals vary from one year to the next. When looking for impacts of global warming, climate scientists take a longer-term view. The long-term record of global sea ice (illustrated below) shows a long-term decline of global sea ice of about 5.5%. One is free to
    argue whether this decline in global sea ice is important, or whether it is a result of human impacts on the climate; however, it is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record. In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening. The rest of Taylor’s article is just whitewash intended to distract readers from these facts. Cherry-picking limited data to illustrate a point on climate change is not a compelling argument, whether it is done by those who advocate for a warming planet, or those who
    advocate for the opposite. Publications including arguments of this type either lack a basic understanding of science or are intentionally misleading in order to promote an agenda”
    https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/Forbes.article.response.pdf

  40. Steve says:

    I see nyp has decided to ignore my post. I take it this means I am correct, there is no consensus on what percentage of effect anthropogenic activity is having on climate change.
    This means there is no cheap insurance available to address the issue. We have no way of giving the potential outcome and doomsday claims have no basis in fact.

  41. Steve says:

    The word “giving” should have been “gauging”
    Autocorrect is not a mind reader!

  42. nyp says:

    Wikipedia entry on “Attribution of Recent Climate Change”:
    “According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[4] The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.
    Other findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report include:
    “It is extremely unlikely (95%)[32] that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750.”[34]
    “It is virtually certain[32] that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.”[34]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

  43. Rincon says:

    Taylor appears to be wrong in fact anyway so far as I can tell: “Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).” This means a LOSS of total sea ice, not a gain. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

    More propaganda.

  44. Steve says:

    IPCC says that but you STILL cannot find a consensus on it!

    Since you STILL cannot find any factual statement as to a consensus of scientists, I ask again, what do YOU (nyp) believe the percentage of effect on the climate is from anthropogenic activity?

  45. One needs only to follow the money to ascertain that this is eco-socialism or green marxism at it’s most sinister. The film posted above decimates virtually every green theorem posted on this page. This has little to do with science anymore…it’s about an anti-capitalist furtherance of Climate Change doctrine…that rivals any religious belief in it’s fanaticism.

  46. Oh for an edit button…This has little to do with science anymore…it’s about an anti-capitalist furtherance of Climate Change theology and doctrine…one that rivals any religious CULT in it’s beliefs and it’s fanaticism.

  47. Oy vey iz mir. (Unlike our two green friends…the film answers Steve’s question)

  48. Steve says:

    All I am looking for is the same type of consensus claimed for AGW, with one added thing and Nyp (along with EVERYONE else to who I pose the question) cannot come up with ONE single thing showing the what the scientists say about it.
    In fact the scientific community is in disarray on this point. There have been several stories on shows like 60 Minutes that show this to be true, but no one wants to talk about it.

    Because it does not support their political motivations…leading to the very feeling Brien described.

    Oy, indeed.

  49. Rincon says:

    I can’t believe how brainwashed both sides are. The best we can hope for is a loose assessment of the odds, but everyone here claims to have a crystal ball and feel that we should bet the farm when most of the cards are hidden. A tip: Don’t go to Vegas.

  50. Steve says:

    I live in Las Vegas…and I don’t gamble.
    Note than I CANNOT get any clear answer to my question.

  51. Athos says:

    Greid and Zero man (aka Pinocchio) are singing this song:

    “We’re in the money! We’re in the Money!”

  52. Question…what is the largest emitter of CO2 on planet Earth? (hint: it’s NOT human activity)

  53. Steve says:

    Brien, the issue is not how much CO2 is emitted, the complaint is that all the CO2 emitted by human activity is not re-absorbed to achieve a balance.

    But my question stands, there is no consensus of scientists who will state categorically to what percentage human activity is effecting climate change. Hell, nyp won’t even state what his belief is on this point!

    Very telling. Oy! Indeed.

  54. Rincon says:

    Let’s see here. The Liberals won’t commit to a percentage when it’s obvious that no one can possibly know, but many Conservatives claim to know that the percentage is near zero, and you’re criticizing the Liberals. Have I got that right?

