CEI Expert: ‘The Best Policy Regarding Global Warming Is To Neglect It’
CEI Expert: ‘The Best Policy Regarding Global Warming Is To Neglect It’
Over the weekend, Donald J. Boudreaux — George Mason Unversity professor and “adjunct analyst” at the Exxon-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute — wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune called “The case for neglecting global warming.” He argued that the “documented health gains that people in the West have enjoyed over the past five or six generations” can be attributed to capitalism. Therefore, the government shouldn’t work to stop climate change because it would impede capitalism:
Those of us who recognize these important benefits of capitalism…are reluctant to yield power to governments to tackle global warming. … [I]t’s a perfectly legitimate stance for truly reasonable people to conclude that the best policy regarding global warming is to neglect it — and let capitalism continue to make us healthier and wealthier.
Big business recognizes that strong environmental policies and capitalism aren’t mutually exclusive. According to a recent report from the Climate Group, an international environmental charity, “43 multinationals — including Bayer, BT and DuPont — saved a combined $11.6 billion last year by improving energy efficiency, reducing waste output and harnessing solar power.”
The best policy regarding global warming is to neglect Boudreaux.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The idea that correcting global warming would harm capitalism is false on its face. While it’s indeed true that in a Kyoto Protocol-world, companies would need to divert a portion of their profits to clean up and control polluntants, but where do people like Donald Boudreaux presume that diverted money would go? Into the ether? On the contrary, the money would go to new companies developing new technologies to make things clean, as well as going, ultimately, into the pockets of those companies’ employees and then subsequently spent back into the commerce of life and furthering the overall economy.
That, Mr. Boudreaux, is how capitalism works.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:33 pmLet’s just ignore terrorism too. I’m sure it can be defeated by capitalism outright. /sarcasm
August 15th, 2006 at 5:34 pmLook at this this guy’s face and eyes.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:35 pmDid he take too much coke or meth or what?
Nice picture, by the way. Psycho!
August 15th, 2006 at 5:35 pmBoudreaux, I might add, looks to be in dire need of a haircut and a toothbrush. Or maybe taking care of one’s teeth, like the environment, is bad for capitalism.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:35 pmWhat an utter and total narcissistic idiot. Obscene and horrific. There are some really really bad ones out there. Are we going to let the likes of him continue to impact us and our children’s children?
August 15th, 2006 at 5:36 pmOh joy. Another global warming thread.
Cue tired Jason Hendler ‘urban heat islands’ rhetoric in 3…2…1…
August 15th, 2006 at 5:36 pmThe War on Science continues…
August 15th, 2006 at 5:39 pmThis man is my mentor.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:39 pmLOL – Welcome Jason.
And your statement explains a LOT…
August 15th, 2006 at 5:41 pmNever smile that big for a press photo when you have SMOKER’S TEETH.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:42 pmWhat, Me Worry?
August 15th, 2006 at 5:43 pmNever smile that big for a press photo when you have SMOKER’S TEETH.
Comment by DieNowForPeace
Thatsnot fromsmoking, its from the car exhaust he has pumped into his office air conditioning. Its supposed to be good for us ya know =)
August 15th, 2006 at 5:47 pmWhen is this shit gonna end!??!?!!! I can’t take it anymore!!! Doesn’t this nutbag realize that private companies are going to make profits of billions of dollars from their investments and developments in products that help reduce pollution and create cleaner energy?? We don’t have a choice!
August 15th, 2006 at 5:48 pmI guess that the reason that everybody is so fat here in the US is due to an over abundence of low-quality and low-nutrition foods in our nations grocery stores.
This too could be a result of capitalsim and the constant drive for profit and lower costs. So there you have it, capitalism in the end can make people fat and unhealthy. The best thing to do in this case it to neglect capitalism. j/k
August 15th, 2006 at 5:49 pmHe must not have children to not give a s**t about the next generation.
By looking at his face I can see why no woman would sleep with him.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:51 pmThought Experiment: Imagine the world after 100 years of unfettered conservative rule. What would the world be like if Republicans were allowed to implement their agenda without any checks from the left for 100 yrs?
Now imagine the same scenario but with 100 years of progressive rule… how much different is your picture of this future as opposed to the first.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pmThe idea that anything that takes away from profits is bad must be eliminated from our thinking and our public policies. It is stupid and short-sighted. Capitalism will only find solutions to problems when someone can figure out a way to make money off of it, and a lot of it at that. We need to stop thinking this way. There are real problems in the world, some of which are caused or made worse by humans, which capitalism will not solve. I see no reason why we should acquiesce to their greedy love of money. So they’re only going to make five million this year, not six. Well, boo-friggin’-hoo!
We are all human beings on this planet. And until everyone, especially people like Mr. Boudreaux, starts thinking of everyone else as fellow human beings, there isn’t going to be an inhabitable planet to share. And then no one will make money off that.
Good night everyone, and Peace on Earth.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:54 pmNote to self…..Stock pile weapons immediatly.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#1 and #14,
They realize other companies would make money on curbing global warming, just not their companies.
August 15th, 2006 at 5:59 pmThe guy in the pic looks goofy and his mind is mush as well > oh well working for Exxon causes those problems > lol.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:01 pmUnhinged from reality, plain and simple.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:02 pmWhoa!
I guess deaths related to heat is just a number (ala Tony Snow)
Let’s ignore the soldiers deaths and the Americans citizens death, as long as we can make “Fat Bastard” Lee Raymond a few more millions…
ANYONE who agrees with this nut, IS AN IDIOT!!!
August 15th, 2006 at 6:02 pmWell, sure, capitalism made it better for SOME people. White ones.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:03 pmWhat a nitwit! OK, I can understand that with a face that only a mother can love, he has no hopes of reproducing, so his oh-so-ephemeral progeny doesn’t enter into the equation.
What amazes me more is how the Chicago Tribune’s opinion page editors can face their children?
August 15th, 2006 at 6:03 pmMind you he said “wealthier” so he refers to that big fat CEO slob Raymond of Exxon who retired recently! Donald guy is not referring to average Americans becoming wealthier > he means the wealthy elite > the rest of us are just worthless worker proles!
August 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pmThis man is my mentor.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — August 15, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
I’m not sure who this comment makes look worse: Jason, or Boudreaux.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:09 pmCorporations have shown over and over that ignoring environmental regulations and ignoring environmental pollution by their corporations is a money maker for them.
The recent shut down of BP oil pipeline in Alaska makes that clear. They knew there was a problem with their pipe line and chose to do nothing about it even though there had been a spill not long ago.
