Life In 19x19

crux wrote:On the other side there's a rather huge positive impact that the use of fossil fuels has on food production. Stop using fossil fuels and food production plummets (random googled link which may or may not be accurate: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html). These problems are not simple.

And if anyone ever suggested that we "stop using fossil fuels" in anything less than a century and without some alternative, you could rightly dismiss them as a lunatic. No use of fossil fuels --> most of us die soon. This is why trying to figure out and respond to the consequences of fossil fuel use is crucial. The most radical alarmists have been trying to get is for us to stabilize our use of fossil fuels in the next few decades and invent alternatives as rapidly as possible. Reducing fossil fuel use is something to be looked at for 2050 and later. But any effort to argue even slowing down our use of fossil fuels is met simultaneously, in the US anyway, by earnest arguments that it is not that big a deal, that the science is uncertain, that the science is also certain that there isn't a problem, that every single possible move one could make is counterproductive, that absolutely no change is possible in future emissions, that money spent on innovation is wasted and shut up and go away. The trouble is, it was met with that in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s as well as now. We lost at least four and maybe five presidential terms of useful small scale efforts, terms we spent subsidizing oil exploration instead of doing scientific research.

Indeed the problems are not simple, but your initial question was not should we stop using fossil fuels; it was is global warming a serious problem. Clearly it is. You've tried to cast doubt on many alarmist arguments and media hype, but said little about whether or not it is a serious problem. Look, if I suggested we make large scale changes to the world's economy because Ian Plimer was a dolt, I'd be wrong. By the same token, if some politician attributes Hurricane Sandy to climate change, or Al Gore says rhododendrons vent methane (he didn't) or some other nonsense comes out, it has no bearing on the seriousness of the problem. Do you believe that global warming is _not_ a serious problem? Is there a positive standard of proof climate scientists could meet that would justify in your mind even a modest policy response? Does the impossibility, in your mind, of ever modelling climate mean we can take no action, nor counsel any inaction, with any hope of a useful result? Is even Lomborg's recommendation outside the pale?

Last question: I gather you're in Germany. Do you think the weather there will be warmer in July than it is now?

crux wrote:What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

The way I see it, there are two sides of the equation, both highly politicized for their own reasons:

1. "Global warming, yadda yada, man made, yadda yadda, we all gonna die!"
2. "No problem, yadda yadda, lets keep polluting, yadda yadda, lets make few more quick bucks!"

Both sides spew disinformation no a global scale, both use scare tactics, and both pour millions into advancing their respective political agendas. Both are largely financed by this or that group lobbying in favor of their own short-term profits. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.

But does it really matter? The fact is that the we ARE influencing the planet in a very bad way, just look around - not even the anti-global-warming fanatics disagree with that! And so a decent thing to do, I think, is to try to figure out how to do things differently. Regardless of the political agendas involved, regardless of your personal belief systems, the side that screams for protecting the environment, global warming or not, is pushing in the right direction.

If people become too skeptical, like you, saying "I don't buy it, its just political, all the problems are oh so hard, it does not matter until everybody does it, and blah blah" - then what you are doing is exactly what one of the political sides wants you to - NOTHING. In a sense, you are no less of a sheep follower than those misguided ones buying everything Al Gore sells.

Besides,doing NOTHING is most likely the wrong thing to do in the long run. What's worse, by trying to convince others of your views, regardless of their validity today or tomorrow, you are helping prevent some good things from happening. And this is bad.

So... in the absence of firm and conclusive evidence one way or another, confused by all the scientific and political dung flying around, I'd say that the proper thing to do is to err on the side of caution and try to figure out how to do thing more cleanly. If that means some companies will have cut their profits slightly, I see it as a sacrifice I am willing to make.

Your mileage may vary...

Bantari wrote:

crux wrote:What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

The way I see it, there are two sides of the equation, both highly politicized for their own reasons:

1. "Global warming, yadda yada, man made, yadda yadda, we all gonna die!"
2. "No problem, yadda yadda, lets keep polluting, yadda yadda, lets make few more quick bucks!"

Both sides spew disinformation no a global scale, both use scare tactics, and both pour millions into advancing their respective political agendas. Both are largely financed by this or that group lobbying in favor of their own short-term profits. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.

Well, I can see that there are big powerful companies who have a vested interest in the status quo, and for whom denying climate change and not cleaning up CO2 would favor their own short term profits. But I fail to what the vested interest is in spending extra effort and money in cleaning up a waste product (CO2). What big companies are favoring their own short term profits by supporting stringent measures on CO2 emissions?

