[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability

[Ted Moffett]

On 10/20/07, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

I don't know if human induced global warming is a reality or not.

...enough with the endless doomsday carping that we have been subjected to
for the past few years. We have heard you. Endless repetition is not a
solution. How about if the eggheads get together with the real heroes of the
information age, the engineers and come up with something that more closely
resembles a solution. (I mean a real solution. Not the walk, ride a bike,
and car pool eye wash) I'd rather listen to a few years of here's the plan,
guys, then anymore repetitions of here's the problem.

>   -------------
>

Did you read the information from the Stern Report, on solutions to slowing
greenhouse gas emissions, that was offered in the very post that you
responded to above with your criticisms?  You criticize that "endless
repetition is not a solution," while not even acknowledging the detailed
economic and technological means to address the problem of human induced
global warming, that the Stern Report addressed.  I wonder if you sincerely
are interested in solutions to human induced global warming, given you do
not believe there is sufficient evidence it even is a problem, as you state
above.  And this was exactly the main point of my post that you responded
to... How can people be motivated to push for solutions to a problem they do
not believe exists?  The effort just to convince people there is a
significant problem is thus a major part of the solution.

Below read information from the Stern Report, and also from a report by the
Union of Concerned Scientists, about solutions to lowering greenhouse gas
emissions:

The Stern Report:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1935209,00.html

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

*Recommended actions*

*·* Three elements of policy are required for an effective response: carbon
pricing, technology policy and energy efficiency.

*·* Carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, will
show people the full social costs of their actions. The aim should be a
global carbon price across countries and sectors.

*·* Emissions trading schemes, like that operating across the EU, should be
expanded and linked.

*·* Technology policy should drive the large-scale development and use of a
range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products.

*·* Globally, support for energy research and development should at least
double; support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies should be
increased my up to five times.

*·* International product standards could be introduced.

*·* Large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to
curb deforestation should be started very quickly.

*·* Climate change should be fully integrated into development policy, and
rich countries should honour pledges to increase support through overseas
development assistance.

*·* International funding should support improved regional information on
climate change impacts.

*·* International funding should go into researching new crop varieties that
will be more resilient to drought and flood.

*Economic impacts*

*·* The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.

*·* Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each
year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than
20% of GDP.

*·* The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of global
GDP; people could be charged more for carbon-intensive goods.

*·* Each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but
emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a tonne.

*·* Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the
economy by $2.5 trillion a year.

*·* By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at least
$500bn.

*·* What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the
next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can have a
profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.
------------------------------------------
Union of Concerned Scientist Report on global warming science and the
Northeast USA, solutions to problem:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/economists-reduce-emissions.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ten-personal-solutions.html

--------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

----- Original Message -----

>   *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> ; J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:07 AM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism
> &Replicatability
>
>
>
> All-
>
> One of the main road blocks that must be addressed to solve the global
> warming crisis, is the large number of people who, for one reason or
> another, do not accept that there is an overwhelming scientific
> consensus that significant action is necessary to prevent substantive
> negative impacts.  The choices these people make as consumers, in
> lifestyle, and as voters, are hampering efforts to mitigate this crisis.
> They would rather not bother to study the science, or only choose to believe
> the small minority of scientists who insist the consensus is in error.  Or
> maybe they don't believe the scientific community or the scientific method
> is to be trusted, or is reliable.  Or for many, even if they fully
> acknowledge the problem, they are too dependent on their current lifestyle
> to make the changes required to transition away from a fossil fuel/energy
> dependent way of living.
>
> For those who insist they do not believe the scientific consensus, the
> hundreds of scientists who have spent years of their life studying this
> issue, and have emphatically concluded that human emissions are dangerously
> warming the planet, it appears that reasoning with a brick wall might be
> more rewarding... At least the bricks will not respond in a manner that
> insults a person's intelligence.
>
> Studying the minority views of the scientists who reject the scientific
> consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet is
> necessary to continue to test the veracity of the consensus.  Indeed, as
> this process of skepticism on this issue continues, the self corrective
> mechanism of replicatability of findings by other scientists, perhaps the
> most fundamental principle of the scientific method, to insure that the
> science on this issue is not corrupt, fabricated, politically biased, etc.,
> the consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet has
> only increased.  And the claim that human induced global warming will not
> have drastic consequences is more and more an incredible position.
>
> At the bottom of the PDF document at the first link below are
> approximately 70 published papers on climate science that support the
> conclusions on the science of climate change in the Stern Report.  No doubt
> Al Gore and other environmental loonies have conspired with these scientists
> in political subversion to spread socialism and other dastardly nefarious
> plots, in a vast global cabal to undermine the free market system, using
> global warming as a boogeyman to scare the bejezzus out of the naive
> gullible hoi polloi.
>
> And I've fallen for it!
>
> *Chapter 1: The science of climate change*
> <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf>
> :
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf
>
>
> Stern Review on the economics of climate change:
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
>
>
> --------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 10/19/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> > Ted
> > I don't think that you should so easily dismiss George Willl's
> > comments.  He is just a journalist and a lay person on global waming
> > but  Lomberg whow he sites is a scientist and his statements should be taken
> > seriously. Global warming has plusses an minuses as Will pointed out. Not
> > everything is negative. Glogal warming by itself may be a benefit overall.
> > What problems there are are better solved by the free market system(with
> > some government guide lines) not draconian government regulation which would
> > stifle the economy. This is not to say we should not be concerned about air
> > pollution. It is a problem and measures should be taken to curtail it. There
> > has already been some improvement in this area.  As an example, in the
> > 1960"s you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly ever smell it from
> > just acrose the river.  Efforts to find cleaner fuel should be continued.
> > Roger
>
> -----------------
> Ok, I'm going to bite on this one.
>
> As much as I really hate the nay-sayers regarding the "global warming"
> -so-called-issue, I'd like to ask this:
>
> IF the ice caps are melting as quickly as is being stated, (a) doesn't
> this put more water into the atmospher, i.e., through evaporation; (b)
> doesn't this mean there will be more water to fall as rain; (c) the areas
> that are experiencing drought right now - won't they in fact see an increase
> in water through rain and/or the swelling of rivers, creeks, water-ways; (d)
> what are the pro/cons of using ocean water, processing it and putting it
> into pipes as un-salted water for communities in need?  I see adds where a
> company is saying they "capture" billions of gallons of water a year for use
> - in what way?
>
> And no, I really don't care to get into it about the "global warming"
> alarmists.  I'm just asking the above questions.
>
> Thank you.
>
> J  :]
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071020/f7b69c0b/attachment.html