Capitalists Vs. Climate Change
Another day, another climate change report predicting serious consequences for the United States. Tuesday’s report, however, focuses on the devastation that climate change could cause for American businesses.
The report, Risky Business, comes from a panel chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and hedge fund manager turned climate activist Tom Steyer.
It includes devastating forecasts for American companies, including dramatic declines in agricultural yields, loss of productivity due to intense heat and up to $35 billion spent dealing with coastal storms.
It won’t be long before every industry outside of fossil fuels is pushing for government action cutting carbon emissions.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
42 responses to Capitalists Vs. Climate Change
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chinese Democracy June 25th, 2014 at 14:48
good piece. Maybe a good kick in the wallet is what the Koch bro need.
Chinese Democracy June 25th, 2014 at 14:48
good piece. Maybe a good kick in the wallet is what the Koch bro need.
mea_mark June 25th, 2014 at 15:05
It’s about time that business leaders recognize the high cost of ignoring climate change and how bad it could end up being for their business. That is unless you are in the business of putting carbon in the air.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 00:22
Obama’s golf game in Palm Springs put enough carbon in the air to account for a lifetime contribution my the average American. Couple that with Al Gore jet setting all over the place in his private church telling everyone that they need to cut down on emitting on erroneous pollution. It’s all hypocritical nonsense.
arc99 June 26th, 2014 at 00:35
then there are all those Congressional Republicans who tell us that government managed health insurance will be the death of liberty, as they enjoy the benefits of their government managed health insurance.
now that is hypocritical nonsense.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 09:48
ACA has nothing to do with the debate on climate change.
As for healthcare, we won’t know if it will be the death of liberty until all the special exemptions have expired and the full effect of the ACA is felt by everyone.
arc99 June 26th, 2014 at 09:53
the ACA has everything to do with hypocrisy. that was my point. once again you bend over backwards giving the GOP every benefit of the doubt. doesn’t matter how you are officially registered to vote. you are a good little Republican soldier with nary a disparaging word for anyone with an R after their name, even when they enjoy a benefit they seek to deny to others which I thought was something you right wingers opposed.
oh well, I guess hypocrisy is just business as usual for both your elected officials and the people who vote for them.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 20:42
I vote for conservatives, plain and simple. Since I can’t vote in primaries I have to vote for the most conservative candidate at the election. I also vote for those who are pro-life. Do you know any Democrats like that? I voted every time for Bob Graham for governor, and I don’t think he was ever a Republican.
arc99 June 26th, 2014 at 21:17
I have never accepted the conservative interpretation of pro-life since food and health care are essential to life and conservatives oppose any attempts to help people obtain those essentials.
As memory serves there are 2 US Senators who are opposed to abortion and also happen to be Democrats, Bob Casey and Joe Manchin. Might be more if I felt like googling right now.
Back in 2000, when California did not restrict primary voting by party, I voted for John McCain and yes Al Gore was on the ballot. Would I have voted for McCain in the general election? I do not know. At the time, the straight talk express was real and I thought that perhaps the crusty veteran might provide some healing to the nation after the tumultuous Clinton years.
But George W. Bush got the nomination, 3,000 people died on 9/11/2001 and we went to war for weapons that did not exist, spending trillions of dollars in the process. Oh well I suppose that is better than 4 dead on 9/11/2012 and half a billion on Solyndra, at least to some people.
I also voted for Gov. Schwarzeneger when he ran for reelection. Although I was opposed to the recall of his predecessor Grey Davis, who happened to be right about Enron, my suspicion was that Arnold’s governance would not be much different than Mr. Davis’.
I was right and it was extremely enjoyable as the GOP far right fumed about the RINO in Sacramento. Schwarzeneger’s approach was no surprise to anyone who was actually paying attention and educating themselves on the issues.
