90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Antarctic Melt And Calls For Action

With new research showing that a 10-foot rise in oceans may be unstoppable, we hear a strong call for a carbon tax to take on global warming.

This undated handout photo provided by NASA shows the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctic. Two new studies indicate that part of the huge West Antarctic ice sheet is starting a slow collapse in an unstoppable way. Alarmed scientists say that means even more sea level rise than they figured. (AP)

This undated handout photo provided by NASA shows the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctic. Two new studies indicate that part of the huge West Antarctic ice sheet is starting a slow collapse in an unstoppable way. Alarmed scientists say that means even more sea level rise than they figured. (AP)

The latest news from Antarctica is deeply sobering, and will be for a long time.  A great ice sheet there, melting.  That melt, unstoppable.  Painful sea rise will follow.  Climate change is deeply implicated.  And there are more dominoes poised to fall.  More glaciers and ice sheets poised to melt on a warming planet.  Climate scientist James Hansen says if we ever needed an urgent prompt to action, this is it.  He wants a carbon tax, that would kick up the price of fossil fuels, discourage their use, encourage alternatives.  This hour On Point:  a hellish melt, and the fresh call for a carbon tax.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Ian Joughin, professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory.

James Hansen, professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Former director of the NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies.

Frank Ackerman, senior economist at Synapse Energy Economics. Lecturer on environmental policy at MIT. Author of “Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing,” “Poisoned For Pennies: The Economics of Toxics and Precaution” and “Can We Afford the Future? Economics for a Warming World.”

Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

From Tom’s Reading List

Science: Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica – “Resting atop a deep marine basin, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has long been considered prone to instability. Using a numerical model, we investigated the sensitivity of Thwaites Glacier to ocean melt and whether its unstable retreat is already under way. Our model reproduces observed losses when forced with ocean melt comparable to estimates.”

New York Times: The Myriad Benefits of a Carbon Tax — “Yet one of the best ideas for advancing all of those goals – and also heading off catastrophic climate change — isn’t even on the table. I refer to a carbon tax, which would impose a price on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”

The Economist: Do economists all favour a carbon tax? — “arbon emissions represent a negative externality. When an individual takes an economic action with some fossil-fuel energy content—whether running a petrol-powered lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying bunch of grapes—that person balances their personal benefits against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the climate change resulting from the carbon content of that decisions, however, is effectively zero and is rationally ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when aggregated over the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures.”

Jill Abramson Speaks To Wake Forest University Grads: “I’m In The Same Boat As Many Of You”

Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the New York Times.

Transcript Of Abramson’s Speech

 

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Larry

    Every day that goes by without a carbon tax bill being proposed in Congress or the Senate, amounts to yet another obscene gesture to the world in an ongoing pathetic cowardice atrocity. How can you sit there with the power and influence to do something…and not? Oddly enough, so-called Conservatives oppose the carbon tax the most vehemently, when, in fact, a carbon tax is basically a Conservative idea 1) in terms of personal responsibility, i.e. every one pays to dump their own trash instead of just dumping it in the Commons and letting everyone else pay your way, and 2) in terms of free markets: the idea that the market will make the necessary adjustments to make things right in the world – and free markets only work when the full cost is charged to the consumer, otherwise it’s a subsidization scheme. Go ahead and debate the dollar amount, but get it in place now. It’s either that or rationing or instability, displacement, and starvation. I’d be willing to talk about rationing.

    • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

      I think the principle the republicans are arguing against is the “tax” part. If you want to back republicans into a corner, you have to make it a fine rather than a tax.

      Something like, if firms don’t pony up and charge the full disposal and sustainability “costs” at the time of sale, and PAY for those services, rather than externalizing those costs, then there will be substantial fines.

      (WBUR, Thanks for respecting my free speech rather than censoring me the way NPR does.)

    • William

      If the full cost of a product such as wind or solar power is charged to the consumer it would become too expensive. Already solar and wind power demanded and received a 30 year waiver to kill as many birds as they want which is counter productive when it comes to protecting the wildlife. In respect to personal responsibility millions of Americans reject that idea and demand that someone else take care of them and their basic needs.

      • Don_B1

        Fossil fuels are STILL getting subsidies and have received subsidies for around a hundred years, for a total much more than the sustainable sources have so far. And that is just counting the direct tax credits/reductions, not including the costs to the health of people who breath gasoline vapors (tetraethyl lead in the past, benzene, etc.) to suffer from lead deposits in the ground (mostly poor inner-city areas) and arsenic and mercury from power plant products of coal combustion, which so many innocent citizens suffer from without any compensation from the users of the energy produced.

        There is no question that sustainable fuels will replace fossil fuels, but need a growth in scale which will do much to make that cost reduction possible.

        Subsidies to sustainable fuels are relatively small compared to the uncompensated negative externalities (costs recognized by Adam Smith in his The Wealth of Nations) and they will shorten the time for this to happen, and at an overall lower cost to everyone over the transition time.

        • William

          We can’t destroy millions of birds in pursuit of energy that will not be 24/7. We have to put our efforts into energy sources that are 24/7 and affordable. Green energy is receiving the lion’s share of taxpayer funding and should be getting a get out of jail free card to kill millions of birds.

          • Ray in VT

            And just look at how much money the window lobby must be pumping into the system. Nobody talks about the genocide that they are supporting.

          • TFRX

            Prove any of your crap.

          • Don_B1

            There is no indication that the number of birds even approaches the numbers you imply, and I do assume you are projecting numbers based on some projected number of concentrated solar power plants, like the one in the Mojave Desert described in your linked article.

            Most such plants can be sited away from bird flyways and ways will be found to distract most birds from the plant sites, just as work is being done to find ways to lower the number of birds killed when flying into windows.

            Why don’t you dig up the statistics for the number of birds killed by leaking oil from pipelines and, of course, the BP Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout, which is still killing birds and ocean life. I am sure that you will find the numbers in the millions from those fossil fuel sources.

      • TFRX

        In Williamworld the extractive energies cost the user what they cost the rest of us.

        Williamworld is not in Cancer Alley or a brownfield or downhill from a coal mine slagheap.

        • William

          You have a unique ability to say nothing on a weekly basis.

          • TFRX

            Weekly? You really need to leave your bubble more often.

            Again, in your fantasy world none of the Randians live downhill from a slagheap. Funny, funny place you’re in.

      • AnneDH

        How does solar kill birds?
        Oh- they’re hitting the panels installed on the fields, not the ones on rooftops?

        • William
        • Don_B1

          William’s link applies to Concentrated Solar (CSP), not PhotoVoltaic (PV) solar power, though the Israelis have developed a small-scale combined heat and PV system for which his link also would not apply.

          But biologists have shown that radio waves interfere with bird navigation and perhaps a type of radio broadcast could keep birds away from CSP plants, and whatever methods that come out of the recently announced attempt to reduce the number of birds killed by flying into windows might apply for CSP also.

          William is the supreme alarmist when it comes to anything that might reduce the production of power from fossil fuels. Much more an alarmist than any climate scientist about the real threats from CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

          • AnneDH

            Thanks

      • Don_B1

        The number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by the number killed when they fly into large glass windows of commercial buildings.

        But the numbers that were killed in the early phases of installed wind power have been greatly reduced by a number of changes, from locations away from fly routes to colors, etc., which will probably be improved further in the future.

        • William

          Then why did the solar and wind industry demand a 30 year wavier?

          • Don_B1

            To avoid specious harassing lawsuits.

      • hennorama

        William — a bit of perspective for you, sir, from bloomberg.com last December:

        The U.S. Interior Department loosened restrictions designed to reduce the threat from wind farms that annually kill dozens of federally protected eagles.

        That’s a small figure compared to the hundreds of millions of birds killed every year by cats, cars and mobile-phone towers. Wind farms killed about 573,000 birds in the U.S. last year, according to the Wildlife Society.

        “In 2002, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that communication towers kill 4 million to 5 million per year, cars kill roughly 60 million, cats kill hundreds of millions,” Amy Grace, a wind industry analyst for Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said today in by e-mail.

        Almost 1 billion are killed annually from flying into windows, and “no one is protesting about bird deaths outside your new home,” she said.

        Source:
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/u-s-eases-turbine-bird-death-rule-as-cats-kill-millions.html

        AND

        America’s cats, including housecats that adventure outdoors and feral cats, kill between 1.3 billion and 4.0 billion birds in a year, says Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Washington, D.C., who led the team that performed the analysis. Previous estimates of bird kills have varied, he says, but “500 million is a number that has been thrown around a lot.”

        Source:
        https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billion-birds-each-year

      • Larry

        If the full cost of fossil fuels were charged to the consumer it would be far more expensive than the full cost of solar and wind.

  • X Y & Z

    Carbon taxes, like Obamacare, are job-killers.

    • Human2013

      There is no such thing as a Job-killer. A tax has never stopped a corporation from growing…never. Tax or no tax, they’re already trying to do without human hands.

      • X Y & Z
        • Don_B1

          Since the larger corporations generally pay at lower tax rates (through loopholes; e.g., GE has paid zero income tax for years) than small businesses, maybe the corporate tax rates should be progressive, based on the size of the company.

          This would have the additional benefit of inhibiting corporate mergers which tend to create monopolies.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Remember the ’90s yacht luxury tax? Not only did it kill good jobs, it killed an entire industry.

        • X Y & Z

          Excellent point WFTC. Job-killing legislation is what liberalism provides in great abundance.

          • Ray in VT

            Versus conservative legislation, which just kills. In addition to giving workers the right to work for less, it also gives them the right to work in jobs that become more dangerous.

    • Ray in VT

      Have some evidence that the ACA is noticeably, measurably or significantly affecting employment?

      • X Y & Z

        0.1% economic growth for Q1, 2014.

        • Ray in VT

          That is not evidence. A variety of factors affect those numbers. I am wearing a black shirt today, and it is sunny, ergo my black shirt made it sunny.

          • Shag_Wevera

            Could you wear your black shirt next Monday? I’m doing yard work that day.

          • Ray in VT

            I’ll see what I can do, unless Obama stops me.

          • X Y & Z

            New IRS rule: Businesses are not allowed to say that they laid off employees because of Obamacare
            http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/76536479555/new-irs-rule-businesses-are-not-allowed-to-say-that

          • Ray in VT

            Also not evidence.

          • X Y & Z

            Ignoring the facts and data is nothing new for you.

          • Ray in VT

            Making claims that one thing is something totally different is nothing new for you.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Winter weather had something to do with it, I think. And tornadoes, floods, fires, and droughts don’t help, either.

          • X Y & Z

            Excuses, excuses, excuses, blaming the terrible (non-existent) economic growth numbers on the weather, has really gotten old. In addition, that lame excuse is not valid.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The winter weather stops all sorts of economic activity. And rebuilding entire towns and cities requires lot of remedial spending, so that also depresses economic “growth”.

            And, actually the ACA has improved the economy, and it will continue to do so. It would be even better if the 19 or so states that have so far refused to take part in the Medicaid expansion, because millions more people would have healthcare.

            A healthier population means the economy improves.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I know many folks who lost their jobs directly because of the Obamacare medical device tax on gross revenues.

        • Ray in VT

          I know several people who didn’t used to have jobs but who now do, ergo unemployment isn’t really a thing anymore, right?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Huh? They were directly told why they were losing their jobs. The business reacted to the environment.

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, and my anecdote proves that unemployment has gone away.

          • Don_B1

            haven’t you heard of employers who have attributed a downsizing to something they hate when the real reason was entirely different?

            Like the CEO of AOL who had to beat back the revulsion his attribution of changes in the pension funding due to health care changes when he could not justify it from the direct costs?

            There is a whole cottage industry of making up illogical arguments to blame everything on healthcare costs, which have been going up by nearly 10% a year for well over a decade, and now, with the PPACA just coming into effect, the premium increases on average are going up but at a much lower rate, with future even slower growth in sight.

          • TFRX

            Can I interest you in a wager where you pick the red queen out of a group of three cards facedown?

            I mean, Ray in VT has won it several hands in a row, so you’re bound to make money.

            Because it’s obvious you’ll believe anything.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Heads I win; tails you lose.

        • TFRX

          Submitted without comment.

      • HonestDebate1

        How is it possible for it not to kill jobs? It has to.

        • Ray in VT

          Sure, if one believes that it does, but beliefs and claims that it “has to” does not mean that it is having any sort of measurable or significant impact upon employment.

          • HonestDebate1

            It punishes employers with too many employees working too many hours. The regulations and compliance costs are onerous. It it the worst kind of dynamic we could possibly have at a time like this. It kills jobs.

          • Ray in VT

            Please provide something other than anecdotal evidence to support your position.

            Remember your hilarious layoff postings following the 2012 election, as you struggled to present some sort of economic apocalypse? Employment still increased that month. Lesson: reading too much into individual events or stories distorts the broader picture, but distortion seems to often be one of your main goals.

          • HonestDebate1

            What part of 0% GDP six years in, while the LFPR is at a 40 year low, don’t you get?

          • Ray in VT

            That would be the part where the first dropping that you have given is just not true, and the second has been declining, due to a number of factors for a decade or more. It’s easier for some, though, to just claim it and blame Obama. It takes less thinking, so it works for some.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree it takes a whole lot of thinking, defending, projecting and ignoring to not blame Obama.

          • Don_B1

            You just aren’t willing to make the effort because it would crumble the whole edifice of your idolatry of oligarchy.

          • Ray in VT

            You misplaced the not, as in “it takes a whole lot of not thinking, defending, projecting and ignoring to blame Obama.”
            He is super powerful, though, which is how he started causing the LFPR to decline over a decade ago. Truly a man who can do anything. I wonder which EO he used to do that 10 years ago.

          • HonestDebate1

            Jeez Ray, take yes for an answer. I’m agreeing with you. It’s easy to blame Obama,

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, it is easy for the low thinking crowd to blame him for things that started years before he became President.

          • HonestDebate1

            Exactly!

          • Don_B1

            As usual you are mixing apples and oranges and you have shown an incredible lack of ability to absorb the information showing you that or to come up with any argument that defends your false claims.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — thanks for the reminder. That flailing display was pretty funny.

          • Ray in VT

            One of the most amusing things that I’ve seen on here, aside from un/inalienable and New Century Foundation race and crime “research”.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — amusingly, my original reply is “waiting to be approved by On Point,” due to political prognosticator Richard Morris’ nickname.

            I keep forgetting that I should simply substitute, and call him “Cock” Morris, because that passes the censorship algorithm.

    • TFRX

      You forgot “drones”, ass.

      • X Y & Z

        You’re proud of the fact that President Obama’s drone attacks are estimated to have killed 2,400 people, many of them women and children?

        Obama has no clue about running an economy, but he sure knows how to order drone attacks.

        That’s the kind of ‘change’ America and the world can do without.

        • TFRX

          Just can’t leave the bait alone, hm?

          Sometimes less is more. Each one of your posts is more convincing than the next.

          • X Y & Z

            It’s clear that you would very much like to sweep the 2,400 estimated deaths attributed to Obama’s drone attacks under the rug.

            Sorry, that’s not going to happen, Obama will have his day in court.

          • TFRX

            Here’s some more rope, pal. You’re really undistinguishing yerself.

          • X Y & Z

            Keep defending the incompetent and failed occupant in the White House,

            it saves you from having to think independently, which is clearly a serious problem for you.

    • hennorama

      X Y & Z — please explain how “Obamacare is a job-killer” if there were 4.0 million job openings as of March 31, 2014.

      Assuming you can, of course.

      Don’t worry — no one will interrupt normal respiration waiting for your response.

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    A carbon tax will be nothing more than another way that big government can intrude even further into our lives. The politicians and lobbyists will drool over the amount of new money that will be in play for funding pet pork barrel projects in the name of “saving the environment” that have nothing whatsoever to do with reversing supposed man-made global warming. It will be similar to the mammoth farm bill, which had billions and billions of spending that has nothing to do with farming, or misuse of the cigarette tax on all kinds of other programs instead of reducing the number of people who smoke. It will be pure “politics as usual”, with all of the liberal players patting themselves on the back when they should instead be kicking each other in the kiester.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      So we multiply like mindless yeast cells until we drown in own effluence? Funny that you seem to blame big government and liberals (lobbyists, politicians and voters) for all the failures that you cite. I suggest that you stop listening to Faux News and the ever vitriolic Rush perhaps your anxiety levels will drop to the point where you can employ reason and have an open dialogue rather than merely spout the neocon zeitgeist you’ve been programmed to parrot.

    • Ray in VT

      Surely the free market or the churches will take care of this all, if this is a real problem, as those librul scientists claim.

    • Don_B1

      How about the billions of dollars of damage that Mother Nature is inflicting on us because we insist on putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. How different to the bottom line is that cost than a tax?

      And the tax can be spent on something useful while the money spent on damage reconstruction is much less useful for the future, at least in most cases.

  • Markus6

    I buy that climate change is real and largely man-made. I also think there’s a massive amount of hype, money and emotional muscle behind amping up the climate change frenzy. One problem is that these programs give no realistic solution. From what I hear, even with the most aggressive carbon reductions possible, the ice sheet will still melt. BTW, I’ve also noted that you never ever see in the text under the graphics or the headlines that it won’t be for hundreds of years. That’s the hype machine. Nevertheless, it’s still a disaster.

    My theory is that after hearing years of how bad it will get with no real solution, a lot of people have become either fatalistic (it’s in the hands of god), or conspiratorial (it’s the government after my money), or resigned to simply hoping it won’t happen in their lifetime.

    Frankly, I’ve given up on these shows and am waiting for some that will show steps to solving this problem that have a chance at succeeding.

    • Don_B1

      While you have evidently been able to see through much of the propaganda fog put out by the deniers, there are some aspects that have not been seen clearly.

      The news that the West Antarctic ice sheet is almost certainly going to slide into the ocean does not mean that the worst possible effects of climate change will inevitably happen.

      To start on the road to appreciate this, try reading:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/preventing-global-warming-is-the-cheap-option.html

      and then search for other posts on that website that also deal with that aspect.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Even if it is true, I don’t think we are ready or able to do anything yet. In America, our pants will literally have to be on fire before we will act. Even than there will be those who deny our involvement.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Today’s onpoint use the Rahm Emanuel credo: never let a good crisis go to waste.

    Never mind that a US CO2 tax will have little impact on sea level rise.

    Never mind that the actual science in the two antarctic sea ice studies has been widely misreported.

    • Don_B1

      No to mention the conservatives use of the financial crisis and the Great Recession to try to diminish and even end much of the social safety net.

  • HonestDebate1

    Geesh!

  • wauch

    The perfect analogy is comparing the ability of a tanker ship to turn versus a cigar boat. Nice to see conservative states pushing back against science curriculum even when a preponderance of the science teachers in those states are pushing for more rigor. Everyone can have their own opinions but no one can have their own facts. This country – a tanker ship in this analogy – is being steered by the likes of Titanic Captain Edward Smith. Luckily there won’t be any icebergs left to crash into. However, we sure will run out of fuel in the middle of the ocean which ain’t much better.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/us/science-standards-divide-a-state-built-on-coal-and-oil.html?_r=0

    • Don_B1

      There is no need to “run out of fuel” if the proper development takes place so that as CO2 emission sources of fuel are replaced by even better sustainable sources.

      But making those sustainable sources available is the latest full-court press from the Koch brothers and their helpers in ALEC.

      • TFRX

        The first rule about ALEC is not to say ALEC.

        PS I hope Don isn’t the name your business associates call you. It might not be good for the GDP of your family if people knew you didn’t like ALEC. There’s a reason I don’t use my name here.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Under what circumstances would conservatives admit that climate change is occurring and human activity is at least significantly responsible for it? What would have to happen?

    • Ray in VT

      The ghost of Ayn Rand would have to appear and tell them.

    • Coastghost

      No special circumstances required: I’m regularly treated as a conservative for sound reasons, yet I concede that Technogenic Climate Change has been unleashed, to the extent that I wonder why our public broadcasters continue to consume resources avidly in order to continue braying and bleating about Technogenic Climate Change.
      Perhaps an apt question would be: under what circumstances would left liberal progressive broadcast outlets concede that Technogenic Climate Change poses enough of a threat to require consideration of cutting back significantly on their broadcast and programming schedules? (See, Ray: no ghost required.)

      • Ray in VT

        As soon as the conservatives reduce our technological levels to those that line up with their outdated social and economic policies. Just think how much we could reduce emissions if we lined our lifestyles with the 1950s social policies or pre-1929 economic policies. Think how many millions of cars we could get off of the road.

        • Coastghost

          I’m enough of a conservative to welcome a return of equine culture: at least a horse can compensate for an idiot rider’s wireless phone use.

          • Ray in VT

            Feel free to do so, then. The Amish make it work.

          • jefe68

            The Amish charge their phones outside their homes. It’s very interesting how they use some technology and not others.

          • Ray in VT

            There is a lot of variation from church to church, at least so I understand. I find the reasoning to be quite interesting.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Yes. .8C of ‘global’ surface temperature warming since 1880. .4C before 1950 and .4C after. Burning fossil fuel has increased atmospheric CO2 levels ( mostly after 1950). So yes a warming trend. Actually a warming trend since the end of the little ice age.

      However, how much of this warming trend is due to the increased CO2? (some of the CO2 is certainly a result of the warming). That is an open question. And given the unpredicted hiatus in warming over the last 15 years despite large increases in CO2; the scientists are starting to relook at the importance of natural variability and other climate systems.

      • Ray in VT

        There was a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 prior to 1950, and yes, scientists are looking at other factors in the climate system, such as ocean heating. For instance, take the supposed “stadium wave”, which is claimed to be funneling heat down. Such factors may have an impact, but cannot absorb heat indefinitely.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          My take: when the “settled science” crowd realized the science wasn’t settled they desperately went in a search of the “missing heat”. Some found it hidden deep in the oceans even though there has inexplicably been a slowing of sea level rise (defying the laws of physics) and no measurement by ARGO. My sense is they are desperate and grasping.

          Time will tell. Science will eventually win.

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, your take is well known. The desperation seems to me to be coming from those who need to claim conspiracies and oppression because their views, which aren’t convincing scientists who study such things, don’t get treated equally in the public debate.

            Time will tell, and science will eventually win, but until then one must endure claims by Internet “experts” that groups like NOAA doesn’t know how to site and read it own data and the like.

          • Don_B1

            The broad outlines of human-caused climate change are settled.

            Do not confuse the details, of which there are uncertainties, just like in all science, but which will not change the general picture.

      • Don_B1

        The increase of CO2 due to the warming caused by the human activity-generated increase in CO2, which is also acerbated by the methane releases from increased farming (cows and fertilizers) and, mostly in the future, from tundra and Arctic Ocean bottom, would not have happened without that initial CO2 formation, so it all redounds to human activity.

    • John Cedar

      I typically hear conservatives agree that the climate is changing, just as it has always changed.

      They don’t seem to believe that the “scientist” know how much or how fast it is changing.

      They don’t seem to believe that CO2 emitted from man’s activities is the dominate cause of climate change.

      I’m not sure who to believe. The people who whine about climate change the loudest, are wrong about virtually every other issue. It is a pretty safe bet if the NYT’s says something is so…it isn’t so.

      I am confident we cannot reverse climate change, even if man caused some of it. I will embrace it. Canada and Russia would be nice places if they were 10 degrees warmer. Climate change will take much longer to destroy the earth than liberalism will. Look at what liberals did to Detroit in just a few short decades.

      • Don_B1

        From someone who is wrong about most issues other than how to run his own business, which unfortunately often does not qualify one on much else, why would anyone accept your judgment on a subject where you disagree with people who have spent years studying it and probably know more about the climate than you know about your business?

        • John Cedar

          Because I am a jenius.

          • Steve__T

            More like a narcissistic nucken fut.

          • jefe68

            Don’t feed the troll.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    US CO2 emissions fall to a 18 year low.

    China has 2x the CO2 emissions of the US and is responsible for 85% of the growth in emissions (new coal plant each and every week).

    What is the purpose of a unilateral carbon tax?

    • OnPointComments

      For those in Washington, the solution to every problem is a tax.

      • X Y & Z

        Spending other people’s money and wrecking an economy is what liberals do best.

        Just look at bankrupt Detroit.

    • Don_B1

      If the U.S. can show that it has the resolve to take positive steps to reduce CO2 emissions, it will have the support of most of the rest of the world, including China, which actually has more to lose from ACC than the U.S.

      Also, note that China is already doing more to put itself in a position to cut CO2 emissions that the U.S. is doing. It is only the delicate balance between growth and available technology that has kept China from using more sustainable fuels, but that is changing fast. China just set a goal of tripling its current use of solar for energy before 2020 (I think the year is actually sooner but I cannot find the link right this instant).

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        China has big issues. Despite their ‘solar’ goals and aggressive push into nuclear they are still building a huge coal plant each and every week.

        • Don_B1

          But the rate of building coal plants has not increased and is about to go down.

          If you refuse to see the glass as half full and only as empty, I guess I can’t change that, even if there is no justification for your view.

  • Ed75

    What can we do?

    • HonestDebate1

      Take solace Ed. Deep in the worried souls of the weather denying alarmist, they all say a secret prayer for the polar bears and the rainbows. They’re really freaked. When even those who are steeped in the atheistic belief in nothing feel compelled to cover the spiritual bases with prayer (they’d deny it but …) then that makes them ripe for a carbon tax. So there’s your answer: a carbon tax.

      • Ed75

        Yes, a carbon tax. I just wonder if it’s not too late, if it will make a difference?