They knew the Bush administration would do nothing about it, no fines, no criminal charges.
So they were allowed to profit from their neglect by not doing regular maintenance of their pipe line. BP was able to create an oil shortage which allowed them to raise the price of petroleum products and make large profits.
Even after being revealed for what this manipulation was, nothing has been done about it and I would guess that whatever repairs are made, they will be inadequate for the problemed pipe line. Full repairs would cut too much into their obscene profit margin.
Once our waters are polluted Corporations will be able to charge a high price for clean water. That is the only way they look at things. Their futures no one else’s.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:09 pmAnother note: Hard to become healthier with all the gasoline pollution in the atmosphere, so does Donald notice that more people are getting cancer now? I guess he does not really care!
August 15th, 2006 at 6:10 pmANYONE who agrees with this nut, IS AN IDIOT!!!
Comment by IraqVet — August 15, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Well, Jason?
Anyone who thinks that the rate of uptake and release of heat stored in manmade structures affects global climate (as opposed to merely affecting local temperature readings) is, well, a complete idiot. And anyone who keeps claiming that climate scientists are ignoring this local effect on local temperature measurements is a liar.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:11 pmI thought Michael Chrichton was your mentor.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:13 pmNow THAT is some truly world-class non sequitur craftsmanship.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:17 pmWe haven’t had the sort of laissez-faire system that Boudreaux advocates for about a hundred years, since Teddy Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drug Act. And America is the greatest economic juggernaut in the history of the world by virtue of our robust public sector, not in spite of it.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:20 pmCorporate profits mean more than a healthy planet for our children.
When did americans become so selfish that they thought only of themselves, AT THE EXPENSE OF THIER KIDS & GRANDKIDS?
I can’t tell you how many times I heard my Grandparent & my parents tell me how important it is to leave your kids in a BETTER position than you had, and they DIDN’T MEAN MONEY!
God damned greedy bastards…..Honesty gets you nothing on this one.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:21 pmMichael Chricton, Tom Clancy, Donald Bordeaux ( a FRENCH NAME?!?!?) have a lot in common. They all write fiction…
August 15th, 2006 at 6:21 pmA George Mason University expert — ooooo, a half-baked, conservative commuter school in Fairfax County, Virginia better known for its recent Final Four trip than anything remotely resembling academic scholarship.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:30 pmJohn Hinckley is trying to get more time outside, cant we give him ANOTHER chance? NRA gift baskets should be welcome……
August 15th, 2006 at 6:30 pm#3 My thought exactly, the red eyes etc. like looking in a mirror back in the 60’s. This guy was as high as a kite when that shot was taken.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:32 pmHis smile never reaches his eyes. Non-verbal for NOT TO BE TRUSTED
August 15th, 2006 at 6:33 pmWell I guess when the earth and all life on it is completely destroyed due to corporate greed, then the corporations can make money off of… off of… uh… I guess it won’t matter then because no one will be left alive anyway.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pmBluedog49 – And how many sociopaths do you trust?
August 15th, 2006 at 6:40 pmIn 1928 we had a free market completely unfettered by government meddling.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:43 pmBluedog49: Yup!
I guess I can say with some authority he’s displaying non-verbals…
I am not a psychiatrist, so I can’t judge his personality (disorder). We all know a pic can be taken at less than photogenic moments, but by those smile / frown lines Id say he looks like that a lot…
So an unprofessional mental health diagnosis – he cwazee!
August 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pmObviously, it’s not a question of dollars generated, but, who gets to keep them.
August 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pmWe either choose to follow those in denial because it feels better, or we choose to give the species a chance at survival. It’s one or the other. And……if we continue to be selfish and unloving, the species will die out. End of story
August 15th, 2006 at 6:56 pmIf this were a real problem, people would be working on it and capitalism would find a solution. Because there would be profits involved. Since the “Global Warming Apocalypse” is just a political issue, we’re not going to see much done.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:00 pm“I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” -George Bush, AntiChrist (July 9, 2004)
August 15th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThis dumb son of a bitch makes the Wall Street Journal editorial page almost sanguine. Even his grimace could subsidize the Robber Barons.
If capitalism were not so duplicitous as this character’s beliefs suggest, the erstwhile Exxon chairman would have received a sunset payoff of a billion dollars, instead of the disappointing 400 million.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:13 pmBluedog49 – One problem with your point to Muckdog. Terrorist attacks make a lot of profits for a lot of people… Oil. Weapons. Big Business profiting from a cowed populace. Even security firms would profit… after all, they can charge to correct the problem AFTER it happens.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:14 pmSounds like economic nonsense to me.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:26 pmIn 1990, CO2 emissions were 5005.3 TgCO2Eq. By 2000 they were 5864.5, an increase of about 17%. CO2 emissions in 2004 were 5988.0 TgCO2Eq, a 2% increase over 2000 levels.
We’re doing a fine job at reducing emissions since the 90’s.
August 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pmDammit, TP! Don’t scare me with a face like that! It’s been a long day…
August 15th, 2006 at 8:13 pmwow. that guy looks like he drinks his oil through a straw.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:13 pmEnergy sector emissions in the US increased by 16.4% from 1990 to 2000. Energy sector emissions have only increase by 1.9% from 2000 to 2004.
Now for context. A concept TP editors don’t understand.
Growth rate since 1990,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1.1%
Energy Consumption: 1.2%
Fossil Fuel Consumption: 1.2%
Electricity Consumption: 2.0%
GDP: 3.0%
Population: 1.1%
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration: 0.4%
What an improvement! Without drastically changing our civilization and our way of thinking. FU Al Gore.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:15 pmThis stupidity is only surpass by the photo above.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:15 pmWe’re doing a fine job at reducing emissions since the 90’s
we’d be doing even better if all that hot air you and mr hintler contribute would cease.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:17 pmYou know what, I say all posters of LIES should be banned from this site. That is just my opinion, but really!!!!!! They freakin’ OWN EVERYTHING ELSE. DAMN IT!
August 15th, 2006 at 8:20 pmHaving known REAL hippies – this guy is nothing by an OXY – MORON!
August 15th, 2006 at 8:22 pmHey Im just the messenger…of facts. Personal attacks don’t change the facts.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:24 pmHey, Zoo. Fighting as always. Yeah!
August 15th, 2006 at 8:25 pmthat’s right, the facts in your made up world.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:25 pmMAY ALL THE NAYSAYERS OF GLOBAL WARMING EXPERIENCE EXTREME WEATHER!!!!!!!!!!!
