The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up

[Weegle777 78]

Instead of penalizing corporations, why not give them tax breaks and incentives?

[homersapien 12,172]

So why not just fix it instead of taxing corporations?

The purpose of the tax is to provide an incentive reduce to reduce the production of carbon. A carbon credit system wouldn't even raise any money for the government.

This is a solution that relies on market dynamics which is more efficient than simply proscribing limits on the amount of carbon that can be used by any given user.

Do you have a better idea?

[homersapien 12,172]

Here's the thing, homer....the U.S. hasn't been denying it! And that didn't start under Obama, either.

Not sure of your point. How is that "the thing"?

[Weegle777 78]

So corporations would purchase these credits to allow themselves to release CO2?

[homersapien 12,172]

Instead of penalizing corporations, why not give them tax breaks and incentives?

Well, I suppose you could do that, but again, you would put the government in a position of determining what qualifies as progress for every single consumer of carbon. It would reward companies who have operated inefficiently while penalizing companies who have invested in more efficiency. It's basically a variation on the government pro-actively subsidizing specific developers of alternative energy sources (i.e.: Solyndra).

It is much simpler to simply increase the cost of carbon and let each company decide how much they can or desire to reduce consumption.

[Weegle777 78]

This sounds like a good way to kill companies and therefore hurt the economy.

[homersapien 12,172]

So corporations would purchase these credits to allow themselves to release CO2?

Carbon tax credits is a variation on carbon taxes that would allow for companies to buy or sell the right to emit a given amount of carbon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

Here's another variation on a carbon tax that would impose a fee and then pay citizens a dividend from the proceeds:

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-us/faq/

[homersapien 12,172]

This sounds like a good way to kill companies and therefore hurt the economy.

That's the same simplistic argument that is always made when companies are made to assume the hidden costs of their products. It won't kill companies any more than other environmental regulations - such as treating or reducing waste products discharged into the environment - have killed companies.

Companies that cannot reduce the amount of carbon they consume would simply raise their prices (or reduce their profits). And no one has suggested a severe tax at the beginning. The proposals I have seen start modestly and increase with time.

Again, science tells us that we cannot burn all of the carbon still in the ground without devastating environmental results. So what's your suggestion (other than simply denying the problem)?

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Science is stupid. I aint vaxinaten my kids.

I just have to know how many on this thread got the Global Warming Vaccine? You don't count Ben. We need to start at zero. Wait, Itch didn't and I didn't, so If Ben did and I'm sure Homey did then we are at zero. Carry on.

[homersapien 12,172]

"Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong"

http://www.theguardi...-global-warming

So back to the OP. Apparently, The Guardian didn't report the full story:

http://www.skeptical...ensus-real.html

excerpt:

".....Rep. Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked them in the question and answer session about the 97% expert consensus that humans are the main cause of global warming. Richard Tol answered first, but his answer probably didn't satisfy Rohrabacher.

Tol admitted,

"I mean it's pretty clear that most of the science agrees that climate change is real and most likely human-made"

Tol has also previously acknowledged,

"The consensus is of course in the high nineties"

However, while he admits it's real, Tol quibbles whether the consensus is precisely 97%. Ever since the Skeptical Science team published our consensus study a year ago, Tol has seemed determined to find fault with it. He submitted a critique to the journal that published our paper, Environmental Research Letters. However, the journal rejected Tol's comment twice, finding it unsuitable for publication. The peer-review referee comments are available on Tol's blog, ......."

[autigeremt 7,134]

So why not just fix it instead of taxing corporations?

The purpose of the tax is to provide an incentive reduce to reduce the production of carbon. A carbon credit system wouldn't even raise any money for the government.

This is a solution that relies on market dynamics which is more efficient than simply proscribing limits on the amount of carbon that can be used by any given user.

Do you have a better idea?

The tax is to raise revenue. Incentives come through competitive, open markets driven by profit possibilities. Create a profit margin for renewables and watch it flourish. Until then it's about hammering the corporations with regulations that drive up the costs for everyone.

[autigeremt 7,134]

This sounds like a good way to kill companies and therefore hurt the economy.