        • HonestDebate1

          It’s never too late precisely because it won’t make a difference.

          • Ed75

            I’m confused.

          • HonestDebate1

            Me too.

          • Ed75

            Funny, though.

    • X Y & Z

      Learn to live in a mud hut like Obama’s half brother in Kenya.

      Just think of all the money he’s saving on electricity by not having a refrigerator, computer, washing machine, dryer, electric stove, hot water heater, and A/C.

      Remember Ed, it’s all for the environment.

      • Ed75

        Ouch. Look for the D’Souza movie ‘America’ this summer, I saw President O.’s brother in D’Souza’s first movie.

        • X Y & Z

          I’m looking forward to seeing the movie. I hope the movie includes a grand tour of the mud hut.

        • Don_B1

          If you continue to follow these no-nothings, you will get what you deserve for your ignorance.

          For those who want to actually do something positive, try:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/preventing-global-warming-is-the-cheap-option.html

          and join or start a group in your community to promote making these types of choices.

        • TFRX

          Dinesh D’Souza?

          Wow. Talk about hitching your wagon to a falling star. He caught a break when that latest suit against him was thrown out, but he’s had a bad few years of his own making.

  • Coastghost

    When DO public broadcasters intend (they DO intend, correct?) to reduce their power consumption and the power consumption required for tuning in to broadcasts, podcasts, videos, et cetera? Or is the credibility of public broadcasters enhanced as they stuff their 24/7/365 schedules with more dire and portentous reports about the coming threats posed by Technogenic Climate Change?

    • Ray in VT

      When you halt this tired line, my connections say that they’ll power down a station somewhere.

      • Coastghost

        Talking incessantly about Technogenic Climate Change will NOT in itself avert the onset or relieve the aggravation of Technogenic Climate Change, Ray.

        • Ray in VT

          Making people aware of the situation and presenting ideas and options for addressing it by talking about it may.

          • Coastghost

            After twenty+ years, I’d say the time has passed to begin simply pulling plugs: we understand the threat by now or we don’t, or will we have to entertain another twenty, thirty, or forty years of alerts?

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, of course. Doing nothing always works. If you are sick of the alerts, then you could always stop listening.

          • Coastghost

            I’m almost willing to defer to your judgment, Ray, you have arguably more experience as a methane producer than I’ll ever have, even with my appreciation for broccoli.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t know, your ability to produce large amounts of hot air never ceases to amaze me, and I don’t think that I am particularly gassy.

    • Don_B1

      There is already a great deal of effort going on to lower the energy wasted by “vampire” devices which use power while waiting for the remote to send the signal to turn on full power.

      But it was disappointing to learn that many of the new “game playing” machines were not following that trend toward using less energy.

  • Matt MC

    A lot of politicians on both sides talk about robbing the future to pay for the present. We need good jobs and economic growth to pay down our deficits. That’s paying for the future by investing in our present. We need to create new technologies to reduce and eventually remove all carbon emissions. New technologies means new jobs and more growth. That’s paying for our future by investing in our present.

    • Don_B1

      Actually there is a lot of current technology which will allow great reductions in carbon emissions, and actually building some of it will speed the improvements that always come from doing it and seeing where the technology can then be improved.

  • X Y & Z

    I hope that there is a vote on implementing carbon taxes in Congress before the November elections. Any member of Congress up for reelection who votes to raise energy taxes on an economy that is suffering 0.1% economic growth, is going to get fired by the voters in November.

    • Don_B1

      Then everyone who does not vote on a bill to keep the highway trust fund from going broke in September or so, should also lose their jobs along with all the construction workers who will have lost theirs before, or soon after, the election.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Increase of the gas tax in conjunction a repeal of Bacon-Davis so we get a better bang for the buck on infrastructure projects.

        • Ray in VT

          I’m sure that we can get some better projects built by just paying people less to do the jobs.

          • Don_B1

            And that will put less money in the hands of workers so there will be less aggregate demand for the goods and services that the “business entrepreneurs” look for before they expand or start new businesses.

            Thus the whole thing will leave the country still just where the super rich want it, with a high unemployment level keeping wages down so they can syphon off more of the profits.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Public infrastructure projects should not be a form of welfare or be used to enrich unions.

            Hopefully, infrastructure investment will increase productivity and grow the economy. Therefore, if we can develop infrastructure at the lowest cost we can then afford MORE projects. and grow the economy faster.

          • Don_B1

            The workers who build that infrastructure deserve a living wage, which you don’t seem to recognize.

            It is not the “unions” that need to get rich, but the workers that need a decent income. But workers need the power of a union to get that decent wage and decent working conditions that are safe.

            But your argument leads one to suspect that you do not support anything that might oppose the business owner’s enriching themselves at the expense of decent wages for the workers.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Workers “deserve” what the market will bear. The same is true for the business owner. I don’t begrudge workers good pay. I don’t begrudge business owners a profit either.

            However, I also want the best deal for the taxpayer.

          • JS

            If workers act as a group, and can demand a higher wage, thats a market force, just like Walmart demanding that suppliers meet low price points (which leads to those suppliers shipping those jobs overseas).

            So, it seems you think that workers using market demand for higher wages, keeping money in the USA economy = bad,
            And companies using market demand for higher profits, sending jobs and money overseas = good

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s fine in the private sector but there needs to be consequences if a company like GM sells their soul to the unions in the form of pensions and high wages then can’t survive because of it.

          • JS

            It’s fine in the public sector also. The GM CEO’s and shareholders should bear the burden of the problem they created.

          • HonestDebate1

            But they didn’t, taxpayers are on the hook.

          • JS

            That is more a symptom of our Corporate Government symbiotic corruption than of any problems with unions.

            What is and what should be are rarely synonymous.

          • HonestDebate1

            I think I agree. In the real world GM would not be bailed out buy a corrupt government no matter how bad the unions screwed things up. I’m okay with that.

          • JS

            How exactly did the unions “screw things up”? By making the cars they were told to make even though those cars weren’t selling? And most of the UAW work hasn’t been in Detroit for years.

            If GM agreed to a check they couldn’t cash, it’s GM’s fault, not the unions. Thats like if you bought something form me and I agreed to pay in installments. After a few payments I couldn’t afford it anymore, so I went bankrupt, and blamed you for agreeing to take my money in the first place. If you hadn’t agreed to take my money, I wouldn’t have gone bankrupt.

          • HonestDebate1

            “If GM agreed to a check they couldn’t cash, it’s GM’s fault, not the unions.”

            Again, I agree. In 2007 GM and Toyota made virtually the same number of vehicles. GM lost well over $38 billion and Toyota profited $17 billion. That’s what union pensions, benefits and wages will get you. Ditto Twinkies. If GM sells it’s soul to the devil that’s fine. Let them handle the problem they created.

            And don’t be so quick to think your analogy is not accepted by many who believe the banks made them buy homes they could not afford.

          • JS

            Still, it’s not the people who bought the house’s fault that the banks went belly up, or for the financial crisis.

            Analogy: I have $100. I lend one brother $10, and he can’t pay me back. He is responsible for me being out $10.

            Now, I lend ten brothers $10 each, and none can pay me back. Each is responsible for their $10 debt, but it is my responsibility alone that I went bankrupt.

          • HonestDebate1

            Dude, I’m not arguing that. You made a pro-union comment to which I replied. Workers can indeed bond together and demand a higher wage but that alone does not make it a market force. If a union demands a wage that is not supported by the market then no one benefits in the long run. All of that is fine. Again, it should be GM’s problem but it’s ours. That’s my beef, it’s not with the unions in the private sector.

          • JS

            I didn’t realize we were arguing, I thought we were having a conversation.

            You brought up banks and homes first, so I commented on it.

            It is a market force, as much as charging too much for a widget and not selling any is a market force. Blame the widget seller/business owner, not the worker making them.

            GM’s various unions are private sector last I checked.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am not arguing that GM isn’t to blame for agreeing to union demands. You seemed hung on that, maybe I misread.
            You still seem to be. I’m not saying blame the business or the worker. I’m blaming the government for not letting the market cast the blame and mete the punishment.

            And no, it’s not a market force, it’s arbitrary. If it wasn’t then in GM’s case they could have met the obligations. The promises were not based on market forces. They were pie in the sky.

            And then the government steps in, installs a CEO, tells them to make cars no one wants and bails them out with our money. Yes, I am aware it is a private sector union but it’s in bed with the government, blurring the lines.

          • JS

            Again, I had no idea we were arguing. For once I thought you and I were engaged in a polite, engaging conversation. But I guess when conversations don’t go the way you want them to go you call it arguing?

            The promises are based on pie-in-the-sky, but setting a price is a market force. The consequences are the result of market forces. Thats what I am trying to say. The price someone will pay for something is a market force, be it widgets, homes, or union workers.
            Either way, it semantics.

            “In bed with the government” is a ridiculous term and does not advance this conversation in any way. The term could be used for any company that ever got a federal, state, or local tax break, which would probably include close to 100% of them.

            And besides, wouldn’t it be the GM Corporate overlords that are in bed with the big bad govmnt since their CEO was “installed” by the government?

          • HonestDebate1

            Man, you are sensitive. The conversation is going fine, I have no idea what your points on that. I actually said I am NOT arguing.

            Here, I’ll remove the word: I am not making the point that GM isn’t to blame for agreeing to union demands.

            Therefore you don’t need to keep insisting, with analogies, GM made their bed. I was trying to move discourse forward.

          • JS

            You seem (IMHO) to have a problem with a conversation not going exactly along the lines you want it to.

            You bring up banks and homes, and I comment on that (moving the conversation forward) and you respond as if you are exasperated (dude, i’m not arguing that). Then when I make my point, you accuse me of being “hung on” that. You blame unions ( “…no matter how bad the unions screwed things up”), then insist you are “not saying blame … the worker”.

            Then, when I comment on your post, clarifying my definition of a market force, and questioning you comment about unions “being in bed with gov’t”, when it should be GM in bed with Gov’t, you seem upset or annoyed, and accuse me of sensitivity and not moving the conversation forward.

            BTW, about the banks, and people who believe the banks made them buy homes they could not afford:

            Being brought up a Christian I was taught that it is dishonest to sell someone something you KNOW they cannot afford.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am not the one complaining about how the conversation is going. I don’t even know what your implications is. Maybe you think you are demolishing my logic and I don’t like it… or something. All I can say is you are wrong. I’m not annoyed, I’m not upset, I’m not exasperated. Think what you want, I’m very used to people telling me what I think.

            Thanks for rehashing the conversation but it’s all there for anyone to read.

            GM is in bed with the Government. Unions are in bed with Democrats in Government.

            While I agree with your last paragraph, I don’t assume people cannot afford something. The question comes down to being able to prove it. If government enables banks to relax those requirements then they shoulder some of the blame too. But it is the fault of the borrower. A dishonest banker is not a valid excuse for stupid financial decisions. I know better than to buy a fleet of lambourginis even if the bank will loan me the money.

          • JS

            A “tax Break” is special treatment towards one company , and is “being in bed with government” when one company gets them and another doesn’t. Yes, it is the companies money, and by law a portion is to be paid as taxes. If that amount is lowered, then money has, in a sense, “changed hands”.

          • HonestDebate1

            A tax break is a law. And they are not divvied by company, it’s more like by industry. And BTW, I’m okay with ending them all and lowering rates as Simpson/Bowels suggested. Either way “in a sense” changing hands is a far cry from sending a taxpayer funded check to GM for $42 billion and forgiving a quarter of it. Surely you see that. Surely you recognize the uniqueness of Obama installing his own CEO. This is not like writing off martini lunches.

          • Ray in VT

            Hahahaha. The ole Obama telling GM to build the Volt line. Classic. Next you’ll tell me that Chrysler is going to move all Jeep production to China.

          • Ray in VT

            Your penchant for oversimplification and the ignoring of pertinent facts that don’t line up with whatever political or ideological belief that you have regarding a situation never ceases to amaze me.

          • Don_B1

            Exactly!

            Enforce the oligarchy!

            When the CEOs stop appointing the compensation boards, and instead let the shareholders vote on their compensation, Mr. WftC can speak about worker wages.

          • TFRX

            So you’re making the bold statement that “paying people to do precise, demanding, skilled manual labor” is not suppposed to be welfare?

            Oh for the days when “welfare” was just a slur for people on the dole. Like Reagan’s father.

          • JS

            I worked Union on Boston’s Big DIg. The high cost was NOT due to my wages, which were hard earned and deserved.

            And every penny earned (except IRA savings) went directly into the local economy.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I don’t think you want to put the Big Dig forward as an example of successful “public works”.

            Do you know how many “don’t kill the job” stories I heard? Too many to count.

          • JS

            I’m putting it up there as an example of the hard work and dedication of Union workers that helped the local economy. Design flaws and cost overruns had nothing to do with Union wages or Union work.

            So what’s your point about “Don’t kill the job” stories? I have heard them firsthand in construction and in business. As an example, how many here are posting during their working hours? How many surfing the web when they should be doing their jobs? I laugh when I would get emails from right wing friends bashing Union work habits, and they were sent from their jobs during working hours! lol

        • John Cedar

          The prevailing wage in my county is minimum wage. Yet for the purpose of “prevailing wage” in public works projects, somehow it gets bumped up to $30-$40 per hour.

          We need a “truth in words law”. Where ‘prevailing” means “prevailing”. Where “access to” doesn’t mean “free”. Where “woman’s health issues” does not mean “infanticide”.

  • Coastghost

    Scientists and technologists are particularly well-placed to agree on the perceived metrics of Technogenic Climate Change, insofar as their sciences and applied technologies are responsible for fomenting and creating Technogenic Climate Change.

    That our scientists and technologists have also fomented durable skepticism regarding their dire and portentous claims stems directly from the tacit understanding that they created the conditions for Technogenic Climate Change. Why implicitly trust them now to cure what their technologies created and what their sciences signally failed to predict?

  • Michiganjf

    The next hour’s topic is very pertinent to this hour’s topic… the crisis created by ignorant, conservative deniers of peer-reviewed science and scholarship.

    • Coastghost

      Not at all: the crisis brewing today is the public distrust of continuous warnings about the advent of Technogenic Climate Change that emanate from the very STEM community that is directly culpable for the existence of and threats posed by Technogenic Climate Change.

      • TFRX

        Waitasec, STEM folks are to blame because of the hot-air-balloon raising amounts of verbal exhaust from the Foxfukers and the entire right wing advocacy media?

        • Coastghost

          The STEM community (not simply the contemporary iteration but the historical efforts of the sci/tech fraternity since, oh say, 1600 CE) has created the conditions for and has materially contributed to the advent of Technogenic Climate Change: THEY made it happen, THEY deserve much of the credit for making it happen.

          • JS

            It goes back further, according to some studies, back to early clearing of forests and destruction of wetlands.

    • William

      Bill Moyers is demanding that any political leader that does endorse global warming should be locked up in prison. It is disappointing to see the Democrats resort to Global Warming McCarthyism.

  • kaybee63

    One thing I can say with certainty is that by the end of this show; absolutely no one’s minds will have been changed. I do sometimes wonder though that if Ronald Reagan had made “An Inconvenient Truth,” instead of Al Gore, would we all just be on the opposite sides? Talk about your unintended consequences…….

    • Don_B1

      If Ronald Reagan had made “An Inconvenient Truth,” the U.S. and the world would be well on the way to eliminating the use of fossil fuels for power generation.

    • DeJay79

      “would we all just be on the opposite sides?”
      Not likely because repubs seem to be the only ones interested in denying the truth to please their electorate..

      I don’t believe the truth that science has proven about our planet because a Democrat told me too or because a republican denied it.

      I believe it because it is true.

  • Jeff

    First, there is no viable solution to stopping CO2 from going into the air, even if we (in the US) moved into caves and stopped producing CO2 the rest of the world would pick up our slack and end up putting more CO2 into the air. Second, there are new studies showing that the Earth is much resilient than previously thought when it comes to absorbing the CO2 therefore making the effects of high levels of CO2 less noticeable. The bigger climate issue is the coming ice age, if the CO2 in the atmosphere delays and/or prevents the next ice age then all this pollution was worth it (I say that in a region that was covered by hundreds of feet of ice during the last ice age). Finally, science is not consensus…the biggest flaw in the idea of global warming is that there is no set of criteria that could possibly disprove global warming, as per the alarmists, EVERYTHING is a sign of global warming while nothing could possibly show that it’s not happening. That sounds like a religion more than science.

    • Don_B1

      As I have pointed out elsewhere, try reading and actually thinking about:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/preventing-global-warming-is-the-cheap-option.html

      and you might (although I am not encouraged by your performance here) actually learn enough to change your mind.

      • Jeff

        Name a handful of things that could possibly disprove global warming, just a few things…please I’m open to the scientific process…but that involves proving and disproving things. Go ahead…I’m waiting.

        • Ray in VT

          Disproving global warming: flat or declining temperatures would be a good start.

          • Jeff

            No answers? Good to hear, your belief is what drives you…I get it now. BTW, we could prove the theory of time dilation by sending clocks into aircraft and flying around the Earth. We could prove the round earth by showing that if stand on a tower and look out and you have a limit to what you can see (besides pictures of a round Earth from space). Please explain what could disprove global warming or admit you cannot do that…therefore making the theory a religion rather than science.

          • Jeff

            Why did my previous thread get deleted? Is this another case of media bias trying to censor the discussion on global warming???

          • Ray in VT

            You asked what could disprove it, and I gave you an answer. I guess that an answer that you don’t like qualifies as a non-answer? Good to know.

          • Jeff

            Okay, as per the satellite data the Earth has been cooler since 1998…how’s that for a start?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_102.gif

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
          • Jeff

            Your same values prove my point, that peak in 1998 is HIGHER than the following years. Pay attention, your own graph betrays your point.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            You are distorting the trend line by ignoring the part of the data that doesn’t fit your conclusion. You cannot do that – so your conclusion is wrong.

            You can’t prove a long term trend by cherry picking a portion of the data.

            You are still wrong, Jeff.

          • Jeff

            See that peak in 1998, yep, that’s hotter than the years after it…thus lower temps. Basic math skills, try harder.

          • Ray in VT

            How about cherry picking a starting point and then only using one measurement method so as to not give a complete picture for starters? Typical cherry picking tactics that do well to fool the foolish.

        • Don_B1

          Your rant above implied that you agreed that the earth was warming, but you complained that nothing could be done about it.

          So then you ask me to give you something that would disprove global warming? Are you a rational person? Or were you conceding that your initial question was just an attempt to be “provocative”? Or is this change of subject the attempt to dodge the response to your “silly” first question, with yet a sillier (in this context) one?

          Your first question indicated that you don’t think that mitigating the devastating consequences of doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because they would be ineffective. But you are wrong, as my link in my previous post shows, and, apparently, by your changing the question, you acknowledge.

          A bit more (from Jared Bernstein) on the problem your first question evokes:

          http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-high-discount-rate-problem/

          where you epitomize the “have my cake now and pay for it later” so often attributed to the “baby boomers,” captured in this excerpt:

          In economic terms, a high discount rate means you’d be willing to pay less now for more later compared to someone who discounted the future less than you. If your discount rate is 10%, you’d be willing to put aside only about $15 now to get $100 in 20 years. If your discount rate is 2%, you’d put aside $67.

          The problem then becomes, what will it take to get more people to place a higher value on the future such that they be willing to put aside more today to get something they’re currently undervaluing in the future?

          In that regard, a quote from William Nordhaus’s manual for the DICE 2013 (Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy):

          The DICE model views the economics of climate change from the perspective of neoclassical economic growth theory. In this approach, economies make investments in capital, education, and technologies, thereby reducing consumption today, in order to increase consumption in the future. The DICE model extends this approach by including the “natural capital” of the climate system. In other words, it views concentrations of GHGs as negative natural capital, and emissions reductions as investments that raise the quantity of natural capital (or reduce the negative capital). By devoting output to emissions reductions, economies reduce consumption today but prevent economically harmful climate change and thereby increase consumption possibilities in the future.

          Thus view the costs of CO2 mitigation as investments in the future wellbeing of the human race, which you and the richest here on earth now appear unwilling to make.

          In your new (direction of) questioning, you are attempting to use one of the tenets of the scientific process to defeat the idea of climate science being a science. Well, “for-ged aboud it!”

          But beyond the sound known science of the way CO2 absorbs and reflects infrared radiation thereby warming the atmosphere there could be a negative feedback that would tend to cool the atmosphere as the known positive feedbacks accentuate the heating. But so far, most of the big feedbacks are positive and the known negative feedbacks are not nearly big enough. Finding a big negative feedback has been the holy grail of Richard Lindzen, and he has failed in every attempt, to the point that he repeats claims that have been shown false.

          Any negative feedback that would be big enough almost certainly could not escape detection for long, to the point it should have been discovered already.

          • Jeff

            Name 1 thing that could disprove global warming…1 thing please. Nice rant with zero answers to my single question.

          • Don_B1

            I did give you one thing: the discovery of a unrecognized climate forcing function that would provide a negative forcing strong enough to overcome the growing CO2 heat trapping function. What can’t you understand about that?

            But another thing might be if it could be shown that one of the positive feedback functions changes at some level of CO2 and is enough to counteract the other forces.

            But so far there is no indication that such a discover is even likely. And even if one was discovered, it would not prevent the massive extinction of sea life that continued absorption of CO2 will cause as the seas become more acidic with higher levels of carbonic acid until CO2 can no longer be absorbed.

    • Che Bianchi

      A religious cult that is very lucrative.

    • Ray in VT

      That would all be pretty bad, if that is how that it was, of course that existence only exists in the minds of those who seem quite dismissive of science or what it is concluding.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Global Heating. It’s a game ender.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Good news: tornado season running well below normal. Climate change?

    • Ray in VT

      Maybe. Maybe not.

    • Jeff

      Keep in mind that the predictions of bad hurricane seasons for the past few years have not come true. Even the really bad hurricanes in the past 20-30 years are on par with the hurricanes we had in the 1950s-1960s.

      • Ray in VT

        Over the past 30 years or so, however, Atlantic storms have been more frequent.

        • Jeff

          Wrong, read this article from NOAA:

          http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

          • Ray in VT
          • Jeff

            That study stops in 2007 (when hurricanes decreased significantly), the “doubling” of storms since 1890s and early 1900s is easily attributed to better measurement equipment (did the storms that dissipated over the Atlantic even count in those numbers back then?)…even since the 1940s and 1950s the storms have been pretty close to constant if you includes the years since 2007.

          • Ray in VT

            Phew, I’m glad that you thought of those things, because surely such things didn’t occur to the researchers who conducted the study. You really showed them.

            If one looks at the 1950s, there was an average of 10.8 tropical cyclones per year. If we start a recent calculation with 2006, when there were 10 such storms, then from then until 2013 we’re still looking at 14.125 per year. If we look at the past 10 seasons, then the average is 17.8.

          • Ray in VT

            Actually I think that the 14.125 should be 15.125 and the 17.8 should be 16.4

          • Jeff

            Let’s split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.

            During the most recent decade, 2001-2010, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.

            During the preceding decade, 1991-2000, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is below the 100-year average.

            During the decade 1981-1990, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties the least number of major hurricanes on record.

            During the decade 1971-1980, 4 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially below the 100-year average, and ties 1981-1990 as the two decades with the least number of major hurricanes.

            During the decade 1961-1970, 7 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is exactly the 100-year average.

            Incredibly, not a single decade during the past 50 years saw an above-average number of major hurricanes – not a single decade!

            Now let’s look at the preceding 50 years in the hurricane record, before the alleged human-induced global warming crisis.

            During the decade 1951-1960, 9 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

            During the decade 1941-1950, 11 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is substantially above the 100-year average.

            During the decade 1931-1940, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

            During the decade 1921-1930, 6 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is slightly below the 100-year average.

            During the decade 1911-1920, 8 major hurricanes struck the United States. That is above the 100-year average.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/

          • Ray in VT

            It’s a good thing that we have a lawyer working at a business magazine here to set those scientists straight.

            Now let’s unpack some things from what you so kindly lifted from his piece. Firstly, he cites only those major hurricanes that struck the U.S. Considering that during any given year or years major storms may or may not strike the United States, this seems to be a case of moving the goalposts, as it only looks at one type of storm and whether or not it hits a particular geographical area.

            Secondly, by only looking at “major storms”, then one conveniently can ignore something like Sandy, which was barely a category 1 storm when it made landfall. So, one can truthfully state that no “major” storms made landfall at one time or another, and, based upon how one defines “major”, then one can discount some very destructive storms that don’t qualify.

            All that I said is that Atlantic storm activity is higher over the past 30 years, and it is. No amount of squirming can get around that.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Try buying some hurricane insurance – that should be easy!

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Both hurricanes and tornadoes have factors that can make them stronger – and possibly less frequent. Wind sheer is stronger, so it can stop them before they they form, but if they do form, they can be stronger because there is more heat energy in the atmosphere and there is more evaporation which leads to more energy for the storm to be bigger and stronger.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    gasoline to $15 a gallon and world population to 2 billion. the final solution

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      You forgot the modest proposal.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Obama is getting mad at SUV drivers; which means he will treat them like the heads of the VA and Syria – he will do nothing.

    He plans to vote, “Present.” (or maybe “President?”)

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    I knew all of these solar power cells would cause all of this end of the world theories.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    We could kill two birds with one stone. Put the entire VA Administration in charge of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

  • AnneDH

    I’m re-reading ‘Washington’s Crossing’ by David Hackett Fischer, the turning point in favor of the Americans in the Revolutionary War.