August 15th, 2006 at 8:26 pmFortunately, your kind of hysteria only shows up during election years. This Global Warming Apocolypse hysteria will die down by the first wednesday of November.
But I’m all for clean air. I’d rather not burn fossil fuels. In addition, the places where we get most of our fossil fuels are inhabited by hostile natives. So I’m all for nuclear, ethanol, etc. Makes sense for a whole lot of reasons, and none of them are “global warming.”
August 15th, 2006 at 8:29 pmWithout drastically changing our civilization and our way of thinking. FU Al Gore
that’s right. it’s not about our future, it’s about smearing al gore and fearing change. because fossil fuels are the way of the future! or is it really because fossil fuel exploiters own the past and the present, and are hell-bent on owning the future also?
you know, it’s pretty small-minded to dislike an idea because of the person that advances the idea. you’re even more of an intellectual slave when you parrot the position of those most entrenched in and continually benefiting from the status quo.
keep up the campaign, fossil. yours is a 20th century solution. sorry to inform you of this, but being conservative doesn’t mean only looking backwards.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:30 pmMr. Boudreaux looks like an inbred ‘coon ass’ from LA
Although I’m from the Northeast my first career was in oil and gas and I worked in Miss, TX, OK and LA so heed my observation.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:31 pmI want to know where Idiot With A Pistol gets his numbers. I don’t believe them.
August 15th, 2006 at 8:44 pmHey, Zoo. Fighting as always. Yeah!
Comment by Juan C
I’ll leave this particular fight to you. Have fun!
August 15th, 2006 at 8:47 pmI want to know where Idiot With A Pistol gets his numbers.
Translation: I really need somebody to do the research for me. It’s much easier to call somebody an idiot than mine for data, let alone understand what it means
EPA produces a report annually, Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
August 15th, 2006 at 9:16 pm‘And just look at this car… It’s an old grandma’s car, she only drove it to church on saundays I swear. Absolutley zero impact or mileage on this beautiful car I’ll sell to you today’
August 15th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — August 15, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
Shhhhh, buddy. All countries in the world agree with Global Warming your General Motors of America dont. Go figure it out.
August 15th, 2006 at 9:21 pmThe case for neglecting Donald J. Boudreaux: he’s an idiot.
August 15th, 2006 at 9:24 pmPower-Drunk Grinch
http://athousandwordsworth.blogspot.com/2006/08/drunk-grinch.html
August 15th, 2006 at 9:26 pm#74
you know, it’s pretty small-minded to dislike an idea because of the person that advances the idea.
Don’t you think you should be lecturing your fellow Angry Liberals about smearing? With comments like these? Or is it only a smear if it’s directed at people who agree with you?
Look at this this guy’s face and eyes.
Did he take too much coke or meth or what?
What an utter and total narcissistic idiot.
By looking at his face I can see why no woman would sleep with him.
ANYONE who agrees with this nut, IS AN IDIOT!!!
What a nitwit! OK, I can understand that with a face that only a mother can love, he has no hopes of reproducing, so his oh-so-ephemeral progeny doesn’t enter into the equation.
This guy was as high as a kite when that shot was taken.
August 15th, 2006 at 9:31 pmperhaps he is crying out for help?
August 15th, 2006 at 9:48 pmperhaps someone might ignore his 911 call?
perhaps his bar tab gets picked up by the gas station across the street?
Don’t you think you should be lecturing your fellow Angry Liberals about smearing?
nope. this guy works for the cei. he’s an oil industry shill; he deserves what he gets.
and as a side note, as a generally libertarian-type, i don’t count myself as one of these “angry liberals”, but they don’t ever sound even a fraction as unhinged as the right-wing whackjobs sounded in the 90’s over a stained blue dress.
i’ve got a pretty good memory, and i study history. it’s the right-wing radicals that started this divisive culture war. the whackjobs want the rest of us to pick sides; well i have, and it ain’t ever going to be with the likes of right-wing hate-mongering, fear-goading, morality enforcers.
in christ’s name we kill,
August 15th, 2006 at 9:51 pmamen.
Not-so clever distraction, rex. If you haven’t noticed, the topic is about finding a balance between the reduction of greenhouse gases and the increased need for economic growth to sustain our way of life. But it sounds like you have some anger problems and don’t really enjoy life.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:10 pmIsn’t Boudreaux saying that the way capitalism works, we can take care of our health or we can take care of global warming, but we can’t do both? I’d say that’s a pretty damning criticism of capitalism, wouldn’t you?
August 15th, 2006 at 10:20 pmHippie with a pistol – those numbers are not an improvement. Unfortunately, the greenhouse effect does not care if the economy grew even more than atmospheric CO2 – what counts is the absolute value. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Oh, and capitalism is responsible for our health gains – how? If so, why has Cuba much stronger health gains than the US? Why is the standard of health declining in Russia and many other Eastern European countries since the fall of communism? And “we” are not made wealthier – some of us are.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:21 pmThose CEI people are the slimest people I’ve ever seen – if that’s not a sh*t-eating grin on his face, then I’ve never seen one. Who pays his salary? ExxonMobil, the banks (Barclays, State Street, Vanguard, etc.) who own ExxonMobil, the billionaires who control the banks who own ExxonMobil (they’re better at hiding from the likes of me), and oh yes – the wealthy foundations (Scaife, Mellon, Olin) who wear the billionaire’s names openly and who provide the funding for CEI and the Ameican Heritage Foundation and the George C. Marshall Insitute – and the corrupt corporate media who provides the bullhorn for the bullsh*t – which this gentleman has been eating with a big smile, and is now regurgitating on the pages of the Chicago Tripe.
Damn!
August 15th, 2006 at 10:22 pmBut it sounds like you have some anger problems and don’t really enjoy life.
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — August 15, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
Coming from a guy who posts as hippie with a pistol. Whatever.
August 15th, 2006 at 10:50 pmI hope you develop the ability to breathe all your dollars, otherwise stop supporting this stupid profit-above-all rambling.
Where is the link supporting your supposed facts Hippie with a pistol. More BS from the right. I am a hippie with a shotgun. Me and Dick will take your ass out.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:11 pmMe and Dick will take your ass out.
