Quoting fedorovingtonboop: even as a liberal, i'm not really convinced at all yet that it should be a priority over Iraq, heavy pollution, the economy, malaria, clean water, etc. really, it's pretty boring. even al gore lives in a mansion and just bought a 100ft yacht.

Well, enjoy life while it lasts... I started watching this diavlog and kept stopping. I haven't finishes and I probably won't even try. I realized that my expectation had been to hear something of scientific value. I mean based in reality. The economic projections are to me, laughable, particularly if you think that no one really knows what's going on with climate change or the possible consequences. It seems that people are willing to go out of their way to find a justification to maintain status quo and defend their selfish, short term interests. And they always find these small cheerleaders to go along with their tune. I'll listen to music instead...

When faced with opposing arguments you say we don't know what's going on, and yet you seem convinced that something is being denied. How can we not know the consequences of global warming and yet people who aren't dropping everything to move towards the stone age (exaggeration! have a sense of humor!) are vile denialists?

"Well, enjoy life while it lasts..." well, that's kinda what i'm talking about. everyone's totally hysterical over this issue as if the apocalypse is near and if you say otherwise then it's blasphemy. it's not a good idea to make sweeping policy based on what mighthappen in 100 years. most importantly, no one can or will actually change their behavior that will have any significant impact on the climate. one person says "Big deal." and another says "You're a horrible person for saying that." and then they both drive to work in their gas cars and then buy electronics, etc that weekend. even if we all stopped breathing and driving and living right now it'd still last for decades if not hundreds of years and also, it's already been warming for about 100 i think. there's no way we can retrofit the entire earth's machinery with nonpolluting gear in time for it to matter. even if we found a magic energy bullet that solved all of this, people in poor countries wouldn't make use of it for decades. "Yeah, all we have to do is update 50 trillion cars, buildings, and houses with

Quoting threep: When faced with opposing arguments you say we don't know what's going on, and yet you seem convinced that something is being denied. How can we not know the consequences of global warming and yet people who aren't dropping everything to move towards the stone age (exaggeration! have a sense of humor!) are vile denialists?

My statement has to do with the position that some people have which is to minimize the estimate of risk related to global warming and the motives behind it. Some people minimize/ deny out of ignorance, some out of unrealistic optimism (because fully acknowledging the risk created intolerable anxiety), some do it because they only care about what will happen in their lifetime at most, some do it because they may figure that they'll have enough resources to secure the safest conditions that can be found, and some because they have a fatalistic view and just choose to ignore it. I'm not someone likely to be in denial, but I'm not fatalistic either. I'm aware that a significant part of Global climate change may be unrelated to human activities. I'm

I replied elsewhere. By the way I do drive a hybrid...

Hybrids are nice feel good non-solutions.

Never mind.

Quoting themightypuck: Never mind.

OK.

Quoting themightypuck: Hybrids are nice feel good non-solutions.

Hybrids are very nice and feel good. The rest of the sentence is erroneous.

the sentence is erroneous

Hybrids are nice "feel-good" non-solutions.

Quoting Simon Willard: Hybrids are nice "feel-good" non-solutions.

Hybrids are very nice and "feel good." The rest of the sentence is erroneous. ... Um ... your turn.

Quoting TwinSwords: Hybrids are very nice and "feel good." The rest of the sentence is erroneous.

...

Um ... your turn.

Nice game! Nothing to do this morning folks? I've got to leave for work and have no time to comment on the niceties of a hybrid or in the many solutions it brings. I'll just drop the most selfish one: my gas bill. 48- 50 miles/gallon. And a nonselfish one: very low emissions. Any objections to that?

About time BH does a global warming episode. You would think a site with a program entitled "Science Saturday" would have dealt with this issue by now.

I'm already irritated five minutes in. Nordhaus's incredibly mediocre economic calculus completely fails to take into account the economic offsets produced by a growing alternative energy market. To pretend, in this fantasy-like manner, that we would only see the negative effects of cap-and-trade without the positive effects of a new industry seems more than obnoxiously naive. Further, the 3-5 degree temperature estimate does not take into account the release of methane from the Arctic Tundra and from deposits in the ocean. My grand hopes for a good bloggingheads dialogue are, as usual, disappointed. At least get Thomas Friedman on if you're going to interview these trashy National Review writers.