    If liberals & conservatives both could take some time for this book, we could learn how the colonial Americans came together, got past their differences, and managed to create a new country despite extraordinary odds.

    Amazing. We could all learn something from these people.

    • Ray in VT

      It was a pretty bold move, especially considering the condition of the troops and the weather. It did add a nice, if relatively unimportant (militarily), victory at the end of what was a pretty terrible year for the Colonies.

    • John Cedar

      It didn’t take long for DC to become everything that Washington fought Independence from England over.

      • Ray in VT

        Yeah, like taxing with representation, quartering troops in private homes and all of the rest of that stuff.

    • TFRX

      Who’s making noise about seceding from the same union?

      Hint: It ain’t us lefties who got hell for correctly predicting every disaster after 9/11.

      Compromise? Sure. Them first. It’s their goddamn turn and has been for years.

      • Ray in VT

        I know that I just loved getting told that I should leave the country when I didn’t like the President.

        • TFRX

          It about ended my singing career. And there were those death threats.

          Oh, wait.

          • Ray in VT

            Keep up the good work, Nats.

      • AnneDH

        My comment didn’t mean to imply that a secession was brewing.

        Yes, I agree, the right side needs to come further towards the center.

  • X Y & Z

    The only way job-killing, carbon tax legislation gets implemented this year would be if Obama signs an Executive Order mandating it.

    Given the fact that this Administration got caught shipping thousands of automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels, which resulted in the death of a US Border Patrol Agent, no one should put anything past this White House.

    • Ray in VT

      The administration was shipping automatic weapons to drug cartels? Really? Tell me more about Obama’s Iran Contra. Which Watergate is this for him?

      • X Y & Z

        I don’t think that the death of US Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry, is anything to laugh about,

        but apparently you do.

        • Ray in VT

          I am not laughing. I am just seeking to know more about what you claim, as I know of no incident where “this Administration got caught shipping thousands of automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels”. Inquiring minds just want to know.

    • brettearle

      Show us, in WSJ, where your claim is substantiated.

      Show us….

      By your silence, we will know ye….

      • TFRX

        The Wall Street Journal?

        I don’t know that I still trust it. Their spitstain of an OpEd section is spilling, like the leaking hog lagoon, into what was once a rock-solid news section.

        • brettearle

          I was thinking that WSJ is a standard bearer–more than many–for legitimate articles that might favor Right Wing Policy or Claims.

          Thanks for the heads-up, about its OpEd.

          But, are you not of the opinion that if a claim, such as the above–about rifles to Cartels–has some gravitas, then we would most likely see it in a place, such as WSJ?

          Do you think that WSJ would often publish a non-opinion article that is chock full of frivolity?
          .

          My point was that I doubted that we would read this sort of claim in a WSJ feature article.

          And, if we couldn’t, it could mean that the legitimacy of claim could be reduced even more.

          Have you noticed that many of On Point’s” Right-Wingers do NOT very often use WSJ as an information referral?

          I think there’s an obvious reason for that–which reflects heavily on pathetically radical and pathetically disturbing claims?

          Whenever I trot out this WSJ challenge, it is ALMOST never met….

          • TFRX

            I’m with you on this, but the WSJ features are less and less trustworthy as fact-based, even as they become more and more the official house party organ of the GOP establishment.

            They’[re not quite Fox News (We Report, But You Should Really Check It Out Somewhere Else). However, when it comes to them reporting on stuff that has nothing to do with politics and everything else that does to do with business–say, the ongoing Coke v. Pepsi wars that’s now moved to Dasani v. Aquafina–their stuff is so much more trustworthy.

            When the WSJ are reporting on something that their well-heeled readers need to trust and make decisions in their board meetings with, v. the hot air (no sic) brigade, the difference is showing up more and more.

          • AnneDH

            Years ago I subscribed to the Christian Science Monitor (can’t afford it now). I found it to be the most politically neutral non-sensational newspaper I had ever encountered.

            Wonder what it is saying about all this? My local library doesn’t have it.

      • X Y & Z

        “Silence”?

        Try asking that question of Attorney General Eric Holder, who refused to hand over documents concerning Operation Fast and Furious.

        Don’t forget about Barack Obama who promised to have the ‘most transparent Presidency ever’ in 2008, then subsequently invoked Executive Privilege concerning the gun-running scandal that his Administration carried out.

        • brettearle

          There we have it,

          He IGNORED my question.

          SILENCE.

          NO ANSWER TO MY QUESTION ABOUT WSJ.

          SILENCE.

          There we have it.

          • X Y & Z

            Silence yes, because Barack Obama has invoked Executive Privilege and REFUSED to comply with the investigation of his Administration’s sending of automatic rifles to Mexican drug cartels which resulted in the death of a US Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.

            Don’t despair, Barack Obama will one day answer for his drone attacks which have killed thousands, and for his gun-running to Mexican drug cartels in court of law.

          • brettearle

            ONCE AGAIN, THIS RADICAL ZEALOT WILL NOT ANSWER AS TO WHETHER HIS ALLEGATION HAS EVER BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL!

            HE HAS TWICE EVADED THE ANSWER!

          • X Y & Z

            I don’t read the WSJ, I don’t care what the WSJ has to say about anything.

            Your President’s Administration supplied guns to Mexican drug cartels (Operation Fast and Furious), which resulted in the death of a US Border Patrol agent Some article that you read in the WSJ, doesn’t change any of that.

            All the members of the Obama Administration that sent guns to Mexican drug cartels, must be prosecuted.

          • brettearle

            Well, well…

            Shows you how far radical zealotry will go.

            Yes sireeee.

            WSJ is the best yardstick of integrity that the Right has.

            and Mr. Radical Zealotry shows his shoddy research & information

            for…what….it….is

  • Che Bianchi

    How about a tax on the press for every article on global warming?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    I shall go to Korea.
    –Presidential Candidate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, General.

    I shall go to Antarctica.*
    –President Barack H. Obama, Dude.

    * For the golf. Now watch his putt on Global Heating.

  • Coastghost

    Why is pulling the plug on our gloom-inducing media for eight hours a day being construed as less an immediate response than going to all the trouble of instituting and implementing a carbon tax?

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    There won’t be any policy changes for global warming. It will be used to attack companies run by opponents of the Democrats.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      “opponents of the Democrats” – considering their combined inaction, that’ll be just about everybody. Hoober Doober

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Soot, heat combined to create rare melt in Greenland
    http://www.adn.com/2014/05/19/3476944/soot-heat-combined-to-create-rare.html

    Affected Greenland’s ability to reflect solar radiation back to space.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      It is called albedo, and in addition to soot there is algae. And open water has much lower albedo than white snow and ice.

  • Coastghost

    Would carving the departing ice sheet into smaller pieces help alleviate the overall detachment? Could trimming the oceanside edge of the ice sheet help forestall further collapse in the Antarctic interior?

  • Yar

    The climate deniers are afraid that God is going to show up and change our politics. A bad crop year may shift the House instead of the Senate.
    Watch this clip from Forest Gump on climate change.
    http://www.wingclips.com/movie-clips/forrest-gump/pray-for-shrimp

    • michael nuke

      The people who think we harness enough energy to actually influence the Earth’s climate more than nature are climate deniers.

      The Earth’s climate has been warming for the last 10,000 years. If it didn’t, New York and Chicago would be under ice right now, sea levels hundreds of feet lower, and Egypt would return to a tropical climate with rainfall.

      • Yar

        God thought it a good plan to sequester carbon, who are we to think we should put it in our atmosphere?

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Did you just hear this liar say, “8 or 9 hundred years?”

    I am sick of these liars.

    • Ray in VT

      Upon what basis to you charge that the guest is a liar?

      • brettearle

        Watch…he won’t answer you. [And, if he does, he'll make a fool of himself.]

      • jefe68

        That the scientist is not saying what he wants to hear. The US leads the industrial world in being a nation that is dumbing down, as that above comment clearly shows.

    • TFRX

      Can you say “liar” one more time?

      Cos if you’re not giving a knowing nod to Al Franken’s prescient book, you’re really beating a dead, drowned-at-the-coast horse.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Where is Chicken Little on the guest list?

    • AnneDH

      Crossed the road & the sky fell on her.

  • toc1234

    The bottom line is that no one knows exactly what to do about this ‘problem’. yet, like our failing schools, the liberals just say to keep throwing other people’s money at it (and if all the money just happens (wink, wink) to go to favored constituents, then so be it..)

    • JS

      Actually, the gentleman on todays show is saying the opposite about where the money should go. Drop you preconceived notions and open your ears.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    is anyone going to cite the corrupt lies of Michael Mann? Why won’t he publish his raw data? Michael Mann is a corrupt liar

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Did you see Mann’s latest AMO paper is being trashed as shoddy science and might need to be withdrawn to save further embarrassment.?

  • Coastghost

    NO, NO, and NO, Tom Ashbrook: NOT “anthropogenic climate change”, no no no no no: this is ALL “Technogenic Climate Change”.
    Get used to it.

    • AlanThinks

      Both are right – global heating began when humans discovered fire and started cutting down trees – technology has accelerated it

      • Coastghost

        Or: Technogenic Climate Change has succeeded historically anthropogenic climate change.
        The advent of modernity over the past four centuries or so is immediately responsible for the immediate challenges or threats posed today.
        (And again: our dependable sciences failed signally to predict or anticipate the advent of Technogenic Climate Change: they had CENTURIES to figure it out, but noooooooo . . .)

  • Bigtruck

    All these scientists with their facts and numbers…boring, where are the Repubs on the panel to tell us they don’t “think” that the warming is real.

  • TFRX

    I like the cut of Hanson’s jib. He’s actually saying that offloaded expenditures of extractive industries != free enterprise.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Latent heat of fusion of water {pure} = 144 BTU/lbm, at 32 degrees F.

    Tom Ashbrook’s question was what could be done to stem the ice sheet thawing. Well you could cool the water back into ice. You got 150 BTUs or so to chill every pound of water you want to refreeze? And where do you mount the chiller? And where do you dispose of the heat you take out of the water? Back into the atmosphere? Into your pockets?

    Nope. I didn’t think so. Thermodynamics: it’s a planet killer.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Why do we allow private jets? Because Al Gore planted 500 billion trees to make his carbon footprint zero.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Al is the planet’s pal. All hail Al. HD

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Is it time to tax the externalities?
    –Tom Ashbrook

    Only if you want to survive.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Al Gore just planted another 500 trillion trees

  • Yar

    How can we think long term when the average age of House members is 58 and the average age of senators is 61?

    • keruffle

      Young people are as extravagant in energy use as old. A world of wasters.

  • William

    Are rich, white, elites pushing for a carbon tax keep poor people down and keep third world nations from improving economically?

    • DeJay79

      no , “rich, white, elites” are the ones fighting against this common sense approch

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Absolutely. Thanks for asking. Hoober Doober

    • AlanThinks

      Properly done a carbon fee will be 100% rebated on a proportional basis to each citizen and/or household. Heavy users of carbon fuels will loose money but those who are frugal will make money. E.g., a poor inner city resident who uses public transportation might get more back than paid, but a suburbanite driving himself around in a Hummer would pay more than he gets back. Bye bye Hummer.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    We’re going to build that high speed express train to oblivion.
    –Jerry Brown, Governor

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    We’ll all get rich paying each other’s carbon tax.
    –The Wisdom of the Green Party

    The Miracle of the Free Enterprise System. Hand salute. Two.

    • AlanThinks

      HLB – you obviously are smart and sometimes have clever and/or informative comments, but too many are odd and not helpful, particularly on the issue of climate change.

  • creaker

    We’ve seen the rich and powerful have no qualms pushing problems to next generations so they can continue stuff their pockets. And I expect many just see the coming problems as opportunities to make more money, anyway. It’s all lemonade.

  • malkneil

    Even if climate change weren’t/isn’t true shouldn’t we try to be more frugal and conservative with our energy (find cleaner sources) anyhow?

    If it is true won’t it require a global effort to make any substantive change? If China is building a new coal-fired power plant every day (I don’t know the exact stats), won’t that render moot any effort an individual country is trying to make in the carbon profile?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    All ways to make electricity do most of the ecological damage before the first kWh is consumed. And the electricity is pretty quickly converted to heat, non-recapturable {entropy}.

  • Coastghost

    Why have our media not dutifully and persuasively informed us exactly and unambiguously what the “media carbon footprint” is, how large and how deep?
    Electricity consumption is essential to the proliferation and dissemination of continuous and continual dire and portentous warnings about Technogenic Climate Change.

    • TFRX

      Keep JAQing it, CG.

      • Coastghost

        McLuhan told us: “the medium is the message”. If the medium is contributing directly to the Technogenic Climate Change it earns income for warning us about, the message that results is that Technogenic Climate Change is really nothing at all to worry about or be bothered with.
        We can begin taking TCC seriously just as soon as our media show us, demonstratively and demonstrably, BY EXAMPLE, that TCC indeed poses an actual threat.
        I simply fail to hear our media climate-scolds putting their money where their mouths are not.

        • TFRX

          Sure. Get the Foxfukers to shut down first.

          Let them and their 140 robotblondes lead by example. Just take 100 hours of their best (sic) stuff, burn it to a TiVo and send to all their old, scared, ignorant viewers.

          Lots less electricity used, and all the fools who think they’re getting news won’t know the difference.

  • OnPointComments

    RECORD ANTARCTIC ICE EXTENT THROWS COLD WATER ON GLOBAL WARMING SCARE
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/05/16/record-polar-ice-extent-debunks-antarctic-global-warming-scare/

    Excerpt:

    Antarctic polar ice extent has set another new record, defying alarmist global warming claims. Surpassing the greatest month-of-April ice extent in recorded history, the new record throws cold water on alarmist claims that the Antarctic ice cap has crossed a melting point of no return.

    Notably, while the majority of Antarctica is getting colder and the Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap is expanding, West Antarctica is a smaller portion of the continent that is experiencing modest warming. Taking advantage of this outlier trend in a smaller portion of the continent, the media has a history of highlighting modest warming in West Antarctica or a small retraction of West Antarctic sea ice and claiming this is caused by global warming and representative of Antarctica as a whole.

    …real-world scientific facts show Antarctic ice extent is undergoing a long-term expansion. Alarmists try to scare people into believing a “Catastrophic collapse of Antarctic ice sheet [is] now underway” at the very time that the Antarctic ice extent is setting record after record.

    It’s not just the Antarctic, either. Precise satellite measurements of both polar ice caps show absolutely no decline in polar ice since the satellite instruments were launched in 1979. Not only is total polar ice extent currently greater than the long-term average; polar ice extent has been greater than the long term average for nearly all of the past 16 months.

    • Ray in VT
    • AlanThinks

      More moisture in the atmosphere results in more snowfall in the high elevations of the Antarctic. All consistent with climate change

      • OnPointComments

        That is certainly the mantra of the climate alarmists: more snow means climate change, less snow means climate change, expanding ice is climate change, shrinking ice is climate change, warmer summers are climate change, colder winters are climate change.

        • Ray in VT

          In a cold environment do you know what you get in terms of snowfall as the temperature gets closer to freezing? More snow from the same system.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Haven’t heard nuclear mentioned. These folks aren’t serious.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      That just drives you to disaster, faster. Ask the Fukushimas. HD

    • art525

      Fukishima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. Yep that worked out real well.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        TMI? Really?

        We’ve had 30 years of power generation from 104 reactors in the US resulting in TeraWattHours of CO2 free power.

        Gen III+ and Gen IV nuclear. Are you afraid of progress?

        • Ray in VT

          It isn’t CO2 free.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Not this again. As you know, the CO2 emissions are in the noise.

          • Ray in VT

            In the noise? I thought that they were in the air.

            I was merely correcting a factually inaccurate statement, based upon life cycle emissions.

        • art525

          Let’s see- Three Mile Island – 30 years ago. Fukishima- 3 years ago. Yes we’ve come so far. Such progress.

  • Michiganjf

    Why would anyone listen to the idiot Marco Rubio about anything?!!!!!

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Once we institute a fuel tax, we can fix our roads, bridges, overpasses. Everybody wins!

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Ah, we found the flaw in Hansen’s proposal. Does anyone think China wouldn’t ‘cheat’?

  • TFRX

    Tom, just because Marco Rubio is on all the gasbag shows doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to laugh at him. I don’t want someone “feeling his fake science at me” (h/t Colbert) to dominate so much of NPR’s mindspace.

    Please sharpen your journalistic discernment before 2016 when Rubio gets his turn as their “best and brightest” of the GOP with his “thinking”: v. science.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Re-listen to Rubio’s actual words.

      • Michiganjf

        Which ones?

        The first moronic statements or his later equally idiotic back-tracking once his utter stupidity was called out and mocked?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          I only heard his first comments and they weren’t “moronic”. I didn’t realize he had “backtracked”.

          He did not deny climate change in his original comments.

      • art525

        No thanks.

  • Christy Snider

    Americans don’t feel it in their pockets the cost of carbon useage. Look at the gas prices in Europe compared to the U.S. Take away the subsidies from the big oil and give it to the renewable energy. I agree with the other commenters that the rich and powerful people and industries have no problems destroying America and the Earth.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Cement uses 10% of the world’s energy.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Agriculture uses 80% of California’s water. How’s that working out? HD

  • creaker

    Any mention of the liquid metal batteries being designed at MIT and being built by Ambri? These have great potential.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      Potential is “something” you “don’t have.” HD

      • creaker

        They work – they are just figuring the best way to scale them up to power plant sizes.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Immigrants can come in free. But finished goods have to pay a tax.
    –Capitalism in the 21st Century
    I hope those immigrants bring a big wallet. I’m tapped out, dude.

  • Charles

    I think we’re worrying too much about this topic of global warming.
    It’s another example of human exceptionalism…we were never intended to be the ultimate form of life on this planet. If we don’t kill ourselves off by means of flooding the atmosphere with carbon we would have found some other way.

    Mother Earth is more than capable of compensating for anything we can do to her. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to be here to see it, but we probably weren’t anyway.

  • creaker

    Some mention of the recent push to charge households fees for pushing power onto the grid and making household power generation less economically viable?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    LAX becomes a seaport. Move on.

  • AlanThinks

    YES to a carbon fee, but it must be 100% reimbursed on a proportional basis to each citizen. Then we each have strong incentives to reduce our carbon consumption (the less you use the more you make off a rebate).

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Uh oh. Tom is getting testy. You hit Tom’s blind spot.

    • TFRX

      No, Tom is not letting some right-wing hack roll over him.

      Perhaps you’re just not used to journos standing up to bloviators.

      • art525

        And Marlo is getting his panties in a twist. “NNo ad hominem atacks”. He knows a big word. Pompous self important twit.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Population of USA has more than doubled since 1955. How’s that working out?

  • Jeff

    We will run out of fossil fuels in 200-300 years…why do they think this is a 1000 year problem? Don’t these guys understand science?

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    We need to reduce the world’s population to 2 billion before there is massive death from global warming.

    • robinottawa

      We can do that in a couple of generations if we don’t replace existing people.

    • Steve__T

      you first

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    In the Year 2125
    No one is still alive.
    But.. that’s the way it is.
    Or will be.

  • TFRX

    Who invited this CEI guy on? What, the AEI isn’t extreme enough?

    There’s something funny about the idea of “LAX is on the coast but 120 feet up, so it’s not going anywhere, so Jerry Brown is wrong”.

    Plenty of big slides in many places, lots of erosion going on.

    This guy’s got very few points of anecdata in his “favor”.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      4 alarmists vs. 1 realist isn’t a good enough ratio?

      • TFRX

        CEI != Realist.

        • Ray in VT

          That’s a laugh.

      • Ray in VT

        Let’s see: 2 climate scientists (Joughlin and Hansen) and a free market guy with political science degrees (Lewis). There’s a balanced scientific forum.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      San Onofre is at sea level, nicht wahr? And it’s gonna be “hot” for thousands of years. HD

    • art525

      God I hate libertarians. And this one is particularly smug.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        A confessed hater.

    • OnPointComments

      Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown: “If that happens [the predicted 4-foot rise in sea level within the next 200 years], the Los Angeles airport’s going to be underwater.”

      The next day: Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the Brown administration said “The governor misspoke about LAX.”

      Never mind.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Look to the market.. for a job. So that’s what America has been doing wrong!

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    don’t confuse us with logic. we want to do something to businesses who have more money than us. create an United States where everyone can only afford to bike to work and eat vegetarian.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The waters won’t gradually rise: it’ll wait 100 years and then rise all at once. Like US environmental policy.

    Hey! Maybe CONGRESS will DO SOMETHING. What’s the line on that bet, anyway?

  • Markus6

    Please stop the stupid metaphors and the generalities about free markets.

    The question is will a carbon tax do any good in terms of climate change? I know science can’t answer precisely, but is what evidence is it that it will have any material effect.

    Everything I’ve seen indicates it won’t make a difference.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Cheap water-based electricity in Washington. Thanks to BC Hydro.

  • TFRX

    The AEI guy is saying now that if we do something energy prices will go up for some people?

    Yeah, energy prices already go up while we’re schisting in our own nest anyway. Hasn’t he noticed?

    This is a bit too much broad scare talk for me to take seriously.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    If you voted for the Democrats, your state will make out OK. If you live in West Virginia, kiss your livelihood goodbye.

    • TFRX

      WV? That avalanche is already in motion.

      The livelihood is already going. Look at the mountaintop removal mining (pun intended)–the wave of the future there, and it employs fewer ‘Neers than the florists industry there.

      And now they’ll have to change the state song: “Almost level, West Virginia”.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    “Clean energy.” Just exactly what are those, when they’re at home? {all power sources are thermal polluters if nothing else}

    No alternatives can boot strap themselves. See 2nd Law.

  • OnPointComments

    If we’re going to carbon tax anyone, why not begin with a tax on those with huge carbon footprints? If you live in an 8,000 square foot house, pay a $100,000 annual carbon tax. If you have a private jet, pay a $100,000 annual carbon tax. If you drive an inefficient car, pay a $5,000 annual carbon tax. It’s not the average or poor citizen who has a huge carbon footprint.

    • http://www.google.com Big Brother

      I have a better idea. Everyone pays me $100 per year.

  • drwacker

    I agree with the caller advocating a less “panicky” response to climate change. It doesn’t serve the cause well. Too often, this approach leads to some making ridiculous claims. For example, recently, the mayor of Des Moines (IA) stated that a tornado two weeks ago was evidence of climate change. In the same interview, he stated that even if we stopped all carbon dioxide emissions today, the level of carbon dioxide would remain the same for the next 100 years. How can we expect people to take climate change seriously with such outrageous claims?

    • AlanThinks

      I grew up in Illinois and saw 1 tornado in 18 years. 10 years ago one wiped out a town near where I grew up. My parents grew up in Kansas and never saw a tornado in their lives. Global heating/climate change is creating greater extremes in weather, We need to start panicking because much worse is coming

      • drwacker

        I don’t know how long ago you lived in IL (or where), but I grew up there too (’51 – ’77) and tornados were a common event. My point is NOT that we shouldn’t be concerned about climate change, but we have to stop looking like Chicken Little, running around screaming that the end is near. Iowa (as well as Illinois) is smack dab in the middle of Tornado Alley and tying any one tornado to climate change makes us look like fools. We are not winning any converts to the cause when we say stupid things.

        • AlanThinks

          Same years as you – northern IL. Yes there were plenty of tornados but now they are larger and more intense. Increased heat in the atmosphere allows for more moisture and together they equal increased energy in the atmosphere which results in more extreme weather events. When we began measuring CO2 in the late 1950s it was around 250 parts per million – now it is over 400ppm. The last time that high Canada had tropical plants. At the rate we are increasing CO2 we are in trouble. And, we do not know what tipping points exist that could worsen things more. For example, the oceans have been absorbing most of the excess heat. At some point the thermal equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans will tip the former into more rapid heating with worse droughts, more extreme storms, etc.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “larger and more intense”?
            No, the data does not support your claim.

            2014 is on track to be the slowest year for tornadoes in a century.

            What we have is more trailer parks but we also have better warning systems. Deaths are down. We should be thankful.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    If the natives had imposed a carbon tax, Easter Island wouldn’t be denuded today.

  • adiggins

    Who cares what Marco Rubio “believes”??

    The only thing that matters is what the scientific evidence shows!

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    I am trying to hold my breath until the seas subside.

    Where are you Moses? Can you come and part the seas.

  • OnPointComments

    ARCTIC BOUNCES BACK: ESA SATELLITE REVEALS THAT POLAR ICE INCREASED BY 50% IN A YEAR
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2524770/ESA-satellite-reveals-polar-ice-INCREASED-50-year.html

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      An inconvenient truth.

    • AlanThinks

      Educate yourself on the science – it is simple. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture leading to higher snowfalls at the high elevations of the Antartic

      • OnPointComments

        So, if the polar ice is increasing, or if the polar ice is decreasing, both are harbingers of Armageddon. Got it.

    • jmpo’lock

      Classic, YAY! You found the ONE AND ONLY area in the ENTIRE WORLD that is expanding.
      That’s really great rationale. Like in the face of worldwide famine pointing to the one remaining fat warlord and stating “See there’s no food shortage”
      (Which by the way is a large part of all the turmoil in the Middle East, Northern & East Africa, and Near Aisa these days. ALL Also caused by climate change. Stand by blithely, more to come)

      • OnPointComments

        The premise of the program is that climate alarmists have found the one area in the world where arctic ice is decreasing, and they’re stating “The End Is Near.”

