Riverwind

You mean the guy who says supporting the oil sands is equivalent to supporting slavery? They probably believe what they say. But if, at the core, someone does not really care about being wrong then that will affect the activities they will support. This is an example of unreasonable environmentalism. If primary fishery is sustainable shutting it down to save a fish of no commercial value makes no sense.

You are grossly oversimplifying things. Sometimes there are some things that people will never part with no matter what the price. You are confusing the objective with the means. Humans are successful because are able to cooperate in large groups but cooperation requires trust - morals are one mechanism to create that trust.

If the job needs to be done, fund it and hire people. Seems strange to fund projects that can only be staffed by people collecting assistance already.Training programs are a different issue and they are best handled on a case by case basis.

From an evolutionary perspective morals are a means to provide social cohesion and to facilitate co-operation between members of society. They are not an end in themselves but many people try to elevate them to that status.

Environmentalists generally see humans as a disease and that nature unsullied by humans is a virtue in itself. The conservatives that you rail against see nature as a resource to the used and managed for the benefit of humans. That does not mean they support practices that cannot be sustained or that pollution is not a problem. It just means that it is not enough to say that any change to environment caused by humans is automatically bad. i.e. if damming a river to provide energy for humans happens to wipe out a fish species then so be it - there are lots of other fish out there.

Trade is only possible if you have something that the other side wants. The British tried to trade with the Chinese in the 1800s but the Chinese weren't interested. That led to the Opium wars.Even our civilized society accepts that the minority can have their property expropriated for a public good and the armed police will be used to enforce the expropriation if required. There is no doubt in my mind that the storyline in Avatar would play out if humans encountered an alien race in possession of something valuable who refused to trade it for any price. It is probably worth noting that the most lefties that would be appalled at the treatment of the natives in the film would fully support expropriation of assets from oil/bank/coal companies in order to promote their version of social justice.

I get disgusted with the overbearing moralists on both sides of the spectrum.

Any plausible tax would simply be a consumption tax that would only have a marginal effect on behaviors. The reason is the tax must set low enough to ensure the energy intensive industries (i.e. trucking) are not forced to shutdown yet the people who could most easily reduce emissions are the same people that can afford to pay an extra tax (i.e. the middle class SUV drivers).The only way to reduce emissions is to find emissions free technology that is economically viable without government subsidies.

Now you are showing your own ideological biases. People sceptical of climate change tend to be libertarians that share little common ground with social conservatives.

That is very true. I suspect it is worse than you think. For example, blogs and websites promoting climate alarmism advertise the fact that they block comments by sceptics which 'spread lies and misinformation'. IOW - people are not only retreating into echo chambers - they are locking the doors to keep people with different views out. This is one of the reasons why I like MLW - it is one of few places around that is not an echo chamber.

The environmental issues become politicized because people insist on mixing up their ideologically preferred policies with the science. For example, even if one accepted the IPCC claim that we are headed to 4degC of warming if we do nothing it does not automatically follow that a Kyoto-style agreements with binding emission reduction targets is the best way to address the problem. Yet if you suggest that most environmentalists will be calling you a 'science-denier' because the Kyoto-style agreements suit their ideological preferences.

Everyone's opinion is based on their frame of reference. It is not possible to interpret/analyze facts or events without using a frame of reference. It is not possible to make decisions/policies without tying them back to a frame of reference. Political ideologies are often the frame of reference used by people even if they do not realize it. So if some calls someone else a 'communist' for expressing an opinion. What that really means is: 'I think your opinion is based on the communist ideological framework and I can't agree with you because my ideological framework is different' Often it is not possible to resolve issues which are simply a matter of frame of reference. For example, in another thread I took issue with the claim that there was something inherently wrong with Canadians emitting more CO2 than the world average. I tried to make a logical - even mathematical - argument to explain why I felt that. But in the end it was impossible for someone with a socialist/communist ideological framework to comprehend my argument. To them unequal emissions is simply 'unfair' and there can be no debate.

You are the one who keeps says the 'consensus' scientfic opinion should be accepted as a fact and that it is irresponsible to question the basis for that opinion.As more facts come out it is becoming more clear that climate science is a field infested with group think and that we must assume that all of the claims are biased towards exagerrating the effect of CO2 and the risks associated with AGW.

Properly designed experiments must control for different variables. Even in medicine a double blind study is required to separate the placebo effect from the drug. Looking at real observations from a single subject is not enough to show that the theory has any merit. The theory can only verified if it predicts outcomes that unambiguously come true. All verifiability requires is the ability to construct experiments and successfully predict the outcome. That cannot be done in climate science therefore all hypotheses are unverifiable.

Really? You would take a drug which had been never tested on real subjects simply based on the the say-so of the medical establishment?Sorry, I do not share your blind trust and nor do many other people. It is unreasonable for you to expect people to be as naive as you when it comes to science. Science is about making predictions and demonstrating that they come true. Scientists studying elementary particles can verify their hypotheses by designing experiments based on the theory and predicting outcomes. If a scientist cannot design an experiment to test their hypotheses then their hypothesis in unverifiable. It may or may not be correct but since it is unverifiable it cannot be treated as a scientific fact.The catastrophic climate change hypotheses is unverifiable. We cannot know if it is true or not until it actually happens and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change that.