Yeah, the constant game of Tic Tac Toe: Climate Science Edition, while an improvement on the original, is still boring. These debates have been going on ad nauseum for decades.

We need to consider the motivations that drive people's behavior and think about this in terms of risk.

For starters, that immediately tells you that journalists are a red herring. They're just normal people trying to do their job and sell copy in a world full of noise. It's well known that 7 Things THEY Don't Want you to Know About Climate Change is going to get more clicks, likes and eyeballs than On Planetary Climate Systems Part XVII, Appendix B will...

Firstly, beyond Science and how it's being communicated, there are two competing conspiracy theories here:

1. A loosely connected group of scientists around the world are trying to manipulate and manufacture scientific consensus in order to bring about some sort of communist utopia.

2. Large companies with a vested interest in maintaining the value of their current business model and existing assets (both in terms of infrastructure that could be left stranded and access to highly valuable yet-to-be-extracted-and-sold resources) are trying to sabotage the debate and the political process for their own short term gains.

(Let me know if I've not summarized one of these conspiracy theories adequately)

For each of these theories, what's the probability of the theory being more or less right? Who stands to gain from behaving in such a way and how much do they gain from it?

Secondly, there are several possible outcomes where humanity gets this wrong. Two of them are:

a) It was all a big lie and we're left with a whole lot of renewable energy sources and efficiency measures that we needn't have developed at all.

b) We continue on with a business as usual approach and most of the predictions scientists are now making turn out to be accurate.

How would you evaluate the total risk to humanity posed by each one of these scenarios? And what would the costs of being wrong be?

HermanHiddema wrote:

Bantari wrote:

crux wrote:What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

The way I see it, there are two sides of the equation, both highly politicized for their own reasons:

1. "Global warming, yadda yada, man made, yadda yadda, we all gonna die!"
2. "No problem, yadda yadda, lets keep polluting, yadda yadda, lets make few more quick bucks!"

Both sides spew disinformation no a global scale, both use scare tactics, and both pour millions into advancing their respective political agendas. Both are largely financed by this or that group lobbying in favor of their own short-term profits. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.

Well, I can see that there are big powerful companies who have a vested interest in the status quo, and for whom denying climate change and not cleaning up CO2 would favor their own short term profits. But I fail to what the vested interest is in spending extra effort and money in cleaning up a waste product (CO2). What big companies are favoring their own short term profits by supporting stringent measures on CO2 emissions?

This doesn't seem like a hard question. Maybe these guys?
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/renewables/wind-power/?stc=wwecc120838
http://www.ccsassociation.org/ (includes a big list of members including oil and energy companies)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/investment-banks-to-cash-in-on-new-tax/story-fn91wd6x-1226189383070
http://energy.aol.com/2012/11/01/big-banks-await-us-carbon-trading-while-focusing-on-core-energy/
A view from an ecology web site which I've not really checked very much: http://www.econexus.info/publication/carbon-market-dream
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/world/asia/incentive-to-slow-climate-change-drives-output-of-harmful-gases.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I'm sure the nuclear industry would be on the list if they weren't resigned to having lost all public support, but there are manufacturers of solar panels - the European ones seem to all have gone bankrupt though.
Or see this: http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/Briefing_beware-vested-interests
Here's a report (unfortunately from a few years ago) on government spending on climate change: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fy05_climate_chg_rpt_to_cong.pdf. Expenditures on climate change technology (during the Bush administration) are on the order of $3 billion annually, and it is naive to believe that there aren't industries interested in getting a slice of that pie. (Climate change research is another $2 billion, and I leave it as an exercise to the reader how that might generate conflicts of interest that affect research results). Other world governments spend similar amounts (e.g. AUD$3.7 billion total over four years according to http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/strategic-reviews/index.html). This also disproves the claim that we are not doing anything; these are not exactly paltry sums.

In contrast, Greenpeace want us to be outraged about oil companies funding skeptical scientists to the tune of, wait for it, $76000. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/revealed-exxon-secret-funding-of-global-warmi/blog/25605/. Apparently that's the kind of money sloshing around in the well-funded denier machine that everyone is so utterly convinced exists and is scuttling all our efforts (there would be another story to tell here about climate scientist Peter Gleick and his phishing operation against the Heartland Institute that came up so empty that he had to leak a fake document as well...).

