Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change? 462
Hugh Pickens writes "David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate. But behind the scenes, a different story is emerging that offers reason for optimism: the world's largest economies may be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy. Despite some high-profile flops, like ethanol and Solyndra, clean-energy investments seem to be succeeding more than they are failing. 'The price of solar and wind power have both fallen sharply in the last few years. This country's largest wind farm, sprawling across eastern Oregon, is scheduled to open next month. Already, the world uses vastly more alternative energy than experts predicted only a decade ago,' writes Leonhardt. Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago. Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible which, while far from perfectly clean, is less carbon-intensive than coal use. The clean-energy push has been successful enough to leave many climate advocates believing it is the single best hope for preventing even hotter summers, concludes Leonhardt, adding that while a cap-and-trade program faces an uphill political battle, an investment program that aims to make alternative energy less expensive is more politically feasible. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.'"
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:0, Insightful)
Clearly you missed the words "on record".
Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:3, Insightful)
even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)
Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era,
What part of "warmest year on record" is unclear to you?
What part of the temperature during earlier eras where we weren't on top of the food chain is relevant?
The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore
The sad thing is that many slashdotters wouldn't question your patently obviously boring rhetoric.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:1, Insightful)
even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)
Didn't you know that ~160 years of climate observations determines the entire history of the planet? Unless you are a creationist who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, that 130 years is a statistically insignificant amount of time.
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you name a single person who has advocating abolishing all industry?
Re:Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is ethanol. As many of the simple minded radical greens, the author can't tell the difference between clean (as in less pollution/harmful environmental effects), renewable and low greenhouse gas emitting.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:2, Insightful)
But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!
The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore, lest someone label them a GW denier.
What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate. (Since these resources generate on geological timescales, not human timescales.) Even if we don't care about the environment, once these resources are depleted, say goodbye to a high-tech human civilization unless we have developed alternative energy sources.
(Note that we will probably not be able to develop alternative energy sources once we have reached that point, since the development of alternative energy sources will require a high-tech human civilization.)
Speaking of hyperbole... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'm a lot sicker of people talking about "crazy-eyed alarmists" preaching that "the fucking end is nigh." Who, specifically, are these "crazy-eyed alarmists" and where are they making such predictions? I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they? Where are they preaching that I've never heard them?
And while we are at it, who is insisting that we need to "abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!"? Again, I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they?
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
We'va also had 5 majour extinxion events during those millions of years. And all of them had something to do with major shifts in climate, caused by external factors: the big meteorite did not kill the dinosaurs. The nuclear winter which followed did.
Large, fast changes in climate don't matter much to life. It'll recover. We may not. Or we may, but our civilisation is a goner. Or maybe, if we are extra-lucky, we get to only have a major economic crisis. Something like the industrial revolution in reverse.
Global warming is a serious threat. And we will --those of us below fifty -- have to face its consequences directly. We can only hope that it won't be as bad as the scientists think it'll be, and that it much, much worse than what you see in news.
Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all the problems facing mankind and the earth are caused by the same thing. The solution is easy to see but difficult to get people at embrace. There are simply too damned many people on this globe. The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size. We need to trim down the population of the world. At the present growth rate of the population, we will again double in another 58 years. Instead of trying methods to change the climate which will probably not go the way scientists plan, we need an incentive for the peoples of the world to start limiting their reproduction. However the religions of the world will fight any attempt at population control. Like it or not, overpopulation is the underlying cause of climate change and decreasing the population is the solution. It will happen one way or another. We cannot continue to reproduce like rats and rabbits.
Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the part where the year is not yet finished
Yes, and it's still summer. Guess you missed that part. It's only going to get hotter. Also, that's totally fucking irrelevant, because it's about how hot it's gotten, not just about the average temperature for the year.
every single Warmist Chicken-Little alarmist such as yourself proclaiming weather is the same as climate
Show me where I said that. Come on, show me. Oh, you can't? That's because I didn't say that. You're a liar.
(but not when winters are colder! No sir, then it means nothing)
Record winter lows are a predicted sign of global warming. I'm not surprised you don't know that, because you are clearly willfully ignorant.
all attempts to claim runaway behavior from existing climate change have been proved to be bunk
We're not talking about runaway behavior right now, we're talking about AGW. Although, now that you mention it, ice on land is melting faster than it's being replenished, faster than projections, and faster than in recorded history.
your high priests
Your attempts to demonize science? They fail.
along with your high priests inability to predict anything about climate changes that actually happen going forward
And you fail again. In fact, record highs and lows are predicted. Ice melting is predicted, and it happening faster than predicted is not a cause for you to celebrate. All it means is that even scientists are optimists.
why should we treat you and your disciples
I have disciples now? Awesome. I hope I don't get nailed up. You are hereby cordially invited to eat my body before my death. Pucker up.
