So you assume that all of the scientists who regard global warming as a real threat are necessarily left leaning? It appears that we both "presume much." The thing is, that the more you deal with uncertainty, as opposed to probability, the wider the margin for error you need to provide to ensure survival. Either as a trader or, in this case, as a member of the human species. My understanding is that you are an accomplished trader. However, you appear to be less circumspect about your very survival and that of your loved ones in the face of at least sufficient evidence to warrant giving you pause.
I'm not saying anything about what's conclusive. America has done a lot to clean up its emissions. China and India have not. If every country had done as much as the US, perhaps we have a better understanding about AGW. But until we do, it would be wrong to tax US citizens and give the money to the UN. Perhaps we should make an effort to measure all the CO2 emitted from volcanoes around the globe and compare THAT to America's AGW. Has the Left done that? Don't believe they have.... the conclusion likely would not support their greedy, power-hungry agenda. The Left is whining, (1) "AGW is killing the planet". (Maybe it is, maybe it's not.), and (2) the remedy is big carbon taxes on US citizens/companies and give the money to the UN". The 2nd part is definitely wrong.
"China, Others in Asia Showing More Interest in Arctic Region Climate change and the potential for the oil industry and shipping routes have encouraged governments in Beijing and Singapore to look to the Arctic" Q http://english.caixin.com/2015-02-05/100781752.html Cutting Travel Time Another reason Asian countries are paying more attention to the Arctic is shipping lanes that could open as more ice disappears. One of these paths is the Northern Sea Route, which runs from the Atlantic Ocean, past Norway and Russia, and then into the Pacific. Six ships sailed from Europe through the route in 2010, and more came in following years. This Arctic route is shorter than the traditional one through Egypt's Suez Canal and the Malacca Strait. The northern path could trim travel time from East Asia to Europe by 30 to 50 percent; a voyage from China could be 40 percent shorter. If an Arctic route could be regularly used, Chinese ships will use it more, said Zhang Pei, an expert from Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. In 2013, the Yongsheng, a ship from China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co., traveled from Taicang, in the eastern province of Jiangsu, to port of Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, via the Northern Sea Route. The vessel reached the major European port in 18 days, nine less than a trip using the Suez-Malacca path requires. But Storey said that the northern passage is still unreliable, and is not ready to challenge the Suez-Malacca option. Oil Interest The Arctic region has been found to have oil reserves of more than 90 billion barrels, about 13 percent of the global total, according to a 2008 report from the U.S. Geological Survey. There are also 47 trillion cubic meters of natural gas reserves, 30 percent of the world total. Chinese companies are already interested. In 2013, China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) agreed to buy one-fifth of the Yamal liquefied natural gas project in the Arctic from the Russian oil company Novatek Inc. No amount was announced. Getting at Arctic oil and gas will be difficult and expensive, Zhang said, and cash-rich Chinese oil companies could be big players in the field. He warned, however, that they had no advantages in technology and personnel. Russia, the United States and Norway have started researching technologies to exploit oil and gas on the region. Sun Xiansheng, an expert at a research institute at CNPC, said Chinese companies would learn from foreign experience and are confident they will play a role in Arctic oil exploration. UQ
Just found this interesting page: Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming Cost-benefit analysis Standard cost-benefit analysis (CBA)[68] (also referred to as a monetized cost-benefit framework)[69] can be applied to the problem of climate change.[70] This requires (1) the valuation of costs and benefits using willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) compensation[69][71][72][73] as a measure of value,[68] and (2) a criterion for accepting or rejecting proposals:[68] For (1), in CBA where WTP/WTA is used, climate change impacts are aggregated into a monetary value,[69] with environmental impacts converted into consumption equivalents,[74] and risk accounted for using certainty equivalents.[74][75] Values over time are then discounted to produce their equivalent present values.