'Whatever happened to global warming?'

[CarltonBanks]

http://rjjrdq.com/2010/02/06/ipcc-fraud-too-much-for-india/

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I can do this all day. When you are talking about one of the most corrupt organizations out there you have plenty of material to choose from. The IPCC is a joke and I think you know it. As India's environmental minister said when India bowed out of the IPCC..."There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.").

 

[93Devil]

Carlton, you do not believe NASA?

 

[BB Bobcat]

I rest my case.

 

[Azrael]

I await further scientific word from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

[93Devil]

http://www.climate.gov/#dataServices

How about NOAA?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it is a legitimate problem that we would be asked to carry so much of the world's freight with little of the return, assuming something like a world carbon tax. What I mean is that if there was an international agreement for a world carbon tax, the United States would pay dearly, because we have a high per capita output. But other countries would reap most of the benefits - places with coastal areas and so forth that are most endangered. But at the same time, since those economies do not depend on carbon-emitting industry, they would pay very little. In other words, we would pay a lot, but not receive benefits that come close to matching the cost to our economy.

If the rest of the world is as serious as it says about addressing the problem, I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should help subsidize the U.S.'s contribution, at least at first.

 

[Azrael]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should help subsidize the U.S.'s contribution, at least at first.

Equally reasonable that the rest of the world say 'You created the lion's share of the problem and benefited most from it - why should we help you defray the costs of solving it?'

 

[CarltonBanks]

Equally as responsible would be not relying on manipulated data and fraud. That is what the IPCC is all about. Like I said, reach a consensus not based on fraud, then talk about solutions.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should help subsidize the U.S.'s contribution, at least at first.

Equally reasonable that the rest of the world say 'You created the lion's share of the problem and benefited most from it - why should we help you defray the costs of solving it?'

Correct. And that even includes China. Even though they've passed us in annual emissions, a chart I saw says that, cumulatively from 1850 to 2003, the U.S. is responsible for 29 percent of the cumulative emissions and China just 8 percent.

That being said, I think the answer is that the U.S. would be being punished for choices that, when made at the time, were not destructive or even morally questionable. We didn't know that this would result. It ends up being like a retroactive tax, which doesn't seem just to me.

Also, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we hold the cards here. Us and China. A nation like India stands to lose an enormous percentage of its GDP, and much of its population, from global warming. The United States - assuming modest estimates of warming that most scientists agree are reasonable - will lose little. Hell, Russia stands to actually gain from global warming. The rest of the world needs the United States to be on board more than the United States needs to be on board. We need them more than they need us. Why not use that leverage and accomplish something?

 

[CarltonBanks]

****, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

 

[TrooperBari]

So long as we're all waxing poetic about science:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/perry-officials-censored-climate-report

Officials in Rick Perry's home state of Texas have set off a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.

By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. "None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed," said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

I live inland in a cold weather area. Global warming would be pretty welcome if it means I don't have to shovel snow as much.

 

[deskslave]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should help subsidize the U.S.'s contribution, at least at first.

Equally reasonable that the rest of the world say 'You created the lion's share of the problem and benefited most from it - why should we help you defray the costs of solving it?'

Correct. And that even includes China. Even though they've passed us in annual emissions, a chart I saw says that, cumulatively from 1850 to 2003, the U.S. is responsible for 29 percent of the cumulative emissions and China just 8 percent.

That being said, I think the answer is that the U.S. would be being punished for choices that, when made at the time, were not destructive or even morally questionable. We didn't know that this would result. It ends up being like a retroactive tax, which doesn't seem just to me.

Also, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we hold the cards here. Us and China. A nation like India stands to lose an enormous percentage of its GDP, and much of its population, from global warming. The United States - assuming modest estimates of warming that most scientists agree are reasonable - will lose little. Hell, Russia stands to actually gain from global warming. The rest of the world needs the United States to be on board more than the United States needs to be on board. We need them more than they need us. Why not use that leverage and accomplish something?

This is an argument roughly analagous to my breaking a window in your house and then telling you, hey, you're the one whose floor's going to get wet. I'm not replacing your window.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I think it is perfectly reasonable that they should help subsidize the U.S.'s contribution, at least at first.

Equally reasonable that the rest of the world say 'You created the lion's share of the problem and benefited most from it - why should we help you defray the costs of solving it?'

Correct. And that even includes China. Even though they've passed us in annual emissions, a chart I saw says that, cumulatively from 1850 to 2003, the U.S. is responsible for 29 percent of the cumulative emissions and China just 8 percent.

That being said, I think the answer is that the U.S. would be being punished for choices that, when made at the time, were not destructive or even morally questionable. We didn't know that this would result. It ends up being like a retroactive tax, which doesn't seem just to me.

Also, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we hold the cards here. Us and China. A nation like India stands to lose an enormous percentage of its GDP, and much of its population, from global warming. The United States - assuming modest estimates of warming that most scientists agree are reasonable - will lose little. Hell, Russia stands to actually gain from global warming. The rest of the world needs the United States to be on board more than the United States needs to be on board. We need them more than they need us. Why not use that leverage and accomplish something?