Comment by Left Coast Mike — August 15, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
Good one.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:30 pmThe data at this link supports Hippie’s numbers, sort of:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/emission.html
But let’s study this closer and see how a propagandist works. Look at Figure 108 and observe how CO2 emissions trend steadily upward from 1990 to 2000, at which point there is a brief decline because of the recession and 9/11. If you click the link to download data for the figure you can see things more clearly from the annual numbers. Usage peaked at 5807 in 2000, fell briefly, then resumed its climb, reaching 5919 in 2004 (these numbers are slightly different than Hippie provides, but show essentially the same trend). Now look at Figure 108 and see how the projected trend in CO2 emissions varies with a range of assumptions of economic growth. In all cases the growth of CO2 emissions is relentlessly upward. So Hippie has cherry-picked a very short time period, during which an economic anomaly occurred, to try to make his case.
August 15th, 2006 at 11:35 pmHippie with a Waterbong never gives links to his sources. Because that would mean he’d actually have to have an intelligent discussion. And that’s what he’d like to avoid, because as usual, hippie has been smoking his Birkenstocks and is a bit short of a full compliment of mental synapses…
August 15th, 2006 at 11:44 pmit sounds like you have some anger problems and don’t really enjoy life
did saying that make you feel better? it must suck getting cheap thrills by supposing that someone you don’t agree with and don’t know is unhappy. you believe whatever you want to believe, hippie. that’s modus operandi for you right-wing types anyway so i don’t expect to be able to change it.
meanwhile, i’ll be visiting new zealand, fiji and tahiti in the next two months.
*sigh* my life sure is miserable.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:26 amoh, and hippie — sorry the truth is a “distraction” to you.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:28 amNot reading again JJ? See #78
EPA produces a report annually, Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares the official U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks to comply with existing commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under decision 3/CP.5 of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, national inventories for UNFCCC Annex I parties should be provided to the UNFCCC Secretariat each year by April 15.
We’re on the mailing list. Ready for another quiz?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:48 amIn a nutshell:
1) Capitalism has destroyed the planet.
2) Who cares.
This guy chairs a Department at an accredited University? Holy crap!
August 16th, 2006 at 12:55 amI think people need to stop mindlessly worshipping capitalism. It’s not the answer to everything.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:58 amEPA produces a report annually
yes, the epa have been doing some marvelous work lately, with the help of the white house, of course. like doctoring science on the effects of mercury and omitting unfavorable information about global warming from reports.
and don’t forget it was the incredibly reliable epa that told new yorkers it was safe to go back near ground zero immediately after 9/11. now many of those first responders — the firemen, the police, the workers that helped clear the rubble — are suffering irreparable damage to their lungs that is akin to having had 10-15 years taken off of their respiratory systems. and no one knows the effects on those who live and work in manhattan and breathe the particles, that still remain, on a daily basis. there is no telling what the eventual health costs to those people and our society will be.
because they were told it was safe by the epa.
yes, the reliable and honest bush-administration epa.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:31 amwe can trust them. they issue reports.
In all cases the growth of CO2 emissions is relentlessly upward.
Along with population growth, energy consumption, land use changes and a growing economy. Very good, you’re seeing the relationship.
So Hippie has cherry-picked a very short time period, during which an economic anomaly occurred, to try to make his case.
Uh, do have detailed emission data going back farther than the 90’s or 80’s? Yes, I’m using actual data, you’re looking at projections.
BTW, EIA is projecting a 1.1% per year increase in energy consumption to 2030. The short term goal is to keep emissions at a rate close to or below that. Clean technologies are the only solution in the near term. Unless you have a silver bullet to pop. I hope it’s not something like stop mindlessly worshiping capitalism. You can find a communist country somewhere in this world if you want to live like that.
You need to read this. The harsh reality of living in a country with strongest economy in the world. You’ll be commiting suicide.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/demand.html
August 16th, 2006 at 1:34 amSmearing the EPA Annual report by bringing up unrelated issues? Hmm, I’ve heard a lecture on smearing before…
you know, it’s pretty small-minded to dislike an idea because of the person that advances the idea. you’re even more of an intellectual slave when you parrot the position of those most entrenched in and continually benefiting from the status quo.
Ah yes, that was you rex! It is much easier to smear than try to comprehend a tedious report, isn’t it?
August 16th, 2006 at 1:46 amYou know rex, the EPA accepts public comment on this report. Anyone is welcome to give their own critic of the report. They get a lot of hyperventilating and smearing comments from people like you who have never taken the time to read it. Those comments aren’t taken too seriously. You had 30 days to get it in the record, but they’ll still accept your comments.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:53 amBTW, this report is funded by the Alaska Conservation Foundation for over $1.5 million/year. They are one of those evil, untrustworthy green groups. I’m sure they are enabling the lies in this report. You’d think the report would be funded by Exxon or something. Not here, but Exxon does fund and contribute as co-author in chapters 2 and 12 of the 2001 IPCC Report. Now there’s something I’d like to hear you smear because of the IPCC’s connection to Exxon.
Ah rex, you’ve provided more evidence that on the tin foil liberal globe, perception trumps facts.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:06 amhippie,
are you actually ever going to say anything that isn’t rhetorically deceptive? how about anything that actually is relevant?
the epa has already had their say on global warming science, and they trimmed the language — and the facts — they didn’t like. it’s a matter of record, and it certainly is relevant in this case.
when you have an agency that has been proven to deceive on scientific matters on several occasions, and furthermore either knowingly or negligently has endangered the health of thousands of americans, it pretty much throws their entire credibility into doubt. i’d say it’s just too bad for you that your whole argument rests on their credibility, given the epa’s recent history.
Smearing the EPA Annual report by bringing up unrelated issues?
you’re reaching pretty far by restating my words in a completely different fashion to get them to mean what you want them to mean. but hey, what could i expect? it’s a right-wing debating tactic. when you lie, all you need is a tie.
i just have to wonder how you find providing links to proof that the epa has been doctoring science as some kind of “smear”. fyi, smearing involves sullying someone’s good reputation. in this case, the epa has done a fine enough job destroying their reputation on their own, thank you very much.
you’re grabbing at straws, hippie.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:11 am“let capitalism continue to make us healthier and wealthier”. Lol. Healthy, like too obese to take a ride on a bus?? Healthy like addicted to cigarettes, drugs, coffee, tv, internet porn, sugar and living in car fumes, near nuclear power plants? Wealthy, like 36 million Americans living in poverty? Like 45 million without social security? Hurray for capitalism! Destroying the world since the invention of the assembly line. The truth for all you non-idiots is that not capitalism but SOCIALISM accounts for most of all the world improvement we’ve seen since WWII, but that’s not what they’ll tell you on tv! Why ?? Tv is capitalist!
