Global warming... again.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've always wondered about the relative benefits and costs of global warming. If it's getting warmer in globally(?) or in specifically areas at different rates(?), then new possibilities open up. For example, if Siberia was warmer, then it could produce better wine. Same with the UK. The effects are very vague, it seems.

[Nobunaga]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Isnt inter year variations something that is typically used relentlessly against those in support of global warming by those who are believe it to be a myth?

Not taking a side, just sayin' you need to play with a stright bat.

Well, our planet is supposed to be a near living hell by now, and a few island nations are by now, according to the original schedules, submerged....

Did I miss those news stories?

[PLAYER57832]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Reminds me of the US congresspeople who built Igloos in Washington, claiming that the big snowstorms flew in the face of global warming.

In fact, if you actually study SCIENCE, instead of just cute 2 minute news blurps, all of this is quite consistent with the fact that the Earth's climate is changing, and almost certainly do to human impacts.

[Nobunaga]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Reminds me of the US congresspeople who built Igloos in Washington, claiming that the big snowstorms flew in the face of global warming.

In fact, if you actually study SCIENCE, instead of just cute 2 minute news blurps, all of this is quite consistent with the fact that the Earth's climate is changing, and almost certainly do to human impacts.

You kill me. If it's warm - climate change. If it's cold - climate change again. If nothing unusual happens.... Yeah, that's probably unusual, so let's blame climate change again.

Your religion has achieved its goal of creating billions, if not trillions of dollars in new tax revenues from carbon where none existed before - huge sums of money from thin air. As far as religious miracles go, I'll give you credit, that's an impressive one.

But I don't go to your church.

[Lootifer]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Isnt inter year variations something that is typically used relentlessly against those in support of global warming by those who are believe it to be a myth?

Not taking a side, just sayin' you need to play with a stright bat.

Well, our planet is supposed to be a near living hell by now, and a few island nations are by now, according to the original schedules, submerged....

Did I miss those news stories?

In one of my previous roles I used to forecast electricity demand; I was very good at forecasting electricity demand (based on the results I produced, feedback from my superiors, and my subsequent career path).

Not once was my demand forecast correct.

[PLAYER57832]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Reminds me of the US congresspeople who built Igloos in Washington, claiming that the big snowstorms flew in the face of global warming.

In fact, if you actually study SCIENCE, instead of just cute 2 minute news blurps, all of this is quite consistent with the fact that the Earth's climate is changing, and almost certainly do to human impacts.

You kill me. If it's warm - climate change. If it's cold - climate change again. If nothing unusual happens.... Yeah, that's probably unusual, so let's blame climate change again

Science can be confusing when you don't want to do more than just read a few quick headlines. In the MICRO, the climate will shift very widely, BECAUSE of the impacts of the overall cliimate change. The Earth IS warming overall, but because that is confusing to folks, scientists tend to say "global climate CHANGE" instead of the more media popular "global warming".

The Earth IS warming overall.. and because various patterns are disrupted, it will mean very wild weather in different areas.

Your religion has achieved its goal of creating billions, if not trillions of dollars in new tax revenues from carbon where none existed before - huge sums of money from thin air. As far as religious miracles go, I'll give you credit, that's an impressive one.

But I don't go to your church.

Just plain facts. Of course, the idea that people came from something like an ape is still paraded as lunacy, too... glad to know you are with THAT crew?

[Metsfanmax]

Well, our planet is supposed to be a near living hell by now, and a few island nations are by now, according to the original schedules, submerged....

Did I miss those news stories?

Science is a constantly self-improving process. Our models are much better than they were in the 1970s, and specific forecasts from earlier decades should be taken with a huge grain of salt; specific forecasts from this decade should be taken with a slightly smaller grain of salt. The point of modelling is not that we can guarantee what will happen in the year 2100. There are uncertainties attached to all of the predictions made in climate science, and if you have been led to believe that any climate science prediction is a certainty that disproves the science if it does not hold up, that is probably the fault of the media for misunderstanding the role of uncertainty in any forecasting science.

The case for global warming until now rests on basically unassailable temperature measurements. The general case for global warming modelling into the future rests on very simple physics that is well-understood, but trying to make predictions about exactly how much hotter it will be in 100 years, or how much the sea level will rise, is just really hard. We can't be certain about what will happen in 2100, and we admit it. We make the best guess we can, and inform policymakers with that.

But there is very little doubt about the fact that the Earth is warming very rapidly, and that humans are the primary cause of this. If 97% of doctors told you that you had cancer, would you decide not to do anything about it because at one time doctors thought bleeding people out was a way to treat illness?