        • jmpo’lock

          Antarctic bonehead. The ONE continent, the OTHER side of which HAS had some glacial growth, do to climate change additions of precipitation. (Which they actually discussed in this program as also do to fact that that side doesn’t sit in the sea!)

    • Brad Vietje

      Scientific illiteracy strikes again!

      Making a small recovery in *surface area* of ice after a number of record low years is not only expected, but really really small potatoes — like a dying cancer patient re-growing their hair after chemo a few months before they die.

      The water temp’s below the ice continue to rise, and reduce the volume, thickness, and stability of the Arctic ice — and now the Antarctic ice, as well. This ice loss is absolutely catastrophic, since it takes many times more energy to melt ice than it takes to warm water. Once the ice is gone the warming really takes off.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    There are no honest people.
    –The flora and fauna on earth

  • Human2013

    Love it, Tom! What motivates you….money?

  • Bigtruck

    Love Tom calling Marlo out. Slimy

  • AlanThinks

    Marlo Lewis is a sell out to fossil fuel companies. He actually cares about poor people – hah!

  • TFRX

    Tom, what’s it gonna take for you to cross CEI off your Rolodex?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    No food = decline in obesity. Everybody wins!

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The tipping point was back in the 1930s.

  • Guest

    Frank Ackerman is a scary individual.

  • Coastghost

    What are the dimensions of our news and entertainment media’s carbon footprint? Why do our media never tell us exactly how large the carbon footprint is that they create?

    • TFRX

      Are you worried that the last fourteen times you blathered on this that people forgot you?

      • Steve__T

        Forgot who?

      • Coastghost

        Thanks for acknowledging that our media managers have not been forthcoming with the supporting metrics since last I raised it.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    No engineers were contacted in this discussion. Typical.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Tom, can you attack the $16/gallon carbon taxers?

  • James

    Look Ackerman isn’t a saint, but lets not pretend that he’s the only one is this debate who is benefiting financially from the arguments he is making. Does Mr. Hansen not also have a financial incentive to say what he is saying?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Excellent question. I suspect he does but I’m not sure that is his motivation.

      Hansen is a true believer but he approaches the problem as an honest broker. His ‘carbon fee’ approach might have merit IF there was a true cost to CO2 emissions. His recognition that nuclear energy is the only scalable CO2 free affordable power source is also an honest broker admission.

  • Chuck P

    Is Marlo serious, shutting down everything won’t change anything we should just go about business as usual and not even attempt to change our ways?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Now Jill A. can write columns on how hard it is to find a real job in today’s economy.

    Everybody gets fired. Except political operatives. They live to see another free lunch.

    • pm05

      A “real” job! What did you think she was doing?

  • Yar

    Energy efficiency is the most effect way to lower energy bills. On bill financing is an good way to pay for it. This will save resources for all.

    • hennorama

      Yar — the cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use.

      • TFRX

        …and the cleanest power plant is the one that never needs to be built.

        Unfortunately, the “cancer cell” model of growth prohibits any of the serious people from saying that.

  • Salty

    * Global warming, er, uh, um… Wait, climate change, yeah that’s better. Oh, what was that? OK, well, global climate stagnation. Yeah, that’s it. Let’s stick with that…

    * Translated version: “I am smarter than you. You can’t live your life as you please. You must live the life I think is better for you. Don’t worry about my life, worry about the life I tell you you need to live. After all, the masses aren’t smart enough or sophisticated enough to make their own decisions or live their own lives.”

    * If it was about quality of life and the good of the masses we would spend the billions on providing clean water for everyone on the planet.

    * Finally, they jury is not in. There is so much out their that does not support the man made ___________________ (see first point).

    • jmpo’lock

      Salty. What your water will be when you go under….

      • Salty

        ??

        • AnneDH

          Ocean

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Was Jill Abramson fired because she was paid like a woman? Less than a less qualified man?

  • OnPointComments

    “I’m in exactly the same boat as some of you.” I wonder how many of those students were making $500k+ a year.

    • pm05

      So… you are saying that you missed the point….

      • OnPointComments

        I think it’s a pretty big stretch for someone who has made millions of dollars but is momentarily without a job to tell graduates who are entering the full-time workforce for the first time that their circumstances are “exactly the same.”

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    NY Times hired a woman.* They fired Jill Abramson.

    * The perils of distinction making. And showboating.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    We publish all the phony WMD stories the public will swallow.
    –Judith Miller, NY TImes

  • keruffle

    Ice melt
    Widely felt
    Ocean rise
    No surprise
    Costal towns
    Losing ground
    Future grim
    Learn to swim
    Carbon tax
    Never pass
    Too gigantic
    This Titanic

  • jmpo’lock

    Holy Baloney again from the CEI! An picture perfect example of sociopathic selfishness. In the face of ALREADY mounting climate catastrophe, daily (Serbian floods, burning of southern CA, incl. 20% of our Marine Corp. base, today we look at the one year anniversary of the Moore, OK tornado, severe drought goes unabated throughout the west, Africa, the Pacific floods and begins to disappear, massive landslides in Afghanistan and our own west….Super Storm sandy…I could go on and on)
    He states “we could shut down all industry today and “only” reduce the temperature by 1/2 a degree” Well, first of all that’s A LOT, and second of all (and I can’t believe Hansen didn’t respond scientifically to that) its because the stuff that is already up there, that we’re already locked in to, will do that damage! So this takes ZERO consideration to what our ongoing and annually record breaking contribution to this damage going forward. If not now when? If no pain NO GAIN! He says, well its no in my lifetime, they’ll fix it when the crap REALLY hits the fan.
    I say we block any deniers from Miami from moving North….

    • OnPointComments

      I love how climate alarmists cite a specific climate incident like Super Storm Sandy as proof of climate change, but they have a conniption if anyone cites that 2013 ranks as one of the least intense hurricane seasons on record.

      • jmpo’lock

        Funny how climate deniers can put aside the absolutely MASSIVE amount of environmental catastrophes, and look at ONE lull, in ONE small area of the ENTIRE EARTH (the Pacific and Southern Hemispheres’ had record Cyclone seasons, not to mention the massive fires and drought in Australia…did ya miss those?) and see it as justification (illustration) of their ignorance…

        • OnPointComments

          Thanks for proving my point. See, I told you that if a climate alarmist cited a single specific incident like you did with Super Storm Sandy, they’d have a conniption if anyone cited something that disproved it. Your conniption has been noted.

          • Steve__T

            No one mentioned SSS but you. No point of dis-prof given. You even twist your own words. WOW

          • OnPointComments

            My reply was to jmpo’lock’s comment: “Holy Baloney again from the CEI! An picture perfect example of sociopathic selfishness. In the face of ALREADY mounting climate catastrophe, daily…Super Storm sandy…I could go on and on”

          • Steve__T

            ???? Like I said your nuckin futs.

          • OnPointComments

            jmpo’lock started this comment thread with a mention of Super Storm Sandy as evidence of climate change.

          • Steve__T

            OK here’s a nit go pick it.

          • John Woodland

            Anyone who says you are wrong must be discounted because you set the parameters of the discussion to make criticism of your position a “conniption”/ No sale. Take a look at reinsurance company Munich Re’s website to see statistics on increases in severe weather events compiled by folks who care only about economic impact.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Warren Buffett — insurance expert — disagrees:

            “”The public has the impression that because there’s been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual,” he said. “The answer is they haven’t.””

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303630904579418754090426372

          • jmpo’lock

            Guess you have either a short attention span or a reading comprehension problem as I clearly listed several historic record breaking unprecedented events, and stated “I could go on”….but with you, clearly this would be a waste of time, since it would seem, absolutely no mountain of environmental destruction will phase you in the least.

    • Jeff

      I’m fine with locking people into Miami as long as all the global warmers give up their cars, access to any fossil fuel (you know for heating in the winter) and stop using electricity (unless they can be sure the energy comes 100% from wind or solar).

      • jmpo’lock

        Already done. No car, and 100% wind and solar powered home.

        • http://www.google.com Big Brother

          You have the poisonous chemical Cesium all over your roof. my uncle was poisoned at a Cesium processing plant.

          • Lee E

            I doubt jmpo’lock has Cesium all over his roof. Almost all of the rooftop solar uses crystalline silicon or cadmium telluride. Cesium is very hard to get and expensive, I doubt you will be seeing it in solar panels despite it’s photoelectric properties.

          • Steve__T

            The amount of cesium in foods and drinks depends upon the emission of radioactive cesium through nuclear power plants, mainly through accidents. These accidents have not occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. People that work in the nuclear power industry may be exposed to higher levels of cesium, but many precautionary measurements can be taken to prevent this.

            It is not very likely that people experience health effects that can be related to cesium itself.

            Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/cs.htm#ixzz32Gyq8S6h

        • John Woodland

          Working on it. Heat is 100% passive solar and wood supplement. Car is a Prius and job is 6 hilly miles from home. Most food produced organically at home. Electric is all wind (Pear Energy). Would be very happy to use carbon tax created funds to make further reductions.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Make it an EV or a Prius plugin with solar PV on your house, and you’ll be close to zero. Eliminate all disposable plastic, then it would be virtually zero.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Now if we could only get Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi to live like you.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Always blaming someone else …

      • OnPointComments

        If climate change is truly as apocalyptic as the alarmists claim, wouldn’t they immediately go totally off the grid?

        • jmpo’lock

          We actually do try. But here we are only talking about trying to take some small collective steps through the fees, to reduce the pain/damage in the future…and that’s evidently just too much to ask for from deniers.

          • OnPointComments

            “Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

  • Brad Vietje

    …and it’s even a bit worse than that. The 40-year lag time is for C02 emissions to find their way to the correct layer of the atmosphere and begin to cause warming.

    An important paper by Susan Solomon, et. al. published in PNAS in 2009 tells us that the carbon level we see today will take about 1000 years to lower, even if we stop emitting today. Link here:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract

    That means all the emissions since 1974 will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, and that level will be essentially irreversible for ~1000 years. That’s some pretty bad news.

  • Steve__T

    Carbon Tax = Stupidity

    OK here’s my carbon tax payment, How much carbon reduction did it create?
    Tax Collector: None we just collect money, and if you don’t have it we will give you a higher tax+fine and or put you in jail. The reduction is up to you.

    • AlanThinks

      A carbon fee fully rebated on a proportional basis per citizen would create strong incentives for increasing efficiency and reducing carbon fuel consumption. Read about it at http://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-us/faq/

      • Steve__T

        Create strong incentives. Yeah that will defiantly do it, If you believe in fairy tales.

        • John Woodland

          You are kidding right? If you don’t believe added cost changes behavior, you are denying the basic tenants of capitalism.

          • Steve__T

            This post was deleted Disqus strikes again. so lets see what happen this time.

            Yes added cost changes behavior.

            But the way it changes is usually greed.

            The principle of fair treatment of others is considered a core principle of capitalism.

            Capitalism requires some level of mutual honesty to function best. We achieve this not only by dealing honestly with others, but by requiring honesty in return and holding those accountable who use misrepresentation or negotiate in bad faith.

            Our markets and the Wall Street banks that dominate them no more embody the true tenets of capitalism than the incestuous nature of the Wall Street-Washington relationship truly represents the best interests of the American people.

            So your kidding, and you are kidding your self.

          • John Woodland

            Some more examples of unrestrained capitalism: Remember the recent garment industry factory deaths from fire and collapse in Bangladeshi? Same thing happened in N.Y. in 1911 in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. There were lots of abuses in the U.S gsrment industry until laws were passed that provided enough protection that unions could be organized. Read up on some of the violence in the mining industry during the first attempts to form unions. For that matter, slaves were once considered “capital”.

          • Steve__T

            I’m not the one who needs an education, I don’t have to read up on what I already know.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        That’s absurd. Proportional means the biggest polluters should pay more.

        I can drive a big diesel motorhome for five years and still not equal the pollution of ONE flight from New York to Tokyo.

        The airline industry.
        The oil refineries.
        Mining.
        Coal plants.
        Etc.

        • AlanThinks

          A fee is placed on ALL carbon sources so the price of flight to Tokyo would increase as well. But because of this – consumer price sensitivity would lead everyone to seek lower cost alternatives – producers and manufacturers would shift to lower carbon use products. It would generate a great deal of economic activity and innovation while reducing carbon production.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            All I care about – is that the plan makes the biggest polluters pay the most.

            I don’t want the middle class to be stuck paying the most!!!!!!!!

            How do you ensure prices rise the most on the products and services causing the most pollution?

            In “the story of stuff” it talks about paying the actual cost of a latte, rather than the price the market will bear.

            How do you ensure the fee is proportional to the pollution and externalized costs of a particular product or service.

            You don’t want the same fee for driving a big diesel motorhome that you have for driving an F-150.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            But what if CO2 isn’t pollution? What if it is only plant food?

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            That is a fantastic point I am happy to discuss with you.

            Alan and I are proceeding under the assumption that CO2 is pollution, and is partly responsible for climate change, just for the sake of argument.

            Since there really is no way to prove how much human activity impacts climate change, we have to proceed with a just-in-case until the scientists have all the necessary data analysis to know for sure. Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?

            I have a question – what ulterior motive would climate scientists have for claiming human activity causes climate change? Why would they lie?
            I have seen scientists claim all sorts of things without really having thought through their hypothesis or having the data to prove what they say.

            I have seen that.

            But WHY would they say humans cause climate change?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?”

            Now that is an excellent question. Actually, that is the best argument by alarmists. However environmentalists like Bjorn Lomborg have written extensively on this. His argument is that it is much better for humanity to expend its scarce resources on climate mitigation. Cheap energy == prosperity.

            I like the Steven Chu ARPA-E initiative: solar cheaper than coal.

            Until you make alternatives cheaper than coal you won’t have prosperity. Unfortunately, they’ve given nuclear research short shift over the last 30 years because I believe there is hope in nuclear research (fission and then fusion).

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            What if it is both? Because it is.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            CO2 is not pollution in a classic sense.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Go breath in some carbon dioxide and tell us how it goes.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Done. 400ppm and it was fine. 1000ppm will work too.

            Next.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Are you denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Huh? You asked me about breathing.

            I don’t like the term “greenhouse” since it doesn’t act like a greenhouse but yes I understand the effect for CO2.

            Now a question for you, what is the “ideal” global temperature? Who gets to decide?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It is pollution in the absolute sense.

          • Ray in VT
          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I thought the LATIMEs refused to publish denier stories.

          • Ray in VT

            Maybe they did. They have a reputation as being a source of news, not libertarian/fossil fuel industry anti-science ideology to uphold.

          • Steve__T

            So who pays the fees for the natural carbon sources?

  • northeaster17

    As the planet burns deniers and skeptics fiddle away. History will not be kind.

    • Jeff

      History might be grateful since we averted the next ice age due to the extra CO2 in the air…I mean seriously, which is worse…slight warming or being covered under thousands of feet of ice?

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        You are lying to yourself.

        • Jeff

          Research the ice age cycles…it’s science…don’t deny it.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            What was the level of carbon dioxide during the most recent ice age? What was the highest ppm of carbon during the last 650,000 years?

          • Jeff

            About 100 million years ago it was around 1500 ppm. What makes the ice age a good thing? Should we keep CO2 levels so low we stay in the cycle or should we break the cycle?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            That’s not what I asked.

          • Jeff

            No, but I anticipated your point and nullified it before you could make it. So you’re pro ice age huh? That’s too bad for most of us in the northern part of the US.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Jeff, you shift and dodge with the best of ‘em.

            Ice ages always have a cause – they don’t just happen …

            You are talking to yourself in your denial. No one in the discussion today has any doubt that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

          • Jeff

            Why did previous ice ages always follow a cycle? Are we not due for the next ice age cycle soon (at least geological timelines)? What caused ice ages in the past and why are you sure it won’t happen again? Just answer those questions and then ask yourself if CO2 might not prevent or delay the next ice age…wouldn’t that be worth it to the entire human population?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            What is the cycle? How long did the cycle last?

            There was no ice at all from 65 million years to about 35 million years ago.

            IF there was a cycle, it was being driven by any number of factors – and we have now changed one of the important factors. We have pushed things far beyond the possibility of an ice age. We may well have already pushed beyond the possibility of any Antarctic ice; let alone any Arctic ice.

          • Jeff

            We have been in an ice age cycle at least the past few hundred thousand years…here’s a chart for you…

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

            I would suggest that stopping the next ice age is an amazing benefit to all of mankind across the planet.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            These were caused by changes in forcings. They didn’t just happen.

            You are replacing scientific understanding with magical thinking.

          • Jeff

            Why was there a cycle then? Which forces made those changes? Why would those forces stop happening now?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Look it up. The major forcings are changes in the sun’s output, orbital changes, volcanoes, asteroids, weathering (carbon sinks), tectonic plate movement, albedo, life itself.

            Physics and chemistry rules are fixed. With carbon dioxide levels above ~350ppm, we will lose Arctic ice, and maybe also Greenland’s ice. If we go above ~450ppm, then we may well lose Antarctic ice.

            Ice ages happened with ~170ppm, and they go away with ~270ppm.

            Since we have ~402ppm now – WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ICE AGE.

          • Jeff

            So you agree, this global warming is doing amazing things for mankind like preventing an ice age from occurring in the future. Thanks you for your support of global warming.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Agree with what?

            Nobody was saying there was no climate change before. And your interpretation that we have “saved” us from an ice age is a preposterously polished turd of logic.

          • Jeff

            How can you say that? There has been a natural cycle of ice ages for the past few million years…we’re due for another ice age soon as per the cycle. The CO2 in the air as you said will prevent the cycle from continuing and there will not be another ice age…that’s about as sound logic as you can get. If not then explain why the cycle would naturally stop right at this time? I’ll keep putting as much CO2 into the air as I can since I live in a region that would be covered with thousands of feet of ice during an ice age.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The graph you posted was for ~450,000 years; not millions of years. Back to about 650,000 years ago we always had between ~170ppm and ~270ppm, and this is longer that the existence of modern humans.

            We are changing the level of carbon dioxide in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. It is now up to a level last seen millions of years ago.

            We have changed the climate ~10,000X faster than most of the times in the past. And we humans have *never* existed with levels this high. Warming will continue at least another 0.8C even if we stop ALL carbon emissions immediately.

            We will have enormous problems brought on by climate change that we are causing. We will wish for something as manageable as an ice age.

      • OnPointComments

        Either would be OK with the climate alarmists, as long as they are able to cast themselves in the role of the savior of the world.

  • Guest

    The only sensible carbon tax is to tax THE PROFITS of the oil companies so they can’t pass on the cost to consumers. It simultaneously forces them to keep prices low AND pays for externalized environmental costs.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    The only sensible carbon tax is to tax THE PROFITS of the oil companies so they can’t pass on the cost to consumers.

    It should be administered as a revenue-contingent tax, so the more they make the higher the tax rate!

    It simultaneously forces them to keep prices low AND pays for externalized environmental costs.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Oil company profits are already taxed. See US corp. income tax.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        But it’s not contingent so the more they make the higher the rate! That would solve it.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        I deleted my comment. I need to do more research on this issue before I form a final opinion.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          It’s all part of the brainstorming process.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            You know what is odd?
            NPR deletes and censors things left and right. (pun intended)
            But on point won’t even allow users to delete their own comments. It just removes their name. Strange.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes, I’ve noticed that feature. Hint: you can edit and replace with the prose of your choice. You can be very terse.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            From now on I will just edit instead of deleting.

      • John Woodland

        1. They “offshore” a lot of their profits and avoid paying US taxes.
        2. Keeping prices low is in many ways counter productive because it makes it less costly to keep putting carbon in the atmosphere. The tax on use makes that more expensive. Hansen’s idea is that the revenue generated is made available to users to fund projects that reduce the users carbon consumption. In other words, heating your house with oil becomes more expensive but you have a fund source and a greater incentive to switch to geothermal or solar hot water. Once you do that, you reduce your carbon tax payments.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Great!!! 4 out of 5 are idiots. How to make MA even less competitive in one simple set. At least this will simplify the voting process.

    This is the same crowd that blessed the Cape Wind contract that will saddle consumers with $.20/kwh wholesale power and will ratchet up to $.36/kwh during the life of the contract. And guess what? They promised turbine manufacturing jobs in MA. Nope. They are all out sourced to Europe.

  • FanofRCFA

    A carbon tax or fee pre-assumes that more investment in alternative energy (carbon free) will solve our problems. However I believe that CO2 emissions are just a side effect of an underlying issue, that being the all economies are based on growth. Continual growth is exponential and therefore not sustainable. I believe we should focus on how to change the world economies to come up with a model that is not based on growth. Regardless of your believe in global warming or not, if you focus on the growth issue then it becomes more of a sidebar issue.

    Limits to growth is a good book to start the conversation.

  • Lee E

    Cadmium telluride has different properties than it’s elements.
    CdTe is insoluble in water and melts at 1041 deg C. Based on test it’s not considered harmful to the skin or to to ingest – though I don’t think I would eat it :-)
    There is no lead in CLFs it’s a small about of mercury that you might worry about, but you’re not required to buy them. You can buy LEDs or high efficiency halogen incandescent.

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    All you “deniers” and skeptics. I have a question. What ulterior motive would climate scientists have for claiming human activity causes climate change? Why would they lie?

    I have seen scientists claim all sorts of things without really having thought through their hypothesis or having the data to prove what they say. I have seen that.

    But WHY would they say humans cause climate change?

    Is it some kind of mass delusion or Jungian complex?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Conversely, why would oil companies and coal companies want to spread FUD and deny the science? Why are they using the exact same tactics that the tobacco industry used to deny that smoking causes cancer?

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        That’s avoiding my question. My stance is – scientists are often wrong. The good ones are happy when they’re wrong.

        I KNOW that at this point, there is no way to know how much human activity impacts climate change. It IS a factor, but there is massive room for variability as to how much of a factor human activity actually plays a part in climate change.

        Having said that, I also believe its better to be safe than sorry. On that premise, I am willing to help out and do my part until there is more analysis and a clearer understanding of the situation.

        My question still stands though – why are scientists overzealous and why would they lie about human activity being the fundamental cause of climate change?

        • Steve__T

          Doh, arrrrg I forgot to put that last calculation in…. Oh well I don’t have time to do it now.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Somebody said “for the funding” and it floored me how obvious it is.

            We can’t trust ANY of their conclusions until their funding is decoupled from their conclusions.

          • Steve__T

            Some get it right without large grants.
            But anytime you try to tax a world for adding to the mix instead of just trying to fix it. or truly come up with an alternative. You are going to have problems.

      • Jan Galkowski

        Actually they don’t. XOM recently issued a report which not only admitted that there is climate change due to burning of fossil fuels, they said their scientists pin warming at 3.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (6-8 degrees Fahrenheit) *by* *2050*, but they do not believe people are going to pay the higher prices for fossil fuels needed to dissuade them from using them. See http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Files/Other/2014/Report%20-%20Energy%20and%20Carbon%20-%20Managing%20the%20Risks.pdf

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          When they start doing something – BIG – then we can stop criticizing them.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Most climate scientists fully acknowledge that increasing atmospheric CO2 will have a warming effect. The big debate is around sensitivity and transient climate response.

      So the question should be will human CO2 emissions cause detrimental climate change where detrimental is defined as negative climate effects less the positive climate effects. The IPCC pays for research to study the negative climate effects of CO2. Unfortunately, this leaves a huge void of research for positive effects of CO2 and natural variation of climate.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Do scientists lie?

      I’m sure some do. Let me give you an anecdote that describes two kinds of climate scientists. I was pointed to a NPR science friday show by someone on the onpoint blog about a year ago. There were two scientists discussing hurricanes and the impact of global warming. One scientist was a hurricane expert from Princeton. The other was a government climate scientist (part of the climategate “team”). The NPR host and the government scientist kept trying to get the hurricane expert to “raise the alarm” about hurricanes and global warming. He would have none of it. He stuck to what he knew about the science. It was very enlightening.

      I’ve seen the government scientist invited on many media shows. I’ve never seen the hurricane expert again. Hmmmm.

      • AnneDH

        And that proves…..?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          That some scientists are activists. They should be recognized as such and called out.

          • Ray in VT

            Such as ones that say things like “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of
            government.” That doesn’t sound like an objective scientist.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I posted the link. You can listen yourself and decide if Dr. Trenberth is acting like an activist. I understand the leftist NPR host but a government scientist? Oh…. never mind.

          • Ray in VT

            I see nothing wrong with a highly respected oceanographer advancing the position of the scientific community regarding the likely impacts of climate change upon storms, which is that warming has, can and will lead to changes in storms that will lead to increased storm energy. Maybe he should leave the solutions to others, like those who are sure that the “market” will figure this out, like it figured out leaded gasoline and acid rain.

          • AnneDH

            Yes, I get that, but not necessarily this one. To each an opinion, of course.

          • emaineiated

            Making you, an inactivist? I mean mentally?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I don’t work for the Federal government.
            And my faculties are just fine; but thanks for your concern.

          • emaineiated

            No, I would not confuse you with a civil servant. A servant of the Koch brothers yes. The scientists are just shrill you say? Making you just a shill?

    • OnPointComments

      Why would they lie? For the money, of course.

      • Ray in VT

        Plus the added bonus of getting to steal the freedom of other people of course.

        • Steve__T

          Money.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, if money is speech, then it can also be freedom, right?

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        LOL. It’s SO obvious! For the FUNDING.