August 16th, 2006 at 5:51 amYep, Boudreaux looks like a Boudreaux from a south Louisisna town where there are 6ooo inhabitants and the phone book has 16 pages of “Boudreauxes”. Tell your parents they should have looked further away from the famil gene pool before having breeding-
PS- I grew up in South LA so i can say this-
OTOH, he will probably be an Cabinet level Energy or Science advisor under this Administration.
August 16th, 2006 at 7:08 amThis guy looks like Willem Dafoe with a wig and fake beard…no offense to Willem Dafoe.
August 16th, 2006 at 9:13 am“The best policy regarding global warming is to neglect it — and let capitalism continue to make us healthier and wealthier.” Translation—Killing the planet on which you live =Health & Wealth. I would give his statement a 10 on the Orwellian scale, except for Boudreaux’s ommission of “wise” from the healthy and wealthy that capitalism makes us.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:36 amI hear that his new book Get Gas : The Path to a Wholesome Life can be purchased at Exxon stations nationwide, for 25% off with each fill up. :)
I’m glad that hippie finally linked to the source of his data, because we can now have an intelligent discussion, which as I said before, would demolish his arguments.
Hippie said: EIA is projecting a 1.1% per year increase in energy consumption to 2030.
Let’s look at the raw emissions data. Because the atmosphere doesn’t care whether we’re producing droves of children. It doesn’t care how much product is coming off of factory floors. The climate doesn’t do a head count before the atmosphere heats up. It won’t go to Washington to consult the numbers coming out of the Fed.
Some may want to express climate data as having a relationship with these numbers, but this is for propaganda purposes only. The atmosphere bears no such relationship. Expressing it that way simply applies lipstick to the pig of U.S. emissions, which is on the order of a 1/4 or more of total world emissions, even though we comprise a much smaller fraction of the world’s population.
Here’s the data that produced figure 108 on the EPA Energy Outlook report:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure108_data.xls
Here’s what it says:
In 1990, we produced 4998 million metric tons of CO2.
In 2004 we produced 5919 million metric tons.
In 2030, the EPA is projecting that we will produce between 7284-8115 million metric tons.
So while the Kyoto signing world is holding to 1990 levels (which is the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world), we will be increasing our emissions by 46-62% over 1990 levels.
Is that the way the leader of the free world behaves? Where is our moral authority? (As usual lately, nowhere to be seen!!!)
I hope [your solution is] not something like stop mindlessly worshiping capitalism. You can find a communist country somewhere in this world if you want to live like that.
So your solution is to continue to worship capitalism mindlessly? That’s certainly what industry wanted us to do back when we passed the Clean Air Act. As we all know, their projections of economic doom have all come horribly true. If we’d only followed their advice and continued to worship capitalism mindlessly, we would still have all that beautiful smog for our kids to breathe in Los Angeles and elsewhere. (/sarcasm off)
August 16th, 2006 at 10:49 amPlease read an analysis of Bayer´s disinformation on climate protection at:
http://www.cbgnetwork.com/1392.html
August 16th, 2006 at 11:27 amI’m glad that hippie finally linked to the source of his data, because we can now have an intelligent discussion, which as I said before, would demolish his arguments.
I provided my source 12 hours ago. You have yet to demolish my argument.
All Annex I countries file an emissions report with the UN, and they have been for several years. You were not aware of this. If you have a problem with the EPA reports you should be specific. The public can comment on the reports. Maybe you can find such a claim in the public record. If you can prove the data is falsified, then show us the proof.
So while the Kyoto signing world is holding to 1990 levels (which is the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world), we will be increasing our emissions by 46-62% over 1990 levels.
False. Now you have a chance to prove that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Name the countires emitting greenhouse gases that are holding 1990 emission levels. It’s not an overwhelming majority.
Now name the countries that aren’t holding 1990 levels.
Name the countries that will not be required under Kyoto to be below 1990 levels.
How many countries are exempt?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:43 pmNow for extrra points JJ. You’ll need them because you failed your last quiz on fundamental concepts in climate change.
Name the Annex I countries whose greenhouse gas emissions change relative to 1990 is higher than the US’s relative change.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:57 pmFalse. Now you have a chance to prove that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
1990: 4998 million metric tons of CO2.
2030: 7284-8115 million metric tons of CO2.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure108_data.xls
It’s a 46-62% increase over 1990.
It’s called math, Hippie. You should look into it. I know they don’t pay you enough in your hack factory basement cube, but you should at least try.
As George Orwell always sez, 2 + 2 does not ever equal 5, unless you’re a propagandist.
And surprise surprise, not all countries that sign treaties keep them perfectly. But they’re complying a damn site better than we are.
Hmmm. A quarter of the world’s emissions. Less than a twentieth of its population. And if people like your bosses could call the shots we’d all keep going on our merry way. Head. Firmly. In. Sand. (That’s the polite way to put it.)
August 16th, 2006 at 1:56 pmI provided my source 12 hours ago.
There were no links until I got after you and RealScientist blew your cover.
You have yet to demolish my argument.
I think you would have a hard time finding readers who would agree with you. (You could always post comments using a sock puppet, which would be par for the course for you guys.)
August 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pmYou didn’t address the ignorance of your statement…
So while the Kyoto signing world is holding to 1990 levels (which is the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world)…
That is false. And you have isolated CO2 emissions only, excluding all other greenhouse gases. Remember methane, for example, has 35 more times global warming potential than CO2 over 20 years. Besides, the EIA projection cannot predict all factors that may influence future emissions (as is cleary stated) and the projection of emissions works out to be a little over 1%/year. Less than growth in population, energy, and GDP growth. Much better than our performance in the 90’s. You have validated my argument.
You continue to focus on a projection. My argument was about past performance based on hard data. You have yet been able to counter my argument or prove the data was falsified.
So when will you back up your claim that an overwhelming majority of the rest of the world is holding 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions (not just CO2)?
Must I list all of the countries for you that a performing worse than us since you don’t have a clue?
August 16th, 2006 at 2:33 pmThere were no links until I got after you and RealScientist blew your cover.
It took you 12 hours to figure it out and you still haven’t read it.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:35 pmIt took you 12 hours to figure it out and you still haven’t read it.
I don’t hang off your every word, hippie. I’d be a fool if I did.
And I have to work for a living. I skimmed it. Neither of us are qualified to extract more than simple facts out of that report.
It’s a pretty basic thing that if you do research, you supply references to your audience, so they can look at what you are looking at. That’s why people do footnotes–like in junior high school.