One thing that I hope is clear from some these examples: some of the actions we are taking are misguided and harmful in themselves. Biofuels were mentioned earlier, I consider carbon sequestration a crazy and dangerous idea (compare possible side effects with those of fracking), and the articles about the effects of the carbon trading scheme should make it obvious that there will be side-effects (some of which may or may not be intentional to funnel money to industry interests). Companies will exploit every opportunity to make profits, and if there is large government spending on climate projects, this is where they will go - but you are correct that their interest does not lie in saving the world, but in making a profit. This is why I think it is vital that we are honest with ourselves about the actual expected effects of climate change as well as about the likely side-effects of attempts to limit emissions.

aokun wrote:I can see perhaps why you don't want us to use google.

Use Google all you want. That comment was in response to a claim that Hawaii would be flooded, and I wanted to know whether the poster actually knew current or predicted (by consensus science) sea level trends.

If even one person here starts using Google to ask questions and seriously consider data from all sources, then I'll consider my involvment in this thread a success.

@crux: I ask for large vested interests, and you give me a list of small players emerging mostly in response to carbon reduction initiatives. Where are the large powerful companies that had a vested interest in reducing carbon emissions *before* the climate science forced governments to invest increasing amounts of money in it?

HermanHiddema wrote:@crux: I ask for large vested interests, and you give me a list of small players emerging mostly in response to carbon reduction initiatives. Where are the large powerful companies that had a vested interest in reducing carbon emissions *before* the climate science forced governments to invest increasing amounts of money in it?

You specifically asked "What big companies are favoring their own short term profits by supporting stringent measures on CO2 emissions?", not what companies would do without government intervention. And if you consider Siemens or investment banks small players, well I guess our worldviews can't be reconciled. That's EOT for me.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Bantari wrote:

crux wrote:What I object to is the overselling of global warming, this desperate need that some people feel to make the case and grasping at everything that could be used to scare people and attributing it to global warming. That is what turns people like me into skeptics once they catch on.

The way I see it, there are two sides of the equation, both highly politicized for their own reasons:

1. "Global warming, yadda yada, man made, yadda yadda, we all gonna die!"
2. "No problem, yadda yadda, lets keep polluting, yadda yadda, lets make few more quick bucks!"

Both sides spew disinformation no a global scale, both use scare tactics, and both pour millions into advancing their respective political agendas. Both are largely financed by this or that group lobbying in favor of their own short-term profits. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.

Well, I can see that there are big powerful companies who have a vested interest in the status quo, and for whom denying climate change and not cleaning up CO2 would favor their own short term profits. But I fail to what the vested interest is in spending extra effort and money in cleaning up a waste product (CO2). What big companies are favoring their own short term profits by supporting stringent measures on CO2 emissions?

Here are some examples:

--- Companies invested in 'clean' energy... wind, solar, etc. There is potentially a LOT of money to be made if we as a country/world seriously go this way. Each time there is a lot of money to be made like that, somebody will be interested in it and willing to push for it, regardless if it is good for the planet or bad (its good in this case, but it might just be a lucky accident.)

--- Sometimes it might be even inter-company 'squabbles' - I've seen it in one of the places I worked at, when different division would spend money on widely opposing plans to maximize their own bottom line. Think of car companies and their competing lines of regular cars, hybrids, and electrics... I am absolutely not sure about this one, but I think its a likely scenario.

--- There are also interest groups (non-profits, etc.) whose board members make fortunes from donations, for example, and they only get the donations as long as they keep pushing (and getting results), for better or worse...

And so on.

Its just guesses on my part, but ones that fit well within my view of the world.
I can see millions of bucks spent on both sides. And I am skeptical enough to think that most (if not all) of this money is given available for these purposes out of self-interest rather than some ideology. Each time I see massive money like this getting spend, I see somebody getting rich or hoping to get rich. Not sure why this particular issue should be any different.

But I might be wrong, it has happened before.

Bantari wrote:
Here are some examples:

--- Companies invested in 'clean' energy... wind, solar, etc. There is potentially a LOT of money to be made if we as a country/world seriously go this way. Each time there is a lot of money to be made like that, somebody will be interested in it and willing to push for it, regardless if it is good for the planet or bad (its good in this case, but it might just be a lucky accident.)

--- Sometimes it might be even inter-company 'squabbles' - I've seen it in one of the places I worked at, when different division would spend money on widely opposing plans to maximize their own bottom line. Think of car companies and their competing lines of regular cars, hybrids, and electrics... I am absolutely not sure about this one, but I think its a likely scenario.

--- There are also interest groups (non-profits, etc.) whose board members make fortunes from donations, for example, and they only get the donations as long as they keep pushing (and getting results), for better or worse...

And so on.