That was the last time I voted Republican. Meanwhile, California’s finances are under control and Gov. Brown is polling ahead of his Republican opponent by 20 points. The Republican nominee is someone considered “liberal” by GOP standards. Just goes to show you how out of touch the California GOP is with the people who live, work, and vote here. And it is only getting worse. The GOP is slowly dying in California and it is far right wing conservatives who are killing it.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 23:49
Still blaming GWB for 9/11? Where’s the evidence.
What conservative is denying anyone food? They deny lifetime welfare for those healthy enough to work.
Medicaid is not healthcare and having health insurance is no guarantee you will get proper healthcare.
arc99 June 27th, 2014 at 03:25
the President is responsible for what happens on his watch, or does that only apply to Presidents you did not vote for?
amazing how time after time you rant about accountability, but somehow GWB bears no responsibility for what happened on 9/11/2001. I seriously doubt that if 9/11/2001 had happened on the watch of a President Gore or President Obama, you would be demanding “evidence”. You would be in this forum ranting as you do with Benghazi.
that fundamental hypocrisy is pervasive in the right wing and is a prime reason why I find it difficult to take anything you people say seriously.
Bob Waas June 27th, 2014 at 20:52
I have to ask you the same question. Is it only the presidents you didn’t vote for who are responsible for everything that goes wrong? GWB was in office 71/2 months when 9/11 happen. The attack was a long term plan and took years to coordinate; so why didn’t our intelligence community pickup on it sooner?
When gas prices rose under GWB, Pelosi and others were blaming the president for the high prices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjigcS8gN04
The gas prices came back down and then doubled under BHO, so it must be his fault right? Not according to Nancy
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-pelosi-07-blames-bush-307-gas-12-blames-speculators
Obewon June 27th, 2014 at 21:51
Arc how soon they forget GWB’s 2008’s $5 gasoline & U.S. Record $147/brl oil, priced today at $3.75-$3.09 and $105/brl.
RBOB Gasoline USD /gal $3.0988-6/27/14 http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
Obewon June 27th, 2014 at 22:00
Don’t forget GOP greenlighted Solyndra with $100 B including a $10 B reserve against losses still surplussing $9.5 B.
mea_mark June 25th, 2014 at 15:05
It’s about time that business leaders recognize the high cost of ignoring climate change and how bad it could end up being for their business. That is unless you are in the business of putting carbon in the air.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 00:22
Obama’s golf game in Palm Springs put enough carbon in the air to account for a lifetime contribution my the average American. Couple that with Al Gore jet setting all over the place in his private jet telling everyone that they need to cut down on emitting on erroneous pollution. It’s all hypocritical nonsense.
arc99 June 26th, 2014 at 00:35
then there are all those Congressional Republicans who tell us that government managed health insurance will be the death of liberty, as they enjoy the benefits of their government managed health insurance.
now that is hypocritical nonsense.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 09:48
ACA has nothing to do with the debate on climate change.
As for healthcare, we won’t know if it will be the death of liberty until all the special exemptions have expired and the full effect of the ACA is felt by everyone.
arc99 June 26th, 2014 at 09:53
the ACA has everything to do with hypocrisy. that was my point. once again you bend over backwards giving the GOP every benefit of the doubt. doesn’t matter how you are officially registered to vote. you are a good little Republican soldier with nary a disparaging word for anyone with an R after their name, even when they enjoy a benefit they seek to deny to others which I thought was something you right wingers opposed.
oh well, I guess hypocrisy is just business as usual for both your elected officials and the people who vote for them.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 20:42
I vote for conservatives, plain and simple. Since I can’t vote in primaries I have to vote for the most conservative candidate at the election. I also vote for those who are pro-life. Do you know any Democrats like that? I voted every time for Bob Graham for governor, and I don’t think he was ever a Republican.
arc99 June 26th, 2014 at 21:17
I have never accepted the conservative interpretation of pro-life since food and health care are essential to life and conservatives oppose any attempts to help people obtain those essentials.
As memory serves there are 2 US Senators who are opposed to abortion and also happen to be Democrats, Bob Casey and Joe Manchin. Might be more if I felt like googling right now.
