TimG

This only makes sense if the infrastructure spending can plausibly lead to a reduction in production cost. In the case of renewables there is no plausible case to be made because of the physical limits of diffuse energy sources. It is absurd to call the 'road-system' as subsidy for fossil fuels. Roads existed long before fossil fuels and will exist even when they are replaced. You are probably familiar with the basic rule of business: if the input costs exceed the revenue generated then the business cannot survive in the long run. The same rule applies to energy production. If the cost of producing the energy exceeds the economic value that can produced with that energy then the energy source is not sustainable. Externalities cannot change this fundemental equation. That is why per KWh subsidies are the only relevent metric.

Based on what evidence? Can you show me on example of a self contained electrical grid with more than 10% renewables? (note: denmark does not count because it is not self contained and depends only the ability to import/export power). You won't find one and there will likely never be one in the next 50 years. It really depends on your definition of a subsidy. I use a simple definition: the amount of tax payer money used per KWh of energy produced. While it is true that all forms of energy have received subsidies of one form or another the total subsidy per kWh for fossil fuels is tiny. Even with nuclear the subsidy is fairly small. With renewables the subsidies are huge and mean the technology can never be deployed at the scale we need.

An opinion piece that includes enough concrete facts to make it a credible intepretation of the evolution of the AGW movement. I assume you have no facts that can refute this interpretation because you resorted to ad hom attacks.

So you really believe that politicians support action on AGW because they believe CO2 is problem? Give me a break. Politicians see AGW as a way to push their pet economic policies. The only thing that has changed in 30 years are politicians on the right realize that pushing AGW plays into their hands of the left wing politicians seeking to increase government control over the economy.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

No the real debate is about whether we care about any CO2 induced temperature changes. As for evidence: there is no conclusive physical evidence to support the "consensus" view of water feedback. The consensus view depends entirely on the assumption that their climate models are reasonable approximations of the climate system.

I said "AGW *hysteria* was a cause...". The term AGW was used as an adjective modifying the noun "hysteria". The term "AGW hysteria" refers to a political movement rather than a scientific claim.

It is a "fact" like the velocity of a block moving on frictionless surface is constant. In the real world there are no "frictionless surfaces" so the block always slows down.In the real world water vapour turns into clouds which can turn a positive feedback into a negative feedback. The "consensus" claims that the net feedback is positive - but that is an opinion not a fact. The "non-consensus" opinion can be found here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/

Did you hear the news about how China stopped shipping 'rare earths' to Japan because of a border dispute? The "rare earths" are metals that are required to build the high tech gadgets for alternate energy sources. 90% of the supply is in China. I would rather depend on fossil fuels because the supply is more widely distributed. Clearly you know nothing of the economics of electricity generation. Renewables will never be more than bit players (<10%) unless there is a major techinological advance. There is no reason to believe that will happen anytime soon. Modern coal plants are extremely clean - the problem are the CO2 obsessives that call CO2 'dirty'.In any case, there is one tried and true way to determine which technologies work and which do not: the free market. If a technology can compete without government subsidies then it "works". If it needs subsidies to be viable it definately does not "work".

Not at all. The price of oil will rise over time following the boom-bust pattern that it has in the past. After each boom the price will settle in at a higher level and society will gradually adjust accordingly. The chances of 'peak oil shock' are extremely small - certainly no larger than another great depression triggered by excessive CO2 regulation. The only fossil that is really under supply concerns in the next 50 years is oil. This means your economic argument ONLY applies to oil. More importantly, if we want to reduce oil consumption we must provide an alternative that is as cheap. Electricity is the only real choice which means attempting to restrict the supply of electricity because of this CO2 obession will make it harder to switch from oil. IOW, trying to restrict CO2 and economic development are mutally exclusive. So what? The fact is no nukes are getting built because of those "hard core" and nothing will change as long as they insist on blocking it (change is always much harder than keeping the status quo). AGW hysteria was a cause manufactured by Thatcher in 80s in order to undermine the coal miners union and promote nuclear power. It has since exploded into a monster that she probably regrets today.

An assertion which has no credible evidence to support it. What impedes growth are high energy prices, excessive regulation and taxation. All of the "solutions" to CO2 will mostly likely do much more harm to the economy than any fossil fuel. If you want focus on the improbable risks then you must also remember that GHG regulation has to the potential to push the economy into another great depression. Sorry they are completely at odds. If this was really a matter of reducing dependency on oil (the only fossil fuel which is actually in short supply) then we would want ensure a plentiful, reliable and cheap supply of electricity by building coal and nuclear plants. Instead, CO2 phobes want to increase our dependence on oil by making electricity much more expensive and less reliable.

Any 'distrust' is largely political opportunism at this point because informed people understand that the Japan of today is not the Japan of 1930s.

I was thinking of post WW2 actions by Mao during the Cultural Revolution. The more recently, the Tiananmen Square Massacre never occurred according to the Chinese government. There is no better example of a shameless hypocrite than a Chinese government official complaining about Japanese textbooks.

