Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[TimG]

No. YOUR issue is your OWN bias. You want to believe what you believe so badly that youre engaging in an "everything but the kitchen sink" attack on any sources of information that dont support your position.

I am just as dismissive of a lot sceptic claims. My position is we know a lot less about the climate than people claim.

[dre]

Sorry - choosing technologies is a job for engineers - not scientists. But engineers can only build what the government allows them to build so it is up to the government to allow thorium to be used.

Also: you should look in a mirror before calling people idelogically motivated. Every argument you make is driven from your ideology.

Also: you should look in a mirror before calling people idelogically motivated. Every argument you make is driven from your ideology.

Not at all. I dont have an ideologically driven position on climate change at all. Ive told you on multiple occasions that I dont even know if AGW is real or not. I dont even have an opinion. I dont oppose ANY technologies... Not oil, or coal, or nuclear, or anything else. I think all of them have value, and all of them can play a constructive part.

As a technologist I have a healthy interest in the field but really all I want to do is get our smartest people working on ensuring we have a stable and sustainable energy supply for the future, and that the volatility inherent in our current energy paradigm doesnt inhibit the growth of our economy or the prosperity of our race. The way to do that is by investing in r&d and engineering, which is exactly whats starting happen FINALLY.

In fact... my position is completely at odds with the ideology you think drives it. My narrative of this subject describing it as a transition that could take many decades or even a century would infuriate climate change environmentalists. As would my support for more development and research into things like nuclear technology, or cleaner coal plants.

You on the other hand might as well be literally reading from a conservative book on how to oppose climate change policy.

Lets move beyond your shilling for the nuclear industry... and look at your claims here.

1. Theres a liberal conspiracy, and the scientific community cannot be trusted because of their answers to a political opinion poll which you posted.

2. Then theres a conspiracy to falsify results to perpetuate funding. Thats conspiracy theory 2.

3. Policy meant to address climate change will "destroy the world economy".

Then you regurgitate the exact same talking points about things like wind and solar that one would find on a conservative blog.

Youre towing the party line almost perfectly. Talking point for talking point.

[TimG]

Not at all. I dont have an ideologically driven position on climate change at all.

Neither do I. Despite all of my complaints about scientists I can't actually claim that they are wrong. What I care about is a sensible government policy and the current CO2 obession is leading to really bad government policies.

The way to do that is by investing in r&d and engineering, which is exactly whats starting happen FINALLY.

There is your ideology talking. You believe that any government spending is good and you have no concept cost benefit analysis or opportunity cost.

Then you regurgitate the exact same talking points about things like wind and solar that one would find on a conservative blog.

And your blind support of government spending without any thought to harms caused by government spending is exactly what you would find on any left wing blog. Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Neither do I. Despite all of my complaints about scientists I can't actually claim that they are wrong. What I care about is a sensible government policy and the current CO2 obession is leading to really bad government policies.

There is your ideology talking. You believe that any government spending is good and you have no concept cost benefit analysis or opportunity cost.

And your blind support of government spending without any thought to harms caused by government spending is exactly what you would find on any left wing blob.

There is your ideology talking. You believe that any government spending is good and you have no concept cost benefit analysis or opportunity cost.

You completely made that up. I never said anything like that at all. Source please. I do think the government has a role to play here as well as the private sector.

And your blind support of government spending without any thought to harms caused by government spending is exactly what you would find on any left wing blob.quote]

Blind support for WHAT government spending? Care to back up any of this horrendous bullshit? Youve said more in this thread in favor of government spending than I have.

Neither do I. Despite all of my complaints about scientists I can't actually claim that they are wrong. What I care about is a sensible government policy and the current CO2 obession is leading to really bad government policies.

No it isnt. Its leading to investment in all kinds of energy research, and thousands of innovative new products, more efficient cars, energy plants, etc.

Show me these policies. Link me to some of this "REALLY BAD" legislation so I can read it. This is just another canned ideological talking point.