Back in 2000, when California did not restrict primary voting by party, I voted for John McCain and yes Al Gore was on the ballot. Would I have voted for McCain in the general election? I do not know. At the time, the straight talk express was real and I thought that perhaps the crusty veteran might provide some healing to the nation after the tumultuous Clinton years.
But George W. Bush got the nomination, 3,000 people died on 9/11/2001 and we went to war for weapons that did not exist, spending trillions of dollars in the process. Oh well I suppose that is better than 4 dead on 9/11/2012 and half a billion on Solyndra, at least to some people.
I also voted for Gov. Schwarzeneger when he ran for reelection. Although I was opposed to the recall of his predecessor Grey Davis, who happened to be right about Enron, my suspicion was that Arnold’s governance would not be much different than Mr. Davis’.
I was right and it was extremely enjoyable as the GOP far right fumed about the RINO in Sacramento. Schwarzeneger’s approach was no surprise to anyone who was actually paying attention and educating themselves on the issues.
That was the last time I voted Republican. Meanwhile, California’s finances are under control and Gov. Brown is polling ahead of his Republican opponent by 20 points. The Republican nominee is someone considered “liberal” by GOP standards. Just goes to show you how out of touch the California GOP is with the people who live, work, and vote here. And it is only getting worse. The GOP is slowly dying in California and it is far right wing conservatives who are killing it.
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 23:49
Still blaming GWB for 9/11? Where’s the evidence.
What conservative is denying anyone food? They deny lifetime welfare for those healthy enough to work.
Medicaid is not healthcare and having health insurance is no guarantee you will get proper healthcare.
arc99 June 27th, 2014 at 03:25
the President is responsible for what happens on his watch, or does that only apply to Presidents you did not vote for?
amazing how time after time you rant about accountability, but somehow GWB bears no responsibility for what happened on 9/11/2001. I seriously doubt that if 9/11/2001 had happened on the watch of a President Gore or President Obama, you would be demanding “evidence”. You would be in this forum ranting as you do with Benghazi.
that fundamental hypocrisy is pervasive in the right wing and is a prime reason why I find it difficult to take anything you people say seriously.
Bob Waas June 27th, 2014 at 20:52
I have to ask you the same question. Is it only the presidents you didn’t vote for who are responsible for everything that goes wrong? GWB was in office 71/2 months when 9/11 happen. The attack was a long term plan and took years to coordinate; so why didn’t our intelligence community pickup on it sooner?
When gas prices rose under GWB, Pelosi and others were blaming the president for the high prices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjigcS8gN04
The gas prices came back down and then doubled under BHO, so it must be his fault right? Not according to Nancy
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-pelosi-07-blames-bush-307-gas-12-blames-speculators
Obewon June 27th, 2014 at 21:51
Arc how soon they forget GWB’s 2008’s $5 gasoline & U.S. Record $147/brl oil spiking 10-Fold from Clinton’s $12-$14/brl highs in 2000. Priced today in the Obama Admin at $3.75-$3.09 and crude oil is $105/brl.
RBOB Gasoline USD /gal $3.0988-6/27/14 http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
Obewon June 27th, 2014 at 22:00
Don’t forget GOP greenlighted Solyndra with $100 B loan guarantees including a $10 B reserve against losses still surplussing $9.5 B.
Whose Baby Is Solyndra? Solyndra was cleared to participate in this loan-guarantee program by President George W. Bush’s administration. ‘#DitchMitch’ also did not mention that the legislation creating the loan-guarantee program, approved by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005, received yes votes from — wait for it — DeMint, Hatch and McConnell! http://www.alan.com/2011/09/28/whose-baby-is-solyndra/
“I also vote for those who are pro-life. Do you know any Democrats like that?” Abortion is down under the Obama Admin with 2008 7/1000 infant death decreased to it’s lowest U.S. level ever! Obama’s Culture of Life: Abortion Rate Drops by Largest Percentage Since 2000 http://www.politicususa.com/2012/11/24/president-obama-2009-largest-single-year-decrease-abortion-rate.html
“Of 224 United States ranks #169 in Infant Mortality 6.17 (DEATHS / 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS) 2014.” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html “Pro-life prenatal with infant coverage via ObamaCare & Medicaid” reduced infant mortality to U.S. Record lows:)
Remberasha June 25th, 2014 at 15:18
Even the oil industry will lose money with global warming — Just think? No need for that winter heating bill anymore!