If you don’t provide references, especially in this context you tend to assume that the commenter has something to hide. And you did have something to hide, as I uncovered in my comment above. I think you were making your arguments in bad faith. You didn’t want anyone to really look at the numbers you used to make your argument.
My argument was about past performance based on hard data. You have yet been able to counter my argument or prove the data was falsified.
Well according to the data, emissions increased from 4998 to 5919 between 1990 and 2004. That’s an increase of almost a fifth. If we are generous and assume a linear increase, then it will end up just about in the lower end of the 46-62% increase I mentioned above. (I say generous because population will increase by then, and if our fossil fuel burning activities increase as well, then it will be closer to the 62% number mentioned above.)
And Realscientist is right in comment 93. 2000-2004 is not representative of our capacity to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.
You can see for yourself. The only pattern you can discern here is that you get drops in emissions whenever there’s a recession:
1991 = -43
1992 = 102
1993 = 96
1994 = 68
1995 = 50
1996 = 189
1997 = 68
1998 = 50
1999 = 44
2000 = 162
2001 = -79
2002 = 40
2003 = 49
2004 = 104
This list represents, year by year, the amount of increase in emissions in million metric tons. (From http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure108_data.xls )
There is no trend of smaller and smaller increases. It’s pretty much a steady increase, except when there’s a recession. So Realscientist is right. 2000-2004 is hardly representative of a trend. It’s your cherrypicked numbers.
There are reasons why the EPA is projecting greater increases. They’re not just pulling it out of their posteriors.
Speaking of posteriors, as far as the methane goes, we should probably cut down on that too. But we don’t produce it in the volume that we produce CO2, which is where we can make a bigger difference.
I know after this Hippie will just type “False!!” in his typical way. 2 + 2 = 5, freedom is slavery, fiction is truth and all that.
August 16th, 2006 at 4:35 pmhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHGEmissions.html
Section 2-1, Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Also read the Introduction.
We’re dealing with units TgCO2Eq.
We’re glad you’ve finally acknowledged the relationship between population, economy, energy consumption and emissions. Our rate of increase of GHP-emissions was 17% in the 90’s. Our rate so far in the 00’s is 2%. It’s pretty obvious we have reduced the rate of increase of CO2 emissions by 50% in this decade, while energy consumption has gone up. Projections show the rate of increase to at least hold steady, and even decrease over the next 2 decades. Our performance on decreasing GWP-emissions greatly exceeds many other countries who have signed on to Kyoto. Some of those countries are allowed to have increase rates greater than 5%.
You have not disproven anything I have posted.
There are reasons why the EPA is projecting greater increases. They’re not just pulling it out of their posteriors.
Right, the EIA is getting them from the annual EPA reports. You my friend, are not qualified to even be commenting on a report you have never read.
August 16th, 2006 at 5:34 pmWe’re glad you’ve finally acknowledged the relationship between population, economy, energy consumption and emissions.
I did the opposite. And who is “we”? Am I speaking to the Borg?
Numbers are numbers. Emissions volumes are emissions volumes. That’s the only thing the atmosphere cares about.
And at the hack factory, folks like you may have the time to pour over things and figure out the most misleading piece of sophistry you possibly can.
I, on the other hand, don’t care. Just like the climate doesn’t care. Emissions are emissions. We should emit less. Our children and our grandchildren will thank us for it.
And I will continue to ask my representatives in government to do something about it. No matter how much grease the fossil fuel industry squeezes into the wheels of government. No matter how many hacks it hires at its hack factories. Just like big tobacco did with the health effects of cigarettes.
This is will be my last comment on this thread.
August 16th, 2006 at 5:48 pmOn the Liberal tin foil globe, perception trumps facts.
Good luck on your next climate quiz, JJ. You’ve now failed 2, not even answering one question correctly.
August 16th, 2006 at 6:09 pmOh, you did acknowledge the relationship, carp.
(I say generous because population will increase by then, and if our fossil fuel burning activities increase as well, then it will be closer to the 62% number mentioned above.)
We’re glad you’ve finally acknowledged the relationship between population, economy, energy consumption and emissions.
I did the opposite. And who is “we� Am I speaking to the Borg?
Numbers are numbers. Emissions volumes are emissions volumes. That’s the only thing the atmosphere cares about.
“We” have defeated you again. We are geoscientists, you’re not.
August 16th, 2006 at 6:15 pm“We†have defeated you again. We are geoscientists, you’re not.
Petroleum geologists perhaps?
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/07/what_the_heck_is_wrong_with_pe.php
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
August 16th, 2006 at 6:41 pm“All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings.” Given this statement, which is wildly out of whack with scientific consensus…
The principal causes of climate change are indeed beyond the control of human beings. A consensus of climate scientists have found that to be true. Humans contribute to climate change. But we are not the principal cause.
August 16th, 2006 at 7:01 pmThe principal causes of climate change are indeed beyond the control of human beings. A consensus of climate scientists have found that to be true. Humans contribute to climate change. But we are not the principal cause.
Incredible. You sure don’t sound like a scientist. You certainly don’t sound like the National Academy of sciences:
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/1.html
August 16th, 2006 at 7:10 pmThe changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.em>
Hmm, they don’t say humans are a principal cause of climate change, do they?
And pay attention to qualifiers of uncertainty in the IPCC.
…several decades are likely mostly due…
“Likely” is a 66-90% degree of certainty, not a broad concensus. If they used “very likely” I might be a little more convinced.
NAS also points out a very important point,
The range of natural climate variability is known to be quite large (in excess of several degrees Celsius).
August 16th, 2006 at 7:32 pmYou guys sure like that uncertainty, just like those tobacco people:
http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm
And that NAS report is 5 years old.
And the studies keep coming in:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
August 16th, 2006 at 7:47 pmLet me guess. Mr Boudreaux’s favourite novel is ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
August 16th, 2006 at 8:11 pmAnd that NAS report is 5 years old.
And the studies keep coming in:
Great links to studies 10 years old, along with an article from a journalist and some ghost links, all which validate my argument. Anthropogenic sources of GHG are not the principal cause of climate chamge.
Charles D. Keeling
Although it is generally conceded that the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 0.6°C during the last century, there is little agreement on the cause of this warming. The primary cause of this disagreement is uncertainty about the relative contribution to this warming of atmospheric CO2 and changes in solar irradiance.
Trends in U.S. Climate during the Twentieth Century by Thomas R. Karl, Richard W. Knight, David R. Easterling, Robert G. Quayle
There is little doubt that the increase in the indices is at least partially related to these circulation variations, although the role of increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations in such circulation variations is poorly known. Since the indices are influenced by natural changes and variations that can either add to or subtract from any underlying long-term anthropogenic-induced change it will be important to carefully follow their behavior over the next decade to see if they sustain their incipient trends or return to previous levels.