[Night Strike]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Climate scientists predicted that the Arctic sea ice minimum would likely be larger this year than last year. The reason why? The sea ice minimum in 2012 was so low that the 2013 minimum was likely to be larger due to pure statistical noise. Year-to-year variations are much less important than long-term trends, which is something you really need to keep in mind when reading any piece which suggests that a single comparison between two years is enough to disprove or prove the reality of global warming.

Kind of like how 40 years of miniscule global warming is statistical noise on an earth that is over 4 billion years old (according to your standards)?

[thegreekdog]

There continues to be a few disconnects with respect to the issue of global warming.

It's fairly clear that global warming is occuring and it's mostly manmade (although I'm not entirely sure whether that's a correlation or not). But let's assume it's manmade.

After that, the following issues pop up:

- What's going to happen and when - unanswerable by science at this point, although we can speculate
- What do can we do
- What do we do

And involved in those questions are issues of self-interest, revenue generation, rent-seeking, and all the other attendant issues associated with global warming, not to mention currently industrializing countries getting screwed.

So "climate change skeptics" (what a horrendous phrase) are probably concerned with the three issues more than they are with the underlying science (although maybe not given this thread). I'm more concerned with what do we do than anything else. Because what we do will most likely have a negative impact on people now. And that makes me also concerned about what's going to happen and when. If someone says "the world will be destroyed by 2020 if we don't do something now" then I'm probably okay with loggers and car manufacturers losing their jobs. If someone says "we don't know" then I'm probably not okay with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs.

The carbon tax is like the cigarette tax or the alcohol tax or the soda tax - it exists to generate revenue, not to change the underlying activity. So it's not the answer (unless it's a 100% tax, then maybe it will change activities).

[oVo]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

[thegreekdog]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

[Metsfanmax]

More mud in the eye for the climate panic zealots.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer ... orms-uk-me

Climate scientists predicted that the Arctic sea ice minimum would likely be larger this year than last year. The reason why? The sea ice minimum in 2012 was so low that the 2013 minimum was likely to be larger due to pure statistical noise. Year-to-year variations are much less important than long-term trends, which is something you really need to keep in mind when reading any piece which suggests that a single comparison between two years is enough to disprove or prove the reality of global warming.

Kind of like how 40 years of miniscule global warming is statistical noise on an earth that is over 4 billion years old (according to your standards)?

You have to ask the right question. If the question is, does the current 100+ year warming trend have any affect on the average climate of the Earth over its entire history, then no, of course not. The argument here is not one of simple timescales though. The implication you are making is that the reason year-to-year variability is discarded is simply because we have a longer dataset to compare to. However, the reason year-to-year variability is not meaningful in the context of climate is that the climate substantially varies on timescales longer than a year. This is due to the physical mechanisms that govern the evolution of the Earth's climate with time. There are climatic oscillations that last decades, and even some cycles that last many thousands of years. When making a climate projection over a given time period, you have to take into account all of the physical processes that cause variations on that same time scale or shorter. We don't need to model 10,000 year ice age cycles to make predictions of what will happen in 2100, but we do need to model things like El Nino that will cycle a few times between now and then. Similarly, if we are trying to project to the year 30,000, we can safely ignore El Nino events or just model them with some average effect instead of explicitly modelling them.

So the right question is, when you take into account all of the physical effects that operate on timescales of years to decades, what do you get out of your climate model? When you put in the data we have for, say, the year 1800 and run the model until present day, does it match the current amount of warming relative to then that we see? The answer is no, if we neglect climate forcing due to human-driven carbon dioxide emissions. That means we either have a seriously incomplete understanding of the natural physics (possible) or that some anthropogenic source is at play (much more likely).

[oVo]

Rhetoric indeed, or does it become something else if it's true? Is there any doubt America is the most wasteful (per capita) nation in the world, with China actually having the biggest impact by the sheer numbers of it's population? It's time for this Nation to lead by example, stfu and just do it.

I do believe the government needs to regulate and try to keep a lid on toxic production and where it ends up, but feel people can't opt for a "protect me from myself" posture. People have to take some responsibility for the environment and resources where they live too, by taking steps to improve conditions and any factors that have the potential to effect their quality of life...
locally, nationally and globally.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, our planet is supposed to be a near living hell by now, and a few island nations are by now, according to the original schedules, submerged....

Did I miss those news stories?

Science is a constantly self-improving process. Our models are much better than they were in the 1970s, and specific forecasts from earlier decades should be taken with a huge grain of salt; specific forecasts from this decade should be taken with a slightly smaller grain of salt. The point of modelling is not that we can guarantee what will happen in the year 2100. There are uncertainties attached to all of the predictions made in climate science, and if you have been led to believe that any climate science prediction is a certainty that disproves the science if it does not hold up, that is probably the fault of the media for misunderstanding the role of uncertainty in any forecasting science.