    To add to Steve’s reply to Brien, the earth will be just fine. A new balance will be reestablished, just with a warmer planet. The problem is that sudden changes tend to screw up civilization. Of course, we neglect the possibility of a tip[ping point. Imagine a bathtub full of water and then add 5 gallons. If the tub was only partly full, no harm done. If it had been 100% full, the entire five gallons would wind up on the floor. One possible tipping point with global warming: The arctic permafrost contains overwhelming amounts of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. If enough is released because of melting due to the warming, it could lead to a vicious cycle of warming with the release of gases causing even more warming. As with most of this, we have no idea how likely that scenario is. We’re taking our chances.

  55. Steve says:

    “Have I got that right?”

    No.

    My issue with liberal policy is all human activity MUST be stopped or severely curtailed sparing NO EXPENSE, unless one happens to be the likes of Al Gore.

  56. Rincon says:

    So you’re not criticizing nyp for not coming up with a percentage? I’m glad I asked. Your statement about liberal policy tells me a lot more about you than them.

  57. Steve says:

    Lets try again.
    Liberals demand undue actions based on unknowns and you say I am not criticizing this?
    There are some conservatives who call AGW a hoax. I do not. I say it is a fact, though it is a fact being used by liberals to add to their power and wealth.

    There is no “cheap insurance” if the goal is not identifiable.
    Before buying insurance I identify my needs and try to get coverage that fits them.

    Which brings me to Nevada Health Co-op.
    I got that coverage for my wife as they were the only insurer on Healthcare.gov that was shown contracted with her doctor. Turns out, he dropped them almost right away because they weren’t paying the claims. Nevada Health Co-Op insists he is contracted with them as a provider but his office never renewed the contract. Someone is lying and it is not her doctor. After all, his services amount to 4 visits a year for a total price of about $300 a year. Sally doesn’t need insurance that covers these visits. She needs insurance that covers the blood tests and prescriptions and catastrophic needs. My coverage is only catastrophic, like the insurance Rincon has I would have to pay out of pocket up to the deductible which is around $6,000 plus copays.
    Come November (if I am still not employed) I will be searching for a plan that will cover her prescriptions and blood tests. We will pay for her doctor visits ourselves, unless some of the new insurers are more reputable.
    What is funny about this, we found out, yesterday, Nevada Heath CO-OP has the Culinary handle the insurance contracts….no conflict of interest there? SUUURRRE! and the moon is made of green cheese….

    This constitutes three points;
    1 we need to have clear goals based on clear facts to plan and pay for things.
    2 blindly following your leaders will always lead you to trouble.
    3 the Culinary and Nevada Health CO-OP are crooks and need to be investigated, think THAT will happen?

  58. Rincon says:

    The need is identified. The insurance: Reduce the addition of greenhouse gases into the air by as much as is economically reasonable. Some steps would actually save us money. F’r instance: 1) Removing fossil fuel subsidies – a no brainer. 2) Getting off foreign oil will save us money in the long run. Had we gotten off foreign oil in the ’80’s, it’s likely that 9/11, the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq never would have taken place. Will we never learn? 3) Economists agree that a reasonable fossil fuel tax in place of a portion of income tax would do no great harm to the economy and would likely reduce total costs for Americans. 4) Maybe, if we’re really lucky, we can get our morons, er… citizens to save some energy if we push them a little. Example: Few people put a blanket on their hot water heater, despite the fact that they pay for themselves more than ten times over. It takes effort to counteract such stupidity.

    All three steps are cheap and effective.

  59. Steve says:

    economically reasonable…..

    did you see what just happened in California?

    With no idea what the percentage of effect AGW is having on climate, there is no cheap insurance.

  60. Steve says:

    In desert heat water heater blankets are silly.

