j_b

you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. people like chomsky (libertarian anarchists) were executed in 1917 (during the revolution). they were mortal enemies of lenin and later the stalinists. i am not making any apologies for anything and least of all for your ignorance.

not that it really matters to most of you numbskulls but chomsky is certainly not a leninist. neither are the immense majority of leftwingers throughout the world. as a matter of facts many non-stalinist leftists lost their lives in the ussr (actually anyone not obedient to stalisnism). but, please, keep spouting the non-sense ... just thought i'd interject a little realism.

The Sierra Club getting into bed with the Cato Institute! I expect j_b and Peter Puget will want to kiss now. hell, no! subsidies (under many different forms: R&D, tax breaks, infrastructure, etc...) have always existed and always will be necessary, especially for strategic sectors. I am not against subsidies, i am against the demagoguery of pretending that business doesn't get them whereas the little guy would constantly suck the teet of the state. As long as we have a say on the way business affects society via regulations, etc ... subsidies are fine by me. anyhow i fully expect PP to have the coodies.

err, no. i said some corps/countries had made changes and it turned out for the best (i.e, Dow chemical, 2nd largest chemical corp cut its emissions by 60% and has seen lots of growth). i also said that regulations were necessary to make sure that fair competition be possible (you are for fair competition, right?). corps that reduce emissions are reducing expenditure to public funds allocated for remediation (among other things), those that don't reduce emissions are not assuming their share of the cost of doing business. i don't want corps to pay for everything, i am not against corporate welfare (as long as we are clear that it is just that). i just want the public to have a say in the choices that are being made since the public is assuming a significant fraction of the costs. there are already costs today. paid out by us in healthcare, environmental remediation, water shortages, etc ... the matter is to make sure we can minimize these costs. not that i am aware of. the impact could also be much greater than what is expected. yesterday.

my understanding is that much of what has been done thus far consists of less energy consumption which is a win-win proposition; however, emission reductions demand investing in R&D and retooling which in some industries will result in unfair competiton (at least in the short term) if some companies do what they are supposed to do (reduce emissions) while others go to Tombouctou to avoid emission control. case in point is the cement industry which contributes huge quantities of C02, the technology to reduce emissions exists but everybody is scared of being priced out of the market by those who'll relocate to Wasteland, Inc. if some firms reduce external costs (environmental damage, public health, etc ...) by decreasing pollution it doesn't make sense that those who do nothing keep passing the buck to the public and be rewarded by capturing a higher market share for being bad public citizens. the only way to ensure fair competition and reach emission caps, imo, is regulation and/or some kind of carbon tax (you can go to tombouctou if you want but we'll charge you for external cost you cause). moreover, we don't have 20years to start facing the problem so waiting for the dinosaurs to wake up isn't something we can afford. these are some of the reasons but they are others.

"TAX SUBSIDIES The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion). Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion. PROGRAM SUBSIDIES Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion)." then it goes on about protection subsidies, externalized cost (health, environment, ...), protection subsidies, etc ... http://www.bemidjistate.edu/peoplenv/realprice.htm i can't vouch for the accuracy of the analysis but it gives an idea.

it's not the amount of education that matters, it's what you do with it. of course, i didn't mean producing hydrogen with fossil fuel. i acknowledge that hydrogen technology is very far from being readily available and our energy need is such that producing hydrogen from a clean source would be debatable in its usefulness (so far). efficiency, however, is an entire debate in itself since it doesn't really mean the same thing whether considering unlimited sources of free/clean energy (wind, solar, ..) than it does for fossil fuels and nuclear. btw electricity from nuclear is only ~70% efficient because heat is an important byproduct.