Finally you have Mann using the past 600 years as his baseline reference, conveniently to avoid referencing the extremes in natural variability. And he uses 100 data points across the globe. Hmmm, your scale is pretty coarse wouldn’t you say Dr Mann?
When will you people stop referencing heatsonline? What’s his name Gelbman?
August 16th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAnthropogenic sources of GHG are not the principal cause of climate chamge.
Hahahaha. I think you’re going to have to make your case to the NAS and the IPCC. They’re not going to be impressed.
The latest study in that list is from last year. The rest are seminal studies whose results have been confirmed since then.
And funny you criticize me. Your own single study is 11 years old:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gcps/papers/icc.html
August 16th, 2006 at 8:41 pmTim Lambert has more on Boudreaux:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/boudreaux_do_nothing_about_glo.php
August 17th, 2006 at 10:50 amThe latest study in that list is from last year. The rest are seminal studies whose results have been confirmed since then.
Confirmed by who? Not by the IPCC.
And funny you criticize me. Your own single study is 11 years old:
I’m sourcing the 2001 IPCC report which is not 11 years old. Those were YOUR studies in the heatsonline link, which do not make the case that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the principal cause for climate change.
Your arguments aren’t even coherent. Give it up.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pmOK, now it’s been a decade since this 1995 study was done. Now the IPCC is ready to declare anthropogenic warming dead in the water, right ?
Take a look at the rest of the studies. They all point at the same thing from different sources.
I don’t know why I’m arguing with you over this. It’s not like you’re ever going to agree with me. Because then you’d be fired.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm[...] CEI Expert: The Best Policy Regarding Global Warming Is To …Think Progress, DC - Aug 15, 2006… at the Exxon-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune called The case for neglecting global warming. He argued … [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pmThat was taken from YOUR study. You claimed it supported your argument that studies have found anthropogenic emissions to be the principal cause of climate change, but it doesn’t.
Now the IPCC is ready to declare anthropogenic warming dead in the water, right ?
No, that’s not my argument. You need to provide a study that claims anthropogenic emissions are the principal cause of climate change. You have yet to do that. That’s what your arguing isn’t it? Anthropogenic emissions are contributing to climate change. To what degree the IPCC is uncertain.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pmThat was taken from YOUR study.
You picked the oldest of 9 studies on that page and nitpicked some of the language. There are 8 more recent ones.
Anthropogenic emissions are contributing to climate change. To what degree the IPCC is uncertain.
This is taken into account with the IPCC’s prediction of temperatures rising 1.4-5.8 over the next century:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm
The high end of projected temperature increases (~5.8° C by 2100) would be catastrophic: widespread drought, floods, sea-level rises, possible sudden, nonlinear changes, etc. …The low-end of changes (~1.4° C by 2100) would still bring worse storms, flood, droughts, and spread of disease, with all the effects on our economy and health that come with that.
Sounds like that’s fine with you.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:49 pmYou picked the oldest of 9 studies on that page and nitpicked some of the language. There are 8 more recent ones.
You provided those old studies, none of them claim that anthropogenic emissions are the principal cause, and neither does your BBC link.
You can continue to create these strawman arguments, but you’re getting nowhere.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:52 pmRemember, you started this debate by linking to this statement.
“All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings.†Given this statement, which is wildly out of whack with scientific consensus…
Now find a credible study that claims that anthrpogenic emissions are the principal cause of climate change.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:31 pmOK. I’ll spell it out for you, Hippie. The question is how sensitive the climate is to CO2–the degree to which it’s the efficient cause–is something studied by the IPCC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=229
I suppose you’re now going to come out with the standard-issue, cut-and-paste complaints about models dreamed up by Tech Central Station, Heritage, etc.?
But there are, reasonably speaking, no other explanations for the anamolous warming that we’ve seen other than CO2–as those studies I showed you indicate. Now, you might be able to come up with some other explanation for the warming other than CO2, but those are all far, far less robust than the case for CO2. And a hypothetical is not evidence as Dr. Naomi Oreskes points out in this LA Times piece that she did recently:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-oreskes24jul24,0,7925596.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Listen, Hippie, do you need help getting a real job? There’s a very good website out there. It crawls all the major websites like Monster, Yahoo Jobs, etc.
No, it’s really good. You should try it: http://www.indeed.com/
What’s the Monster tagline? “Never Settle.” Or this one’s good too: “Job good. Life good.” I know those taglines are from ads, but there’s some wisdom there too. You should seek real employment.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:59 pmYou have yet to prove that anthropogenic emissions are the principal cause of climate change. The IPCC does not find that anthropogenic emissions are the principal cause if climate change. I have the IPCC to support my argument. What do you have? LA Times, BBC? How about citing a study? You have yet to provide one.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:52 pmI didn’t cite a study. I cited 9 of them.
Anyone who reads the IPCC knows that it doesn’t support your position.
August 18th, 2006 at 4:52 pmThe fact that man’s emissions are not a “principal” forcing is irrelevant. Sure, other factors contribute to the climate. If natural GHG’s and other forcings did not affect the climate, the earth’s temperature would be about 54 degrees lower. What is relevant to this discussion is the effect that man’s emissions have on the current balance, a balance which dictates seasons, sea levels, and all the environment all living creatures are adapted to live in. Because most scientists agree that doubling the concentration of pre-industrial CO2 levels in the air will lead to 1.5-5 degree C increase in temperature, the issue becomes our need to prevent such an increase. The idea that anthropogenic causes aren’t the primary factor in the recent warming is ludicrous.
August 18th, 2006 at 4:59 pmThe fact that man’s emissions are not a “principal†forcing is irrelevant.
Ezra is aguing that anthropogenic emissions are the principal cause for climate change. And now Setternbrini is, too, but nowhere in the IPCC will you see anthropogenic emissions described as the principal cause of climate change.
Some key points in Chapter 12,
Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.
Uncertainties in the estimated climate change signals have made it difficult to attribute the observed climate change to one specific combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.
The response to anthropogenic changes in climate forcing occurs against a backdrop of natural internal and externally forced climate variability that can occur on similar temporal and spatial scales. Internal climate variability, by which we mean climate variability not forced by external agents, occurs on all time-scales from weeks to centuries and millennia. Slow climate components, such as the ocean, have particularly important roles on decadal and century time-scales because they integrate highfrequency weather variability (Hasselmann, 1976) and interact with faster components. Thus the climate is capable of producing long time-scale internal variations of considerable magnitude without any external influences. Externally forced climate variations may be due to changes in natural forcing factors, such as solar radiation or volcanic aerosols, or to changes in anthropogenic forcing factors, such as increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases or sulphate aerosols.