The case for global warming until now rests on basically unassailable temperature measurements. The general case for global warming modelling into the future rests on very simple physics that is well-understood, but trying to make predictions about exactly how much hotter it will be in 100 years, or how much the sea level will rise, is just really hard. We can't be certain about what will happen in 2100, and we admit it. We make the best guess we can, and inform policymakers with that.

But there is very little doubt about the fact that the Earth is warming very rapidly, and that humans are the primary cause of this. If 97% of doctors told you that you had cancer, would you decide not to do anything about it because at one time doctors thought bleeding people out was a way to treat illness?

So, what's the average temperature and precipitation in Siberia going to be for the years 2020-2030?

[BigBallinStalin]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

My favorite is the subsidies (tax credits) for purchasing cars like the Prius, whose carbon footprint is greater than conventional cars.

The other is plastic bag prohibitions being worse for the environment too.

[oVo]

The other is plastic bag prohibitions being worse for the environment too.

Not sure how these prohibitions can be worse for the environment,
but I have seen where many of those bags end up.

[Metsfanmax]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.

[BigBallinStalin]

The other is plastic bag prohibitions being worse for the environment too.

Not sure how these prohibitions can be worse for the environment,
but I have seen where many of those bags end up.

People opting toward products which have greater carbon footprints and which they 'consume' for a insufficient period to offset the greater carbon footprint, relative to plastic bags, isn't helpful--e.g. nylon bags.

If it's trash that's the problem, then you've got three options: (1) ban whatever which leads to trash, (2) clean it up, or (3) incentive people to use less materials which lead to trash (e.g. municipal- and State-monopolies on landfills don't charge different prices for different products; one flat rate won't induce others to produce less costly (environmentally costly) garbage).

Why only go for #1?

[BigBallinStalin]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

Mets, what do you know of recidivism rates?

If demand is inelastic for alcohol (which it is), then a change in price won't induce a great change in consumption.

Still, you have yet to show how dire we need to act. It's just presumed, and then you slide into totalitarian mode--like welfare liberals who demand more of X but won't say how much X should be provided.

[Metsfanmax]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.

Also, I should add that this idea of having the government levy a tax to correct an externality (Pigovian taxation) has been supported by a number of economists, even conservative ones like Greg Mankiw and George Shultz. That's because the whole point of the tax is to make the market work as it should -- which it doesn't, when people pollute the environment and don't pay for it. I don't take the addiction metaphor lightly. Two of the most important causes for the historical decline in smoking have been 1) learning more about the dangerous health effects of smoking and 2) higher taxes associated with purchasing cigarettes. Of course, industry advocates threw as much doubt onto the science linking cigarettes to cancer as they do now onto the science linking carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature rises. We can help combat this by clearly describing the scientific consensus to people (97% of peer-reviewed papers published by climate scientists agree that humans are a primary cause of global warming).

[thegreekdog]

Rhetoric indeed, or does it become something else if it's true? Is there any doubt America is the most wasteful (per capita) nation in the world, with China actually having the biggest impact by the sheer numbers of it's population? It's time for this Nation to lead by example, stfu and just do it.

I do believe the government needs to regulate and try to keep a lid on toxic production and where it ends up, but feel people can't opt for a "protect me from myself" posture. People have to take some responsibility for the environment and resources where they live too, by taking steps to improve conditions and any factors that have the potential to effect their quality of life...
locally, nationally and globally.

Sorry, my reaction to rhetoric is generally "so what?" when it's not accompanied by concrete ideas (or at least the appearance of concrete ideas).

E.g. - WE NEED TO STOP THE POLLUTING! But how? TAX AND REGULATION! Okay, thanks, talk to you later.

As far as I can tell, there is no incentive that yet exists for people to take responsibility. There is no indication that the world is going to end in 20 years unless... and there is nothing else that I can think of.

Right now, you're using the internet, which presumably means you're using a computer, which presumably means you're using power, which is presumably generated by a plant which in turn generates pollution. What incentive would there be to make you give up using a computer?

[thegreekdog]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.

I think individual action is the only way this problem can be solved. Effectively, we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles, which may include, for example, finding new jobs or having less children. Our current system of government does not permit societal change through government action; rather, government action results in rent-seeking which results in virtually no change.