i don't understand this. on the one hand you regularly castigate environmentalists as "backward nincompoops against progress", and on the other hand you seem to have no ability to foresee that science would sooner than later provide sound technological alternatives to fossil fuels if we gave ourselves the means to reach such goals (and we'd easily have at least 200billion dollars to sink into it if our choices were different). i certainly don't have ready made solutions (although it is obvious that investing in infrastructure would allow to use already existing technologies to our advantage), but would you have asked what percentage of information exchange was fulfilled by fiber-optic cable 20years ago? nuclear has many problems: dangerous, not flexible, demands quantities of water to cool down the core, waste disposal is unresolved, etc ... so i don't see why it should be favored over hydrogen technology for example. increased efficiency also means revising concept of development such as that of urban sprawl for example.

likely scenario if we sit on our hands and do not invest in alternative sources of energy to minimize fighting over the last bit of cheap oil. the choice isn't between millions dying from rapid global warming versus millions dying from the economy tanking, but how do we avoid the coming crises (climate and peak oil) that'll result from business as ususal. there is no real evidence for emissions caps resulting in poor economic performance. a number of corporations and nations have already significantly reduced their energy use and emission release: they are leaner and more successful.

it'll certainly have an impact but in which direction? if the fossil fools have their way, shale oil and tar sands will then be mined (which will result in much greater emissions due to greater energetic cost of extraction and processing) and we'll revert to coal (with the expected attending results if the energy industry is not regulated).

sigh .... perhaps the full quote would be useful: "Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential." (bold emphasis is mine) contrarily to PP ..., i'll provide the link: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/501.htm

"Measurements in China between 1960 and 1990 show a rapid increase in aerosols in heavily populated regions. The 25% increase in aerosol optical depth was accompanied by a 35% reduction in visibility, a 20% decrease in direct solar radiation, and a decrease in temperature that matched the spatial pattern of the optical-depth increase. Estimates of the forcing in the most highly affected region, the Yangtze River delta, range from -10 to -30 W m-2 depending on the season [...] Considerations of human health are currently driving reductions in reflective aerosols, especially sulfates, so the present trend is to decrease emissions that provide climate cooling. Actions to reduce black carbon emissions through particulate controls, combustion improvements, or fuel switching will also be accompanied by decreases in reflective particles. For example, reduced coal use in China has decreased both black carbon and sulfate emissions over the past five years, and the estimated effect is a positive climate forcing (Streets et al., 2001). This trend may seem undesirable from a global-climate perspective, but it does have climate benefits by reducing regional perturbations. In order to compare mitigation measures, climate-change metrics that go beyond global averages are needed." http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution02/summaryc.html i.e. net effect is cooling (at least at the regional scale). but this is not meant to say that the brown cloud is not dangerous pollution.

let's not forget that kyoto was negotiated in 1997 when china's private car ownership was quasi-non-existent. the reality is that nations dragged their feet forever, negotiated to empty the accord of far-reaching measures and eventually some decided not to sign it because it is flawed (not far reaching and inclusive) basically, at this juncture, the protocol has minimal objectives considering what has to be done and it should be seen as a useful platform to build momentum.

because of a) the usual non-sequitur to prevent any meaningful discussion; nobody was being sanctimonious until fairweather reproached jim for his vacation and JayB told us how he probably conserved more than anyone here (it should be easy for him to show us where people were being preachy if it were the case) and b) the usual portrayal of environmentalists as stupid hippies. basically, it is indeed "too easy" to show that apart from a limbaughesque ability to insult people by association and following closely the rightwing book on "how to not discuss the environment and how to demonize environmentalists", JayB's meaningful contribution to this thread is nil as far as i am concerned. if he really intended to contribute anything else he'd have chosen to answer the comment about why we should address CAFE standards instead of solely trying to bash his opponent a little more (no surprise though, it is standard operating procedure for him). as for fairweather,

compelling argument

just frikin classic! the only ones sanctimonious in this thread are those who attack folks for their choice of vacation and issue the usual blanket demonizations of the order of "environmentalists are stupid hippies" that JayB is now famous for. Do you always have to dumb down a discussion when you feel you are not getting any traction with your arguments? airplane traffic is responsable for just a small % (~3?) of global CO2 emissions, while highway traffic is somewhere near 50% (or whatever ridiculously high number i can't recall at the moment). so even though greenhouse gas emissions due to airplanes should be considered, if we want society to address human-induced global warming effectively it stands to reason to look at CAFE standards first.