Remberasha June 25th, 2014 at 15:18
Even the oil industry will lose money with global warming — Just think? No need for that winter heating bill anymore!
Tom Ward June 25th, 2014 at 16:20
Looks to me like the environment actually fares worse when it’s communists vs climate change ◔_◔
“Pollution in China”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China
Dwendt44 June 25th, 2014 at 20:57
And therefore?
China has ignored the climate much like a greedy capitalist. BUT it has recently realized that that ignoring has damaged them in many ways. The result is that they are taking measures to reduce pollution.
Of course, it’s taking it’s time doing it. Coal is largely the major fuel for it’s energy needs, and other cleaner fuels are slow to be adopted.
Tom Ward June 25th, 2014 at 16:20
Looks to me like the environment actually fares worse when it’s communists vs climate change ◔_◔
“Pollution in China”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China
Dwendt44 June 25th, 2014 at 20:57
And therefore?
China has ignored the climate much like a greedy capitalist. BUT it has recently realized that that ignoring has damaged them in many ways. The result is that they are taking measures to reduce pollution.
Of course, it’s taking it’s time doing it. Coal is largely the major fuel for it’s energy needs, and other cleaner fuels are slow to be adopted.
Bob Waas June 25th, 2014 at 23:16
“The physicist Richard Feynman said that it doesn’t matter how smart or powerful you are, if your hypothesis is contradicted by the empirical data, you need a new hypothesis. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis claims that the increasing level of carbon dioxide (co2) due to human activities (largely related to burning fossil fuels) causes global warming. Evidence backing that claim is nowhere to be found.
The seas are rising!”. The seas have been rising for the past 18,000 years, ever since the last (real) ice age began melting (except possibly for a few hundred years of reversal during the Little Ice Age). Sea level is up 400+ feet. The current annual sea level rise is 1 to 2 mm per YEAR! ( 1 mm = .0393701 inches.) This is miniscule and likely overwhelmed by measurement error. Some perspective may help. There have been 13 ice ages in the past 1.3 million years. The average duration of each ice age during that period was 90,000 years. Each ice age has been followed by a warming (interglacial) period, (such as the one we now enjoy) average duration 10,000 years. When there is no further increase in sea level it’s a good bet that the next ice age (or at least a Little Ice Age) has just arrived.
The statistics clearly show that extreme weather events (typhoons, hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts) have been even less frequent and less severe than usual over the past few decades. Even many scientists who back the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are embarrassed by uninformed folks (particularly well known politicians) blaming such weather events on human-caused global warming.
The latest UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits in at least one released version of its recent periodic report that current temperatures are the highest in the past 800 years. This is, finally, a reversal by the UN, now admitting that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, about 1,000 years ago) was a global event and experienced higher temperatures than now. Human activity was not responsible for that warming period (and co2 level was low and was not rising.) What’s more, earlier warming periods going back thousands of years in this interglacial had even higher temperatures. In other words, current warming is well within the bounds of natural warming. However, that did not stop even many “scientists” from making the bogus claim that our current warming could not be explained, so must have been caused by human activity. (That is pure speculation, not even based on plausible logic!) Before casting aside the default assumption, that our current warming is merely natural climate variation, there must be at least a scintilla of evidence.) Finally, there has been no additional increase in our global temperature for the past 17 years, even as the co2 level has continued to increase. In fact, the five accepted global temperature datasets, (3 terrestrial, 2 satellite), all reportedly show a current 5 year cooling trend , and 4 of the 5 show a current 10 year cooling trend!