Edited October 7, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

You completely made that up. I never said anything like that at all. Source please. I do think the government has a role to play here as well as the private sector.

Then give me an example of a government anti-CO2 policy that you think was a big waste of money. And then explain how you know the policies you do support are not also a big waste of money. If you cannot give me an example with an explanation then you show that you do not care about government waste as long as they are throwing money at cause you support.

[dre]

Then give me an example of a government anti-CO2 policy that you think was a big waste of money. And then explain how you know the policies you do support are not also a big waste of money. If you cannot give me an example with an explanation then you show that you do not care about government waste as long as they are throwing money at cause you support.

So you have nothing to back up your claim at all then? Just completely invented it out of thin air? Youre getting a reputation for that...

Then give me an example of a government anti-CO2 policy that you think was a big waste of money

Are you kidding? YOURE the one who claims over and over and over again that CO2 alarmism is resulting in bad government policy that will damage the economy and so on. Its "REALLY BAD" you say. What is? Link me to some of this horrible legislation. And show me how this legislation has hurt the economy in the 15 years since this whole thing started?

You have provided nothing to support your "sky is falling" claims.

Nothing.

At.

All.

[TimG]

Are you kidding? YOURE the one who claims over and over and over again that CO2 alarmism is resulting in bad government policy that will damage the economy and so on.

Bad government policy does not have to destroy the economy to be bad. It just has to cause more harm than good. One example that comes to mind are corn ethanol subsidies in the US. They have spent billions on a technology that will likely never be able to compete with oil and does next to nothing for emissions. These subsidies raise the cost of food which hurts the people who can least afford and they have created an entrenched lobby group that makes it politically impossible to eliminate these subsidies any time soon. This exact same story is going to play out with wind and solar as long as governments keep giving wind and solar operators subsidies for electricity they produce.

As for other examples: kyoto would have been a disaster if the government actually tried to meet it. Fortunately they did not. A Kyoto 2 agreement would also be a disaster if it was signed. Fortunately that does not look likely thanks to the efforts of AGW sceptics who make sure people are aware of how harmful these kinds of treaties would be.

As for claims that I am making stuff up: I am only reading what you say. It is clear from your posts that you do not think critically about the cost/benefit of government spending. If you did you would not be so insistent that the government can do no wrong when it comes to spending money on the CO2 obession.

Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Bad government policy does not have to destroy the economy to be bad. It just has to cause more harm than good. One example that comes to mind are corn ethanol subsidies in the US. They have spent billions on a technology that will likely never be able to compete with oil and does next to nothing for emissions. These subsidies raise the cost of food which hurts the people who can least afford and they have created an entrenched lobby group that makes it politically impossible to eliminate these subsidies any time soon. This exact same story is going to play out with wind as long as governments keep giving wind and solar operators subsidies for electricity they produce.

As for other examples: kyoto would have been a disaster if the government actually tried to meet it. Fortunately they did not. A Kyoto 2 agreement would also be a disaster if it was signed. Fortunately that does not look likely thanks to the efforts of AGW sceptics who make sure people are aware of how harmful these kinds of treaties would be.

As for other examples: kyoto would have been a disaster if the government actually tried to meet it.

Gosh... what happened to your narrative about scientists dictating government policy?

So lets get this straight. You claim that I blinding support government spending. Than absolutely refuse to provide a shred of evidence of that claim. Then you claim my position is motivated by ideology but refuse to provide any evidence of that either. Youre running out of credibility fast.

As for other examples: kyoto would have been a disaster if the government actually tried to meet it. Fortunately they did not.

NO government fully met all the goals in Kyoto. But Kyoto still played a usefull part in driving energy investment. Take a look at whats happened in since 1995... Theres been breakthroughs in virtually every part of the energy tech sector. Huge breakthroughs in wind, solar. Breakthroughs in clean coal and new plant designs, devices that strip carbon from car and industrial exhause. Millions of high mileage low emissions vehicles are on the road, fuel efficiency standards have increased, the electric motor and battery industries have been revolutionized, and weve made more efficient appliances.