Catastrophic climate change is nothing but an unverifiable hypothesis until it actually occurs. No amount of climate modelling can change that. Public policy much take that uncertainty into account.If you disagree then tell me what you would do if scientists created a drug that prevented cancer but had never been tested on humans yet they claimed their computer models of the human body showed that it was safe and effective. Would you take the drug?

For the same reason all of the papers, clothing and body parts survived - random chance.We would have had a whistleblower come forward by now if 9/11 was anything other than it what it appears to be. Secrets like that cannot be kept.

Do have a specific criticism other than not liking the numbers? Keep in mind that $100 trillion for the basic power generation installations comes from the SciAm article.

It is not hard to calculate the cost of building out the required infrastructure. The cost is astronomical if done over 25 years. Stretch it out over 100 years and it is manageable but only if we continue to invest in and use fossil fuels. Here is one analysis that would put the cost of converting Canada renewables in 20 years at about $200 billion per year! That would consume the entire federal government budget. That is why I say renewables are a pipe dream and fossil fuels will be necessary for a long time.

If things go as expected the human population will peak around 2050 and start to decline. This will mean our energy needs will decline and put less pressure on those limited hydrocarbon resources. There are more than enough hydrocarbons to get us over that hump. The trouble is there is not enough cheap oil. China is turning to every possible source of energy. It is investing in renewables, coal, nuclear even coal-to-oil. China just surpassed the US as the largest market for car sales. There is no chance of oil going down in price any time soon. Except for the batteries and all of the relatively rare metals that are need to make them. If you are worried about peak oil - what about peak indium or peak lithium. Here is a good chart to give an idea of all of the shortages we will be facing.Here is a simple calculation based on lithium supplies: Source. Now like oil supplies, lithium supplies will grow as demand grows (I believe the number used in the example is out of date) but you should see that the potential demand is of the same order of magnitude as the supplies.When it comes to the building the grid I read one analysis that it would take 25,000 miles of copper transmission lines to supply 1/2 of california's *current* electricity consumption with renewables. Multiply that out for the entire world and you have another resource bottleneck. It is a matter of timeframes. If you wanted to talk about a 100 year plan to build out this infrastructure out of existing tax revenues then I could support it but in the meantime we need to expand our use of fossil fuels. If you want to talk about a plan to build it over 25 years while making existing energy sources prohibitively expensive then I see it as economic suicide.

That makes as much sense as asking you how much stock do you hold in renewable energy companies. The reliability of the vehicles will trump the efficiency of the fuel delivery mechanism. At this point in time I see no evidence that electric cars are ready to take over as the primary family vehicle. A best they would be a second vehicle for short trips. That could change but, as I said, planning must be based on technology that exists - not technology that might appear. To be clear. My hope is we never have to resort to coal-to-oil because coal would be much better used for producing electricity. However, in a pitch, it is an option.As for renewables, it all comes down a simple formula: how much energy can be produced per dollar of investment. Wind and solar require a lot of investment for little power and that is not likely to change because most of the cost is in the huge grid+backup which is required to make renewables useful. I am in favour of letting the market sort out what is the best solution.

The ice survived in 2008. It became multiyear ice in 2009. You can see the increase in multi-year iced by comparing the 2008-2009 graphics. Unprecedented in 30 years is not very interesting. Get back to me when you have some evidence that it is unprecedented on a climatologically interesting timescale.Here is a good illustration from the ice core data that puts the current arctic warming in its proper context.

I only mentioned coal to explain why peak oil won't happen. We will see a continual rise in price - but not a sudden catastrophe unless there is some geo-political meltdown. I guess it depends on where you are. Any place which already has natural gas heating has the network in place. Places without that infrastructure may be more inclined to go to electricity. My main point I see us moving to world where vehicles are powered by a mix of fuels and this will be driven largely by the market. The governments role will be limited to ensuring that regulatory barriers do not block technologies. It depends on whether carmakers can come up with a reliable electric car suitable for a cold climate. It could happen - I just don't count on it. OTOH, reliable natural gas powered vehicles exist today.

Your argument cuts both ways. Artificially increasing the cost of energy in Canada will not trigger innovation if it is cheaper to shutdown and move somewhere else. The cost differential between fossil fuels and renewables is simply too large to have any other outcome. We need to focus first on R&D to bring the cost of renewables down. Peak oil is a long way off because oil can be produced from coal and we have a lot of coal. However, the price of oil will continue to increase and each time it jumps we will see a move to more efficient vehicles and hybrids. At some point, we will see natural gas become a viable fuel for vehicles (we have a lot of that). Pure electrics will play a small role because there is no good solution to the 'what happens if the battery dies and I am far from an outlet' problem. Biodiesel not large scale option with the currently available processes. 50 years from now vehicles will be powered by a mix of fuels - including oil.

The image I linked to from the NISDC proves you wrong. In any case, after 2007 they said that the 2008 melt would be bigger because of all the first year ice. They were wrong. The first year ice survived and become multiyear ice. They are trying the same tactic this year. We will have to wait and see what happens next year.