Its just guesses on my part, but ones that fit well within my view of the world.
I can see millions of bucks spent on both sides. And I am skeptical enough to think that most (if not all) of this money is given available for these purposes out of self-interest rather than some ideology. Each time I see massive money like this getting spend, I see somebody getting rich or hoping to get rich. Not sure why this particular issue should be any different.

But I might be wrong, it has happened before.

So here's the rub:

Folks who promote the science of climate change who have a vested interest in the importance of alternative energy development could be doing so for a couple reasons:

1) They may ACTUALLY believe in climate change, and that new technologies need to be adopted

2) They may be a damn, dirty, lobbying entrepreneur

On the other hand, the coal magnates have only one possible explanation for their behavior

1) They're damn, dirty, lobbying entrepreneurs

---------------------------

This is all pretty arbitrary though, any time there's a movement like this, there are going to be people making money off it, that's just capitalism.

But I will point out that the coal boys have had it easy for years, and that coal is artificially cheap.

The problem with fossil fuels is that they pay none of the external costs of doing business. They profoundly effect the environment we live in, but they don't pay for any of that, and so they get to have a cheap product.

Its not only about alternative energies. Its a good start but just half of the rent so to speak. Because Co2 emission is regulated/limited already (in germany at least). Companies buy permissions to be able to blow Co2 in the air, which are limited. So if energy producing companies switch to alternative energies, the interest and value in those permissions falls a lot. In the end Co2 emission will only be redistributed, other companies not related with power production have interest in those permissions too.

So even if more and more people switch to green energy, that alone won't effect Co2 emission much.

crux wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:@crux: I ask for large vested interests, and you give me a list of small players emerging mostly in response to carbon reduction initiatives. Where are the large powerful companies that had a vested interest in reducing carbon emissions *before* the climate science forced governments to invest increasing amounts of money in it?

You specifically asked "What big companies are favoring their own short term profits by supporting stringent measures on CO2 emissions?", not what companies would do without government intervention. And if you consider Siemens or investment banks small players, well I guess our worldviews can't be reconciled. That's EOT for me.

Yes, I'm asking that in the context of Bantari's post, which basically claims that both sides of the debate are equal in this matter. So the question I am asking is twofold: When the idea of global warming first emerged, what powerful vested interests were there that would pump millions into advancing CO2 reductions in order to promote their own short term profits? And furthermore, today, what percentage of companies would profit from reducing carbon emissions? Are the vested interests on both sides anywhere near equal at the moment?

So I'm not looking for examples, that's just anecdotal evidence. I'm looking for evidence that both sides are equal in this matter. That both have equal vested interests, have equal amounts of power, have invested equally in pure propaganda (as opposed to investing in neutral research).

crux wrote:

aokun wrote:I can see perhaps why you don't want us to use google.

Use Google all you want. That comment was in response to a claim that Hawaii would be flooded, and I wanted to know whether the poster actually knew current or predicted (by consensus science) sea level trends.

I am the poster in question, and I never claimed that Hawai'i would be flooded.

And, at least as far as projections for 2100 go, what you said accords with my memory.

shapenaji wrote:

Bantari wrote:
Here are some examples:

--- Companies invested in 'clean' energy... wind, solar, etc. There is potentially a LOT of money to be made if we as a country/world seriously go this way. Each time there is a lot of money to be made like that, somebody will be interested in it and willing to push for it, regardless if it is good for the planet or bad (its good in this case, but it might just be a lucky accident.)

--- Sometimes it might be even inter-company 'squabbles' - I've seen it in one of the places I worked at, when different division would spend money on widely opposing plans to maximize their own bottom line. Think of car companies and their competing lines of regular cars, hybrids, and electrics... I am absolutely not sure about this one, but I think its a likely scenario.

--- There are also interest groups (non-profits, etc.) whose board members make fortunes from donations, for example, and they only get the donations as long as they keep pushing (and getting results), for better or worse...

And so on.

Its just guesses on my part, but ones that fit well within my view of the world.
I can see millions of bucks spent on both sides. And I am skeptical enough to think that most (if not all) of this money is given available for these purposes out of self-interest rather than some ideology. Each time I see massive money like this getting spend, I see somebody getting rich or hoping to get rich. Not sure why this particular issue should be any different.

But I might be wrong, it has happened before.

So here's the rub:

Folks who promote the science of climate change who have a vested interest in the importance of alternative energy development could be doing so for a couple reasons:

1) They may ACTUALLY believe in climate change, and that new technologies need to be adopted

2) They may be a damn, dirty, lobbying entrepreneur

On the other hand, the coal magnates have only one possible explanation for their behavior

1) They're damn, dirty, lobbying entrepreneurs

And this is pretty much my point as well - no matter what really fuels or partially fuels the pro-global-warming side, be it truth, idealism, fear, money, or a combination thereof - it does not really matter that much! They are doing the good thing, the right thing, so they should get our support.