  • Lee E

    Of course science has been using the term “climate change” for a very long time. The IPCC the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ was formed in 1988. In 1956 Gilbert Plass wrote the paper ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’. The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977.
    A google scholar search show that in scientific literature the term “climate change was used earlier and more often than “global warming”.

  • ce373

    One variable in this Global Warming Equation that is hardly discussed by the so called “Secular Community,” (i.e. Romans 1:19-20), is that during the Biblical “End Times,” all types of catastrophic things will happen including weather events. This entire scenario doesn’t have to happen now if people would just give in to their Creator”s beckonings (i.e. Declaration of Independence 2nd Paragraph) remembering that religion is people seeking after god(s), it is about “do!”. Christianity is about the Triune God “Elohim” of the Bible seeking after people; it is about done, it was done on the Cross! Also, remembering the Scriptures and studying them in the original Greek languages:

    2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

    2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org and http://www.gotquestion.org are very helpful for that study.

    • Jeff

      Who wrote the Bible?

    • margbi

      People have been prophesying the “end times” for centuries.

    • Jan Galkowski

      Yeah, *that* sure is an authoritative source!

  • John Woodland

    Your thesis is wrong. A larger carbon tax that is funneled back into projects to replace carbon consumption would provide lots of economic activity. No one is talking about taking the resulting tax revenue and stashing it in a cave somewhere. Germany is aggressively pursuing a switch to renewables and they are one of the most stable economies in Europe.
    Your CO2 reduction figures are also not what scientists tell us but they do say the longer we wait the bigger the cuts will need to be.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Spain?

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Cheap shipping would avoid the carbon fee; with artificially low costs. Imports from China et al would have to also have a fee.

    • harverdphd

      You’re babbling…you might have some good points, but who knows?

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Maybe you missed the point? Thanks for letting us know!

  • Adrian

    The carbon tax is just another example of transferring responsibility to the poor and middle classes. The largest polluters are the industries that create polluting technologies for profit to include the oil industry, auto industry, producers of most consumer goods, and industrial agriculture. The majority of the U.S. and world population is stuck with their inferior products. Carbon taxing consumers is counter-productive, while taxing producers and leveraging regulation and true environmental costs on their production practices will bring about the changes we need. We The People need to force the use of innovations that have been stalled because they reduce industry’s bottom line… Industries should be required to recycle, reuse and replace their products. We need to close this “waste” cycle and bring production methods in line with our technological capabilities.

    • harverdphd

      Yer dreamin’

  • jmpo’lock

    Yeah, and the pre-eighties highest bracket progressive tax grabbing that led to the greatest economic times in human history just killed the economy…oh, you mean for the rentier classes?… I apologize, and please accept my condolences for the death of your imagination, entrepreneurial spirit, and heart. (since a lesser economy is hardly suffering compared to droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, forests & species dying, desertification, expansive spread of epidemics, famine, war, death etc…)

  • AnneDH

    Source?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    IPCC plays it hand. The money grab hand.

    “IPCC wants $13 trillion to fight climate change up to 2030 and another $31 trillion from 2031 to 2050″

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/ipcc-wants-13-trillion-to-fight-climate.html

    • Ray in VT

      No wonder they are perpetrating this vast conspiracy that is climate change.

    • Lee E

      The headline writer mashed up the quote the correct quote is:
      “The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030.”

      They aren’t asking for money they are saying investing in non fossil fuel energy will need to be 13 trillion between now and 2030.

      • Ray in VT

        What? The headline and the commenter claim misleads? I am shocked. Shocked!

        • hennorama

          Easy there, Captain Renault.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Thank you for the clarification.
        However, it was a cut and paste.

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    Can someone describe what “Climategate” is, for those of us who have never heard this term before.

  • BlueNH

    WHY DO YOU INVITE THE CEI to speak about climate change????? We’ve had enough of their lies and distortions thrust in our faces for DECADES. Their representative never answered your questions – he just spewed more baloney which is harming our chances of ever getting climate action.

    MANY thanks to Dr. Hansen for refusing to back down or slow down. He has my respect and the thanks of millions around the planet.

  • harverdphd

    Everybody feel better? I hope so. Forget it; a carbon tax is a wet dream.

  • InSouthChicago

    In some ways I could not believe what I was hearing … sea level rise is the least of our worries when it comes to climate change/global warming. Yet so much of the discussion focused on just that. Yes, I know that the initial focus was on the ice melt. But the ice melt is just a signal regarding what we’re doing to the planet and what it will do to us for having burned the fossil fuels, destroyed forests, etc.

    The ice melt foretells of a major catastrophe waiting for us in the near future. Many of us living today, right now will experience it. If you look at the demand curves for just water and food, and look at the projections for our ability to produce them in the quantities required with the effects of climate change factored in, we on this planet going to hit a wall around 2050 … just 35 years from now. Truth is, our home, our planet is starting to burn and so far we’ve haven’t been paying attention. But relatively soon, we’ll have no choice.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “our planet is starting to burn”

      Um, no it isn’t. .8C increase since 1880 is modest warming. Wildfires are below normal this year.

      Demand curves for water and food … sure, but nothing new here. Resource constraints issues were predicted at population 1B, 2B, 3B, etc. Technological advancements have always stayed ahead. Someday we might hit a wall. Hard to predict when. The prognosticators have always been too pessimistic.

      • Steve__T

        “Wildfires are below normal this year.”
        Psssst it’s still May, summer hasn’t started yet. You may want to wait a few months. You know, when fire season starts.

  • soundfriend

    Where is the scientific proof that climate change is due to human activity?

    • Jan Galkowski

      CO2 carries an isotopic fingerprint which is only found in fossil fuels.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        That does not answer the above question.

      • soundfriend

        The question remains. Perhaps you can indicate a paper which claims to provide scientific proof that climate change is a result of human activity.

        I did find this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/99EO00132/abstract

        • Jan Galkowski
          • soundfriend

            Thank you for the nice presentation. Very informative. However, the IPCC’s statement “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming” is not enough to convince me. Please see p.5 of

            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

          • Jan Galkowski

            “Very high confidence” is a codephrase for a statistical probability range of 90%-100%. So, if you and I bet $1000 on whether or not a particular coin comes up more heads or tails, with me picking heads, and you picking tails, in 10 fair flips, and the coin is known to have a 95% chance of coming up heads, will you play? If so, bring it on!

          • soundfriend

            Thank you Jan, but I am aware of the meaning of “very high confidence”. In order for me to accept that climate change is due to human activity the likelihood of this event would have to be virtually certain. Please see Table 1, p. 3 of

            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

          • Jan Galkowski

            Really. And do you buy home insurance? Car insurance?

          • soundfriend

            Yes. Really.

          • Jan Galkowski

            Well, then, I think the readership knows what to think about that. Enough.

          • soundfriend

            I have no information about what the readership thinks about it.

          • Jan Galkowski

            But the readership may want to know that Exxon-Mobil disagrees with you, having recently publicly stated their own scientists confirm warming will probably be 3.5-4 degrees Celsius by 2050 due to carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions. However, they also cite the American public’s unwillingness to pay as much as is needed to significantly reduce emissions to prevent this, and, so, consider their profits and valuation of reserves intact. Don’t really matter whether you believe it or not. It’s a matter of public record.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            What a second? There has only been .8C of warming from 1880-present (and an unknown percentage of this warming caused by burning fossil fuel).

            Now Exxon wants us to believe there will be an additional 3.5-4C warming in the next 36 years but this time ALL due to burning fossil fuels. Why the massive accelerated warming? Why are they more pessimistic than the IPCC?

            Are you sure you are repeating their position accurately?

          • Jan Galkowski

            Well, perhaps why there is a discrepancy is that your 0.8 C warming is understated. Moreover, warming is, in fact, expected to be exponential, and lags atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Finally, 90% of the warming thusfar has been going into the oceans. It won’t remain there.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The .85C warming since 1880 is directly from IPCC – AR5. It was .74C up to 2005 in AR4.

            The 90% of warming going into the ocean (from a blog post, not peer reviewed science) is addressed in this post:

            “The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C.”

            You really have to be careful with both warmist and skeptic info out there. Why? Because it IS really out there.

            http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/

          • Jan Galkowski

            You also need to be careful about grabbing information off, e.g., “ARGO pages”. Without context and method, these can be misunderstood. For instance, there was a version of ARGO software rolled out which mis-measured temperature. This was fixed in a later release. Also, I cannot accept “The punchline of his calculations”. WHOSE calculations, and what precisely were that? Which peer-reviewed paper did they come from? Also, there is apparently substantial energy below 2000 m. Finally, I cannot say, because you did not provide the details, but many calculations I have seen “out there” make assumptions about energy dissipating in oceans to equilibrium. Oceans don’t work that way.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Peer review?

            [Levitus et al (2005)] referenced on the ARGO page:

            http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

          • Jan Galkowski

            That’s an out of date reference. See Levitus, et al, “World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010″, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10603, doi:10.1029/2012GL051106, 2012

          • Jan Galkowski

            They note, BTW, “Argo profiling float data that have been corrected for systematic errors provide data through a nominal depth of 1750–2000 m for the post-2004 period on a near-global basis.”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Is there a new value? Is it significantly different?

            The point is that it is well known that the oceans are an excellent heat sink with a large capacity.

            Also, what is interesting is during this recent hiatus in surface temperature warming the supposed heat has been going into the oceans. However, sea level rise has slowed during this period. Very interesting because we know that one of the major causes of sea level rise is heating of the ocean from our basic physics.

          • Jan Galkowski

            Statistically speaking, it’s not possible OR legitimate to conclude either a definitive “hiatus” in surface warming (despite what IPCC may say in Box TS.3) and especially not SLR. Statistically speaking to determine a definitive SLR rate you need like 50 years. Trouble is, if you/we wait for 50 years, our collective goose may be very cooked, since apparent phenomena lag forcing. Wanna bet on it? I bet you do. Wish you all luck. You have no idea what kinds of forces you are dealing with.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I’m not in the “do-nothing” camp. However, I do think the risks of CO2 are over-stated.

            What drives me nuts are policies like $15K tax breaks to buyers of $120K electric cars and boondoggles like CapeWind where the regular Joe will pay $.36/kwh — wholesale.

            I did like the Steven Chu sunshot ARPA-E program — investing in basic research to produce breakthroughs to enable solar cheaper than coal.

            Even better would be accelerating research into GEN IV nuclear that is cheaper and safer and burns all the old nuclear waste. Nuclear is the only baseload power source that could be both affordable and scalable.

          • Jan Galkowski

            A consistent fiscal conservative like me dislikes ALL subsidies, whether for renewables or the large subsidies and tax breaks given to fossil fuel companies at federal and state levels. I also feel companies should pay the FULL COST of producing and selling their products, INCLUDING collecting the waste from their use, such as plastic water bottles. Why should taxpayers in municipalities subsidize these companies by paying for such refuse collection and disposal? Similarly, why should taxpayers pay, whether by direct levy, or by deteriorating Earth, environment, and more difficult conditions to do business, for fossil fuel companies being able to use the atmosphere as their collective sewer? Sure, they’ll pass this cost on to the users of their products, but, then again, as a consistent fiscal conservative, all that means is that the price of the product in the market will reflect its true complete cost, not some subsidized cost. Actors in the market cannot make proper decisions if prices do not reflect these costs. This is simply the question of economic externalities which brings us ’round to the point of the ON POINT program in the first place. I don’t care if there is a Carbon Tax or not, as long as companies (and, of course, their stockholders. who are their owners) who profited hugely from the sale and distribution of fossil fuels provide a mechanism for removing the damaging carbon dioxode and other greenhouse gases from the environment, and pay for that cost. Any present day valuation of that, and assuming it was enforced, even discounted back from 2050, suggests fossil fuel companies are bankrupt. This means they are continuing to exist and suck us into using their products more and more entirely on the premise that they’ll NOT have to pay such damages.

            Cape Wind, which I know something about, is a private investment, which has passed many regulatory inspections and hurdles under three Presidential administrations, and has fought frivolous lawsuits (so deemed by the judge in the recent court case) at their expense, despite being, by all accounts, simple a free enterprise foray into providing new energy.

            By rights, if full cost of fossil fuel impacts were reflected, gasoline should be $15/gallon and up, and electricity north of $5/kWH.

            You are only paying less than $.36/kWH because the rest of us are subsidizing you. What’s the matter, can’t you pay your own way through life?

            Baseload concerns can be addressed in several ways, including decentralizing power production and demanding that utilities upgrade their grids to use more active controls. Note that many of these “problems” exist because of the free market nature of these utilities which generally compete. Thus we all pay a “price of anarchy” which affects grid stability, presently provided by having large base load units.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Jan, you don’t sound like a fiscal conservative.

            I went to a talk by Jim Gordon (founder of Cape Wind) about 10 years ago. He was asked what his cape wind electricity would cost. His answer: “market rates”.

            That was before corrupt politicians strong armed the utilities to sign a contract to purchase the power at 5-10x market rates.

            Of course this doesn’t include the massive Federal and State subsidies Cape Wind receives. It also doesn’t include the no-bid zero cost lease that Cape Wind pays on their siting.

            I can only infer from your indirect reply on nuclear that you disagree with Dr. James Hansen that nuclear energy should be massively expanded.

          • Jan Galkowski

            I don’t consider most of the so-called fiscal conservatives these days to be truly that, since they’ll accept doles from government for business, but not for social matters. I also feel defense spending is largely a business subsidy.

            That said, I fault environmentalists and especially the Clinton-Gore administration for failing to put us on a path to having distributed, small nuclear reactors, possibly breeders, possibly Thorium, or at least bolstering federally sponsored research in these, which is a private market failure, since private industry in the United States has failed to invest in this sector to any appreciable degree since the 1960s.

            Given current circumstances, expanding nuclear power would be ideal, if we had a sensible non-NIMBY addressing of the wastes issue.

            Also, given our hobbled nuclear industry, if we are to expand quickly, this essentially means buying reactors from places like France or Korea. I have no problem with that, since, consistently, I don’t believe in protectionist trade measures, for the most part. My one exception to that would be that if a Carbon Tax or Fee were implemented, imported products which did not have a comparable Carbon Tax imposed on them in their home countries should be taxed at the border in accordance with their carbon content by assay.

            Don’t give me this crap about zero cost leases … How many oil exploration and mining explorations, including coal, uranium, and vanadium leases are zero cost on federal lands …

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I’m not an expert on federal leases but they are NOT zero cost. They also involve royalties once they are operating. You can quibble that this might not be the correct formula but you can’t say they are “zero cost”.

            The lease revenue to the Feds is running over $200M/year.

            http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/data_sets.Par.97646.File.dat/Lease%20Sale%20Results_2009-2013.pdf

            The Feds received $10B in oil and gas royalties in 2007.
            http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/94953.pdf

          • Jan Galkowski

            Ah, poor babies … oil and gas companies cleared *just* 77 billion dollars after paying royalties. The same memo you cite says U.S. royalties are the lowest in the world. Oil and companies, according to the EIA, get 1/3 of all the fossil fuel energy they derive in the United States on federal and Indian lands. (See http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/pdf/eia-federallandsales.pdf) Note current price per barrel of oil is about $108. And that’s just oil.

            Sounds to me one neat hammer would be to prohibit further extraction of oil and gas and coal from federal lands.

            Other countries, like France and Norway and Saudi Arabia, nationalize ALL mineral assets, and lease them for development to fossil fuel companies. Why not? Nothing says the companies ought to be able to own the mineral rights.

            They are not zero cost because there’s nothing which says the companies own the stuff to begin with. There’s no comparable claim on atmosphere. There may eventually be. If there were such a thing, it would be far easier to bring findings of harm against fossil fuel development.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Nice deflection once called out on your fact free assertion.

            To be fair, the Feds should charge Cape Wind 13% of their REVENUE as a royalty payment. You want a level playing field after all. RIght?

          • Jan Galkowski

            Even the most hardened free market economist, e.g., Milton Friedman, embraces a role for government encouraging development where it deems it important. Fossil fuels, including corn ethanol, receive $72 billion per annum in subsidies. Renewables currently get $12 billion. I would propose cutting $60 billion in fossil fuel subsidies immediately, and then bringing the remaining $12 billion for each of fossil fuels and renewables to zero over 12 years.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            To be clear, I’m not worked up about the no bid lease, the Federal wind subsidies or even Ted Kennedy’s view. It is the contract with the utilities to sell the power at a ridiculously high price when there are so many other cheaper alternatives (like onshore wind and hydro-quebec) that I find obscene. That and the false promises on jobs, etc. made by politicians.

            Corn ethanol is not a fossil fuel but it is another central planning boondoggle.

          • Jan Galkowski

            I agree corn ethanol has nothing to due with reducing GHG emissions at all, especially since many corngrowers use petroleum-derived fertilizers.

            Worse, Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane has a tariff on it! This is exclusively to protect corn ethanol, who can’t compete on price or quality.

            Never mind, it’s just stupid.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I applaud your comments on nuclear. Given the developments in new waste technologies (like at MIT) I am optimistic that the waste issue can be technically solved by burning the once through LWR waste. In the interim, onsite dry cask storage is safe and cost effective.

            Nuclear needs massive regulatory reform. The NRC is currently set up to protect entrenched interests and stifle innovation.

          • Jan Galkowski

            Indeed, if, as I believe, climate disruption poses an existential threat to human civilization (eventually, if unchecked, not in 200 years), there is no rational reason for environmentalists to oppose nuclear power development.

            Like Professor Hansen, I would stop nuclear mining, since we already have so much nuclear fuel we don’t need to develop more. I feel it essential to stop because it is a huge producer of fossil fuel emissions, and it is not clear what could replace that energy source.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Also, there is apparently substantial energy below 2000 m.”

            As Dr. Curry stated:
            “Further, with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not easy to get much of that heat back to surface.”

          • Jan Galkowski

            Hah! It’s not like the energy is uniformly distributed throughout … Oceans are stratified. They don’t mix. Talk about misleading … The concept of *temperature* isn’t well defined for a system not in thermal equivlibrium, although it may be operationally defined in small patches. Equipartition of energy doesn’t work without thermal equilibrium either.

          • soundfriend

            Their scientists cannot confirm this at this time. They can only predict it. Whether their prediction is correct or not remains to be seen.

          • Jan Galkowski

            Generally speaking, 2050 is in the future. As a consequence only predictions are possible for it.

            The paleoclimate science is very well done and very fine, but it is not rhetorical, in the sense of being able to make, for instance, a compelling legal argument. That’s not what science is about.

            What should be convincing, yet apparently is not, is that every claim regarding climate change, CO2, and the consequences is based upon experimentally verified, in-lab results. None of them are new, although a great deal more has been, of course, learned in the last 40-50 years. Moreover, we know these understandings are correct because there are major industries like semiconductors and spacecraft construction and air-to-air missiles which absolutely relying on their being correct. Moreover, given these results, much maligned climate models are less sophisticated than many models companies use monthly and yearly to forecast economic, market, and risk conditions which they bet their companies’ survival on. There’s really nothing extraordinary about these.

            The basic science we have about radiative forcing was funded by the USAF and the USN because they needed to understand the environments where they operated during the time of the Cold War.

            What *is* difficult is coming up with specific predictions regarding a particular region and especially region and timeframe. There, because of the variability of the climate system, the best than can be done is a statistical prediction. That may not seem satisfactory but that’s not really science’s problem. Since the early 20th century science has learned that statistical descriptions are, at base, all we’ve got. Semiconductors depend upon quantum functioning and that’s an inherently probabilistic process.

            Climate complicated and counterintuitive because energy dissipation across the planet relies on convection in fluids. Moreover, these fluids move in a rotating frame, so they don’t mix like a standing kettle of water does. They develop structure, and cold and hot, or briny and fresh water layers in oceans remain separated. There are many eddy effects. These in no way contradict the basic science, but models and calculations from these are hard for “civilians” to understand. If you do, and I recommend and welcome it, the student needs to bring some investment to the process.

            Even if we had a confirmation in 2050, I suspect many of the loudest complainers would quibble about it, simply because the implications are incompatible with their economic, political, or religious world views. That’s too bad, but, again, is it our collective responsibility to prop up fragile world views at our collective cost? I think not.

          • soundfriend

            It’s a difficult problem. I’m only interested in the best approximation to the truth that science can provide.

          • Jan Galkowski

            And do you buy home insurance? Car insurance? Do you expect that it will be “virtually certain” your home will be destroyed? Or “virtually certain” you will have a catastrophic car accident?

          • soundfriend

            I think you are overgeneralizing here!

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          I have found this video by Earth the Operator’s Manual with Richard Alley to be very helpful:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UXgDrr6qiUk

          • soundfriend

            Thank you Neil, but I am not convinced by the information contained in the video that climate change is due to human activity.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The person in the video is Dr. Richard Alley – you can go read his scientific publications:

            http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=author:R-Alley&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=phy

          • soundfriend

            Thanks. I will have a look.

      • Steve__T

        Sorry I don’t think so.

        Volcanic Carbon Dioxide

        Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
        Consulting Geologist

        Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-25
        Revision 2 ISO:2011-Dec-11

        Abstract

        A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.

        http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Thank you for this paper.

          I find the “man-made” CO2 issue to be interesting.

          I don’t think these “facts” are in dispute:
          -atmospheric CO2 has increased form 280 to 400ppm since 1850
          -burning fossil fuels is about 3% of the annual natural emissions in the modern era
          -CO2 levels have relatively stable for about 10K years (since the last ice age)
          -Warming will increase atmospheric CO2 levels
          - We’ve experienced .8C warming since 1880

          Simple logic implies that man has upset the equilibrium. How much came from the warming vs. burning fossil fuels? I guess that is an open question.

          • Steve__T

            And will or may never be answered. How do you, or could you measure CO2 form a volcano under water?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I always wondered how they came up with the 3% number.

            Did volcanic activity slowly increase starting in 1850?

            Unlike the temperature record, the correlation with burning fossil fuels and increase in atmospheric CO2 is quite good.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          People are putting out 50-100X more carbon than volcanoes.

          Burning fossil fuels uses oxygen, and volcanoes do not – the level of oxygen is consistent with us burning fossil fuels. The level of oxygen dropping matches the rise in carbon dioxide.

          Carbon from volcanoes is carbon 13. Fossil fuels have carbon 12. Burning plants releases more carbon 14. The additional carbon in the air is carbon 12; which can only come from fossil fuels.

          http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich

          • Steve__T

            Mmmm No.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Inconvenient facts?

            Do you know more about this than Dr. Richard Alley?

          • Steve__T

            Inconvenient for who?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We know the basic facts about climate change – which are the ones I am referring to in my post above. If you watch the video segment I posted a link to, by Dr. Richard Alley, then you will have the facts.

            We *know* that we humans are causing most of the climate change. Those facts.

          • Steve__T

            No you don’t know you *believe*
            And I for one will say I DON’T KNOW EITHER. I do understand that we can’t keep going in the same direction. That would be the definition of insanity.
            But giving incorrect data or misunderstanding the data, is not going to help.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            One does not “believe” in science. Science is still true whether you or I “believe” in it.

            You cannot have opinions about facts, either.

            Apparently, someone “got” to Shepard Smith at Fox – “We’ve passed the point of no return. Climate change: It is real, the science is true.”

          • Jan Galkowski

            And your point is? I was referring to relative amounts of these compared to the ambient concentrations you so eloquently plagiarized from Wikipedia.

          • Steve__T

            My point is the statement:
            “The additional carbon in the air is carbon 12; which can only come from fossil fuels.”

            Is WRONG!

          • Jan Galkowski

            The inference is not based upon Carbon-12 being in the extra fraction of CO2 which has been admitted, it is that the ratio of Carbon-12 CO2 to Carbon-13 CO2 is increasing, and it is increasing PRECISELY in the same proportion that fossil fuel emissions are contributing CO2 to atmosphere. Moreover, the proportion of Carbon-14 CO2 is decreasing PRECISELY in the same proportion that fossil fuel emissions are contributing CO2 to atmosphere. These are direct atmospheric measurements, they don’t require a paleoclimate record, and they don’t require a climate model. More on this phenomenon, called the Suess effect, can be found here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/isotopes/mixing.html

          • Steve__T

            I’m sorry you don’t understand what i said.

            And I understand the Suess effect as mentioned in my post bellow.

            I have problems with declarative, false statements even if I agree with an argument in whole.

            “The additional carbon in the air is carbon 12; which can only come from fossil fuels.”
            That is incorrect.

          • Jan Galkowski

            Okay, rephrase: “The additional fraction of carbon in the air is carbon 12. That, and the fact that the additional fraction of carbon in the air is devoid of carbon 14 means that the additional fraction can only come from fossil fuels”. But you are nit-picking and wasting my time.

        • Jan Galkowski

          Volcanic CO2 is richer in Carbon-13 isotope than either fossil fuels or plants. This is interpreted as being because volcanic CO2 comes from subducted carbonates from sea shells, also rich in Carbon-13. Atmospheric CO2 is poor in Carbon-13 like fossil fuels and plants. Atmospheric CO2 is poor in Carbon-14 like fossil fuels but unlike plants.

          • Steve__T

            I think that although you have studied the subject I find some of your information to be inaccurate.

            Atmospheric, carbonate, and plant derived c 13 values all differ with respect to Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) standard.

            Within C3 plants processes regulating changes in PDB are well understood, particularly at the leaf level, but also during wood formation. Many recent studies combine leaf level isotopic fractionation with annual patterns of wood formation (i.e. tree rings) to quantify the impacts of climatic variations and atmospheric composition on physiological processes of individual trees and forest stands The next phase of understanding, in terrestrial ecosystems at least, seems to be the combination of multiple isotopic proxies to decipher interactions between plants, soils and the atmosphere, and predict how changes in land use will affect climate change

            Growth decline and divergent tree-ring isotopic composition contradict predictions of CO2 stimulation in high altitudinal forests.