That's the same simplistic argument that is always made when companies are made to assume the hidden costs of their products. It won't kill companies any more than other environmental regulations - such as treating or reducing waste products discharged into the environment - have killed companies.

Companies that cannot reduce the amount of carbon they consume would simply raise their prices (or reduce their profits). And no one has suggested a severe tax at the beginning. The proposals I have seen start modestly and increase with time.

Again, science tells us that we cannot burn all of the carbon still in the ground without devastating environmental results. So what's your suggestion (other than simply denying the problem)?

My solution is to stop lying to everyone that carbon credits and taxes will reduce CO2 levels. It's a joke. Until Asia is on board we are only destroying ourselves by committing economic suicide.

[homersapien 12,172]

So why not just fix it instead of taxing corporations?

The purpose of the tax is to provide an incentive reduce to reduce the production of carbon. A carbon credit system wouldn't even raise any money for the government.

This is a solution that relies on market dynamics which is more efficient than simply proscribing limits on the amount of carbon that can be used by any given user.

Do you have a better idea?

The tax is to raise revenue. Incentives come through competitive, open markets driven by profit possibilities. Create a profit margin for renewables and watch it flourish. Until then it's about hammering the corporations with regulations that drive up the costs for everyone.

First, you are overlooking the given that we cannot burn all of the carbon available without catastrophic warming.

Secondly, increasing the cost of carbon would naturally create a better market for renewables.

Thirdly, the purpose of the carbon tax is not for the purpose of raising revenue, its for the two reasons above. One of the proposals I have presented would return any income from the tax to the people, the other wouldn't generate any income for the government at all.

Fourth, what is wrong if it did generate income? The government has to generate income from somewhere. Would you prefer it come from direct income taxes (for example)?

[homersapien 12,172]

This sounds like a good way to kill companies and therefore hurt the economy.

That's the same simplistic argument that is always made when companies are made to assume the hidden costs of their products. It won't kill companies any more than other environmental regulations - such as treating or reducing waste products discharged into the environment - have killed companies.

Companies that cannot reduce the amount of carbon they consume would simply raise their prices (or reduce their profits). And no one has suggested a severe tax at the beginning. The proposals I have seen start modestly and increase with time.

Again, science tells us that we cannot burn all of the carbon still in the ground without devastating environmental results. So what's your suggestion (other than simply denying the problem)?

My solution is to stop lying to everyone that carbon credits and taxes will reduce CO2 levels. It's a joke. Until Asia is on board we are only destroying ourselves by committing economic suicide.

Making carbon intensive fuels more expensive would certainly reduce their consumption.

Do you have a better proposal?

[Weegle777 78]

This:

Tol admitted, "I mean it's pretty clear that most of the science agrees that climate change is real and most likely human-made"

is a false statement.

Climate change is absolutely real, it has been happening since the dawn of time, but to say that "climate change is human made" is absolutely incorrect. Have we contributed to small disturbances in weather patterns? Possibly. Have we contributed to small imbalances in the atmosphere? Maybe. But to say that climate change is human made is wrong. Period. End of story.

Now, let the "semantics " and "definition of 'the' " arguments begin.

[AUDub 11,784]

...is a false statement...

Only if you ignore the context.

[Weegle777 78]

To me, renaming this agenda "climate change" is akin to calling pro-abortionists "pro-choicers". Everybody knows the climate changes, it has to. To call it "global warming" would actually make you take a side, making you commit to something. Just like "pro-choice" lets you ride the noncommittal fence, "climate change" allows you to be noncommittal. Crap, anybody with a half of a brain knows that the climate changes, just like every human being on the planet has a choice.

[Weegle777 78]

...is a false statement...

Only if you ignore the context.

Is that you Billy C.?

[homersapien 12,172]

To me, renaming this agenda "climate change" is akin to calling pro-abortionists "pro-choicers". Everybody knows the climate changes, it has to. To call it "global warming" would actually make you take a side, making you commit to something. Just like "pro-choice" lets you ride the noncommittal fence, "climate change" allows you to be noncommittal. Crap, anybody with a half of a brain knows that the climate changes, just like every human being on the planet has a choice.