It all started when you claimed AGW was based on "science", a curious science that silenced detractors and ignored requests to review raw data
And you lie again. The raw data has been available to anyone in a position to understand it all along. That doesn't include you. Detractors have not been silenced; Big Oil has spent vast amounts of money on studies trying to find some support for their assertions, the same assertions you share. Only, now even Big Oil is admitting that AGW is a real thing. Now, they're only arguing that it is not as serious as it is made out to be. As a predictable next step, they will announce that no, we're actually all screwed. Then they'll announce that they have some kind of solution. I don't need to be prescient, I only need to remember what you have forgotten: the lessons of history.
and you wonder why more reasonable heads fail to support you now.
Well, no, in fact, more reasonable people (who are more than just a head, this ain't Futurama — today, "head" more commonly means drug user, but I already knew you were hopelessly out of touch before you said that) actually do support "me" (or in fact, the science of AGW) and you don't. I already know you're not reasonable from your history here, but I decided to respond to you anyway because I had time and I didn't want someone to think that a failure to respond to your inanity was due to believing it.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really the warmest on record? On what record? The mercury thermometer record? Tree ring record? Ice core record? It was certainly warmer a little over 1000 years ago and one could consider them "on record".
Not even close (Score:3, Insightful)
We are currently at around seven billion people, starvation we see currently is from political, not technical issues. We do not have too many people, we have some people that suffer needlessly - an entirely different problem.
The upper growth is around 10 billion [ted.com] people, after that the population will remain fairly stable. There's no reason to think that with technological improvements in obtaining food we could not support that population indefinitely, assuming some vast plague does not take us down a lot...
Ironically, current warming trends would help us with more arable land, if scared fools would allow climate change to proceed normally.
Natural Gas == Fracking (Score:4, Insightful)
Natural Gas == Fracking == Destruction Of Dwindling Clean Drinking Water.
Not much of an improvement
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
The sentence says this year is the warmest on record for the US. It says the past 13 are the warmest period for the whole planet, no mention of recorded or time at all.
Actually, you're just showing off a poor understanding of the English language. The actual text in question is:
... even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), ...
Anyone with minimal competence in (written) English will understand that the parenthesized part is an addendum to what came before, and what came before included "on record". So that "on record" would normally be understood to apply to the parenthesized extension of the sentence.
Of course, such a misreading could be due to ignorance or malice. But it's fairly common to make "mistakes" like this for propaganda purposes. I suspect that this was the case here. In particular, I suspect that the parent comment was written by someone (Baloroth 3270816) understood the statement quite well, but decided to ignore the normal reading of the typical English speaker, and claim that it said something other than what it actually said. This was done for the usual propaganda reasons.
(It can be useful to study propaganda techniques; it gives you the ability to both see through them and also use them for your own purposes. ;-)
Re:Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
current warming trends would help us with more arable land
Only if we are willing to engage in deforestation that would exacerbate the problem. Did you get these ideas out of a Big Oil coloring book, or what? Meanwhile, our existing arable land is showing massive crop failures for this year, and food is already 20-33% more expensive than it was last year. As it turns out, when you have record highs and lows in the same place in the same year, there's no crops that want to grow under those conditions. There is no plant whatsoever that likes temperatures over 100 degrees (though many plants have adaptations to permit them to avoid damage in those conditions) and no plant that can handle those temperatures likes to be frozen. In addition, there has been inadequate rainfall in our existing farmland.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:3, Insightful)
No, "for the entire planet" means in contrast to specific parts of the planet which have not necessarily had their warmest years since 1998, as in global average temperature. Repeating "on record" every single time once the context has already been established would be bad writing.
Just because it is possible for you to deliberately smash the language centers of your brain that normally work just fine so as to manage to misunderstand perfectly clear English does not make it the writer's problem.
Re:Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider looking at population through the prism of a world without fossil fuels and other natural resources. These fossil fuels pretty much make modern agriculture what it is today. It is hard for us to picture a world in which human beings become less capable and have less technology because it is not something we have observed in our lifetimes. However, it can happen, and currently we have no mitigating plan to deal with the dwindling availability of fossil fuels. Once fossil fuels become too expensive for agriculture, we could all be in big trouble.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Since you're a scientist, what do you sense from the other scientists you know, regarding "climate scientists"?
I know a few people who do hard science, and they regard climatology about as scientific as sociology and child psychology.
From TFA: "the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate"
Possible reason for this is that climatology doesn't quite pass the bullshit detector test. Every summer when it gets hot, they proclaim it's the hottest year in the history of the universe. But in the winter when it gets really cold and snows a lot, they say it's just the weather not climate. (even though in their private emails they express sorrow at the record low temperature in Denver and what a travesty it is)
Re:Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand
Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.