            Unprecedented carbon accumulation in mined soils: the synergistic effect of resource input and plant species invasion all have impact on c 13.

            This bears on a peculiar twist in the use and abuse of the Suess Effect. The process of photosynthesis favours the assimilation of 12C into plant tissue during growth, which has the consequence of enriching the atmosphere with 13CO2 (Furquhar et al., 1989). This is used to differentiate between terrestrial and oceanic CO2 sources (Keeling et al., 2005).

            Moreover, plant based fossil fuel derivatives are therefore considered to be 13C depleted. Following this line of logic, fossil fuel emissions should be 13CO2 depleted as well. In fact, the Keeling (1979) article expands its internal definition of the Suess Effect to include this observation, once again to the exclusion of volcanic influence. Continental margin and back arc volcanoes also source their carbon from the 13C depleted mantle.
            Thus we can expect most continental margin and back arc volcanic emissions to be 13CO2 depleted, just like fossil fuel emissions. As it turns out, there are many examples of 13C depleted back arc and margin setting volcanic emissions (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991;
            Sano et al., 1995).

            Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in
            13C while plants continue to enrich the
            atmosphere in 13C. The consequence is that with time, the mantle also becomes 13C depleted. This too is solidly confirmed by a number of studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Catigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999;
            Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Statchel & Harris, 2009). As a consequence of 3C
            depletion in the atmosphere, 12C is enriched in the atmosphere. Fossil fuel emissions of CO2 are not the only 13C depleted sources that enrich the atmosphere in 12C. Volcanic CO2 emissions, being 13C depleted also enrich the atmosphere in 12C. This makes the CO2 emissions of volcanic origin isotopically identical to those of fossil fuel emissions. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society’s “chemical analysis”, whatever analytic method that is supposed to be! If you believe we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead.

            As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.

            http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/Volcanic%20Carbon%20Dioxide.pdf

            http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

          • Jan Galkowski

            Carbon isotope ratios for volcanic emissions are determined by assay, not by hypothesizing.

  • marygrav

    I remember a time when the Arabs in the Middle East proposed towing an iceberg into the desert to fulfil their water needs. Instead it seems that they prefer to finance the Syrian invasion.
    Salam does not mean peace anymore.

  • Art Toegemann

    Carbon taxing has been around for years. It has never been a solution. The taxes became a commodity that were merely traded without ever affecting behavior or ending climate change. Such free market solutions, like all fossil fuels and burning in general, are the cause, not the solution to sea level rise and the demise of the east coast of the US, including Washington, D.C., the only national capital to be drowned in this situation; the booths at WBUR too, for that matter.
    Maybe we will learn climate control, actual, or atmosphere creation, so that the ice caps stop melting. That calls for a huge international effort, not free market dithering.

    • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

      Cap and trade is NOT a carbon tax.

      • Art Toegemann

        Granted.
        But, as taxes (and deductions), it becomes an economic response to an environmental problem and, as such, will probably fail the matter in an infatuation with accounting.
        Respond directly. Quit fossil fuels, embrace solar panels. Admittedly easier said than done: none of the other nations’ capitals are in danger of drowning in sea rise; maybe London too.

  • HonestDebate1

    Marlo Lewis was sane. That’s about the only redeeming factor to this show.

  • Victoria St. Ambrogio

    The time for debate is over! Why even listen to this money guy talking about “in 1000 years”? The time for that is over! When do we stop being paralyzed by the Capitalism zealots? When our children are mostly dead?

    • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

      What is your plan?

      • Victoria St. Ambrogio

        I don’t know yet. Do you have a good one?

        • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

          My plan involves integrating climate change mitigation at the deepest level of economic policy. This is called “ecological economics.” The biggest part of my plan is to consider in economic policy the SERVICES the earth provides, not only the natural resources and raw materials it provides. Factoring in the services the earth provides (sunset, place to do business, beaches, etc. ) at the level of economic policy is the ONLY way to fix it.
          This way, the prices of all goods and services would include the cost required to maintain those services the earth provides to us for free.

          Consumers would then seek out lower prices, and the most ecologically sound choices would reflect those prices.
          Pretty simple. But getting everyone to agree to do it and act on it may require some actual effort.

      • Victoria St. Ambrogio

        But that is the right question!

        • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

          Fair enough.

  • Lee Riley

    Why is there no mention of Geoengineering contributing to Climate Change? Aerosol hair spray and fast lane automobile pollution are but tiny portions of changing weather for the worse; government and Air Force documents prove they are spraying salts and metals into the sky every day and manipulating whole weather patterns that raise toxicity in the biosphere.

    The people and agencies doing this should be the first to pay.

  • HonestDebate1

    Global warming made the winter so cold it resulted in a first quarter GDP of 0.1%. The rotting economy is a big deal. It is clearly because of the cold winter caused by global warming. Kudos to On Pint for keeping the focus where it should be.

    • jefe68

      You really should stop embarrassing yourself.

      • HonestDebate1
        • jefe68

          See above.

          • HonestDebate1

            Ray and others also blamed the cold winter for the pitiful GDP. It’s a trend, it’s the fed talking point. Roll with it. And we already know the polar vortex caused by global warming made it cold as hell. It only follows.

          • Ray in VT

            Your ability to disregard the analysis of people who actually know about these sorts of things and substitute your own lame analysis is truly amazing. It is about what I expect from one who thinks that it is a contradiction that global warming/climate change can be said to cause both droughts and floods.

          • HonestDebate1

            I am expressing liberal dogma, what’s the problem? Yes, global warming causes cold winters which affect GDP. That’s your argument.

            The answer is a carbon tax that will further cripple the economy while 97% of earth scientists agree it will have no affect on global climate.

            You guys are geniuses.

          • Ray in VT

            What you ascribe derisively to “liberal dogma” is actually coming out of the mouths of economics and scientists. Facts do have a well known liberal bias, so maybe such fields of intellectual endeavor and fact finding are liberal, while what passes for American conservatism rests upon belief, as most can’t seem to be bothered by facts.

            Even the average can appear brilliant to the dim. That likely explains your ascribing genius to those of us who merely know more than the very low bar that you set for yourself.

          • HonestDebate1

            What’s your beef with my comment?

          • Ray in VT

            Your snark.

          • HonestDebate1

            Liberal dogma does sound snarky, true, but it’s worse than that, It sounds stupid.

          • Ray in VT

            It sounds stupid only to the fools who are committed to the sorts of lies that prevent them from even understanding the dictionary. It must be a difficult cross to bear to struggle so mightily against basic facts and research. Somehow the blinded ideologues manage to soldier on, though.

      • Steve__T

        He’s not embarrassed, He’s rightfully ignorant and proud of it.

        • Ray in VT

          It think that I have seen it referred to as “exuberant ignorance”, where not only is one ignorant, but one is also really loud mouthed about it.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/20/3439488/biggest-loser-greenland-antarctic-ice-loss/

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/20-m-SLR.gif

    “So the “good” news is that it might take 1000 years (or longer) to raise sea levels several tens of feet, and the choices we make now can affect the rate of rise and whether we ultimately blow past 69 feet to beyond 200 feet.
    Glaciologist Jason Box made this point in a 2013 interview, “Humans Have Already Set in Motion 69 Feet of Sea Level Rise“

    • HonestDebate1

      Relax, we’ll be fine.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Yeah, you’re right and all the scientists are wrong.

        • Ray in VT

          Yeah, with their fancy degrees and years of research. That’s no match for whatever it is that he has.

          • Steve__T

            He has the ability to channel Rust Limpball.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Neil there is a new, detailed, study of sea level rise since 1807 [Jevrejeva et al. (2014) ].

      This study finds a sea level rise of 7 inches per century. No acceleration of sea level rise since 1880.

      Therefore, no CO2 signature found in the sea level rise data.

      Sleep well my friend and don’t bother selling your ocean front home.

      http://kaares.ulapland.fi/home/hkunta/jmoore/pdfs/Jevrejevaetal2013GPChange.pdf

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        That is a total outlier and/or it is outdated. We have already had 8″+ in the last ~100 years, and we know it is accelerating – before these two new studies.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Outlier? Tell that to the peer reviewers.

          This is one of the most exhaustive studies out there and is an update to: [ Jevrejeva et al. (2006)].

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It is outdated. That is the low end of the estimate of the IPCC, and now with these two new papers – the picture has changed significantly.

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    It’s better to be safe than sorry.

    But I will issue a warning to the current administration; if this turns out to be a red herring and the science turns out to say – climate change is caused by something OTHER THAN human activity, the public won’t have the stomach to support big projects to address it after they have been lied to!

    My plan involves integrating climate change mitigation at the deepest level of economic policy. This is called “ecological economics,” and it’s nothing new.

    The biggest part of my plan is to consider in economic policy the SERVICES the earth provides, not only the natural resources and raw materials it provides. Factoring in the services the earth provides (sunset, place to do business, beaches, etc. ) at the level of economic policy is the ONLY way to adequately address climate change and pollution, in general. There is no alternative.

    This way, the prices of all goods and services would include the cost required to maintain the services the earth has always provided to us for free.

    Consumers would then seek out lower prices, and the most ecologically sound choices would carry lower prices.
    Pretty simple. But getting everyone to agree to do it and act on it may require some actual effort.

    • pete18

      Who would determine the costs added on to goods and services? How would they make that calculation?

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        It is an entire subfield of economics. An economist would be appointed or elected to the position for a term.

        • pete18

          An elected economist determining tax penalties for the market based on subjective value judgements of the earth’s “services,” what could possibly go wrong?

    • JS

      It would have to start with a government imposed fee for pollution due to mining, farming, production, transportation, etc. I think its a good idea: reverse private profit/public risk

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        As long as the money goes right back to the taxpayers, I don’t care how they handle it. The chief ecological economist would need a set level of funding that was not connected to how much revenue their policies bought in. A million dollars per year should be enough to fund their department and the only increases in funding should be due to inflation.

        ALL the rest of the money goes back to individual taxpayers.

  • Ray in VT

    Phew, at least April was cold globally, a sure sign of global cooling and a harbinger of how the consensus among scientists is on the verge of collapse:

    http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/april-2014-global-temperature-ties-warmest-record-noaa-20140520

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Yes the data is consistent with the plateau.

      Also, from your linked article was something more relevant to discussion of antarctic sea ice levels:

      “On the opposite side of the world, Antarctic sea ice extent grew to about 3.47 million square miles – its largest April amount on record, surpassing its next-highest April extent by more than 120,000 square miles.”

      • Ray in VT

        Considering that an El Nino does appear to be warming, the “plateau”, which of course only takes some parts of global heat into the equation, may be coming to an end.

        Considering the recent stories of the ice sheet thinning and losing ice, then I’m not sure how much value should be ascribed to the fact that it is covering more area if it is indeed containing less actual ice.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          I find it ironic that the warmists are giddy at the prospect of El Nino warming presumably because it helps the messaging. I guess they are hoping the El Nino will ratchet up the temp and set a new “floor” for another plateau.

          • Ray in VT

            “Giddy”? If scientists can can be said to be so, perhaps it may be that such an event has the prospect of proving the deniers and conspiracy theorists wrong. If this becomes a record warm year, then where does the goal post get moved to next?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Giddy? Gleeful?

            Check out the 9-10 minute mark for the reaction to the anticipation.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCgsxPbAvk

          • Ray in VT

            If I was a researcher who was attacked by the sort of conspiracy theory nuts and amateur “experts”, then I might look forward, in a manner of speaking, to evidence that might shut them up, but being wrong doesn’t seem to do that. My bet would be more claims that the temperature records and instruments just aren’t reliable, so nothing to see, move along.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Don’t forget the post facto adjustments of the historical record: all one way — to show increased global warming.

          • Ray in VT

            Of course. That is a part of the conspiracy. Adjustments get made to the temperature record all willy nilly to support the effort to steal our freedoms.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Well, it is a fact that the ’30s would be warmer than the 2000s w/o the adjustments. Perhaps the adjustments are completely justified. Personally, I am curious and hope the adjustments are reviewed with proper transparency. I wouldn’t go as far as to say “conspiracy”.

          • Ray in VT

            So, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just that people with methods unknown to you are making adjustments that only ever serve to confirm the “warmist” views. It sounds an awful lot like you’re promoting a conspiracy to me.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I’m only curious/skeptical because the adjustments only go one direction (cooler in the past and warming in the present).

            I’ve heard they put more weight on overnight lows which could be distorted by UHI (urban heat island) effects. Again, I’m just curious, nothing more.

            There is also a slight divergence with the satellite record vs. the adjusted land temps. I’m not sure if that matches the theory and it seems like it warrants study. I think it is being studied.

          • Ray in VT

            Being curious and skeptical is a good thing, however, when one gets into the realm that I think so many “skeptics” get into I think that it crosses into conspiracy mongering. It seems to me that when amateur “experts” go about making wild claims about how NOAA doesn’t even know how to properly site its own instruments and properly analyze the data that comes out of those instruments, then that goes beyond the line of skepticism and into something else entirely.

            It is my understanding that once the errors in the satellite readings from the 1990s were corrected in order to account for drift, then those readings were basically in line with observed land temperatures. Also, given that the satellites do not, I think, measure all of the elements that go into the overall reports, then I think that putting too much stock in just that one piece isn’t advisable.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            My understanding is the older RSS suffers from an orbital decay causing some divergence. However, the newer UAH does not have this issue and there is still a small divergence vs. ground based temperatures over the recent decades.

          • Ray in VT

            That is my understanding about RSS as well. As for the UAH, I don’t know enough about the satellites and the factors that affect how their measurements are taken (cloud cover, land differences), the extent of any such difference and to what any such differences are attributed to comment upon them with any sort of confidence.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            UAH measures lower troposphere vs. ground based about a meter above the ground. So we have that difference.

            The satellite has the obvious advantage of wide coverage w/o surface “contamination” issues but it is still measuring lower trop.

          • Ray in VT

            And how far down does it measure the lower troposphere? All of the way to the ground? Seeing as how we live on the ground, it would seem to be important to get that reading, as well as farther up. It depends upon what one calls surface “contamination”. Take this for instance:

            “Differences between the MSU and surface records are found where
            there is some degree of decoupling in the vertical between the surface
            and the lower to middle troposphere. For instance, Spencer and
            Christy (1992a) found that monthly mean temperatures for the layer
            from 1000-700 mb were correlated with MSU values < 0.4 at Hawaii and
            Guam in the tropical Pacific, resulting from the trade-wind inversion
            that decouples the surface boundary layer from the free atmosphere
            over much of the tropics. Shallow temperature inversions are also
            commonly found over land in winter, especially in high latitudes, and
            this contributes to occasional large discrepancies in individual
            monthly anomalies (see Fig. 5 in TCH)."

            http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jclim96/

            Does the UAH suffer from such problems? I don't know if it does or if it has been possible to correct for such things.

            Considering the various inputs that go into coming up with things such as the monthly or annual climate reports, it stands to reason that the researchers at the NCDC/NOAA/NASA take the various considerations into account in order to present an accurate picture. I think that to judge otherwise would be to accuse them of gross incompetence or intentional bias.

          • Don_B1

            The temperature measurement data are analyzed by using the averages for each location, and then calculating the anomalies (deviations) from those averages (accounting for time of year, etc.) so the locations of the instruments do not influence the calculations.

            Dr. Richard Muller, with funding from the Koch brothers and other sources, proved that all the temperature calculations were accurate and published that in the results of the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study:

            http://skepticalscience.com/best-results-consistent-with-human-caused-global-warming.html

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I respect Dr. Muller. However, I believe more studies are forthcoming to make further improvements in the accuracy. We’ll see.

          • Don_B1

            They are currently more than accurate enough to make policy decisions to put the world on a path to ending the use of fossil fuels by 2050 or so.

          • Don_B1

            Kudos to you for using the way the earth’s temperature has always risen, in saw-toothed bursts and plateaus or small declines forever. See:

            http://skepticalscience.com/images/_core/foot/SkepticsvRealists_180.gif

            for how this works in real data!

            It also shows how people like you misuse or distort the data to convey an impression that is the opposite of reality.

    • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

      It AMAZES me no one brings up the possibility of an ice age.

      • Ray in VT

        Of course. One is right around the corner, and the scientific community back in the 1970s said that we were going to have one. What’s up with that?

        • Don_B1

          In the 30 or so prior to the 1970s, there was a slight dip in average U.S. temperatures, at least partly because the heating effect of the drought-stricken Plains states having been ameliorated, which led some scientists to predict a coming ice age, which some, usually tabloid, papers picked up.

          But by 1970, climate scientists by 6 to 1 were predicting warming, not cooling.

          See:

          http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

          and note the figure. There are some eight studies linked in that post that refer to the preponderance of warming predictions.

          • Ray in VT

            There was indeed some talk of such a scenario by some scientists, but it seems to get presented as though the scientific community at large was saying that, and that they were wrong that time, ergo we cannot trust them this time.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        It should be fairly clear to all that an ice age would be much worse than any of the predicted warming.

        • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

          And one possible outcome OF predicted warming is an ice age. Just goes to show the Earth is much more complex than we know. And it is impossible to predict with current science.

    • Brad Vietje

      NO. That is utter nonsense.

      April 2014 is tied with April, 2010 as the warmest April on record. What are you trying to imply?

      April 2014 tied the record for the warmest
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/04

      http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/april-2014-global-temperature-ties-warmest-record-noaa-20140520

      • Ray in VT

        I was joking, just so you know.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Oh boy, here is a climate scientist who actually reacts to the evidence.

    “Chatting With ‘A Climate Heretic’”

    “Doing science by consensus is not science at all, says the climatologist all the alarmists love to hate.”

    “TONY THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself

    (a) as at 2009

    (b) as at 2014,

    and why has there been a shift (if any)?”

    “JUDITH CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3. Climategate and the weak response of the IPCC and other scientists triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more sceptically.

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/chatting-climate-heretic/

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      More:

      THOMAS: Re the halt to warming in the past 15-17 years, has this been adequately explained to the public? If it continues a few more years, is that the end of the orthodox case?
      CURRY: Regarding the hiatus in warming, I would say that this has not been adequately explained to the public, the IPCC certainly gave the issue short shrift.

      The hiatus is serving to highlight the importance of natural climate variability. If the hiatus continues a few more years, climate model results will seriously be called into question. When trying to understand and model a complex system, there is, unfortunately, no simple test for rejecting a hypothesis or a model.

      • Brad Vietje

        There is no hiatus. The warming of the AIR has indeed, flattened out, but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans instead. Warming oceans is not at all a good thing, as we see methane being released from the Arctic, ice loss at both poles, and as CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, they become more acidic, which could kill all the invertebrates on which the entire ocean food web is based. Marine plankton produce 50% of the oxygen on the planet, and feed nearly all other marine species, so losing them is a really, really big deal.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Where do you buy your Koolaid? You appear to have consumed a really good batch.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Ocean chemistry is much more complex than you imply. Melting ice is actually increasing phytoplankton growth as shown in several recent studies including one posted today.

          “Ice sheets as a significant source of highly reactive nanoparticulate iron to the oceans”

          http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html

          • Don_B1

            I would be extremely cautious about how this might influence the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Read this paragraph from the linked paper:

            The global significance of subglacial Fe depends not only on the mass delivered but also on its behaviour following deposition in seawater. This is true for all sources of Fe. Behaviour is complex; iron may be dissolved (inorganically, photochemically and/or by complexation) and can be precipitated or lost by aggregation, sinking and scavenging7. A detailed consideration of these effects is beyond the scope of the present paper and we therefore present only a simple flux comparison between potentially bioavailable Fe from subglacial sources, icebergs and aeolian dust.

            While the speed and amount of ice moving off of Antarctica and Greenland will undoubtedly increase with warming, it is not at all clear whether the increased amount of iron will be significant in any CO2 reduction process.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Don, do you agree with Brad that we are in danger of “killing all invertebrates”?

            Just wondering if your “corrections” are limited to those of a skeptical view.

          • Don_B1

            “All” is a big word, but a significant number will be gone under a BAU (business as usual) continuation of current fossil fuel burning.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            OK, I get it. Never let a crisis (even if it is made up) go to waste.

    • Ray in VT

      Of course the non-”skeptics” don’t (react to the evidence). They’re too biased, corrupt or ignorant to conduct and analyze the sort of “real” science that only the “skeptics” seem to be able to do.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        Ummm. Yeah, I think that’s true!

        • Ray in VT

          That doesn’t totally surprise me.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Warmists are prisoners of consensus inertia. The search for the “missing heat” is fine but they should expand their horizons.

        Dr. Curry is championing open debate on the science — without retribution. She is also championing better communication on the uncertainties in the science. Warmists (not all) are stuck in a paradigm and that limits investigation into areas like natural variation.

        • Ray in VT

          Sort of like how people linked to fossil fuel-linked libertarian think tanks are locked into the idea that there can’t be man made global warming? Some real top science coming out of those places.

          I think that there is plenty of open and honest investigation. Oh wait, except for the supposed persecution of the “skeptics”.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            What good is debate that has no concrete answers or reliable proof one way or the other? I’m bored with this one. I’ll come back when there is more genuine data.

            Right now, all there seems to be is politics.

          • Ray in VT

            There’s plenty of good data and research out there, just so long as it isn’t cherry picked or misrepresented.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Exactly. And Dr. Curry is advocating fully communicating the uncertainty in the science. And for that she is attacked by the likes of Michael Mann.

          • Ray in VT

            It’s funny how little uncertainty so many climate scientists have regarding man playing a role in climate change. I’m sure that it’s not based upon years of study and research. It’s (edit: probably) just bias and group think. That’s why we need the “skeptics” to tell us how dishonest (edit: or ignorant) the vast majority of the climate scientists are.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The “vast majority” of climate scientists aren’t dishonest. However, if you DO speak up you are attacked by a small group of activists. If you are not tenured your job is threatened. Your funding is threatened if you are tenured. Amazing that you don’t see the problem!!

            Read this essay by a professor at the U. of Delaware on how a skeptic’s academic freedom was assaulted unfairly by a “warmist” administrator. If true, it is outrageous.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/the-climate-wars-and-the-university-of-delaware/#more-109373

          • Ray in VT

            Not dishonest, but just too ignorant to see the “real” science, then?

            Interesting how you fail to criticize the sorts of baseless accusations of bias and tampering with data that comes up from the “skeptic” community (Climategate I’m thinking). Those sorts of inferences and attacks get lauded, despite no credible findings of misuse or tampering with the data.

            Sounds like the U of D may have a problem with an administrator. Either release it all or release none. I don’t see a problem with either. Surprise, surprise, Legates has signed both the Oregon Petition and Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Petition. I do see the operative word in your last sentence as “if”. These are allegations, and I would have thought that individuals who often seem to claim that they want more openness in the process, i.e. the “skeptics”, would have put all of this information of theirs out there on their own. Maybe Legates has something to hide. Inquiring minds what to know if he has skeletons in his closet.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The essay was written by a Legates colleague. Would he publicly put his reputation on the line if there was no there there? I doubt it. Legates also personally responds in the comments . Very interesting.

          • Don_B1

            It sounds to me as if you are making the same charge against the 97% of scientists that support AGW as is made against a somewhat smaller proportion of Republican politicians who genuinely are terrified of being primaried if they even come close to admitting climate change is real (or stimulus is needed to jump-start the economy). The Republican Party is currently the most closed-rank group since the Civil War.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Don, it sounds like you don’t like Republicans.

          • Don_B1

            I grew up a Republican, but the current direction of the Republican Party would have old-time Republicans spinning in their graves, what with their total disrespect for science and misunderstanding of macroeconomics. And all of it is devastating, or will devastate, this country and possibly all civilization.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Actually, there is absolutely NO uncertainty regarding man playing a role in climate change. Neither the left nor the right would dispute that.

            What is disputed is HOW MUCH of a role.
            Has human activity contributed a grain of sand to the beach, or have we contributed the whole beach. THAT is what is disputed.

          • Don_B1

            Many, many Republican politicians have just done exactly that, denied that climate change exists.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Who? Name names.

          • Don_B1

            There are so many I don’t have to. But try the Georgia Republican Congressmen, Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey, who ran for the Republican Senate nomination.

            Long may they live outside politics.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Presently, in the past two years??? I thought we were talking about the current situation. I see no benefit to discussing the distant past.

            (I apologize for calling you stupid.)
            But you KNOW an ice age IS a possibility.

          • Don_B1

            Yes; see my post to WftC below.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Sure, there is some group think in libertarian circles. However, they aren’t speaking from “authority” or attempting a central planning take over of the energy economy.

          • Ray in VT

            Maybe they could speak with some authority if they had the facts on their side. I’m sure that the market will figure it out if there’s a problem. It worked with CFCs without any sort of government action, right? And with acid rain. It took care of that one, right?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Government scientists (and those funded by government grants) should be held to a different standard than Cato or Heartland. They have more power. Much more.

            CO2 is a different animal than CFCs or acid rain. I think there are bi-partisan solutions that tie low CO2 energy to low cost energy security. Since we’ve NEVER had a true energy policy, I don’t expect to see one any time soon.