And the whole discussion about about 'is global warming mad-made or not' is of secondary value for me. I decided to support the pro-environment side regardless of science, politics, or ideology... and I advocate that this is the logical thing to do in the long run for all of us. Except for the few who think short-term profits are more important.

That's all.
Other than this - I don't really have a pony in this race.

HermanHiddema wrote:@crux: I ask for large vested interests, and you give me a list of small players emerging mostly in response to carbon reduction initiatives. Where are the large powerful companies that had a vested interest in reducing carbon emissions *before* the climate science forced governments to invest increasing amounts of money in it?

Certainly no one in the list is of a scope to drive an agenda by themselves and while some of them certainly lobby, they all arose of their own accord or after climate change became an issue. They're answering a call for products from the marketplace, which is how it is supposed to work in our system.

But so are oil companies. They're answering a demand. That people make money from satisfying a need is fine. Also that people lobby for their interests is ok. Both sides in this fight (science does not have sides, generally, and certainly not in this arena, but politics does) operate through organizations, money and media. For the most part, lobbying for profit is on the pro-fossil fuel side, but not all. And there are some conservative and libertarian die-hards that do it for their political agenda and because they believe it will produce the right outcome. Some people who say they think GW is a hoax believe themselves. On the other side, nobody is raking in billions in profit from anything, but government officials, environmentalists, scientists and the rest are devoted to their agenda for all kinds of reasons, not least among them that they think they are right and their ideas will lead to a better outcome, but also ego, employment and the like. I disagree with Bantari; of the people involved in this fight, few are lying knowingly for money. Most of the tiresome people on either side are like me, self-righteous liberal world-savers, or like Ian Plimer, people who get a buzz out of being the noble contrarian who understands that "everything you've been told is wrong."

The latter is as strong or stronger an archetype (if I may misuse the term) than the world-savers, and argumentative types adopt it all the time. We all remember the guy who proved a century of medical orthodoxy wrong about ulcers being caused by acid and stress, capping his lonely heroic journey by drinking a beaker of helicobacter pylori to give himself an ulcer. What we never count up is the lonely heroic contrarians who are full of it, who insist that Vitamin O cures all disease, the AIDS is caused by intestinal flukes or some other nonsense. All those slate-faced sneering gastroenterologists were right to be conservative about accepting new ulcer claims and, when shown the evidence, they all changed their minds. That one guy was heroic, but we need that whole profession. What matters, really, for who wins or loses is not the heroic journey nor, gawdhelpus, where you can follow the money to ... ("Glaxo and Merck don't want you to know!") It is the right answer. If the guy had been wrong about helicobacter and lost, then the fact Glaxo and Merck would continue to make money from the only then effective ulcer treatments would not have been a bad outcome.

The problem with Plimer and the rest of these clowns is not that they're a******s or that Exxon gives them money or that their egos are fed by doing lecture tours as the lonely hero. More power to them. Ego is not lacking in the environmental movement. The problem is they're wrong. If Exxon funded climate research that really proved anything, that showed we could burn fuels without a care in the world, I'd follow the money all right ... right down to the Marina. I love fishing and I love boats and I'd love to get a bigger one. Instead, the lonely contrarians have large meetings, funded by those outright liars and well-paid lobbyists, and contribute to obsfucation and mostly do no science.

When scientists are thought to be wrong, they must answer every legitimate criticism. They do. About every nine months, a new thing comes along casting doubt on some climate claim, or theory, or data. It's easy to catch: Delingpole will have a headline like "The final nail in the coffin of AGW." One year it was that all of AGW theory hinged on a half dozen bristlecone pines and their tree rings. It didn't. The next it was that all the current temperature data had been shown by Russian analysts to be wrong. It hadn't. Then it was that satellite measurements, finally available, showed that the surface wasn't warming. That one lasted a year or more before the guys responsible had to admit it was their calculations that were wrong. This is why I am on the side of these scientists; they have to live with, account for and defend their work. The other side doesn't. With extraordinarily rare exceptions (Roy Spencer) they never admit they're wrong, never apologize, never revise and never take any notice when someone points out that their work is rubbish. That is a one-sided problem. I disagree with Bantari about the motivations of the Al Gores of the world, but it is fine to screen them out, and Bantari reaches a sound conclusion.