As for your claims about ethanol... You dont know if that technology has potential or not, or even what it will look like in a decade or two. Recently researchers have figured out a way to make ethanol from virtually any kind of cellulose so the fuel cycle in the future could come from waste wood, garbage, agricultural waste, and so on. Tech development is an incremental process.

Your dismissal of ethanol is just as unscientific and luddite as your dimissal of solar and wind energy. Both of these technologies are improving rapidly and the cost of using them and producing energy with them is plummeting. You dont even have a clue what these technologies will look like in the future. These technologies are close to being cost competitive with nuclear energy already, and the prices are still falling fast. Ruling them out would be stupid.

Edited October 7, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

So lets get this straight. You claim that I blinding support government spending. Than absolutely refuse to provide a shred of evidence of that claim.

Read your own posts. The government can do no wrong when it comes to CO2 related spending according to you. There is no other interpretation possible.

NO government fully met all the goals in Kyoto. But Kyoto still played a usefull part in driving energy investment.

I am not going to support an economically disasterous international treaty because it may have had some impact on technology development. Your kind of thinking is economic suicide.

Theres been breakthroughs in virtually every part of the energy tech sector. Huge breakthroughs in wind, solar. Breakthroughs in clean coal and new plant designs, devices that strip carbon from car and industrial exhause. Millions of high mileage low emissions vehicles are on the road, fuel efficiency standards have increased, the electric motor and battery industries have been revolutionized, and weve made more efficient appliances.

Everyone of those things would have happened anyways because technology is always progressing and the price of oil is heading steadily upward.

[dre]

Read your own posts. The government can do no wrong when it comes to CO2 related spending according to you. There is no other interpretation possible.

I am not going to support an economically disasterous international treaty because it may have had some impact on technology development. Your kind of thinking is economic suicide.

Everyone of those things would have happened anyways because technology is always progressing and the price of oil is heading steadily upward.

Thats simply not true, and its a matter of when. There has been a massive spike in investment, both public and private since the AGW thing began, and the market for low emissions technology has taken off.

Read your own posts. The government can do no wrong when it comes to CO2 related spending according to you. There is no other interpretation possible.

My posts dont say anything like that. Your interpretation is nothing more than a caraciture that exists only in your mind.

I am not going to support an economically disasterous international treaty because it may have had some impact on technology development. Your kind of thinking is economic suicide.

You already conceeded the treaty wasnt economincally disasterous. And I explained exactly why it wasnt. We fell short on our goals... because they werent all realistic or affordable, or politically possible. That doesnt mean it wasnt a good idea to have goals, or that we didnt make some progress. It was an important factor in moving this issue to the forefront, and underscoring the importance of reforming our energy sector.

Edited October 7, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

You already conceeded the treaty wasnt economincally disasterous. And I explained exactly why it wasnt. We fell short on our goals... because they werent all realistic or affordable, or politically possible. That doesnt mean it wasnt a good idea to have goals, and the we didnt make some progress.

THe government ignored the treaty so it did not cause much harm and you think that justifies the treaty. That is my entire point. This CO2 obsession is leading politicians to make commitments that we cannot possibly meet. This is incredibly BAD government policy. How can you possible support it? Do you take the attitude that Canada should renege on these treatries if they turn out to be "unrealistic"? Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

That is my entire point. This CO2 obsession is leading politicians to make commitments that we cannot possibly meet. This is incredibly BAD government policy. How can you possible support it.

There was no penalty for not meeting it. Its a voluntary treaty. And you dont even understand how it was meant to work. Limits on co2 emissions are not the end game! NOBODY ON EARTH believes that permanent management of CO2 levels though taxes or quotas, or credits is the answer to the problem. But these things can help create a market for technologies that use less co2, and a market for products that allow existing technologies to emmit less c02. The demand for these technologies will result on investment and r&d on the supply side, and that will lead to breakthroughs and new technologies. Once one of them allow us to emmit less Co2 without compromising our standard of life all the limits, taxes, quotas and credits are redundant.