  61. nyp says:

    Excellent, and surprisingly optimistic Jon Chait article about the prospects for global action on climate change:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html

  62. Rincon says:

    “In desert heat water heater blankets are silly.” This is why the public needs some educating. You know your science pretty well, but here, your thinking is wrongheaded. 1) Any water housed in an air conditioned area not only pays for itself, but does so faster than otherwise, since the A/C must labor to remove the excess heat. But even when housed outdoors: 2) Deserts get cold at night, causing greater heat loss. 3) Even at an ambient temperature of 100 degrees, the heat loss is still more than half of the heat loss at 70, so it means the blanket pays for itself “only” 5 times over. You call that a bad investment? 4) It is in winter in cold areas that a blanket loses its usefulness. Whatever heat is lost from the heater merely heats the dwelling, so there’s no savings under these conditions. The blankets still pay for themselves many times over in the warmer months.

    If you didn’t see the benefit, how can you expect those less educated to do what is indisputably in their best interests? The public is blind to a host of other potential savings from fuel conservation as well, but they prefer to bathe in ignorance. (pun sort of intended).

  63. Steve says:

    water heater is in the garage. Most of them are.

  64. Steve says:

    Interesting nyp:

    “Besides, the target the world has set for measuring success — holding increased global temperature to no more than two degrees Celsius — is merely a guess at salvation. Exactly how much carbon dioxide can we pump into the air and stay under two degrees? Scientists estimate that figure is 450 parts per million, but that is only an estimate; 450 parts per million could produce less warming or more.

    And is under two degrees the safety zone? That is also a guess, and it’s an even less precise one. Projecting how human life would change in a world of two-degree warming imagines a vast and complex calculation of natural events that can be predicted hazily….”

    You found an article that supports my question.

  65. Rincon says:

    Water heaters in garages lose heat all winter long and a smaller, but significant amount in the summer, unless your garage stays at 140 degrees 12/7/365. The blankets still pay for themselves many times over. People who don’t use them either don’t need any more money or aren’t thinking very well.

    Why does a “safety zone” have to be rigidly defined? Is it not reasonable to act on the premise that more CO2 will lead to more warming and that more warming is less safe? The fact that we cannot predict the degree of warming should not stop us from acting any more than the fact that a motorcyclist not knowing if he will be in an accident should prevent him from purchasing and wearing a helmet.

  66. Steve says:

    Since when is a “merely a guess ” analogous to “rigidly defined”?

    My gas bill disagrees with you about water heaters in the desert.

  67. nyp says:

    Your argument is with Thomas Mitchell – he believes that climate change is a complete hoax and that there is no global warming.

  68. Steve says:

    No, my argument is with you. You still won’t answer my question. Now you try deflection.

  69. nyp says:

    Here is my answer: climate scientists believe that the great majority of climate change that has been documented over the past several decades is attributable to the massive amounts of heat-trapping gases that we have placed into the atmosphere. However, while the consensus among climate scientists is that most of the warming is due to the burning of coal and other heat-trapping gases, they have not been able to produce a precise percentage of the amount of change that is anthropogenic and that which is attributable to volcanic eruptions and other natural phenomena.

  70. Steve says:

    You still skirt the question.

    They haven’t been able to produce ANY percentage of effect AGW is having on the ever changing climate. your own link to the New York times shows all they have are guesses.

    With that in mind, it should come as no surprise people are skeptical.

  71. Steve says:

    You really do miss the message, nyp.

    All they do is cry and whine about all kinds of doomsday events for which they no basis of fact.
    Moreover they NEVER make any effort toi examine what potential improvements to the climate may occur. Since all they have are guesses as to the possible effects….all you guys can say is Oy vey when presented with a question like mine.

    It indicates you want blind faith followers. Luckily at least half the population is not so trusting.

  72. Rincon says:

    Give it up, nyp. Steve is the motorcyclist who won’t wear a helmet because no one can prove that he will need it.

  73. Steve says:

    Wrong, always wore the helmet. Give it up yourself, you cannot answer the question anymore than Nyp could, because the answer is one you don’t like.