boy, i seem to have a knack for getting the laissez-faire zealots all riled up the dude should take earth/natural science 101 if he wants to discuss natural systems. "the present is the key to the past" and "the present is the key to the future" were only coined ~200years ago. err .... we have 150+ year of historical data, and several 100,000 years worth of paleoclimatic data. sure, let's compare the lottery with the physical sciences. it's all a matter of opinion, ain't it ... what are physical laws good for? it's a wonder the guy manages to successfully turn on the engine to go to work in the morning ... it's truly a miracle. "do you think the engine will start today?" classic demagoguery. predicting climate isn't the same as predicting weather. it's difficult to forecast tomorrow's temperature yet it's not so difficult to say that we'll have summer like temperature over july/august. scientists can tell us the amplitude and cycle of the tides yet they can't tell us what will be the amplitude of the next sea wave hitting the shore at shillshole bay! the time and spatial scales are very different and require a very different knowledge of initial and boundary conditions. i like it when hacks pretend to discuss science ...

well, unfortunately for you there is someone keeping track of the lies about scientists predicting an imminent ice-age in the 70's: Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No moral: one shouldn't regurgitate what they hear on talk radio wihtout checking facts first.

the models unequivocally show that if we don't account for greenhouse gas emissions, our ability to reproduce the current warming trend falls way short. if they are indeed critical thinkers, they shouldn't have too much trouble with the concept of a man-induced warming trend superimposed on a natural trend. are you a critical thinker? ignoring an overwhelming majority of independent experts telling you that much of the warming is induced by humans while listening to fossil fuel industry shills who tell you the opposite (and not so long ago still denied warming was occurring) is irrational. are you irrational? funny how you don't place the same burden of proof on those who claim going full bore into developping alternative sources of energy will destroy the economy ... i wonder why this would be! oh wait, you never place any burden of proof on the economists in charge ... neither do you expect them to be accountable for their failed predictions, yet it doesn't prevent you from trusting their words blindly as if they spoke the gospel. pretty transparent, really. i don't have to tell you there are numerous studies which show that decreasing emissions, conservation, and developping alternatives will be good for the economy AND society. but of course you can't think past the silly calculus of borrowing to pay for windows you keep breaking in order to boost GDP. haha.

Good, this is what my reply to Bill was about. wtf? the lame use of double entendre won't get you very far. first, my understanding your desire doesn't imply i condone it because the first meaning of understanding isn't "feeling sympathy for" but truly, "knowing". second, a perusal of your answer to my first post on this page illustrates your willingness to play with words and assign arbitrary distinction between data and scientific analysis to hide your intentions (in spite of your denial). your aim seems to sow confusion and suggest that science is politically motivated. there is no science of the left or the right, there is simply good and bad science, which explains that the attempts at minimizing the role of humans in global warming simply doesn't get published in the peer-reviewed scientific press. this is neither a matter of opinion nor is it a contest in fairness and balance, but truly of what can be established with a significant probability of veracity: science has established that humans were responsible for a significant fraction of the global warming of the last 150years, that such warming (and its rate) was a threat to human societies and we should act yesterday to find alternatives to the burning of the fossil fuels. third, your insistance that some scientific reports on climate are politically motivated (and we are forced to infer that you believe it is a significant phenomenon or you wouldn't mention it), forces me to ask you for specific examples (and don't quote a 1995 study that you can't attribute for it won't do).