[76] The valuation of costs and benefits of climate change can be controversial[77] because some climate change impacts are difficult to assign a value to, e.g., ecosystems and human health.[6][78] It is also impossible to know the preferences of future generations, which affects the valuation of costs and benefits.[79]:4 Another difficulty is quantifying the risks of future climate change.[80] For (2), the standard criterion is the (Kaldor-Hicks)[79]:3 compensation principle.[68] According to the compensation principle, so long as those benefiting from a particular project compensate the losers, and there is still something left over, then the result is an unambiguous gain in welfare.[68] If there are no mechanisms allowing compensation to be paid, then it is necessary to assign weights to particular individuals.[68] One of the mechanisms for compensation is impossible for this problem: mitigation might benefit future generations at the expense of current generations, but there is no way that future generations can compensate current generations for the costs of mitigation.[79]:4 On the other hand, should future generations bear most of the costs of climate change, compensation to them would not be possible.[70] Another transfer for compensation exists between regions and populations. If, for example, some countries were to benefit from future climate change but others lose out, there is no guarantee that the winners would compensate the losers;[70] similarly, if some countries were to benefit from reducing climate change but others lose out, there would likewise be no guarantee that the winners would compensate the losers.[citation needed] Cost-benefit analysis and risk In a cost-benefit analysis, an acceptable risk means that the benefits of a climate policy outweigh the costs of the policy.[80] The standard rule used by public and private decision makers is that a risk will be acceptable if the expected net present value is positive.[80] The expected value is the mean of the distribution of expected outcomes.[81]:25 In other words, it is the average expected outcome for a particular decision. This criterion has been justified on the basis that: a policy's benefits and costs have known probabilities[80] economic agents (people and organizations) can diversify their own risk through insurance and other markets.[80] On the first point, probabilities for climate change are difficult to calculate.[80] Also, some impacts, such as those on human health and biodiversity, are difficult to value.[80] On the second point, it has been suggested that insurance could be bought against climate change risks.[80] In practice, however, there are difficulties in implementing the necessary policies to diversify climate change risks.[80] Risk One of the problems of climate change are the large uncertainties over the potential impacts of climate change, and the costs and benefits of actions taken in response to climate change, e.g., in reducing GHG emissions.[84] Two related ways of thinking about the problem of climate change decision-making in the presence of uncertainty are iterative risk management[85][86] and sequential decision making[87] Considerations in a risk-based approach might include, for example, the potential for low-probability, worst-case climate change impacts.[88] An approach based on sequential decision making recognises that, over time, decisions related to climate change can be revised in the light of improved information.[8] This is particularly important with respect to climate change, due to the long-term nature of the problem. A near-term hedging strategy concerned with reducing future climate impacts might favour stringent, near-term emissions reductions.[87] As stated earlier, carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, and to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2, emissions would need to be drastically reduced from their present level (refer to diagram opposite).[82] Stringent near-term emissions reductions allow for greater future flexibility with regard to a low stabilization target, e.g., 450 parts-per-million (ppm) CO2. To put it differently, stringent near-term emissions abatement can be seen as having an option value in allowing for lower, long-term stabilization targets. This option may be lost if near-term emissions abatement is less stringent.[89] On the other hand, a view may be taken that points to the benefits of improved information over time. This may suggest an approach where near-term emissions abatement is more modest. [90] Another way of viewing the problem is to look at the potential irreversibility of future climate change impacts (e.g., damages to ecosystems) against the irreversibility of making investments in efforts to reduce emissions (see also Economics of climate change mitigation#Irreversible impacts and policy).[8] Overall, a range of arguments can be made in favour of policies where emissions are reduced stringently or modestly in the near-term (see: Economics of climate change mitigation#The mitigation portfolio).[91] UQ