  74. Rincon says:

    No one can answer the question, so why is it a problem when we don’t? So let me ask you an equally ridiculous question: What are the chances that a fossil fuel tax will harm our economy? Come on, speak up.

  75. Steve says:

    Just like the percentage of effects of AGW on climate change, you need to be more specific. What rate of tax increase on fossil fuels? We already do tax them for roads and bridges, as you should know.

    C’mon, speak up!

  76. Rincon says:

    5% tax on all fossil fuels. OK, squeak up. As for the questions, I got ’em all. Sorry about the one upmanship. Did you see though, how many miss multiple or even large numbers of those questions? Compare the test questions to the questions posed by global warming and it becomes clear why the public is confused. The knowledge of science by the general public is inadequate to understand global warming in the first place.

  77. Steve says:

    5% is a blanket. You should also know every state has it’s own tax on motor fuels and it varies. And this tax on fuels depends on the type.

    Federal………………….. Gas 18.40 Diesel 24.40 Gasahol 18.40
    Average State Tax ….. Gas 22.68 Diesel 23.18 Gasahol 22.62

    So you want to add a nickle to each? Or do you want to make it federal? Or do you want to raise all of them by 5%?
    But it is easy to see it’s currently a good 40% tax on motor fuels alone. I could dig deeper but it is much the same on other types of fuels. We are getting to the question of how much is enough? 50%? 60%?, 100%?
    Motorcycles pay the same rates even though they cause very little damage to roads like electric vehicles, meanwhile electrics pay nothing.

    http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_marketing_monthly/current/pdf/enote.pdf

    And you still sidestep my main question, how much effect is AGW having on climate change?

  78. nyp says:

    I see that the price of gas is now projected to hit $2/gallon this winter.

    I blame Obama’s vicious war on oil.

  79. Steve says:

    I believe it’s due to an oil glut from fracking on private lands.

    Now, what do you believe, Nyp, the net percent effect AGW has on climate change?

  80. nyp says:

    Climate scientists believe that the great majority of climate change that has been documented over the past several decades is attributable to the massive amounts of heat-trapping gases that we have placed into the atmosphere. However, while the consensus among climate scientists is that most of the warming is due to the burning of coal and other heat-trapping gases, they have not been able to produce a precise percentage of the amount of change that is anthropogenic and that which is attributable to volcanic eruptions and other natural phenomena.

  81. Steve says:

    We already know the scientific community is in complete disarray on what percentage of effect on climate might be attributed to AGW and we already know they don’t have any idea which way the change in climate will take, positive or negative. Your own article says all they have are guesses.
    That is now settled.

    I asked what YOU believe, nyp.

  82. nyp says:

    none of what you just wrote is true.

    As for me own belief as to whether massive emissions of heat-trapping gases from the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for 82.2% of all climate change as opposed to a mere 78.6% or a 91.3%, I have no opinion. No should I, as the scientific community has not come up with such an estimate. However, the consensus among climate scientists is that great majority of climate change that has been documented over the past several decades is attributable to the massive amounts of heat-trapping gases that we have placed into the atmosphere, and I accept that consensus judgment.

  83. Steve says:

    OH? Not true?
    that article didn’t say:
    ” holding increased global temperature to no more than two degrees Celsius — is merely a guess at salvation.”
    And it didn’t say:
    “And is under two degrees the safety zone? That is also a guess, and it’s an even less precise one.”
    And it didn’t say:
    “Scientists guess that failing to control emissions poses about a 10 percent chance of creating a rise in global temperatures that would make human life as we know it unrecognizable.”

    That’s a whole slue of guessing for a scientific community so solidly behind its consensus.

    It does say:
    “In truth, the fight to save the Earth from climate change is not something that will be “won” or “lost.” Climate change is a problem of risk management, albeit on a planetary scope.”

    So…how does one manage risks? By identifying them and assigning goals based on real numbers, not a slue of guesses.