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, one needs to go through the process of carefully collecting, evaluating and disseminating information (government scientists), while the others get to produce cherry picked “research”, supported by their secret funders, alleging conspiracies and incompetence from the global scientific community (Cato and Heartland). Plus the latter gets to run out as “experts” with a history of the sort record as described here:

            http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800

            In the sense that CO2 is contributing to an environmental problem, it is very much a similar animal, so I’m sure that the free market will fix the heck out of this problem, just like it did with the others.

        • Don_B1

          Isn’t Dr. Curry’s championing of “open debate,” like that of others, like debating whether the Norse, Roman, or Greek gods existed? Maybe interesting but not relevant to making decisions on mitigating CO2 emissions.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No it isn’t.

          • Don_B1

            That is your opinion, and only an opinion.

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    We can’t trust ANY of the conclusions of climate scientists until their funding is decoupled from their conclusions.

    Unfortunately, a crisis sells. It sells books, media appearances, convention speeches, not to mention high levels of funding.

    • cettel

      You trust instead the Koch brothers, who stand to make an additional $50-$100 billion if the 40% that they own of the Alberta Canada tar sands can be piped, refined, and sold to the public. Whose fool are you?

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        Go make assumptions somewhere else!

        I don’t trust EITHER side.

        That’s the point!

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          I found cettel response to you bizarre. Harry Reid bizarre.

          • Ray in VT

            Where do you think that funding for places like Heartland and Cato comes from?

  • OnPointComments

    An opinion with which I agree.

    TWO THINGS ABOUT WARMING
    http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-20272–20140518,0,2714470.story

    Excerpt:

    1. There has been no warming in the last 17 years — global surface temperatures have remained flat.
    2. The climate models completely failed to predict this.

    This invalidates all the predictions of doom and gloom based on these models and put forth by the National Climate Assessment…Because the models are based on increasing atmospheric CO2, the lack of warming also raises grave doubts about its true effect, which is being outshone by the sun, the clouds, the great ocean motions — of which El-Nino is just one — and other natural forces.

    The National Climate Assessment…trot[s] out the fact that average U.S. temperatures have risen 1.3 to 1.9 degrees in the past 100 years, but neglect[s] the fact that there has been no increase so far this century. It speaks about heat waves here in the Northeast, but fails to mention the increasingly cold winters.

    This report has been roundly criticized by prominent scientists such as Georgia Tech Professor Judith Curry, meteorologist Roger Pielke Jr., former NASA meteorologist Roy Spencer, retired atmospheric science Professor William Gray, and Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, who resigned recently from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate change skeptic group, after pressure from peers that he likened to McCarthyism, saying that he feared for his safety. So much for science discourse.

    • Ray in VT

      Gotta love the letters to the editor section.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Gotta love when inconvenient truth letters aren’t censored by the propagandists like at the LA Times.

        • Ray in VT

          Yeah, I guess that they’ll have to turn to other sources to push the distortions of the science that they can’t get published in decent scientific journals, which is why so many of them flee to the blogs or business publications.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Warmists publish letters to the editor too.

            On a different note, I had the great fortune to spend last weekend in the Burlington area. We went to a graduation Saturday at UVM. The weather cleared up nicely and a good time was had by all.

          • Ray in VT

            Not too many of them seem to get cited here as “evidence” or something.

            It was pretty nice up here of late. It’s quite a pleasant day today. I’d be rather pleased if it did not reach much above 80 all summer. That’s a bit easier to to manage up here in the hills, rather than down in the banana belt by Champlain.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “banana belt”?

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah. Usually that gets applied for Addison county from about Vergennes down to Middlebury, where there are some pretty large (relatively speaking) farms. The temperature down near the lake is often a few degrees warmer in the winter than it is up in the hills.

      • OnPointComments

        I appreciated that the writer was so succinct in stating the two irrefutable facts at the beginning of his letter.

        • Ray in VT

          Number one also relies upon picking as a starting point an abnormally hot year, while at the same time ignoring the accumulation of heat in other parts of the climate system. The second is true, which is why models get adjusted to incorporate new information as it becomes better understood.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            So you are saying the definition of global average temperature has now changed? It has always been surface temperature as measured by one of the datasets (HADCRUT4, GISS, UAH, RSS etc.).

          • Ray in VT

            I am saying that such measurements aren’t the only way to evaluate how much energy, in the form of heat, is accumulating throughout the entire system. If you run your bathtub over there is only so much water in your bathtub, while the amount of water in your house continues to climb if the faucet is still running.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Sure. Measure the ocean but that is separate than global land temperatures. As long as we keep them separate — fine.

            It is interesting that this so called missing heat found its way in the deep ocean yet we didn’t measure its passing by. Also, we haven’t notice this new heat causing an increase rate of sea level rise. Perhaps our measurement systems are not sensitive enough? We’ll have to do better.

          • Ray in VT

            Sure. Keep them separate, because surely ocean temperatures and the heat that the oceans periodically store and release don’t impact global land temperatures. What happens in El Nino years, globally, when the oceans start releasing that heat that was stored? Nothing special, right?

            I’m sure that the “skeptics” have managed to figure this all out in ways that the researchers who have published their research about ocean heating have obviously overlooked.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Trenberth’s theory is El Nino will ratchet up temps .2C-.3C and we’ll have a new floor.

            What if we end up with a weak El Nino that only lifts temps .1C and is then followed by a La Nina and temps end up falling by say: .2C? The models will be further “out of whack” than they already are.

            The next couple of years could be very interesting for the field of climate science.

          • Ray in VT

            Could be. Time will tell. Even the last 2 La Nina years were hotter than the 1996 El Nino year, and they were also about .1C hotter than the La Nina years of 1999 and 2000. It would take something pretty significant to get back down to .43-.45C above the 20th century average.

            Seeing as how we have lately gone through a solar minimum, and solar activity does have some impact upon global temperatures, then what do we see if we get a strong El Nino and higher solar activity? Something pretty not good.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Good point. Let’s talk about solutions. How do we set aside politics and actually get something done?

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t know if that is possible currently.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Well then, this conversation may be a waste of time…

          • Ray in VT

            If people can’t even agree that there is a problem or what is the cause of the problem (which seems, to a certain degree, to be less important, although understanding the causes is necessary in order to find solutions), then I don’t hold out much hope for solutions.

          • Steve__T

            I understand that point. Unfortunately.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Then the conversation itself is a waste of time… And I don’t like to waste time so I’m gonna do other stuff now.

          • Ray in VT

            I’m awfully stubborn, so I’ll carry on.

          • Steve__T

            Stop thinking a Tax will make a difference.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            I think you may be suffering from some sort of delusion.

            Since you just indicated you are able to read my thoughts, yet I wasn’t thinking about a tax. Not even a little.

            This leaves only two possibilities…

            1. You have a mental aberration or delusion. Seek help.

            2. You were “reading” someone else’s thoughts and attributed them to me.

            Either way, your comment was misdirected since I was never thinking about a tax.

            I have outlined my very well-thought out plan in various comments I’ve made on this forum. You are welcome to check it out.

          • Steve__T

            especially if it gets hotter, and here it comes.

          • Steve__T

            How about we go with something even simpler? What happens when the wind blows on shore?

          • Ray in VT

            As in when it comes in from over the water?

          • Steve__T

            Yeah you got it. But also lets not confuse anyone, but it maybe to late.

          • Don_B1

            Right from the second sentence, you are dead wrong!

            Land surface, ocean surface, and ocean depths are an interrelated system. It is most prominently observed with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, part of which is the “semi” periodic switches between El Niño and La Niña conditions. See:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation

            But since you “CLAIM” to understand climate science, I am (actually not) surprised to find you ignoring this well known phenomenon, out of ignorance or the desire to misdirect the less informed about climate science. Either way it does not reflect well on your efforts here.

            But for those others, this PDO phenomenon provides a mechanism where heat (energy) is transferred back and forth between the atmosphere and the oceans.

            From Skeptical Science, read:

            There’s also the issue of sea level rise, whose main contributors are melting glaciers andice sheets, and thermal expansion (water expanding as it warms). Climate scientists have been able to close the sea level ‘budget’ by accounting for the various factors that are causing average global sea levels to rise at the measured rate of about 3.2 millimeters per year since 1992 (when altimeters were launched into space to truly measure global sea level). The warming oceans account for about 35–40% of that rate of sea level rise over the past two decades, according to the IPCC AR5. If the oceans weren’t continuing to accumulate heat, sea levels would not be rising nearly as fast.

            http://skepticalscience.com/warming-oceans-rising-sea-level-energy-imbalance-consistent.html

            so again your claims are shown false.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Try again Don.

            I never said the systems weren’t interrelated. I said to keep the measurements separate. That way we can do an apples to apples historical comparison.

            There is no need to be obnoxious — even if you were so eager to try and find a “gotcha”.

          • Don_B1

            You are the one being “obnoxious.”

            But you want to measure the radius of a balloon when, as it inflates, it is pushed in on one side and claim that the whole contents of the balloon have gone down, ignoring the other parts of the balloon which have bulged out and make up for the missing radius on the other side and also the increased air from the inflation.

            You are trying so hard and failing so abysmally.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
      • OnPointComments

        “If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.

        “But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.”

        “OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.”
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          The sun’s output has actually dropped a bit, and a lot of heat has been sunk into the oceans.

          Surface temperatures have continued to climb. We have had several years that are hotter than 1998.

          The so-called ‘Little Ice Age’ is a canard.

          http://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

          If you have any more “skeptical” arguments, just look here for a debunking:

          http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

          • OnPointComments

            Please provide us with a link to the climate models from 17 years ago where they said “but the global warming might go deep in the ocean and go undetected.” Thanks.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Look – we are not debating the science. You have your doubts? That’s your prerogative. But you might as well doubt gravity or the atom.

            You are wrong. Take it up with someone who cares what you think.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The “missing heat” appears to be settled science as does the C&W creation of phantom temperature measurements to increase unmeasured warming.
            #SettledScience

        • Ray in VT

          Gotta love the lawyer’s perspective from a business magazine. I enjoy how, for instance, he fails to mention ocean warming, as well as how despite what is described as a “deep solar minimum”

          http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/

          we have not seen a decline in global temperatures during the past few years.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        sks?

        How’s Cook’s 97% data release working out for him? Just wondering if you know the latest Neil?

        • Ray in VT

          Skeptical Science did have an unauthorized “data release” a while ago, sometimes known as a hack. Cook et al put out their ratings of the papers in a searchable form quite a while ago. They also asked authors to rate their own papers. Perhaps someone, through means fair or fowl, liberated the results of the author surveys.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I just chuckle at the 97% mythology.

            Actually, it is sad that so many in the MSM repeat it. Either complete koolaid zombies or zero critical thinking skills. Take your pick.

          • Ray in VT

            I know. They got totally blown apart when Watts asked one or two “skeptics” about how their papers were rated. One claims that the sun is responsible for global warming while another claimed as a defense that the abstract didn’t describe his paper. Interesting authors who responded to request to self-evaluate their own papers said at higher rates than the authors of the paper that their papers took a position on AGW and basically the same percentage said that their paper supports it.

            It is a real shame when the much maligned MSM doesn’t take the “skeptic” bloggers and their claims with the same weight as the published scientific research. It must be tough for them.

          • Don_B1

            The short form of “Ray in VT’s” post above is that WftC’s laughing at what he calls “the 97% mythology” is pure BS.

            WftC has to laugh; it is probably better than the crying, whining, or beating up his relatives in his frustration at not being able to show any significant scientific data that shows the work of climate scientists is wrong.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Memo to Don: the “97% mythology” is not a critique of any science. It is a critique of the propaganda.

          • Don_B1

            It is used in critiques of science to debase the fact that the vast majority of scientists agree with the fact that real science, which is not propaganda, predicts that climate change is happening and will have devastating consequences for human civilization and a lot of all life on this planet.

            And when the deniers cannot show that the actual science is faulty, they try to infer that there are actually a lot of real climate scientists who disagree with the predictions, thereby making a kind of ad hominem argument against the science.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Ah, now we are at “vast majority” of “scientists”. An improvement over 97%.

            But then you had to add “will have devastating consequences”. Tsk, tsk. Now you are just making it up.

            Lennart Bengtsson is one of your 97% but he is brave enough to recognize the importance of acknowledging the uncertainties and how demonizing other ideas is toxic to the health of the science.

            You should read his quoted comments at the end of JC’s post here:

            http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-bengtsson-speaks-out/#more-15421

    • TFRX

      You had to scrape down to a letter to the editor?

      That’s all you got?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Sorry OnPoint. It wasn’t for lack of trying. Maybe you’ll still get a Nobel prize.

    “CLIMATE CHANGE: THE BIGGEST PR FAIL IN HISTORY”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/20/Climate-Change-The-Biggest-PR-Fail-In-History

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Get a life.

      You are denying reality. The reality that NO ONE on this On Point program denies.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Actually Neil you are denying reality. This article is about the effectiveness of the propaganda — not the science.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Sez the person who links to Breitbart as a scientific reference…

          Yeah, you are right and all those climate scientists, and the people on this program are wrong.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Right/wrong about what? You’ll have to be more precise.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Um, climate change?

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            WORRIED FOR THE COUNTRY has a point.

            All I see is political hype. No actual science.

            Then you got people saying CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” but greenhouse gas is much more complicated than it sounds. Greenhouse gases could cause global cooling just as easily as global warming.

            We could be looking at another ice age here.

            I don’t think anyone is denying that human activity impacts climate change. But the question is HOW EXACTLY and HOW MUCH does human activity impact climate change. There are SO MANY unknowns.

            I agree it’s better to be safe than sorry but if you believe the scientists know what they are talking about you are either deluded or just daftly ignorant.

            THEY DON’T. When you buy into the hype you are only showing how stupid you really are.

            Scientific discoveries turn previously enshrined theories on their head ALL THE TIME.

          • Don_B1

            ALL the “hype” is coming from the Republican (and a few Democrats in fossil fuel states) who are beholden to the fossil fuel extraction industry.

            An increase in “greenhouse gases” can only increase the warming of the planet, so it will NOT cause global cooling.

            The main paths for human activity to cause an increase in greenhouse gases are well known. There are uncertainties in the exact relationship, but not anywhere near the extent you claim. Read:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate

            http://www.desmogblog.com

            http://grist.org/

            for good information about climate science.

            The paragraph from the Economist in the preamble needs to be taken to heart.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “all the hype”

            Now that is funny.

          • Don_B1

            You would be too, if your message was not so disgustingly wrong-headed.

          • Steve__T

            And stupid.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            You CAN’T be THAT stupid!

            It most certainly CAN cause global cooling! That is how the Earth stabilizes the temperature when it gets too hot, global cooling.

            Go back to school, dummy

          • Don_B1

            No, the earth stabilizes itself at a new higher temperature when the greater absorption is balanced by an increased amount of heat radiation from the hotter earth and remains there until either the absorption of the atmospheric CO2 by the oceans reduces the total CO2 so a new lower temperature is reached or the earth moves to a different part of its orbit so that it impinges less of the sun’s radiation and cools for that reason.

            Be careful when you call someone stupid; it might reflect on you!

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            “Until either the absorption of the atmospheric CO2 by the oceans reduces the total CO2 so a new lower temperature is reached”

            Potential Ice Age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Don_B1

            So your statement that “Greenhouse gases could cause global cooling just as easily as global warming” apparently includes the required, but not present, modifiers “decreased” and “increased” levels, respectively, to make any sense.

            So I do not accept your attempt at a “gotcha.”

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            It wasn’t an attempt at a gotcha. I have no interest in being “right”. I have an interest in truth and fact.

            The truth is, the facts support the possibility of a potential ice age, as one of the possible consequences OF climate change.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Political? Science and reality are not political, and opinions about science and facts don’t enter into it.

            Breitbart is political.

            Carbon dioxide follows the laws of nature. If there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then less heat escapes back into space. More heat in the atmosphere means higher temperatures.

            We have known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas since the 19th century. The US Air Force did the ground breaking research on the light spectrum that is blocked by carbon dioxide in the 1950′s, in order to get heat seeking missiles to work.

            We know the basics about anthropogenic climate change. We know that we have increased the level of carbon dioxide from ~270ppm in ~1850 up to ~402ppm today. We know how the climate was in the past at this level and at many other levels.

            The things we know less about are how the climate will react given the very short time scale that this increase has occurred relative to the past. We do not know exactly how the various feedback loops will happen. We don’t know exactly how quickly things will happen.

            But we know that at some point, some or all of those feedback loops will kick in. And we know that at some point, all of the Arctic ice will melt in the summer, and then eventually, it will stop freezing up in the winter. We know that Greenland is very likely to melt, but we do not know how quickly. It may well melt completely – it might take 10,000 years, or 5,000 or 1,000 or maybe even more quickly than that.

            I am an avid amateur scientist, and I have taken physics in college.

            Climate science is a broad field that involves many fields of study; from geology, chemistry, astrophysics, plate tectonics (which is a far “younger” field of science than climate science), oceanography, biology, atmospheric science, study of the sun, paleontology – even evolution is needed to understand climate science.

            If scientists told us a very large asteroid was going to hit the earth in exactly 42 years and 41 days, would we choose to ignore them?

            Science is all about doubt and skepticism. But it is also about tested knowledge and everything has to fit together. That is why the idea that this could be some sort of conspiracy is so preposterous. Like the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked – it would be harder to fake, than it is to learn about what is actually going on.

            Do you doubt DNA does what it does?

            Do you doubt evolution?

            Do you think that plate tectonics is bunk?

            Do you “believe” in the structure of the atom?

            Do you really think it takes 100,000 years for a photon to escape the core of the sun, but it only takes about 8 minutes to then reach the earth?

            How can stars that are 10 billion light years away have a gravitational effect on the earth?

            Why is water the *only* element that expands when it freezes?

            Science is wonderful and mind blowing and useful and pragmatic and important and cosmic – all at the same time …

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Hey Neil, the next Cosmos is ALL about global warming. Should be juicy.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            That fellow Neil deGrasse Tyson is such a sucker …

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            LOL!!! He owes Sagan.

          • Steve__T

            I hope your being sarcastic.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Ya’ think?

            My point is: Neil deGrasse Tyson is correct about climate change. He has brought science into Fox.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Neil is kind of stupid.

            He has a good heart – but he’s stupid.

          • Steve__T

            You call one of the most intelligent scholars of our time stupid.

            That statement makes you look like bubble gum on the bottom of a shoe, something worthless.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            You mean, one of the most intelligent scholars YOU KNOW OF…

            You are only showing the extent of your own ignorance and limited schema…

            If I am bubble gum on the bottom of a shoe, that makes you feces on a distant planet.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            You mean one of the most intelligent YOU KNOW OF.

            Thus, you are only demonstrating the extent of your own ignorance…

            If I am bubble gum on the bottom of a shoe, that means you are space dust derived from ancient extraterrestrial feces.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Very cool thoughts.

            But you are forgetting one thing. Science has its own feedback loops. Einstein was laughed at.

            When new data is gathered, theories have to be revised or sometimes scrapped in order to start over.

            There are SO MANY unknowns. Climate change COULD cause another ice age as one of the feedback loops you mentioned.

            It IS better to be safe than sorry, true! Where I start to get annoyed is all the projections of how things could develop. NO ONE KNOWS!!!!!

            Secondly, let’s say, for the sake of argument, you are right and all the climate scientists have reasonably accurate assessments of the data.

            In this case, what is the solution?
            You think China is about to stop their industrial engine??? I highly doubt it…

            That means the U.S. has to “lead” on this issue.

            THAT is where it gets political. The carbon fees will end up shafting the middle class.

            This is why I believe Ecological Economics needs to be integrated at the most fundamental level of the economy, so goods are priced according to their actual costs (including perviously externalized costs).
            This takes into account the services the Earth provides rather than only the raw materials and resources the earth provides.

            THEN, every bit of that revenue gets refunded to taxpayers, every taxpayer receiving an equal yearly payment that is not linked to their individual spending habits. This is the only way to ensure consumers seek out lower prices. And the more ecologically sound products will reflect lower prices because the “actual” costs will be lower.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We are causing the climate to change – so we can stop doing what we are doing; and switch to renewable energy.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            How??? How do we switch??? How do freighters use something other than fossil fuels? How does mining?

            How do we create such a seismic paradigm shift, and get the public on board, so electricity is coming from somewhere other than coal, to change the ENTIRE economy to “renewables” without sacrificing output, etc?

            Do we even HAVE enough renewables to power the entire economy?

            HOW?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We have more than enough.

            http://thesolutionsproject.org/

            Shipping can be solar and wind powered. Mining can use electricity. Also, most things can and should be made locally, anyway. Food in particular should be locally grown. We use an immense amount of energy and water now, that we would save if most food was grown locally.

            We are getting less than 38% of our electricity from coal, already. Wind is the fastest growing source – and the least expensive (land based turbines). Solar PV is also growing at an enormous rate. If a place like Germany can do it, then the USA certainly can. Germany is about as sunny as Alaska, or the least sunny place in the far northwest corner of Washington state.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            And who is going to pay for converting to all these technologies? A wind and solar powered freighter does not sound cheap.
            Are you saying carbon fees will prompt the free market to make the changes?

            As I said before, I am all for that as long as the fees are revenue neutral and given to taxpayers as a refund, and as long as the biggest polluters pay the most.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We have to replace our power plants, anyway. The health improvements and lack of pollution will pay for them in 12-20 years. And avoiding the worst effects of climate change is huge.

            Read the link – and/or watch the full length Earth the Operator’s Manual; which also goes into detail on this.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            I understand the public benefits merit the costs. But that’s not the same as recouping the market costs.

            We also don’t know with any certainty if these efforts will help us avoid the worst effects of climate change. It might be too late! The climate is very complex, even the most advanced computer models could be wrong.

            And you’ve ignored the rest of my comment.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            I’ll answer when I have more time, sorry.

        • TFRX

          Breitfart: Leaders in the noise to signal ratio since ever.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        When you say things like, “You are denying reality. The reality that NO ONE on this On Point program denies.”

        YOU lose credibility. Science can be wrong and has been countless times.

        When you aren’t willing to question the conclusions of data analysis, and look at all of the possibilities, it makes you seem like as much a fanatic as the “deniers”.

        Let’s look at ALL the possibilities, the whole spectrum, and then ALL the solutions, politics aside.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Anthropogenic climate change is settled, and there is no doubt about the basics.

          We don’t know everything about gravity, and there are many unanswered questions. But does that negate our understanding of the basic knowledge about gravity? Same goes for plate tectonics, the structure of the atom, for how DNA works, how stars are born, how some species of frogs can survive being frozen, why horseshoe crabs have copper-based blood (that is worth $15,000/quart!), how tardigrades survived all five major extinctions, how tube worms live next to black smokers – etc. etc.

          Climate change deniers have no place in this discussion. You might as well deny light is both a particle and massless electromagnetic energy.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            See, there you go.

            You say, “It’s settled and there’s no doubt.”

            I ALREADY TOLD YOU I HAVE PLENTY OF DOUBTS.

            No one is going to take you seriously when you behave like this.

            All your arrogance does is discredit scientists in general.

            Yes, most of what you said is true, and I respect your perspective actually, very much.

            But you forget about the debacle about Neutrinos being faster than light.

            After more scrutiny, and checking equipment, it turned out they weren’t faster than light. But the point is still valid. ONE equipment failure, and suddenly your data is skewed.

            Well, what if there are inherent flaws in the design of the equipment? What if the climate computers all share a software design flaw?

            But nevermind that.

            Let’s say YOU’RE RIGHT. Let’s use the “just in case” scenario.

            How do we SOLVE this? How do we set politics aside and get something done!

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            See, there you go.

            You say, “It’s settled and there’s no doubt.”

            I ALREADY TOLD YOU I HAVE PLENTY OF DOUBTS.

            No one is going to take you seriously when you behave like this.

            All your arrogance does is discredit scientists in general.

            Yes, most of what you said is true, and I respect your perspective actually, very much.

            But you forget about the debacle about Neutrinos being faster than light.

            After more scrutiny, and checking equipment, it turned out they weren’t faster than light. But the point is still valid. ONE equipment failure, and suddenly your data is skewed.

            Well, what if there are inherent flaws in the design of the equipment? What if the climate computers all share a software design flaw?

            But nevermind that.

            Let’s say YOU’RE RIGHT. Let’s use the “just in case” scenario.

            How do we SOLVE this? How do we set politics aside and get something done!

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            OK, hypothetically, let’s say you’re right.

            What is your plan for solving this?

    • Jay

      From 13950 peer-reviewed scientific articles published from
      1991 to 2012 only 24 decented.

      http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/11/chart-only-017-percent-peer-reviewed-papers-question-global-warming

      From Nov 2012 to December 2013 2258 articles
      with 9,136 authors and one denier

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

      Feel free to audit the research yourself:

      http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

      BTW, I couldn’t help but notice that WorriedfortheCountry
      has 7095 comments, 1 follower and he keeps his user activity set to private.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        What are you replying to?

        I posted an article about the amount of money spent on climate change messaging and the effectiveness of that messaging as measured by public polling. You responded with left wing web site articles about something completely different.

        I’m familiar with the research and the state of climate science. Also, I am familiar with problems with the funding system and how the uncertainties are being communicated to the public.

        • Don_B1

          R. Regan’s response was not from “left wing site articles.” It contained information from science-based sites that give information that is based on empirical data.

          Your being “familiar with the research and the state of climate science” is totally useless as you use it only to find some “uncertainty” that you can distort and falsely indicate supposed failures of the science rather than really dealing with what the science says and showing why scientists are working to clarify the relatively minor uncertainties, minor in developing political policies to mitigate the worst effects of continued CO2 emissions.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Motherjones and Slate are left wing sites. I didn’t recognize the third site — it looked like a personal blog. However, I accept the point that just because it is a left wing site known for propagandizing climate science that the specific post might be just fine and might stand on its own merits.

