First, I am not talking about power, money or a new world order or global governance.
Let’s assume some have general policy goals and beliefs that seek to address: overpopulation, excessive growth, wealth distribution imbalances, peak oil and other resource depletions, etc.
If the above is true, then could those type of people believe that implementing CO2 policies which may address some of the above issues outweighs any science that shows CO2 may not be a major climate driver?
And I’m also trying to avoid conspiracy theory types of arguments. However, I am more interested in looking at persuasion like the type my Grandma used to do to me when I was young. A good example was she told me not to pick my scab because it would give me cancer. Picking a scab is not a good idea but it’s not life threatening. However, making it life threatening makes it more likely to be adhered to. Is this a possible analogy to the current AGW scare?
N – Lothringer Bur- You are obviously oblivious to a concept called “Burden of Proof”
And several of you are also oblivious to what I am asking here. I am not arguing about the state of climate science and whether it is strong or weak. I’m asking if it really matters if it’s strong or weak.
Baccheus- While I don’t agree with your AGW stance (and I’m not sure of your answer here either), thank you for at least answering what I was actually asking.
Dawei-Again, thanks for answering what I was actually asking. What you stated has brought up two more questions. Are CO2 emission reductions the only type of policy to fight AGW? And, what would be the consequences of large CO2 reductions on society in general and specifically? And will it affect different countries/demographics differently?
9 Responses
Ill buy that for a dollar! of carbon credit that is!
Wow I think Dawei just earned a little of my respect. And Im being serious! I appreciate it Dawei!
Your question is based on a clearly false premise:
“If the above is true, then could those type of people believe that implementing CO2 policies which may address some of the above issues outweighs any science that shows CO2 may not be a major climate driver?”
When you correct for this inaccurate assumption, you might have something resembling a relevant question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Guess what?
IF you are able to prove the followings I will change entirely my policy making:
* A doubling of atmospheric CO2 does not lead to a temperature increase over 2°C
* None of the changes are attributed to an increase in CO2
* There is no warming
* CO2 emissions are not man made
Once you come with some solid proof, we´ll talk.
The scientific theory is based on observations and logical expectations. You have to bring a very strong argument to invalidate such theories.
NO I have no vested interest.
So go back to school, study hard and once you line up too a nice 1000 pages PhD or post-doc work at a reputable university (MIT like), we´ll talk. What are you waiting for?
There is no such thing as overpopulation. People are ‘the ultimate resource.’
There is no such thing as excessive growth – of the economy.
There is excessive growth of the monetary base, and we’re seeing that right now.
We’re not at peak oil. Even if you don’t consider lower quality grades of crude that are abundant, we’re still not at peak oil production.
There isn’t any “balance of wealth” that is inherently bad – – – assuming a stable price system, I’d rather X have 100 and Y have 1,000,000 than X have 5 and Y have 5,000.
I would say yes that AGW policy where it relates to using renewable resources is a good idea. The way that they are going about it using the sky is falling we are all doomed approach is wrong. It is also wrong to manipulate data to make nature confirm to their beliefs.
Decisions must be based on the best real information. The problems you mention will not be fixed by the same medicine that AGW needs. Overpopulation is a problem created in under-developed nations; AGW is created by developed nations — the fix is at a different decision point. Excessive growth and wealth imbalances are values, even if we agree that they exist not all will agree they should be fixed.
We need to address each problem on its own merits and our own ability to fix it.
Separate problems, separate discussions, separate answers, separate decisions, separate actions.
All of those problems would be lame excuses to reduce CO2 emissions. It matters that people understand that the science of AGW and ocean acidification is sound, because there really is no other good reason to reduce CO2 emissions.
The only two issues there that might be relevant anyway are peak oil and resource depletion. Peak oil had no problems being taken seriously as an issue before AGW, and there is no good reason to not use the hundreds of years worth of coal that we still have, other than its impact on the climate.
So yes, I think it matters that the science be told. Any politician who tries to argue that it would be a good idea to reduce CO2 just for the heck of it would rightfully be laughed off the stand.
Again the question begs, is co2 a greenhouse gas? Every source I have studied or read lists massive amounts of water in the process of producing the co2 for the experiment. So now the question becomes when performing any kind of an experiment where the moisture content of the sample is close to dew point saturation are you not really testing the green house gas characteristics of water vapor not the other gas supposedly being tested. So then if this is the case is not every experiment conducted using moisture saturated co2 scientifically invalid!
So far all of the experimental evidence on co2 has been conducted using moisture contaminated co2 samples, so unless equivalent results can be obtained using dry co2 with zero moisture content all of the hype about co2 being a greenhouse gas is false and invalid.
So while it might not be a conspiracy, it is defiantly lousy scientific practice that produced those invalid results that the AGW assumption depends upon.
I’m going to answer your stated question and ignore all that idiocy about scabs that comes after it. The policy is not more important to me than climate science. Science is always more interesting than policy. Deniers try to attack the science (even though it’s becoming more and more clear that virtually none of them understand it) because they don’t like the policy. If they accept the science, it makes it harder to disagree with the policy.
I don’t think Didier could possibly even agree with himself when he says “There is no such thing as overpopulation.” Ok, let’s say the Earth has a ten times more people than it does today. How do you and your girlfriend like sharing your place with 9 other couples? You’ll say there’s lots of land, so more houses can be built. Ok, but what happens when the population is 100x larger? A 1000x?