Weegle, we have covered this over and over.

Yes the climate changes. But that is totally independent of the change resulting from man adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

The fact the climate changes naturally does not mean that it cannot also change from man adding CO2. If the natural effect is a slight cooling, it will perhaps offset the warming caused by man. If the natural effect is toward warming, then the combined result will be additive and the warming will be even greater.

You keep insisting there cannot be man-caused changes because there are natural changes which is a simple error in logic. What is your reasoning for such a statement?

[Weegle777 78]

Did you check out my previous post before that one? I don't deny that we have an impact on the planet. I just don't believe that it is as great as others believe.

[homersapien 12,172]

Did you check out my previous post before that one? I don't deny that we have an impact on the planet. I just don't believe that it is as great as others believe.

Fine, believe whatever you want based on "because"... That's what deniers do. Deny evidence-based reality.

But if you write....

"Climate change is absolutely real, it has been happening since the dawn of time, but to say that "climate change is human made" is absolutely incorrect. Have we contributed to small disturbances in weather patterns? Possibly. Have we contributed to small imbalances in the atmosphere? Maybe. But to say that climate change is human made is wrong. Period. End of story."

.....it will naturally be seen as arguing that natural change proves human-caused change is "wrong".

I have explained to you in the past that science takes into account natural causes of climate change when developing or testing AGW theory. You don't seem to get this.

There is nothing about natural causes that affects the man-made causes. The natural causes may attenuate AGW or accentuate AGW but they don't negate AGW.

[Weegle777 78]

But that's not what I said. I didn't "deny" anything. I said that the absolute statement the man made was wrong. If he had qualified it with "...climate change is affected by human means....", I would be on board with him.

[homersapien 12,172]

But that's not what I said. I didn't "deny" anything. I said that the absolute statement the man made was wrong. If he had qualified it with "...climate change is affected by human means....", I would be on board with him.

But he (Tol) was referring specifically to AGW. Even the deniers - at least most of them - no longer deny the climate is warming.

And why would you assume the current warming is from natural causes? What is the evidence for such an assumption? The current natural trends may be for cooling for all you know. If so, it's possible that the man-made causes are actually much more serious that you assume.

We do know that there are natural buffers to the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 such as the ocean. Of course, that causes problems in the ocean, not to mention that there is a limit to how much the ocean can absorb.

[Weegle777 78]

This AGW stuff is strangely similar to another "scare" in the '70s. Interesting to read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/02/11/remember-the-acid-rain-scare-global-warming-hysteria-is-pouring-down/

[homersapien 12,172]

This AGW stuff is strangely similar to another "scare" in the '70s. Interesting to read.

http://www.forbes.co...s-pouring-down/

So an industry propaganda rag (Forbes) publishes a piece by an architecture professor who moonlights as a "motivational speaker" on the fallacy of AGW. (That's a false equivalency error he makes in his latest Forbes piece btw.)

Who woulda thought? :-\ Here are excerpts from a review of his book, "Climate of Corruption":

excerpts:

"While it is no longer surprising, it remains disheartening to see a blistering attack on climate science in the business press where thoughtful reviews of climate policy ought to be appearing. Of course, the underlying strategy is to pretend that no evidence that the climate is changing exists, so any effort to address climate change is a waste of resources....

Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop”, named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.....

Whether the enemy is the “mercenary” scientific community, the “power hungry” liberal politicians or the “sensationalist” press matters little. What matters is to suggest the public has been manipulated, before starting the manipulation in earnest. The strategic point is to divert attention from what most scientifically informed people consider the key facts: the climate is changing as a result of human intervention. The longer we delay taking policy action, the more damage we will take and the more an effective policy will cost. It is conceivable and increasingly foreseeable that we will delay long enough that useful policy becomes infeasible and both human civilization and the biosphere will be permanently damaged...."

Read the rest - which includes a point by point dismantling - at:

http://thinkprogress...-of-corruption/

(And don't forget the responses to the review)

And if you want the full scoop on Bell: http://www.desmogblog.com/larry-bell