Quoting arg11: I'm already irritated five minutes in. Nordhaus's incredibly mediocre economic calculus completely fails to take into account the economic offsets produced by a growing alternative energy market. To pretend, in this fantasy-like manner, that we would only see the negative effects of cap-and-trade without the positive effects of a new industry seems more than obnoxiously naive.

Further, the 3-5 degree temperature estimate does not take into account the release of methane from the Arctic Tundra and from deposits in the ocean. My grand hopes for a good bloggingheads dialogue are, as usual, disappointed. At least get Thomas Friedman on if you're going to interview these trashy National Review writers.

I had a similar reaction. This wasn't an informative or accurate diavlog. It's more about all the wrong ways of looking at this issue. It builds economic projections on highly uncertain premises and doesn't take into account other factors that could actually be calculated. And, the scientific data it relies on, was only partially interpreted and it's outdated anyhow. Oh, well...

Placing a tax on carbon steer consumers towards making purchases that rely less on carbon fuels. In turn this directs suppliers to concentrate on business which rely less on carbon. What wasn't highlighted in this discussion is that by increasing the desire for non carbon technology that increases the profitability of non carbon research which will increase investment in this research as appropriate.

Arg11: Sorry you're irritated. Ignore anything by Nordhaus for a moment, and assume arguendo that it's worthless. The UN IPCC estimates the following: 1. Under a realistic set of assumptions for population and economic growth the world should get about 2.8C hotter by 2100. 2. The economic costs of a 4C increase should be about 1 - 5% of global GDP. So unless you dispute these projections, tell me again about how it is we're going to accelerate the ongoing transition away from fossil fuels in a way that will create net benefits when the costs we're avoiding are on the order of 3% of GDP well over 100 years from now? Jim Manzi

Quoting Jim Manzi: Arg11:

Sorry you're irritated. Ignore anything by Nordhaus for a moment, and assume arguendo that it's worthless. The UN IPCC estimates the following:

1. Under a realistic set of assumptions for population and economic growth the world should get about 2.8C hotter by 2100.

2. The economic costs of a 4C increase should be about 1 - 5% of global GDP.

So unless you dispute these projections, tell me again about how it is we're going to accelerate the ongoing transition away from fossil fuels in a way that will create net benefits when the costs we're avoiding are on the order of 3% of GDP well over 100 years from now?

Jim Manzi

Are you just repeating what was said in the diavlog? Or do you have the actual data from which these estimates were extracted? The issue we are discussing here is that the IPCC report in terms of the actual model of global warming is somewhat outdated. So, saying that there will be an increase of 2.8 C by 2100 is no longer accurate. The level of uncertainty is now considered to be higher.
The second aspect is that as the model is being updated, the new data, which hadn't been

If I understand your inserted quite, it does not say that the temperature forecast range is outdated. It does describe some of the potential implications of climate change, and makes a point about the difficulties in accounting for certain potential changes in projecting sea level rise. All of these issues are presented prominently and in detail in the IPCC 4AR. In fact, the language is so similar, that I'm confident the authors have relied on this document as the basis for their assertions (which would be an intelligent thing to do). If you are arguing that the 4AR temperature projections are "outdated", and you have independently conducted a literature review to draw this conclusion (or can point to such a review) it would be very helpful. Such a finding would be very, very suprising. Estimated climate sensitivy (roughly, eq. temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) has been estimated to be approximately 3C +/- 1.5C in the Charney review of 1979, and in the first, second, thrid and fourth (currently governing) IPCCC assesments. This estimate has been subject to enormous scrutiny and has been almost constant for 30 years.

Quoting Jim Manzi: If I understand your inserted quite, it does not say that the temperature forecast range is outdated. It does describe some of the potential implications of climate change, and makes a point about the difficulties in accounting for certain potential changes in projecting sea level rise. All of these issues are presented prominently and in detail in the IPCC 4AR. In fact, the language is so similar, that I'm confident the authors have relied on this document as the basis for their assertions (which would be an intelligent thing to do).