    The article does conclude on something of a good note;
    “Both energy technology and cooperative international willpower, mired for years in stasis, have been set into furious motion. The negotiators have constructed a different dynamic this time. Rather than set overall limits and require reductions of every country, they will get individual countries to set their own targets. The opening bids by the U.S., China, and Brazil have been an encouraging start.”
    This is more individual and more market driven a path than all the top down mandated policies based on guesses made by certain powerfully connected people who used to be scientists but are now bureaucrats.

    AND YOU!
    No opinion as you bandy about uncited numbers and percentages based on those guesses mentioned in that article and other guesses you apparently swallow hook, line and sinker.
    “great majority”!!! uncited.
    “consensus judgement” uncited

    Blind faith, you have a follower and he goes by the nick “nyp”

    No opinion, indeed. You couldn’t be more wishy-washy if you tried.

    I may not always agree with him but at least I know where Tom Mitchell stands.

  84. Rincon says:

    You still haven’t answered my question Steve. Would it do any harm? Please show your work. One hint: I said fossil fuel tax, not motor fuel tax. BTW, “Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads.” http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending

    Keep in mind, I already said eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is a no brainer, and I consider paying for only 50% of our road costs out of general revenues to be a subsidy on driving. The 5% fossil fuel tax would be in addition to raising motor fuel taxes to a level that doesn’t subsidize driving our cars – and I’m leaving out the huge war expenses we’ve generated and will continue to generate because we want to stay addicted to foreign oil..

    Nyp can’t quantify how much warming is natural and how much is human induced and neither can anyone else(Keep in mind that statistically, there’s a 50% chance that the climate would have cooled if only Nature was at work), but you don’t seem to be able to quantify how much the cost of a basic mitigation step would be or even whether it would be positive or negative. As I see it, you’re both in glass houses.

  85. Steve says:

    There is no way to assign a risk factor to an unknown risk.

    I made the statement how much is enough? You start with 5% then we see what happens…no cost benefit analysis? Just jump in with both feet? Like policy based on guesses formed from the mere existence of AGW?

    I am beginning to see the trend with the left showing its clearly faithful face.

  86. Steve says:

    A new study.

    “This is the first study to model the effects of unrestrained fossil-fuel burning on the entirety of the Antarctic ice sheet. The study does not predict greatly increased rates of ice loss for this century, but found that average rates of sea level rise over the next 1,000 years could be about 3 centimeters per year (more than 1 inch per year) leading to about 30 m (100 feet) of sea level rise by the end of this millennium. Over several thousand years, total sea level rise from all sources could reach up to 60 meters (200 feet).”

    Did you guys get that? ONE THOUSAND YEARS
    IF current levels of fossil fuel burning continues. And the study assumes the total remaining sources of fossil fuel would be burnt…all of it.

    The imperitive is NOT that great…there is time to change. AND change will happen, it is natural to change and that change will be much easier to achieve as long as it does not require everyone to live at subsistence levels. Moreover, using fossil fuels to effect that change is a fully viable option.
    And anothether thing, its not the burning of fossil fuels that causes the problem, it’s what to do about the CO2 output. This is being researched and a lot of possibilities are showing up.

    ONE THOUSAND YEARS is a very long time. And, coincidentally, this study is the first I have seen that tends to indicate some kind of numbers based effect for AGW on climate, albeit minuscule, the indication is evident. If all fossil fuels are burnt up at current usage, then a millenia later the sea levels will flood all the low lying coastlines. A thousand years, IF all the fossil fuels are burnt up.
    The odds of that happening? I would bet on the lottery first.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150911164146.htm

  87. Rincon says:

    You tacitly assign risk of near zero that global warming will cause major problems, so why would it be wrong for me to assign a risk of near zero for mitigation? Liberals are panic mongers about the warming and Conservatives are panic mongers regarding the “costs” of mitigation. You’re the same animals with opposite motives.