The beginning of our current warming (such as it is) is generally associated with the beginning of our industrial revolution and the recent rise in co2 level. But there is no justification for that cherry-picked start-date. Our current warming actually began, by definition, at the bottom (the low temperature) of the Little Ice Age, which happened in the mid 1600s. For those lacking arithmetic skills, that’s two centuries of warming BEFORE both the industrial revolution and before co2 began increasing. The only known correlation between global temperature variation and co2 variation is over geologic periods and shows temperature variations being reflected, hundreds of years later, by very similar co2 variations. That’s just the carbon cycle at work. Oceans outgas when warmer, and absorb gas during cooling periods. During the most recent cooling period (1940s to 1970s) co2 continued to rise. More recently, as the global temperature has basically remained flat, co2 has continued to rise. Moreover, co2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now in the more distant past, been much higher during two ice ages and going into once ice age, so neither does there appear to be any nearby “trigger”. Also, the physics is clear: co2, as it’s level increases, has a rapidly diminishing heating capacity.
All the computer models which project global warming assume that the real greenhouse gas culprit is water vapor, which supposedly provides a positive feedback, bringing on a temperature increase 2 to 3 times greater than that brought on by increasing co2. The assumed feedback assumption is speculative at best because NO ONE yet understands climate feedbacks. In fact, cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, likely provides a negative (offsetting) feedback. This baseless assumption about water vapor feedback happens to be consistent with their projected output, since all have grossly overestimated the actual temperature increase. (In any case, computer model output is NOT evidence of anything apart from the understanding and possible confirmation bias of the authors!)
Co2 relative volume in the atmosphere is 4/100 of one percent. This is also
referred to as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), or .0004. That’s why it is referred to as a trace gas. The recent average annual increase in co2, related to human activity, (fossil fuel and land use) is 2 ppmv. This co2 emission represents less than 4% of the natural annual co2 emissions of the carbon cycle (ocean and biomass emissions.) The US is responsible for less than half of that 4%, and our contribution has been dropping (both absolutely and relative to most other countries) due to increased use of natural gas and also partly due to recent economic conditions. Obama is promising to reduce our use by 17% over the next several years. But the economic analysis, using the alarmists’ own numbers, indicates that the cost to our economy (which will also affect other countries) would be enormous, and have an impact on temperature so miniscule that the improvement would not be discernible. Hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in cost and NO IMPROVEMENT!
I have yet to hear even one coherent attempt at rebuttal of the issues outlined herein, neither have I heard any evidence supporting the alarmist position. So far the only response to questions or criticism involve name-calling, “appeals to authority” (hardly relevant when it is “authority” which is in question), or claims of the “consensus”, and that the science is
“settled”. Science is not decided by votes, but in any event that claim is based on completely debunked surveys, and only the foolhardy claim that the science is “settled”. Michael Mann (infamous “hockey stick graph” author) responds to scientific criticisms by ignoring the facts presented, and instead asks whether the reader prefers to have their gall bladder taken out by a dentist rather than a surgeon.
It is clear that human activity is contributing to the increase in carbon
dioxide. However, some perspective, again, is needed. By 2099 the co2 level is projected to reach 600 ppmv (this assumes a continuation of the annual increase of 2ppmv per year). A crowded gym with poor venting would likely be at 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews work, for months, in
atmospheres of 3,000 to 5,000+ ppmv. Plants LOVE the increased co2 level and, in that environment, require less water. Scientists have also acknowledged that lifeforms, not unlike our own, survived in co2 levels which were many times higher than now.
We have time, and technology will likely come up with sensible solutions long
before the co2 level is a problem. Invoking the “precautionary principle” to
address an imagined catastrophic situation will solve nothing but could bring
on much larger problems. Don’t let the politicians introduce this kind of hobgoblin!”
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/03/must-watch-video-john-coleman-of-kusi.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FNWlS+%28YID+With+LID%29
Dwendt44 June 26th, 2014 at 00:08
I’d be very surprised if you even had a clue about what you copied and pasted.
Roctuna June 26th, 2014 at 08:00
And you know this because “gofigure560” posting over at Yid with Lid is a renowned climatologist? Once again your prowess at cut-n-paste is displayed but I’d repeat Dwendt44’s comment. Do you have a clue?