[TimG]

There was no penalty for not meeting it. Its a voluntary treaty.

So what? It is was a diplomatic embarrassment for Canada to sign and refuse to implement. That matters to some people. Out of curiousity what other international agreements should Canada repudiate because they are not "realistic"?

Limits on co2 emissions are not the end game! NOBODY ON EARTH believes that permanent management of CO2 levels though taxes or quotas, or credits is the answer to the problem.

You really are not paying attention. Virtually every government policy is driven by the idea that targets could work. What you do think carbon trading is? There was a huge push last year to get Canada to sign a *binding* treaty. The talks fell apart because skeptics like me made it politically impossible for the US to agree to such a deal.

If you care about investment in new technology then that is what you should support while opposing the obsession with CO2 which now admit is completely misguided.

Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Do you take the attitude that Canada should renege on these treatries if they turn out to be "unrealistic"?

Yes. Every country reneged in part. But that doesnt matter because they did more than they would have if they didnt sign at all.

That doesnt mean those types of treaties and tactics are exactly what I would like to see personally. But the end result has been hugely positive and climate change has emerged as an important driver of investment in energy R&D. One of the main catalysts along with economics, and geopolitics (security).

[dre]

So what? It is was a diplomatic embarrassment for Canada to sign and refuse to implement. That matters to some people. Out of curiousity what other international agreements should Canada repudiate because they are not "realistic"?

You really are not paying attention. Virtually every government policy is driven by the idea that targets could work. What you do think carbon trading is? There was a huge push last year to get Canada to sign a *binding* treaty. The talks fell apart because skeptics like me made it politically impossible for the US to agree to such a deal.

If you care about investment in new technology then that is what you should support while opposing the obsession with CO2 which now admit is completely misguided.

You really are not paying attention. Virtually every government policy is driven by the idea that targets could work. What you do think carbon trading is?

Carbon trading and other levies and regulation on CO2 emissions are meant as mechanisms to generate investment. The idea being that if a company has tangible costs associated with co2 emissions that company will want to buy products that help mitigate those costs. Which is of course why those things resulted in such a huge spike in R&D. Your average capitalist sees an opportunity to make money on the supply side of the demand for such technologies.

Never mind Government spending... Between 1995, and 2005 PRIVATE INVESTMENT in clean energy research has gone through the roof.

If you care about investment in new technology then that is what you should support while opposing the obsession with CO2

That would be retarded because CO2 has been such an effective driver of energy investment. Both for government and private industry.

obsession with CO2 which now admit is completely misguided.

Thats about the fifth time youve outright lied about my position. And once again youll refuse to provide a source (your MO around here apparently). I never said it was completely misguided. I said I wasnt sure either way.

[TimG]

I never said it was completely misguided. I said I wasnt sure either way.

You said:

Limits on co2 emissions are not the end game! NOBODY ON EARTH believes that permanent management of CO2 levels though taxes or quotas, or credits is the answer to the problem.

I think 'kyoto style quotas are completely misguided' is a fair representation of the opinion you expressed.

BTW: cap and trade cannot work with quotas which you just said "NOBODY ON EARTH believes in".

Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

You said:

I think 'completely misguided' is a fair characterization of your statement.

BTW: cap and trade cannot work with quotas which you just said "NOBODY ON EARTH believes in".

It wasnt misquided. Those types of tactics can be usefull mechanisms. I explained exactly why, so Im not sure what your getting at. And it wasnt decietfull or misquided either. Thats exactly how these measures were explained in the first place.

[TimG]

It wasnt misquided. Those types of tactics can be usefull mechanisms. I explained exactly why, so Im not sure what your getting at. And it wasnt decietfull or misquided either. Thats exactly how these measures were explained in the first place.