^ The earths climate has been in constant radical flux since it's creation.....long before humans came around. And long before humans burned fossil fuels as energy. In fact, global C02 levels have been much, much higher in the recent and distant past, despite humans not even having evolved from branch-swinging apes. Even during that period of high CO2, the earth has experienced several radical shifts in temperature; both much hotter, and much cooler. Yes, the earth has experienced several ice ages during periods with much higher CO2. Climatologists can't predict the weather 3 days in advance, with relative accuracy. Yet were supposed to entrust this ship of fools they can predict the weather 100 years...Nay! 300 years in advance with absolute pinpoint accuracy!! AND THEN let these prognosticating Charlatans dictate how many Trillions we spend (and how many millions we starve) to save the world from a shot-in-the-dark hunch, that 'something is happening'. This is patently ludicrous. The other factor is that big ball in the sky called the sun. That thing ancient civilizations deified and worshipped as the giver of life, because in all metaphysical senses, it is. You see, the earth gets much hotter during the day, and much cooler at night. This corresponds to the big ball in the sky shining on one side of the earth; and conversely, NOT shining on the other side. And the sun doesn't shine with consistent intensity. It's always changing, in cycles. Sometimes the cycles are predictable, sometimes they're not. Sometimes the sun burns brighter, and the earth gets hotter. And sometimes the sun burns cooler, and the earth, also cools. Interesting, isn't it? Look at the NASA solar system data. As the earth has cooled, and the ice caps expanded, all the other planets in the solar system have notably cooled as well. And their icecaps have expanded as well. Astonishingly, as the earths icecaps have melted and the earth warmed, all the ice caps on the other planets in the solar system have shrank too, as their planets warmed as well. What could be causing this amazing 'green-house gas' phenomenon on all the planets at the same time!?!??? The Sun, you fucking morons. The Sun. And by the way, we want a warmer climate with higher CO2. More CO2 means more atmospheric O2. All animal life becomes much more animated and vibrant with higher levels of 02. Further, if the climate were to cool considerably, which is what you jack-ass morons purpose we do by killing the taxpayer and the industrial economy by redirecting trillions in resources to scorch the earth, mass tracts of arable land would become unproductive, and people would die off in masses. THink a new mini-ice age. Something the brilliant climatologists predicted back in the 70's. Now it's warming. Nope, now it's cooling. Well, lets just split the difference and call it "climate change" because we can't make up our minds, faster then we can fudge the data. It's all a con game, you fools. The Right uses the specter of foreign enemies like the Russians, and the Viet Cong, and Saddam and Terrorists to scare their agenda through. The Left uses idiotic faux crisis like Global Warming and overpopulation and 'racism' to pass their agenda through. It's the same strategy - crisis-based politics. AKA the politics of FEAR. Are we learning yet, you stupid fucks???? The UN is another progenitor of the global crisis problem. When every problem is a 'global crisis', it not only justifies the UN's existence, but demands a GLOBAL AUTHORITY to deal and solve all of our oh so pressing problems, that will surely kill us all. Because, after all, as history has shown, humans can't last more then 100 years without a Global Government to save them. Well, lets just say 1000 years. Okay, lets just say we've never had a global government, but that's not the point.....The point is that we're all going to die NOW SO GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY AND LET US DO WHATEVER THE FUCK WE NEED TO DO TO SAVE YOUR ASS, OKAY?!?!?!? The problem is that you idiots on the Left are so fucking stupid, you don't have the mental sophistication to cut through the bullshit you've been fed. Just like the Right is so fucking braindead they gave up all their liberties happily to Bush so the Government could keep them safe from rag-heads in caves, despite the border being wide fucking open. We're just a nation of fools now, and you're squarely one of them.