The presence of this natural climate variability means that the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change is a statistical “signal-in-noise†problem. Detection is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) than can be explained by natural internal variability. However, the detection of a change in climate does not necessarily imply that its causes are understood. As noted in the SAR, the unequivocal attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes (i.e., the isolation of cause and effect) would require controlled experimentation with the climate system in which the hypothesised agents of change are systematically varied in order to determine the climate’s sensitivity to these agents. Such an approach to attribution is clearly not possible.
August 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pmThe idea that anthropogenic causes aren’t the primary factor in the recent warming is ludicrous.
Hmm, The IPCC doesn’t agree.
Chapter 1, The Climate System: An Overview:
Climate is determined by the atmospheric circulation and by its interactions with the largescale ocean currents and the land with its features such as albedo, vegetation and soil moisture. The climate of the Earth as a whole depends on factors that influence the radiative balance, such as for example, the atmospheric composition, solar radiation or volcanic eruptions. To understand the climate of our planet Earth and its variations and to understand and possibly predict the changes of the climate brought about by human activities, one cannot ignore any of these many factors and components that determine the climate.
August 18th, 2006 at 7:10 pmThe idea that anthropogenic causes aren’t the primary factor in the recent warming is ludicrous.
Chapter 1 continues…principal cause, primary factor or essential role? Looks like TP libs are ignorant or at least exaggerating the facts.
The atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing part of the system. Its composition, which has changed with the evolution of the Earth, is of central importance to the problem assessed in this Report. The Earth’s dry atmosphere is composed mainly of nitrogen (N2, 78.1% volume mixing ratio), oxygen (O2, 20.9% volume mixing ratio, and argon (Ar, 0.93% volume mixing ratio). These gases have only limited interaction with the incoming solar radiation and they do not interact with the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth. However there are a number of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), which do absorb and emit infrared radiation. These so called greenhouse gases, with a total volume mixing ratio in dry air of less than 0.1% by volume, play an essential role in the Earth’s energy budget
August 18th, 2006 at 7:18 pmHippie won’t post links to his quotes and with good reason — it would allow the reader to see how he manipulates qualifying statements by passing them off as conclusions. Here are the concluding statements from Chapter 12, which Hippie used as evidence for his increasingly obsolete argument.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm
(warming inconsistent with natural causes; 20th century warming unusual; GHG’s best explanation)
Here are the ultimate conclusions of the report, which go against everything Hippie says the report stands for: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
The SAR concluded: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climateâ€. That report also noted that the anthropogenic signal was still emerging from the background of natural climate variability. Since the SAR, progress has been made in reducing uncertainty, particularly with respect to distinguishing and quantifying the magnitude of responses to different external influences. Although many of the sources of uncertainty identified in the SAR still remain to some degree, new evidence and improved understanding support an updated conclusion.
* There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely7 to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years (Figure 1b) also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely7 to be entirely natural in origin.
* There are new estimates of the climate response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, and new detection techniques have been applied. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years.
* Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone (i.e., the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century (see for example Figure 4a). However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century.
* The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance). The anthropogenic sulphate aerosol forcing, while uncertain, is negative over this period and therefore cannot explain the warming. Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely7 to explain the warming.
* Detection and attribution studies comparing model simulated changes with the observed record can now take into account uncertainty in the magnitude of modelled response to external forcing, in particular that due to uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
* Most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. Furthermore, most model estimates that take into account both greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols are consistent with observations over this period.
* The best agreement between model simulations and observations over the last 140 years has been found when all the above anthropogenic and natural forcing factors are combined, as shown in Figure 4c). . These results show that the forcings included are sufficient to explain the observed changes, but do not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also have contributed.
In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely7 to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
IPCC: Climate Change 2001
Summary for Policymakers
Looks like TP trolls are ignorant at best, wilfully misleading for their own, inexplicably twisted reasons at worst.
August 20th, 2006 at 3:14 pmThat’s great, but all those excerpts do not tell us that anthropogenic emissions are the principal or primary factor in climate change. “Essential role” is not principal or primary factor.
You would think that referencing Chapter 1 and Chapter 12 clearly in my posts would be good enough for someone who is familiar with the report. I didn’t get my information from a link. I got it from reading the hard copy report.
The sections I cited speak specifically to the role of anthropogenic emissions in the global climate balance. Besides, you don’t even understand how your cited sections support my argument.
For example,
Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years.
Does not describe anthropogenic emissions as the primary factor.
Nowhere in the report is there anything that describes anthropogenic emissions as the primary factor in climate change. You obvioulsy to not understand the difference between detection and attribution.
However, the detection of a change in climate does not necessarily imply that its causes are understood.
August 20th, 2006 at 6:33 pmYou’ve found sections that discuss anthropopgenic emssions as having an essential role in the climate balance (supports my argument), but have not found any that describe anthropopgenic emssions as being the primary factor.
You, my friend, need to read Chaptor 1. Then tell us what radiative force is the primary factor in climate change. It’s so obvious it’s ridiculous. If you had taken a lower division college section on climate you wouldn’t even have the read Chaptor 1 to know the answer.
Then tell us why the IPCC explains why natural forcing factors cannot be excluded from explaining climate change. (hint: what radiative forcings also play an essential role in climate, then tell us which one’s climate scientists have a poor understanding of).
And while you’re at it. Do you understand the high degree of uncertainty in a statement that uses the qualifiers “likely” and “unlikely” in a statement from the IPCC report? It’s not enough certainty to use as a basis for cognitive reasoning. It’s amazing you would even use such statements to support your argument.
Who’s ignorant?
August 20th, 2006 at 7:05 pmYEAH, BECAUSE WEALTH IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!! *Frustrated!*
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:04 pmJust look at that photo of Boudreaux! Remember the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words”? His oddball, wacky, crazed glare speaks louder than his commentary. Give the guy a lollipop and send him home, he’s hopelessly, orgasmicly, contrived by oil money. Folks tell your kids the science is real, write to your Congress (person) and tell them to legislate the “addiction†from our bodies. It is time to purge the planet off oil, I’ll take clean air, fresh water, and green fields over dirty crude any time. Let’s find a better way to make energy.
December 23rd, 2006 at 2:31 am