Actually you got it wrong. The targets are mandatory in Kyoto. The only way we avoided paying penalties is because the UN is desperate to get a new agreement signed. If you were told they were voluntary then you were given wrong information. Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

You said:

I think 'kyoto style quotas are completely misguided' is a fair representation of the opinion you expressed.

BTW: cap and trade cannot work with quotas which you just said "NOBODY ON EARTH believes in".

I never said nobody believes in quotas. You need to read more carefully.

I said this...

Limits on co2 emissions are not the end game! NOBODY ON EARTH believes that permanent management of CO2 levels though taxes or quotas, or credits is the answer to the problem.

What I mean is that its fundamentally impossible to reduce CO2 emissions based on the existance of those measures alone since we know for a fact consumption world wide is going to dramatically grow. That means the ONLY possible way to reduce CO2 emissions is through the development of technologies that allow us to produce and consume at current levels and more, while producing less CO2. In other words regulation cant fix the problem. Only technology can.

Quotas, credits, etc, can be a usefull mechanism for encouraging innovation and investment in technology though. That is their purpose, and I explained to you exactly how it works. A company that suffers a tangible cost will look to reduce or eliminate that cost. This creates demand for products and technologies that would help them do that. That demand encourages supply/research/innovation.

Edited October 7, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

A company that suffers a tangible cost will look to reduce or eliminate that cost.

The cheapest way to reduce that cost it is outsource production or buy phoney credits. Neither helps the environment or reduces emissions or promotes investment in technology.

[dre]

Actually you got it wrong. The targets are mandatory in Kyoto. The only way we avoided paying penalties is because the UN is desperate to get a new agreement signed. If you were told they were voluntary then you were given wrong information.

I Swear youre not reading the posts youre replying to.

[TimG]

I Swear youre not reading the posts youre replying to.

You said:

There was no penalty for not meeting it. Its a voluntary treaty. And you dont even understand how it was meant to work.

You are wrong.

So what you have said if the Canadian government decided to spend $10 billion+ on carbon credits - $10 billion that they took out of programs like EI and health. Would you still insist that kyoto was good?

Edited October 7, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

The cheapest way to reduce that cost it is outsource production or buy phoney credits. Neither helps the environment or reduces emissions or promotes investment in technology.

Again. Objectively false... youre taking wild guesses here.

You can read for yourself about the huge increase in public and private investment Im talking about. A good place to start is the "Energy Research and Development Expenditures by Area of Technology Survey" which shows that energy r&d expenditures in clean energy have gone through the roof as AGW became a major political issue.

The rising cost of energy and the growing concern over climate change and global warming have led to research and development (R&D) for new technologies aimed among other things, at reducing the environmental impact of energy production and consumption.

[dre]

You said:

You are wrong.

So what you have said if the Canadian government decided to spend $10 billion+ on carbon credits - $10 billion that they took out of programs like EI and health. Would you still insist that kyoto was good?

Now your inventing hypothetical scenarios. The answer would depend on what the carbon credit regime looked like and how it was structured. I myself would prefer a carbon tax, that allows companies to write off investments in r&d or certain upgrades.

[Guest TrueMetis]

You love this red herring. It is true that many other fields are forced to make the same kinds of guesses. These guesses only matter because climate scientists are running around telling people that their wild a** guesses are as good as facts and we have spend trillions of dollars and reorganize the economic structure of society. These kinds of economic investments require much more than the opinion of a bunch of scientists.

Except it's not the scientists doing this it is the media or people who haven't paid attention to the actual studies who when the scientists say new data says otherwise blame the scientists for the mess the media and this activist idiots made.

Sorry - choosing technologies is a job for engineers - not scientists. But engineers can only build what the government allows them to build so it is up to the government to allow thorium to be used.

Which they would do, but thorium is incredibly harsh on the reactors making them really hard to maintain. Though my question to you is this. Why do we have to use so few power sources? You seem to be suggesting that we only use options like thorium even though option like wind have been proven to be cost efficient. (And no matter how many times you say it isn't it doesn't make it true) Do you understand how stupid it is to really on so few sources for energy production?