Sorry to pick on you Scataphagos, but I want to expose the distinct lack of rigor of those who are for ignoring climate change and your comment is a classic example. Lets talk about volcanos and how much CO2 they emit versus humans. Estimates for all degassing from the earth range from .15 to .26 gigatons of CO2 per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). Anthropogenic CO2, on the other hand, is around 33 gigatons per year. To simplify that, human caused CO2 emissions are 127 times higher than the highest estimate of all volcano outgassing! Mount St. Helens erupting, for example, produced .01 gigaton of CO2. You would need 3500 Mount St. Helens eruptions, per year, to equal human produced CO2 emissions. That is not human emissions dwarfing man's contribution, quite the other way around. If you disagree with these facts because you have studied the outgassing of volcanoes, for example, then we can have a reasonable discussion between well meaning individuals. If you continue to incorrectly believe and inform everyone around you that volcanic CO2 emissions dwarf human emissions despite not having any facts to support that position and knowing all studies point to the opposite, it really calls into question the validity of all your beliefs. It certainly means we have no reason to listen to anything you (and when I say you I really mean anyone from the blind denial camp) have to say about the matter. Smart well meaning people can disagree about the technical merits of various climate models and the resulting speed and impact of climate change. All of them will agree that we're engaging in a global experiment with uncertain but potentially catastrophic consequences. That is the scientific method, which is very much different from this kind of willful ignorance which is really just incredible. References Allard, P., 1992, Global emissions of helium-3 by subaerial volcanism: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 19, n. 14, p. 1479-1481. Friedlingstein, P., Houghton, R. A., Marland, G., Hackler, J., Boden, T. A., Conway, T. J., Canadell, J. G., Raupach, M. R., Ciais, P., and Le Quéré, C., 2010, Update on CO2 emissions, Nat. Geosci., v. 3, n. 12, p. 811–812, doi:10.1038/ngeo1022. Gerlach, T.M., 2011, Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: Eos Trans. AGU, v. 92, n. 24, p. 201-202. Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos Trans. AGU, v. 72, n. 23, p. 249 and 254-255. Gerlach, T.M., McGee, K.A., Elias, T., Sutton, A.J., and Doukas, M.P., 2002, Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kīlauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 107, n. B9, p. ECV3-1 – ECV3-15, 2189, doi: 10.1029/2001JB000407. Marty, B., and I.N. Tolstikhin, 1998, CO2 fluxes from mid-ocean ridges, arcs and plumes: Chemical Geology, v. 145, p. 233-248. Sano, Y. and Williams, S.N., 1996, Fluxes of mantle and subducted carbon along convergent plate boundaries: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 23, n. 20, p. 2749-2752. Varekamp, J.C.R., Kreulen, R., Poorter, R.P.E., and Van Bergen, M.J., 1992, Carbon sources and arc volcanism, with implications for the carbon cycle: Terra Nova, v. 4, p. 363-373.
Dear Stupid, Humans are responsible for less then 3% of global CO2 emissions. The rest come from nature (organic decay, volcanoes, oceanic vents etc). Reducing CO2 by 0.3% (10% of all human emissions), will do absolutely jack shit except bankrupt the planet, turn back living standards on everyone and keep Africa in the dark ages. Oh yes, and put the UN in control. Good plan.
Thank you achilles28, I couldn't have made my point about willful ignorance more clearly than you just did. I just listed a sample of the many studies that show all emissions from volcanoes, ocean vents, and other earth degassing at .15 to .26 gigatons/year versus 33 gigatons/year from humans. Using standard percentage calculation, .26/33.26=.0078, or .78% (not 78%, 0.78%) of annual emissions come from all earth earth degassing sources, and therefore 1-.0078=99.22% comes from human related sources (organic decay is neutral because of uptake from living plants absent widespread deforestation). These came from studies done by scientists who spent years in the field doing measurements, wrote peer reviewed papers, and presented reproducible results, all foundations of the scientific method. This is the same scientific method that has reliably given us the internet that Mr. achilles28 uses, modern medicine, the theory of gravity and that the earth is round... in short all the things that have led to the current high standard of living and access to knowledge that he and most other Americans enjoy. Mr. achilles28 starts with "Dear Stupid", always an indicator of an intelligent discussion to come, then proceeds to state with no support whatsoever that humans are responsible for less than 3% of global CO2 emissions, which everyone is apparently to believe because he said so. He then goes on to do some math on that randomly obtained number to support his strongly held idea that stopping global warming will lead to UN dominance and bankrupt the planet. Again, if you disagree with the studies I cited, for example if you did your own measurements at Mount St. Helens and can show that the many done by other scientists were wrong, then we have the basis for an intelligent discussion. Simply stating a wildly incorrect number with no support whatsoever and clinging to it despite all evidence to the contrary is willful ignorance, I just don't know what else you can call it.