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 09:37
Yea, I have a clue, I also saw through Gore’s money grubbing lies and hypocrisy. He lives in a house that uses 5 or more times the average American home energy usage and flies all around the world in a private jet; then uses a special effects from a movie to prove ice bergs are melting. I think it begs the bigger question, do you have a clue?
If the facts on that site bother you, try this one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
Roctuna June 26th, 2014 at 12:00
As usual, you don’t address the points raised by others who object to your posts, you throw out another “Al Gore is fat” distraction. The Telegraph is a source of opinion, not data, just like gofigure560 offered an opinion. Try going to the source sometime instead of a denial-biased filter.
Bob Waas June 25th, 2014 at 23:16
“The physicist Richard Feynman said that it doesn’t matter how smart or powerful you are, if your hypothesis is contradicted by the empirical data, you need a new hypothesis. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis claims that the increasing level of carbon dioxide (co2) due to human activities (largely related to burning fossil fuels) causes global warming. Evidence backing that claim is nowhere to be found.
The seas are rising!”. The seas have been rising for the past 18,000 years, ever since the last (real) ice age began melting (except possibly for a few hundred years of reversal during the Little Ice Age). Sea level is up 400+ feet. The current annual sea level rise is 1 to 2 mm per YEAR! ( 1 mm = .0393701 inches.) This is miniscule and likely overwhelmed by measurement error. Some perspective may help. There have been 13 ice ages in the past 1.3 million years. The average duration of each ice age during that period was 90,000 years. Each ice age has been followed by a warming (interglacial) period, (such as the one we now enjoy) average duration 10,000 years. When there is no further increase in sea level it’s a good bet that the next ice age (or at least a Little Ice Age) has just arrived.
The statistics clearly show that extreme weather events (typhoons, hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts) have been even less frequent and less severe than usual over the past few decades. Even many scientists who back the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are embarrassed by uninformed folks (particularly well known politicians) blaming such weather events on human-caused global warming.
The latest UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) admits in at least one released version of its recent periodic report that current temperatures are the highest in the past 800 years. This is, finally, a reversal by the UN, now admitting that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, about 1,000 years ago) was a global event and experienced higher temperatures than now. Human activity was not responsible for that warming period (and co2 level was low and was not rising.) What’s more, earlier warming periods going back thousands of years in this interglacial had even higher temperatures. In other words, current warming is well within the bounds of natural warming. However, that did not stop even many “scientists” from making the bogus claim that our current warming could not be explained, so must have been caused by human activity. (That is pure speculation, not even based on plausible logic!) Before casting aside the default assumption, that our current warming is merely natural climate variation, there must be at least a scintilla of evidence.) Finally, there has been no additional increase in our global temperature for the past 17 years, even as the co2 level has continued to increase. In fact, the five accepted global temperature datasets, (3 terrestrial, 2 satellite), all reportedly show a current 5 year cooling trend , and 4 of the 5 show a current 10 year cooling trend!
The beginning of our current warming (such as it is) is generally associated with the beginning of our industrial revolution and the recent rise in co2 level. But there is no justification for that cherry-picked start-date. Our current warming actually began, by definition, at the bottom (the low temperature) of the Little Ice Age, which happened in the mid 1600s. For those lacking arithmetic skills, that’s two centuries of warming BEFORE both the industrial revolution and before co2 began increasing. The only known correlation between global temperature variation and co2 variation is over geologic periods and shows temperature variations being reflected, hundreds of years later, by very similar co2 variations. That’s just the carbon cycle at work. Oceans outgas when warmer, and absorb gas during cooling periods. During the most recent cooling period (1940s to 1970s) co2 continued to rise. More recently, as the global temperature has basically remained flat, co2 has continued to rise. Moreover, co2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now in the more distant past, been much higher during two ice ages and going into once ice age, so neither does there appear to be any nearby “trigger”. Also, the physics is clear: co2, as it’s level increases, has a rapidly diminishing heating capacity.