Because they are money grubbing hypocrites. Whatever abuses the Japanese committed in China they pale in comparison to what Mao and the Communists successors have done to their own people. As long as the Chinese communist government whitewashes its own history it has no business criticizing Japan's record during the war. As for Korea, Japanese investment helped modernize the Korean economy and introduced a system of universal education - something which was long opposed by the Korean nobility before the Japanese annexation. The Japanese-Korea relationship can be reasonably compared to the English-Irish relationship (i.e. the imbalance of power meant Koreans/Irish often got the short end of the stick but it was not all bad). The issue of the women forced into prostitution is perhaps the area where the most misinformation has been spread. In most cases, these woman were sold by their families to Korean pimps. The Japanese army was obviously complicit but the issue is not as black and white as many claim. More importantly, the Japanese government provided compensation to the Korean government with expectation that these women would be taken care of by the Korean government. The demands for direct compensation to the woman are largely opportunitist propoganda encouraged by the Korean government which failed live up to its part of the deal.

Another interesting tidbit: http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4stimson-henrylewis.htm

Sorry, I lost my temper. I am just so sick and tired of alarmist climate scientists and their endless evasions and half truths. FWIW, I think that most climate scientists are trying to do a good job and the troubles are largely caused by a few bad apples with huge egos and bullhorns (Gavin, Mann, Santer).That said, I have read many criticisms of SteveMc as well as his responses. In my opinion he almost always has better scientific argument. In many cases, the "criticisms" like the ones Annan comes up with are totally irrelevant to the point being made. In the end we will have to agree to disagree.

They should make it a prize draw. Put $2 million into the pot. Give away prizes from $1000 to $1m to randomly selected participants who complete the long form. With 20% of Canadians getting the long form the chances of winning 1M are better than the 6/49. The added bonus is the prize would attract the demographic that generally would not participate.

I was doing some general reading on the history of these events and found this interesting tidbit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima Can any of the history buffs here confirm this? It seems amazing that the US sacrificed 20,000 soldiers in order to make sure they could get the a-bombs to Japan. That is pretty compelling evidence that Americans truely believed that dropping the bomb was a strategic necessity.

Saw a blurb about someone looking at putting a gay bar next to the mosque. I thought it was a brilliant suggestion that would expose the mosque supporters for the hypocrites they are (i.e. I am certain the gay bar would be opposed by the same people as unnecessarily provocative).

Whatever brings the war to an end quickly and sets the stage for a lasting peace is the most moral choice. For decades, war between major powers has been avoid because of the promise to vapourize civilians in the event of an attack.

Answer the question: why is Hansen qualified to comment on energy policy? Completely missing my point. It is not the missing the technologies that are the issue. The issue are "plans" that set timetables for deploying technologies that don't even exist. So a plan that says "here are the technology gaps and we need X billion in funding over 30 years" could be a reasonable plan. A plan that says "we can reduce our emissions by X% by 2050 if we invest X billion in R&D over 30 years" is nonsense.

Failed paper? Have you replicated the work and shown that the calculations are wrong? If not you are blowing hot air. The results are: apply the same tests to the recent data and the models fail. Annan is trashing MH2010 AND Santer 2008. If you agree with Annan then you must also agree that Santar 2008 was junk. Nothing in Santer's letter addresses the issue of SteveMc's attempt to comment on Santer2008. In fact, nothing in Santer's comments absolves the IJC editor of unprofessional uias in his handling of the Santer and Douglass paper. The only thing that Santer claims is he did not collude with the IJC editor which may be true but that is an entirely seperate issue.

Fact 1: Applying Santer's tests to most recent data over turns the conclusions of his paper. Fact 2: IJC refused to allow a comment on Santer 2008 that pointed this out. Santer can makes as many excuses as he wants but it is painfully obvious that he was either incompetent or dishonest when he produce the 2008 paper because he did not use the data available at the time of his paper. There is also no excuse for the IJC refusing to allow a comment on the paper that points out that the conclusions to do not hold up if the tests are applied to the most recent data. We can speculate about the motivations of the IJC editor but given the special treatment that Santer 2008 received prior to publication there is no reason to believe the IJC editor was acting out of a desire to promote good science.

Would the reaction be the same store worker tossed a brick though the store window on his way out? Deploying the slide is funny but it is a type of vandalism that costs his former employer money. He should be, at a minimum, expected to pay back all costs incurred by Jet Blue as a result of his 'vandalism'.

Hansen has no expertise or knowledge that allows him determine whether shutting coal plants down is a sensible energy policy. It is rediculous to claim his opinion on the topic means anything. The same goes for every other climate scientist who thinks they are qualified to dispense advice on policy. All handwaving BS because technology does not automatically appear because someone writes a 'roadmap' and throws cash into R&D. One can identify the gaps and plan to invest in technology that might fill those gaps but any plan that puts a timeframe on when those technologies might be found and deployed is simply making stuff up.I realize you really, really want to believe that intractable technical problems that engineers have been working on for 100 years can suddenly be solved if only governments would come up with the right 'plan'. But such thinking is naive. The market has already provided plenty of incentive to create these technologies and the fact that they do not exist is evidence that they are simply not commerically viable and no amount of government subsidy is likely to change that.