For example, car emmissions standards were raised again (last year?). This caused some hoopla in the conservative camp, but if you look at the actual standards, the deadlines to reach those standards are fairly ridiculous (e.g. "by the year 2040"). So the "most liberal" (in quotes because I don't agree) president in history is setting largely ineffective emmissions standards (probably because of lobbying by car manufacturers). What to do? Individual action is the only answer. I'm ignoring the hypocrisy of asking others to sacrifice when you will not sacrifice, but it is what it is.

And, frankly, it is about blame (maybe not credit). There are certain industries and certain jobs that account for more pollution than others. Those industries and employees will have to suffer and receive the brunt of any major overhaul.

Finally, to my knowledge there is no scientific consensus that X result will happen in Y years because of global warming. If and when that is established, perhaps people will be incentivized to change their lifestyles.

[thegreekdog]

Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.

Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.

Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.

Also, I should add that this idea of having the government levy a tax to correct an externality (Pigovian taxation) has been supported by a number of economists, even conservative ones like Greg Mankiw and George Shultz. That's because the whole point of the tax is to make the market work as it should -- which it doesn't, when people pollute the environment and don't pay for it. I don't take the addiction metaphor lightly. Two of the most important causes for the historical decline in smoking have been 1) learning more about the dangerous health effects of smoking and 2) higher taxes associated with purchasing cigarettes. Of course, industry advocates threw as much doubt onto the science linking cigarettes to cancer as they do now onto the science linking carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature rises. We can help combat this by clearly describing the scientific consensus to people (97% of peer-reviewed papers published by climate scientists agree that humans are a primary cause of global warming).

(1) Correlation vs. causation (re: cigarettes)
(2) Carbon emmissions (highly valuable to companies) vs. the cost of taxes

[Metsfanmax]

I think individual action is the only way this problem can be solved. Effectively, we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles, which may include, for example, finding new jobs or having less children. Our current system of government does not permit societal change through government action; rather, government action results in rent-seeking which results in virtually no change.

I agree that we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles. A tax on carbon emissions is an effective way to do that. It is simple logic. If it costs more to buy something, people will buy less of it (this is certainly true in the case of gasoline, though less strong of a statement for goods with more inelastic demands like water). Regulation on cigarettes is a great example of how this works. It is not just correlation; many studies show that increasing taxes on cigarettes results in a net reduction in smoking. This is an example of societal change through government action. There are also more direct related examples. See the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990; this effectively set up a cap-and-trade system for acid rain emission, and is widely credited as a main reason why acid rain problems substantially declined following the law. It is too pessimistic and narrow-minded to go all philosophical on this question. This is an area where government intervention has proven to be effective in achieving goals, so let's stick with what works.

For example, car emmissions standards were raised again (last year?). This caused some hoopla in the conservative camp, but if you look at the actual standards, the deadlines to reach those standards are fairly ridiculous (e.g. "by the year 2040"). So the "most liberal" (in quotes because I don't agree) president in history is setting largely ineffective emmissions standards (probably because of lobbying by car manufacturers). What to do? Individual action is the only answer. I'm ignoring the hypocrisy of asking others to sacrifice when you will not sacrifice, but it is what it is.

I too believe that individual action is necessary -- but the individual action I envision is people calling up their representatives and telling them to pass a carbon tax. The beautiful thing about that is that we don't need every single American to be passionate about it; just enough so that we can defeat the lobbyists. There are something like four full-time oil industry lobbyists for every member of Congress. We wouldn't need that large of a fraction of the population to start drowning their voices out.

And, frankly, it is about blame (maybe not credit). There are certain industries and certain jobs that account for more pollution than others. Those industries and employees will have to suffer and receive the brunt of any major overhaul.

Everyone will have to adjust, and certainly some more than others. And when technology shifts, people have to shift industries. But I don't blame a coal worker in West Virginia for our problems; collectively society is responsible. The transportation industry is responsible for a large percentage of carbon dioxide emissions, but they are just responding to society's demand to transport things.

Finally, to my knowledge there is no scientific consensus that X result will happen in Y years because of global warming. If and when that is established, perhaps people will be incentivized to change their lifestyles.

There will not likely ever be that in the near future. Climate projection is way too hard and we don't have enough computing power to do that right now. We need to find a way to incentivize people while recognizing that climate modeling, like all areas of science, is an arena of quantified uncertainty as opposed to exact certainty.

[PLAYER57832]

I've always wondered about the relative benefits and costs of global warming. If it's getting warmer in globally(?) or in specifically areas at different rates(?), then new possibilities open up. For example, if Siberia was warmer, then it could produce better wine. Same with the UK. The effects are very vague, it seems.

True. The biggest gain might be a real northern passage opening up. Some folks are looking forward in that way.

However, its not just about the temperatures warming. If it were, that might not be so bad. The reality is more extreme weather events, such as we are already seeing.