Re:Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do so many critics of climate change mainstream resort to name calling? I think it's a rhetorical tactic, to appear uncompromising and intimidating. But at the same time, it undermines credibility -- it seems like you have nothing to say and are falling back on tactics.
I've seen this logic before (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I read one of these climate change stories and the comments shouting "hoax!", I think back to a story. A professor was asked to study the atomic bomb yields and say whether or not it would ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the Earth. He came back a short time later and said, "No, of course not!"
After the test, his colleagues asked him how he arrived at his answer so quickly. He said, "Well, if I was wrong, who would've known?"
Ahem. Global warming and the self-destruction of mankind is a hoax!
Also, if a scientist came along with conclusive evidence that there was no such thing as global warming, he'd get a *LOT* more money. Think about it. How much would the oil companies pay for such information? There's no selfish reason to lie about this.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it would have to be read as only the hottest in the hundred or so years we have records for. But it was written such that most people will read it with the meaning of 'hottest evar'
The context of "on record" was clearly established. The only part of the context that changed -- from hottest year in the U.S. to hottest years for the whole planet -- was also clearly established. Most people do not have goldfish brains and can keep track of this context for six whole words.
So, only people who wanted to invent a reason to complain would read it that way. Everyone else knows that the author did not suddenly, mid-sentence, despite already qualifying their claims with "on record", expand the context to the entire history of our rock ball which was at one point molten.
Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:2, Insightful)
> So can you enlighten me as to how exactly you've come to the conclusion that you should
> come out against AGW rather than for, since there is plenty of bad reasoning by on both sides.
Ohh! Can I answer that one! Please?!?
Simple. There is so much FUD and obvious self serving interest on BOTH sides that trust would be stupid. So I apply logic to the situation thus:
What are the probable results of the four possibilities? Because that is what it comes down to, we can say with some confidence that there are four, what we can't say with high confidence is the probability of each because the science has become far too politicized.
1. AGW is real and we accept the IPCC/Progressive solution. According to their own predictions we are probably boned anyway. Implementing the One World Government/Police State that is proposed as the answer to totally regulate carbon, wrecking the first world, transferring most of the remaining wealth to the developing world, etc. leaves us an impoverished socialist hellhole unable to cope with the warming that will happen anyway, just a little less because we won't be emitting much anymore. Better for the Earth than #2 but almost certainly worse for us.
2. AGW is real and we ignore the greens (mostly because of fear of the reds within their ranks). Things will get warm. Yea it might suck. But it probably won't be the worst to happen to the Earth in the last million years, certainly not the worst thing since the dinosaurs had a very bad day. Good side is we will have plenty of wealth to throw at the problems and Free peoples have a way of overcoming.
3. AGW is bunk and we fall for a scam anyway. Hosed almost as bad as #1 except without the getting hot part.
4. AGW is bunk and we are smart enough to avoid falling for the scam. Good times. And soon enough we will move to something better for energy anyway, dead dinosaur isn't going to last forever. Even with fracking.
So my problem is to pick between 1/3 or 2/4. Can't know which one of the pair I'd actually get though. But from where I sit 2 is better than either 1 or 3 and 4 is of course full of win. So I will take 2/4. Logical choice, logically arrived at.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:2, Insightful)
But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh...
You are, of course, talking about the people who spout the bullshit about how if we dare to be a little more conservative with our fossil fuel use, the economy will collapse and we'll all live in caves, right?
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speaking of hyperbole... (Score:4, Insightful)
And these concerns are eminently reasonable. There is evidence of species loss, and loss of many species would be a bad thing to be sure, and I can see how a taxonomist would consider that apocalyptic. But seriously, do you regard that as "the end [being] nigh?" And if reasonable concerns about massive displacement of populations due to rising seas and famine due to disruption of food production in currently highly productive turn out to be true, I think that it is reasonable to expect that civilization would be at risk in many countries. After all, there are some countries where civilization already seems to have fallen apart do to political conflicts--severe weather, large numbers of refugees, and interruption of food supplies might tend to aggravate those problems, wouldn't you think? Bad things to be sure...but do you really think that if those predictions come true over the next century or so, then "the end is nigh"
The words "could be" acknowledge that there is uncertainty. But once again, they are very reasonable concerns. This is, after all, an area where water supplies are already stressed, and the models, however imperfect, predict greater weather extremes. Besides, these are local problems. Would you say that inability to irrigate part of one state constitutes "the end is nigh?"
Re:We are moving in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
No serious party is making those predictions or proposals. Only the deniers characterize the argument that way. Read the actual science and proposals, instead of the characterizations by their political opponents; for example read the IPCC reports (or just the summaries, which are relatively short); they are what you are looking for.
Your assurance doesn't help in the face of the facts. Also, the free market would work better if those emitting carbon had to pay for it, instead of dumping the cost on everyone else: It creates a false incentive to the emitters (carbon emission is free!) and runs up my taxes and bills.