          • Don_B1

            You can count on the fact that those and other posts do stand on their own high-level merits.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Check the comments section on MJ. The first two comments from poptech show that there is trouble in paradise. So much for “high level merits”.

            poptech is fairly detailed in his analysis.

          • Jay

            After you go and check out the source material for those articles instead of reading the comment. Hit this link http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=scholarly+articles+about+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=bYd9U4TBEMWisASH6oDgCA&ved=0CCcQgQMwAA

          • Jay

            If you read the Motherjones and Slate articles you would recognize that http://www.jamespowell.org is the home page for James L. Powell, the geologist who did the survey of scholarly articles relating to climate change and came up with that number sited in the aforementioned articles. If you go to the website you can scrutinize the data for yourself. .

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Why did James Powell exclude Richard Lindzen’s papers (amongst many others) from his study when they met the requirements? Why didn’t he limit his analysis to peer reviewed papers?

            If you can provide satisfactory answers to these questions, I’ll be happy to revisit the issue.

        • Jay

          Wasn’t the article you posted from Breitbart? Isn’t that a Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch echo chamber?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Nice dodge Jay.

        • TFRX

          Breitfart?

          Are you a fool or a knave?

          • pete18

            Balloon Juice!!

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        “decented”

        Do you mean “dissented”?

        LOL Go back to school little buddy.

        • northeaster17

          Funny how one misspells a word and others use the error to discredit the message. Ah the prefectness of the internet.

          • Ray in VT

            Uh, it is Internet. Your comment is therefore invalid.

    • TFRX

      Breitfart?

      Hahahahahahahahahaha.

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    Only trust politically independent climate scientists whose funding is not tied to their conclusions…

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Hey, it looks like there is a delete comment option.

      There should be a pulldown next to the collapse thread that allows deletion. Not sure if it is new.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        We already had this conversation. I have tried using “delete comment”. It just changes one’s name to “guest”.

        • Guest

          But it doesn’t delete the comment too?

          Jay deleted a comment above that I had replied to. It was gone and my reply didn’t go through. Maybe if someone completes the reply BEFORE the deletion the deletion is canceled.

        • Guest

          But it doesn’t delete the comment too?

          Jay deleted a comment
          above that I had replied to. It was gone and my reply didn’t go
          through. Maybe if someone completes the reply BEFORE the deletion the
          deletion is canceled.

          Notice the delete went through.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Now try w/ a reply.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Delete seems to work now. I did with both with and without a reply.

            OK. I see your point. After a refresh they comments remain as “guest”.

            I wonder how Jay did it because his comments were gone.

  • Jay

    Learn more about Marlo Lewis and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and their work to introduce doubt into the climate change debate. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Soros has spoken.

      • Ray in VT

        Countering an organization that has received support from the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation. Funny how that Koch name seems to turn up just about any place people are “skeptical” about the science of climate change.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          My initial Soros comment (now retracted) was an attempt to mock the reflexive Koch attacks seen throughout this thread. I see that it was warranted.

          • Ray in VT

            Care to show where groups funded by Soros are attempting to distort the state of the science of climate change, as Cato and Heartland do with their “research”? Funny how those energy guys’ money just keeps ending up in places that try to claim that climate change either isn’t happening, isn’t caused by human activities or isn’t that bad.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Like Richard Muller and BEST?

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, they didn’t get what they paid for that time. Supposedly Watts was going to stand by the findings of BEST. From my reading is does not appear that he did so after their findings were that indeed temperatures were increasing.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            My sense is Watts likes some of BEST but thinks they made some mistakes too. You do know that he is a collaborator on BEST?

            Why do you assume the worst for Watts? It appears to me that he is working for accuracy. I think he is working on another study to improve on some of BESTs shortcomings but I’m not sure.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, I’m sure that he’s really up to snuff with the numbers and those darned physicists, statisticians and such just don’t know how to evaluate the data, just like NOAA doesn’t know how to site its stations.

            I know your views on Mr. Watts. I have a highly different view, based upon quite a number of his statements and affiliations. I’m sure that he’s assembling a team of top people to set those Berkeley people straight.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Gee, he’ll either find a method to improve the accuracy — or he won’t. Who could be against him trying?

            Oh yeah, we know who they are.

          • Ray in VT

            I’m not against trying, just have no confidence in the good intentions of someone like Watts who thinks that he is going to discover the errors that so many other top scientists and researchers have somehow failed to uncover or have overlooked. I think it’s just a dog and pony show for those who frequent his blog.

  • Ray in VT

    In what should be news to no one news, a recent poll from a researcher at the University of New Hampshire shows that a very large percentage (43%) of people surveyed who self identified as TEA Party do not trust scientists as a source of information about environmental issues:

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/tea-party-climate-trust-science

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Live Free or Die, baby!!!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Given that the Yale study showed Tea Party types are better versed in science than the general public it isn’t surprising that their BS and propaganda detector is working just fine.

      • Ray in VT

        Some of my readings have found that people who have highly suspect views often have very detailed knowledge of particular aspects of a topic.

        It’s a good thing, though, that these TEA Party types know more than the scientists. That way they can spot the conspiracy.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          I hear those TPs are pretty good at spotting Commies in the Dem party too. A versatile bunch.

          • Ray in VT

            Ooooh, those darned red Communists. Are they still taking their orders from the Politburo in Moscow? Please provide a list of known communists in the State Department. Down you have a list in your briefcase?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Like this guy?

            “Dem Congressman: ‘We’ve Proved That Communism Works’”

            http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/21/dem-congressman-weve-proved-that-communism-works/

          • Ray in VT

            Indeed, of course that comment, which he chuckles after having made, proves that he’s a communist. Well played. In breaking news Mitt Romney is actually a Nazi:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hio0OjgBdUM

            Let us look, though, at Representative Garcia’s comment: government spending on border security drives down crime. That is what he is jokingly referring to as communism working. Seeing as how so many in the TEA Party want to tighten up the border, then we must conclude that such tough border TEA Partyers are actually communists.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Respected climate researcher opines Lennart Bengtsson in a new interview:

    “What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

    Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.”

    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html?m=1

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      To Jay:

      “I don’t think Lennart Bengtsson is respected by anybody except climate change deniers.”

      Well then, you’d be dead wrong. Why weigh in on something that you clearly know nothing about. It just makes you look foolish.

      http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len15.pdf

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    File this one under “settled science”.

    A new paper in Nature “challenges the current consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year” and finds “semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric CO2.”

    Say it ain’t so.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/settled-science-new-paper-challenges.html

    • Jay

      OMG one paper. That changes everything to me. Can I read it?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Feel free. You might learn something.

    • Ray in VT

      Of course, because as the “skeptics” like to tell us, the climate science community claims that all of the details regarding climate change are settled. That bears little resemblance to the actual position of the climate science community, but it does seem to get believed and promoted.

      From the abstract the paper says that “The land and ocean act as a sink for fossil-fuel emissions, thereby
      slowing the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations” and that record 2011 carbon sink was “surprisingly” “driven by growth of semi-arid vegetation in the Southern Hemisphere, with almost 60 per cent of carbon uptake attributed to Australian ecosystems, where prevalent La Niña conditions caused up to six consecutive seasons of increased precipitation” and that “More research is needed to identify to what extent the carbon stocks accumulated during wet years are vulnerable to rapid decomposition or loss through fire in subsequent years.” So, during a series of wet years vegetation increased. This allowed more carbon to be sunk into a terrestrial ecosystem. That may slow increases of atmospheric CO2 in the short term, although the storage of carbon in fairly marginal land may only occur for one or two years, as opposed to more long term storage in places such as tropical rainforests:

      http://www.npr.org/2014/05/22/314761225/scientists-discover-carbon-cycle-is-out-of-whack

      Seems to me like yet another purposeful misrepresentation by “skeptics” of an article that contributes to a better understanding of how the global carbon cycle works in order to downplay what is actually going on.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Incredible. No, it is the MSM and politicians who tell us the science is settled. Tell Obama, John Kerry, Ed Markey and every looney Dem in DC to stop saying the science is settled. Oh, and that includes John Holdren, Obama’s looney science adviser too. Is he a scientist? He certainly doesn’t act like one.

        • Ray in VT

          Oh yes, because they totally claim that all aspects of the science is settled, and I know this because the “skeptics” continually claim that it is the case. It seems to me that what is claimed is settled is that we are driving increases in atmospheric CO2, and that that is driving a number of other effects, including temperature increases. Whenever I want to read something looney on climate science I just read the links that you provide.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            It appears they can’t let a good “crisis” go to waste. It isn’t just Dems. There are Statists in both parties.

          • Ray in VT

            Indeed. They’ve ginned this all up to steal our freedoms, when the free market will take care of it on its own, of course.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Hey Ray, one month, 10 days, 10 hours until the launch of OCO-2.

        Maybe we’ll finally get same real DATA so we can draw some conclusions about the carbon cycle, sources, sinks, etc.

        Much better than the idle speculation we’ve living with — wouldn’t you say?

        http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

        • Ray in VT

          I think that an better instruments are great, however I think that to characterize current conditions as “idle speculation” is far off of the mark.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            OK. But I suspect they have much to learn.

            Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:

            CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales

            The IPCC claim that “All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity” is impossible

            “Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels”

            Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions

            96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made

            Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions

            Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions

            Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable – CO2 – and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.

            The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%

            Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years

            Climate models have no predictive value

            Feynman’s quote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong” applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html

          • Ray in VT

            Yay, another cut and paste from a “skeptic” source. One wonders why so few climate scientists can see these obvious scientific wonders that the “skeptics” discover? Perhaps it has to do with them not holding water. Also, you should advise them to update their page. Salby was dismissed from Macquarie University for not upholding his duties to teach by not showing up, and he’s also been barred from getting National Science Foundation funds some shady dealings with grants. Let me guess, though, persecution?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Persecution? Could be. I don’t know anything about him.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby’s work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change ”

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/02/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry-salbys-work-finding-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Must be on the payroll of Koch or Exxon.

          • Ray in VT

            Dismantle the climate change conspiracy! Two guys, one with some questionable ethics, say that they’ve produced the same results, so this totally destroys the work of the climate science community going back over decades and thousands of papers and studies. Amazing how just one or two guys get to invalidate the work of thousands. The consensus can finally fall! What scientific journal was this groundbreaking research published in?

        • HonestDebate1

          I hope it’s not more good news, that’ll make some people very upset.

  • http://hammernews.com/ hammermann

    Course it’s not sea level rise that’s the big threat- it’s drought-caused famine that will rip through our over-populated planet like a scythe. It will kill billions starting very very soon- which will lead to a probable collapse of civilization as food skyrockets in price and food-poor states attack and invade richer ones. Damn woulda loved to talk to Hanson- interviewed his colleage at Goddard for 4-5 hours for an opus AGW article. We have NO TIME left- even ceasing all emmisions NOW would still lead to 2-3 deg rise by end of century. I first mentioned AGW 35 years ago in my 2nd article on the energy crisis. It’s exhausting reading these comments- same brainless GW deniers or paid carbon pimps. http://HammerNews.com

  • Jason

    The guiding force of a carbon tax could be a useful tool, assuming it is not co-opted by special interests. However, it is only part of the equation. Upgrading to a carbon free society is a monumental task and will take decades to accomplish. Building the solar, wind, geo thermal, tidal, batteries, fuel cells, and smart grid technologies to connect them all will require massive amounts of labor and economic activity. Individuals, companies and government would need to work cooperatively to accomplish such a feat. Even if tomorrow, everybody suddenly agreed to make this our number one priority, fossil fuels would still be in demand for years to come. I highly doubt there would be economic catastrophe as is so often predicted.

    • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

      Yeah Kirkey.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
    • WorriedfortheCountry

      That cartoon is so 2009. Then we had the stimulus and Solyndra.

      • Don_B1

        Sure SNARK!

        The stimulus as terribly underfunded, providing some $800 billion (about 40% in low-effectiveness tax cuts) over TWO years to attempt to repair an economy that had just suffered a more than $2 trillion hit. That the stimulus did as well as it did to halt the bleeding was tremendous.

        Solyndra was awarded loan guarantees from a program begun by President George W. Bush, a program that stated in its financial statement before it became law, that the expectation of losses that would be incurred over its period of performance would be over $2 billion and that total amount was never reached, so the effort was successful, even though Solyndra, because of Chinese undercutting in flooding the PV market with subsidized PV, did fail.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          We don’t agree about the stimulus — it kicked in after the recession was over and it was more about politics than ‘stimulus’. What a waste.

          But that is water under the bridge so have a great weekend.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        It holds true.

    • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

      When you are ready to stop the infantile behavior and share some possible solutions I am all ears.

      But I really have no patience for political rhetoric or propaganda.

      Everyone wants the things mentioned in the cartoon – that’s why the cartoon is manipulative.

      You continually present a defensive AND aggressive case but never actually present possible solutions!

      Either STFU or present your plan!

      You say, “It’s settled and there’s no doubt.”

      I ALREADY TOLD YOU I HAVE PLENTY OF DOUBTS.

      No one is going to take you seriously when you behave like this – your arrogance discredits scientists in general.

      But, for the sake of some kind of resolution I will gladly hear your plan… Please include how you plan to deal with Washington.

      Waiting patiently to hear your plan…

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Climate change is an ethical and moral challenge. The solution is we stop blaming the other guy.

        The solution is we have to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible – we need to do the same level of effort we did after Pearl Harbor. We are causing the climate to change by burning fossil fuels, so the solution is – we stop burning them.

        The sun already powers everything on earth, and we know that there is more than enough to replace virtually all the fossil fuels we use. We need to put the big effort into switching our transportation over to electric power. We need to use our brains, and our engineers and employ our manufacturing muscle.

        We need to move away from factory farms, and instead grown virtually all food locally to where it is eaten.

        No country or company can control renewable energy, and no military is needed to defend renewable energy, either. The Billion+ dollars PER DAY that we are currently spending on foreign oil will instead be spent locally and our local economy will be improved. The lack of pollution and better environment will help everybody and everything be healthier, and this savings alone will pay for the transition in a very short period of time.

        Investing in our future means that the benefits will be multiplied many times over.

        Naturally, the challenge of climate change is unsettling, to say the least. The energy piece of our response to climate change will be the least difficult part. Things will get much more difficult when sea level rise begins to force large numbers of people to move away from the present coastline. And crop failures are going to rock our food supply – they already have. The 40% wheat crop failure in Russia is essentially what tipped the Arab Spring into motion. Water supply will be huge. Who knows what will happen in the southwest of the US?

        Here’s what people in England are doing on the electricity front:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CUDddloHrYM

        Please see my blog for what I am doing, which is building a 5 seat electric car that will hopefully have 300-400 mile range; called CarBEN EV5:

        http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

        We’re in for a rough ride, and we’d better get ourselves together on the same page.

        • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

          This is a BEAUTIFUL vision, and I applaud your efforts.

          But I don’t see a PLAN here for GETTING everyone on the same page.

          Fighting, arguing and debating with those who are not going to budge their position seems like a waste of time.

          That is why I am asking HOW we accomplish the things you mentioned.

          HOW to get there when a HUGE majority AREN’T motivated to do so!

          What good does it do, ultimately, if you and every other dedicated environmentalist out there puts forth massive effort and builds new carbon neutral technologies, IF THERE AREN’T ENOUGH VOTES TO STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS???

          I’m not trying to discourage you, I’m genuinely wondering what good being a fanatic does if there is a huge percentage of the population who doesn’t CARE?

          How are you going to change their minds when the facts, as you see them, aren’t enough?

          What if you present an airtight case and they still don’t CARE, or they are too consumed with the rat race?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We accomplish what we need to do by doing it. Because it is the right and moral thing to do.

            How does anything important get done?

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            WOW! You are delusional if you think everyone is going to magically agree with you and get over their ideological differences. Different people have differing opinions on the “right and moral thing”.

            Some right wingers believe the end times are near and effects of climate change are evidence of Christ’s imminent return.

            Others believe the “right and moral thing” is to ensure the extinction of humanity because they see humanity as a scourge upon the earth.

            Still others think the “right and moral thing” is to build giant spaceships and colonize other planets, consuming all of earth’s resources to do so and leaving the planet an empty husk.

            Not everyone shares your understanding of the “right and moral thing”.

            Your plan is to “do it” because it is “the right and moral thing”. Brilliant plan! (sarcasm)

            In my experience, sanctimonious narcissism doesn’t accomplish a whole lot.

            How does anything important get done?

            1. gathering the relevant facts

            2. cultivating the right attitude

            3. forming a strategy or plan

            5. acting.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Reality is not ideological or partisan. Humans respond to disaster, and sometimes even in a good way.

            You might be interested in reading a book called ‘The Great Disruption’ by Paul Gilding. He was on On Point a couple of years back.

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/06/22/author-paul-gilding

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            So your solution is to wait for disaster to strike?

            You think the red cross is going to fix climate change?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We are having FEMA level disasters all the time. Fires, floods, tornadoes – and droughts. Heck, there is even a wild fire in Alaska!

            http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alaska-fire-grows-193-square-miles-23863292

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83732

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            I’ve listened to everything you’ve said. You are NOT hearing me.

            Until it affects a person or their family personally, they are not going to be motivated to do anything.

            Nor will they necessarily attribute it to climate change, even if all the facts say otherwise.

            The media loves disasters. So what?

            *I am saying there is a disconnect between these natural disasters and most human beings being able to make the connection on a personal level with climate change.

            *And some that do make the connection would rather attribute it to a divine cause.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Fox has crossed the Rubicon – Shep Smith has said on the air that climate change in happening, and the science is true.

            When the FUD goes away, and the weirder and weirder things keep happening (like thaws in the winter in Alaska, and when 125 out of 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park are now gone), people are going to get on the right side of history.

            Climate deniers already look foolish, and before too long they will be shunned. Food shortages and water shortages and forced evacuations due to sea level rise, have a way of breaking through the doubt.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Rosy optimism.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Anthropogenic climate change is the most challenging thing that humans have ever faced. It will be a huge effort to limit the damage we have been doing – but because we are causing it – we can also stop causing it.

            So, there is a chance. And it is a moral imperative.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            My theory is – it won’t happen until we first fix income inequality and poverty.

            If wealthy individuals and corporations are willing to take advantage of the poor, they are willing to pay for Arks to be built to keep nature and the unwashed masses OUT.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Hy hope is we can *fix* income inequality by solving our climate change challenge. And we will address our food supply fragility at the same time.

            So, that is at least 3 major problems addressed with one solution.

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Getting ME to agree is not a huge accomplishment.

            Getting the far right to agree may be.

            I could do it myself, with proper funding.

            The way to convince the far right is to say Jesus approves of sustainability…

          • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

            Top-Paid Majors for Class of 2013 Bachelor’s Degree Graduates

            1. Petroleum Engineering ($96,000)

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            It won’t last. The oil shale potential just got cut by as much as 80%. So-called oil-independence is a fantasy.

        • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

          The Tesla Model S seats five and has a 300 mile range already…

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Sure, but CarBEN EV5 will have a 35-55kWh battery pack vs the 85kWh in the larger Model S – which has an official range of 265 miles, by the way. The Model S is a great car – one of the best cars ever built.

            I hope my car is at least 2X more efficient, and it may be 3X better. Low aerodynamic drag is the key.

    • Jason

      They should add high speed rail to that list. It’s a huge infrastructure project, that will create thousands of jobs and yield an asset which all Americans will be able to join.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

  • Salty

    Afraid not. Just because the elite say the argument is over doesn’t make it so. I could walk around saying “The argument is over about _____________.” If I get enough of the media to repeat the line, it doesn’t change the facts or the science. (I could go on and on about the science and the facts but won’t take the time here…)

    If folks really believe this they need to design a free market case for the solution. The market will work.

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    I recently asked one of the prominent environmental advocates on this forum what his plan was for accomplishing the goal of transitioning to a carbon neutral economy.

    His answer was to “do it because it is the right and moral thing”.

    It may be the right and moral thing but that IS NOT A PLAN.

    You are delusional if you think everyone is going to magically agree with you and get over their ideological differences. Different people have differing opinions on the “right and moral thing”.

    Some right wingers believe the end times are near and effects of climate change are evidence of Christ’s imminent return.

    Others believe the “right and moral thing” is to ensure the extinction of humanity because they see humanity as a scourge upon the earth.

    Still others think the “right and moral thing” is to build giant spaceships and colonize other planets, consuming all of earth’s resources to do so and leaving the planet an empty husk.

    Not everyone shares your understanding of the “right and moral thing”.

    In my experience, sanctimonious narcissism doesn’t accomplish a whole lot.

    How does anything important get done?

    1. Gathering the relevant facts.

    2. Cultivating the right attitude.

    3. Forming a strategy or plan.

    5. Acting.

    6. Being diligent.

    7. Adjusting the strategy when necessary.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      There are lots of people in this world who are already up to steps 5 and 6. Step 7 goes without saying. We can’t let perfection be the enemy of the good.

      The solution is simple. Acting on it is the hard part, but we have started. Giving up because it is too hard is not an option.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        Perfection IS the enemy of the good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Adjust your strategy!

  • Guest
    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The ‘Little Ice Age” was a single article (not on the cover) of Time magazine, and it was not a scientific conclusion. It is used as a canard by the denier crowd. So any doubt based on this should not override the current scientific understanding.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Neil, no the “mini ice age” scare was not a single article in Time magazine. It was promoted by scientists.

        Amazing that you don’t recognize the propaganda then and the propaganda now. I do. I lived through both.

        Someone compiled a list of journalistic propaganda here:
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          There was a forcing that cooled the air – it was particulate pollution, and it was effectively shading the sun enough to cool things in some areas.

          But guess what? We cleaned up our most obvious pollutants and the warming resumed; because the carbon dioxide continued unabated.

          The Time magazine article was not a cover story. That was faked. Why would anybody fake that now?

          Hmmm…

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Memo to Neil: no one knows what will happen to the climate. Not you. Not me. Not the “climate” scientists. Collectively, we have much to learn.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Actually, we know a lot about the big picture of our climate future. We know it will continue to heat up – because physics.

            We know that more heat means more energy, more evaporation, and more changes. We do not precisely know the timing of feedbacks, or exactly when tipping points will occur – but we know the possibility that they will occur increases as we continue to add carbon to the atmosphere.

            Learning through science never ends – when we answer a question, that leads to more questions. That is the nature of science.

            We increase our knowledge and at the same time we ask more questions.

            We need to act on what we know.

            “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

            Maya Angelou

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    If you don’t know where your next meal is going to come from, how can you care about climate change?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      With climate change. our food system will have to be local.

      • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

        *facepalm*

  • http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/ Alchemical Reaction

    Top-Paid Class of 2013 Bachelor’s Degree Graduates (Average)

    1. Petroleum Engineering ($96,000)

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    http://climatecrocks.com/2014/05/27/greenland-dark-snow-project-now-more-important-than-ever/

    “And it gets even worse: West Antarctica isn’t the only worry. To hear [Dr] Alley tell it, it’s just that West Antarctica is pretty much lost to us already. Next up is a place that we might still be able to save, but that we’re currently playing an insane game of roulette with: Greenland.

    It contains much more water than West Antarctica: about 23 feet of global sea level rise. That’s equivalent, on a worldwide scale, to the storm surge caused by Supertyphoon Haiyanwhen it struck the Philippines last year.

    And here again, the news isn’t good. Recently published research finds that much more of the Greenland Ice Sheet than previously believed is exposed, from beneath, to the ocean. Basically, the new science amounts to a topographical remapping exercise—for terrain that is as much as three miles below a vast sheet of ice. And it turns out that the canyons beneath Greenland’s glaciers are deeper than scientists previously thought, and in some cases, well below sea level. This means, in turn, that more of the ice sheet is potentially exposed to warming seas—similar to the ice sheet of West Antarctica.”

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Wheat crop in Oklahoma is a bust.

    http://www.npr.org/2014/05/29/317127124/as-oklahoma-drought-continues-farmers-prepare-for-losses

    Hay crop is terrible. Beef prices are already high because of sudden blizzards, and other reasons.

    Hmmm…

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 28, 2014
Photos surround the casket of Michael Brown before the start of his funeral at Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis, Monday, Aug. 25, 2014.  (AP)

The message that will last out of Ferguson with New Yorker writer Jelani Cobb.

Aug 28, 2014
Some of the hundreds of earthquake damaged wine barrels cover and toppled a pair of forklifts at the Kieu Hoang Winery, Monday, Aug. 25, 2014, in Napa, Calif. A powerful earthquake that struck the heart of California's wine country caught many people sound asleep, sending dressers, mirrors and pictures crashing down around them and toppling wine bottles in vineyards around the region. (AP)

Drought in California, earthquake in Napa. We look at broken bottles and the health of the American wine industry.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 27, 2014
The cast of the new ABC comedy, "Black-ish." (Courtesy ABC)

This week the Emmys celebrate the best in television. We’ll look at what’s ahead for the Fall TV season.

 
Aug 27, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, right, as Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, center, looks at them, prior to their talks after after posing for a photo in Minsk, Belarus, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2014. (AP)

Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s leader meet. We’ll look at Russia and the high voltage chess game over Ukraine. Plus, we look at potential US military strikes in Syria and Iraq.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment
 
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
1 Comment