This is an argument roughly analagous to my breaking a window in your house and then telling you, hey, you're the one whose floor's going to get wet. I'm not replacing your window.

I think, morally, it's not the same because we didn't know at the time that our carbon emissions would lead to global warming. You know that breaking a window is wrong. Or, even if it was an accident, negligent or reckless.

I certainly think there are counter arguments. For example, it is worth asking whether a wealthier nation has an inherent moral responsibility to assist poorer nations.

But, pragmatically, what we have here is an ol' economic collective action issue, where a bunch of separate entities want other separate entities to pick up the freight. Which means that no one actually will.

 

[Dick Whitman]

****, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

I mean, this gets to the heart of why we won't join Kyoto or any of the other accords. Because we would pay more than we would benefit, because of the way our economy is structured around fossil fuels. Even if one has a moral objection to the United States paying less, I would hope that he could see from a practical standpoint why it is difficult for U.S. policymakers, thinking about their constituents, to sign on to that.

 

[CarltonBanks]

****, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

I mean, this gets to the heart of why we won't join Kyoto or any of the other accords. Because we would pay more than we would benefit, because of the way our economy is structured around fossil fuels. Even if one has a moral objection to the United States paying less, I would hope that he could see from a practical standpoint why it is difficult for U.S. policymakers, thinking about their constituents, to sign on to that.

****, regardless of how you or I feel about it, you also have to take into account the fact that there are a lot of people...and I mean A LOT...who do not believe in man-made climate change. Asking these people to pick up the freight for something they do not buy, and have a slew of studies supporting their position to go along with the studies opposing it, would be political suicide. I know there are quite a few people that have ruled out Huntsman and Romney over their climate change views. Same with Chris Christie.

So not only asking these people to stand by and watch their tax dollars be thrown at a problem they do not believe in, and do not feel has even been proved to be a problem, would not be very voter-friendly.

 

[Azrael]

As so many are so fond of saying around here: Life isn't fair.

 

[deskslave]

****, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

I mean, this gets to the heart of why we won't join Kyoto or any of the other accords. Because we would pay more than we would benefit, because of the way our economy is structured around fossil fuels. Even if one has a moral objection to the United States paying less, I would hope that he could see from a practical standpoint why it is difficult for U.S. policymakers, thinking about their constituents, to sign on to that.

****, regardless of how you or I feel about it, you also have to take into account the fact that there are a lot of people...and I mean A LOT...who do not believe in man-made climate change. Asking these people to pick up the freight for something they do not buy, and have a slew of studies supporting their position to go along with the studies opposing it, would be political suicide. I know there are quite a few people that have ruled out Huntsman and Romney over their climate change views. Same with Chris Christie.

So not only asking these people to stand by and watch their tax dollars be thrown at a problem they do not believe in, and do not feel has even been proved to be a problem, would not be very voter-friendly.

I don't believe in anything to do with organized religion. I'd rather my tax dollars not be thrown at church-based programs or property tax breaks.

See why this doesn't work?

 

[snuffy2]

I have lived in a 1906 house beside the Ches Bay for 14 years. We have a low entrance road and it floods out two or three times per year in storms. This past year this road has flooded out (and is thereby impassible unless you want to wash your car in a salt acid bath) 17 times. Sea level rise is now a very serious waterside issue to the extent that it now affects real estate contracts and insurance policies. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to hear the night-time crashing waves knowing that it is eating your house-land away. What is most frightening is how quickly and violently this change is happening. Why this change matters to people in US cities and highlands who could care less about crashing waves is because it is changing food supply crops and economies. If you deny that world wide carbon emissions are contributing to this change then you have either money interests or else psychological problems. I'm not sure which is worse, hearing the night waves crash or watching the US idiot public politicians sandbag against the evidence of science and the wisdom of the rest of the world.

 

[Dick Whitman]

****, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

I mean, this gets to the heart of why we won't join Kyoto or any of the other accords. Because we would pay more than we would benefit, because of the way our economy is structured around fossil fuels. Even if one has a moral objection to the United States paying less, I would hope that he could see from a practical standpoint why it is difficult for U.S. policymakers, thinking about their constituents, to sign on to that.

****, regardless of how you or I feel about it, you also have to take into account the fact that there are a lot of people...and I mean A LOT...who do not believe in man-made climate change. Asking these people to pick up the freight for something they do not buy, and have a slew of studies supporting their position to go along with the studies opposing it, would be political suicide. I know there are quite a few people that have ruled out Huntsman and Romney over their climate change views. Same with Chris Christie.

So not only asking these people to stand by and watch their tax dollars be thrown at a problem they do not believe in, and do not feel has even been proved to be a problem, would not be very voter-friendly.

I don't believe in anything to do with organized religion. I'd rather my tax dollars not be thrown at church-based programs or property tax breaks.

See why this doesn't work?

I think it works when you're just talking about why it isn't politically palatable for the United States, particularly for Republicans voting in Congress or running for the GOP nomination.