  88. Rincon says:

    60 meters in 1,000 years averages 6 meters in 100 years, which is 3 meters in 50 years. Scientific American has a map of Florida and New York City showing how much is underwater when sea level is 3 meters higher. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-u-s-look-like-after-3-meters-of-sea-level-rise/ Since many of those buildings have a projected life of several hundred years, a lot of the nation’s most expensive real estate would go into the dumpster. And, of course, you’re neglecting that after another 50 years, the seas would be another 3 meters higher, at which point, essentially every city on Florida’s coast would be underwater. http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2015/04/07/exponential-sea-level-rise-within-three-generations/, along with many other coastal cities around the nation and the world. No big deal says Steve. Just abandon and rebuild you say?

    And of course, over a projected lifespan of say, 300 years for a substantial building (I hope many would last longer than that!), sea level would be 18 meters, or 59 feet. But there is one advantage. Think of the fantastic underwater theme park an underwater Manhattan would make! Sacramento will have the pleasure of becoming a city on the bay (It’s presently 90 miles inland). With an 18 meter rise in sea level, about half of the city would be underwater. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-levels-rise-20-feet-19211 Sacramento isn’t even on the coast.

    And of course, you’re looking only at sea level rise. As most Conservatives do, you’re completely ignoring ocean acidification, the elimination of snow runoff from the mountains during the summer, jeopardizing the water supply for billions with a B, severe changes in weather patterns, resulting in, among many other things, major changes in the ability of croplands to grow crops, the probable flowering of Siberia and the uninhabitability of the American southwest along with thousands of other areas in the world, the likely extinction of millions of species (not a problem for a Conservative), and, of course, the prices of fossil fuels becoming astronomical as we struggle to recover from more and more difficult sources. All because Conservatives have an irrational fear of a little conservation today.

    Thanks for the link Steve. It makes a strong case for mitigation.

  89. Steve says:

    “risk of near zero for mitigation?” You are basing your idea on guesses, I am quoting facts and studies.

    6 meters in 100 years…re read the article. little to no rise this century! ONE THOUSAND YEARS!

  90. Rincon says:

    Aren’t you the one who says climate models are garbage? And now, you’ve picked your favorite one and are willing to call it gospel. What about all of the other studies? From Wikipedia: “The Third National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, projected a sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet by 2100 (30–120 cm). Decision makers who are particularly susceptible to risk may wish to use a wider range of scenarios from 8 inches to 6.6 feet by 2100.[38]” Even the lower guesstimates predict major problems, i.e., if the New York subway system flooded with Sandy, a much lesser storm will do the same when sea level is even “only” a foot higher. Besides, you continue to ignore all of the other problems that are likely to stem from warming. The fact is, NO ONE KNOWS what will happen. Isn’t that what you say about the models?

  91. Steve says:

    I have stated the IPCC is lead by politicians. THEY pick what they want,,,so that is the right way to do things!

    IT

    IS

    A

    NEW

    STUDY

    I am waiting for the lefty’s to vilify it. More likely they will ignore it. You tried to spin it.

  92. Rincon says:

    The newest study isn’t necessarily better than the older studies. What were the “newest studies” say in 2011? Were they right? You didn’t think so, but they were the newest studies! Besides, trying to predict how much the temperature will rise and when REQUIRES that the authors know what percentage of today’s warming is human induced, which you have agreed that no one knows. You’re a sucker for anyone who says what you want to hear. My opinion has not changed: ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO KNOW THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES IS JUST PLAIN ARROGANT, The authors of the study, on the other hand probably made no claims of certainty. It’s politicized ideologues that claim certainty.

    Even if the study is correct, there will be hell to pay over the next few hundred years, even if we consider only sea levels to the exclusion of all the other potential problems.

  93. Steve says:

    Doom and gloom, that is all you guys got.

    It’s a nice day out, I am going to enjoy my pool.

  94. Steve says:

    And, if the science is “settled” then why are they still studying it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s