what are you talking about? scientific reports or their press rendition? because it is clear that the sciencitifc reports are not propaganda. what i have especially noticed is your lack of clarity and your use of unsubstantiated 'suggestions' what money? do you mean academic salaries (a PhD starts at ~40k/year and a few finish at ~100k)? people? there are people of all convictions among researchers and establishing oneself against the dominant paradigm would be quite a coup. so if there are aspects of the system that may lead to conformity there are others that on the contrary promote innovations. academic freedom is possible because of funding independent from special interests and tenure. climate research funded by the fossil fuel industry does not meet any of these criteria. if i don't like the results of academic research i may question the science but not the funding. i may speculate of bias but it would individual bias, not that of an entire field. i understand perfectly well your desire to pass off part of the sciencitific research as resulting from political bias. There can be no doubt of an affect, it is the great extent that has yet to be quantified... doubtful it ever will; quite a complex equation, probably with variables yet to be known and defined. the 'great extent' is greatly validated by the lack of compelling competing hypothesis and our ability to reproduce what we see only if anthropogenic emissions are included. to the best of our scientific knowledge (and we know much) much of the warming observed over the last century is due to fossil fuel emissions and certainly most of that observed in the last 20years seems like a flaky study considering the state of knowledge about Pinatubo and of its effect on climate in 1995 (4 years after Pinatubo). the quantities of gases were pretty much known, so were their effect (nothing fundamentally new since then) Well, you've matched my "study suggested" statement with a patent claim. indeed. it is well known that we have spewed several 100 (~500) billion tons of CO2 whereas volcanoes are not thought to be responsible for more than a few 100million tons. certainly not. not only, the uncertainties in the numbers above are small compared to the magnitude of their difference, but these numbers are in the published literature. unless, of course, you are suggesting there are many sources of volcanic CO2 that we do not know about, in which case you'd need to justify your statement.

the CAFE standard for cars has been the same since 1990. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/NewPassengerCarFleet.htm also note that the industry as a whole has no trouble meeting the standard and the mean of the car fleet is currently 2mpg greater than the standard (way to challenge them to improve fuel economy ) similar story for light trucks (the standard for 2005 has more or less been met since 1998!!!) and then this: "Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans. A study prepared for the Department of Energy, in February 2002, by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that 521,000 trucks with GVWR from 8,500 to 10,000 lbs were sold in calendar year 1999. The vast majority (82%) of these trucks are pickups and a significant number (24%) were diesel. At the end of 1999, there were 5.8 million of these trucks on the road accounting for 8% of the annual miles driven by light trucks, and 9% of light truck fuel use." http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm I am not impressed ...

Some of it is. oh yeah? like which part of the science is "liberal propaganda"? Wherever people and money are involved, there is bias. playing on words again ... individual bias cannot explain that 99.99% of the science says warming is real and to a great extent the result of antropogenic emissions due to burning of fossil fuels. source (reputable, please). which greenhouse gas? certainly not CO2 (pinatubo was in 1991): http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/images/maunaloacarbondioxide.jpg volcanoes have spewed 3 orders of magnitude less CO2 than we have in the last 150years. if you are referring to sulfates they have a short lived (a few years) cooling effect. if you are referring to water vapor it's a feedback not a forcing of climate. Yes. stopping the spreading of disinformation about the respective role of volcanoes and anthropogenic emissions would be a good start.

i always thought this was the De Jong-McGregor line (Artic Wing)

"under a bill pending in the U.S. Senate, it might all disappear. The bill, introduced last week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., would prohibit federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as AccuWeather and The Weather Channel, which offer their own forecasts through paid services and free ad-supported Web sites. Supporters say the bill wouldn't hamper the weather service or the National Hurricane Center from alerting the public to hazards — in fact, it exempts forecasts meant to protect "life and property." But critics say the bill's wording is so vague they can't tell exactly what it would ban. "I believe I've paid for that data once. ... I don't want to have to pay for it again," said Scott Bradner, a technical consultant at Harvard University. He says that as he reads the bill, a vast amount of federal weather data would be forced offline." [...] http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2005/04/21/m1a_wx_0421.html