All the computer models which project global warming assume that the real greenhouse gas culprit is water vapor, which supposedly provides a positive feedback, bringing on a temperature increase 2 to 3 times greater than that brought on by increasing co2. The assumed feedback assumption is speculative at best because NO ONE yet understands climate feedbacks. In fact, cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, likely provides a negative (offsetting) feedback. This baseless assumption about water vapor feedback happens to be consistent with their projected output, since all have grossly overestimated the actual temperature increase. (In any case, computer model output is NOT evidence of anything apart from the understanding and possible confirmation bias of the authors!)
Co2 relative volume in the atmosphere is 4/100 of one percent. This is also
referred to as 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), or .0004. That’s why it is referred to as a trace gas. The recent average annual increase in co2, related to human activity, (fossil fuel and land use) is 2 ppmv. This co2 emission represents less than 4% of the natural annual co2 emissions of the carbon cycle (ocean and biomass emissions.) The US is responsible for less than half of that 4%, and our contribution has been dropping (both absolutely and relative to most other countries) due to increased use of natural gas and also partly due to recent economic conditions. Obama is promising to reduce our use by 17% over the next several years. But the economic analysis, using the alarmists’ own numbers, indicates that the cost to our economy (which will also affect other countries) would be enormous, and have an impact on temperature so miniscule that the improvement would not be discernible. Hundreds of billions (if not trillions) in cost and NO IMPROVEMENT!
I have yet to hear even one coherent attempt at rebuttal of the issues outlined herein, neither have I heard any evidence supporting the alarmist position. So far the only response to questions or criticism involve name-calling, “appeals to authority” (hardly relevant when it is “authority” which is in question), or claims of the “consensus”, and that the science is
“settled”. Science is not decided by votes, but in any event that claim is based on completely debunked surveys, and only the foolhardy claim that the science is “settled”. Michael Mann (infamous “hockey stick graph” author) responds to scientific criticisms by ignoring the facts presented, and instead asks whether the reader prefers to have their gall bladder taken out by a dentist rather than a surgeon.
It is clear that human activity is contributing to the increase in carbon
dioxide. However, some perspective, again, is needed. By 2099 the co2 level is projected to reach 600 ppmv (this assumes a continuation of the annual increase of 2ppmv per year). A crowded gym with poor venting would likely be at 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews work, for months, in
atmospheres of 3,000 to 5,000+ ppmv. Plants LOVE the increased co2 level and, in that environment, require less water. Scientists have also acknowledged that lifeforms, not unlike our own, survived in co2 levels which were many times higher than now.
We have time, and technology will likely come up with sensible solutions long
before the co2 level is a problem. Invoking the “precautionary principle” to
address an imagined catastrophic situation will solve nothing but could bring
on much larger problems. Don’t let the politicians introduce this kind of hobgoblin!”
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2014/03/must-watch-video-john-coleman-of-kusi.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FNWlS+%28YID+With+LID%29
Dwendt44 June 26th, 2014 at 00:08
I’d be very surprised if you even had a clue about what you copied and pasted.
Roctuna June 26th, 2014 at 08:00
And you know this because “gofigure560” posting over at Yid with Lid is a renowned climatologist? Once again your prowess at cut-n-paste is displayed but I’d repeat Dwendt44’s comment. Do you have a clue?
Bob Waas June 26th, 2014 at 09:37
Yea, I have a clue, I also saw through Gore’s money grubbing lies and hypocrisy. He lives in a house that uses 5 or more times the average American home energy usage and flies all around the world in a private jet; then uses a special effects from a movie to prove ice bergs are melting. I think it begs the bigger question, do you have a clue?
If the facts on that site bother you, try this one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
Roctuna June 26th, 2014 at 12:00
As usual, you don’t address the points raised by others who object to your posts, you throw out another “Al Gore is fat” distraction. The Telegraph is a source of opinion, not data, just like gofigure560 offered an opinion. Try going to the source sometime instead of a denial-biased filter.