Yes, the insert is citing the IPCC report with the same temperature rise projections contained in it. This is what follows: "For example, the IPCC’s estimate of future sea level rise does not take into account the possibility that ice sheets or glaciers could start melting more rapidly as the temperature rises." One of the main changes after the IPCC report last year, which by the way is based on work done in prior years, is that it has been confirmed that the ice sheets and glaciers are melting at a much faster pace than previously estimated. They had

Here is another publication from National Academies:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11820 Below is an insert that outlines the issue of current lack of valid data to make long term predictions. As more data is being gathered, more factors affecting climate are being identified and the models used in previous projections are rendered inaccurate. There are references at the end of these publications. If you ask for more data, I think I'll have to write a book myself. And by the time I'm done, well, who knows whether there will be a planet left to argue about...!

Current Status of Process Studies

Many climate system processes and many causes of climate variability and change are not fully understood or adequately validated with observations. The large range in climate model estimates of the change in the global surface temperature in response to a doubling of CO2 illustrates how choices in treating these processes—which vary greatly from model to model—can have sizable consequences. Reliable climate simulations require improved treatment of the processes known to be inadequate (NRC, 2003c, 2005b): clouds, aerosols, and convective systems; biosphere-atmosphere interactions; coupling of sea ice, ocean circulation, and icemelt; ice-sheet dynamics; the fluxes of heat, momentum, water, and trace species

Thanks for the link. It's a book, so perhaps you can idenitfy the passgae in that supports your assertion that the 4AR temperature projection range is "outdated. The short segment that you cite identifies well-known difficulties in validating projection models that have a 30-year falsification period. (The first article I ever wrote for publication on AGW was a detailed review of this issue). You'll note that the reseacrh summaries that they cite are all from 2005 or earlier, so were all available to the 4AR process.

Quoting Jim Manzi: Thanks for the link.

It's a book, so perhaps you can idenitfy the passgae in that supports your assertion that the 4AR temperature projection range is "outdated.

The short segment that you cite identifies well-known difficulties in validating projection models that have a 30-year falsification period. (The first article I ever wrote for publication on AGW was a detailed review of this issue). You'll note that the reseacrh summaries that they cite are all from 2005 or earlier, so were all available to the 4AR process.

Jim, You've been researching all this material for a long time. You are familiar with all these reports and I'm pretty sure that you keep up with the new literature as it becomes available in science journals or other fast reports. There's nothing that I can produce that you don't have access to. So, what we are left with is a difference in appreciation of the information available. My argument, and I feel very strongly about it, is that there are too many unknowns, too many uncertainties to be able to make any calculations of significant value that can be projected that far into the future. You relied

Jim, Wouldn't it be better to base more of our tax system on fossil fuels rather than other sources (such as income taxes, corporate taxes, etc)? If you are going to suffer a deadweight loss regardless, you might as well benefit from minimizing the externalities introduced by carbon fuels. Of course, in the real political world, you might say that there won't be a substitution. But in some sense there could be. The next president is going to have to raise taxes since budget cuts are politically impossible. The least harmful tax would be a carbon tax regardless of what other countries do.

Personally, I'm against the assertion that you must throw out information with limited certainty. I think one needs to have a more Bayesian attitude and be willing to continuously adjust. Great diavlog!!!

Quoting Jeff Morgan: Personally, I'm against the assertion that you must throw out information with limited certainty. I think one needs to have a more Bayesian attitude and be willing to continuously adjust.

Great diavlog!!!

I don't think that you should throw out information with limited certainty either. But I object to using data that is certain to be highly uncertain to make economic projections for a hundred years from now, and then use that as your basis for policy making now, on an issue that involves the potential survival or peril of many millions if not billions of people. And no need to talk about the rest of the planet...

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: making empty gestures, like getting new light bulbs, to make themselves feel less guilty about global warming is getting seriously close to being a religion for liberals and i don't think they're prioritizing correctly.

I agree, partly. On the other hand, the only way we're going to win on controlling emissions, not to mention reducing energy consumption, is to stop looking for a single magic bullet, be it a technology or a government policy. Is my choice to buy CFLs instead of incandescent light bulbs going to save the planet? What about my choice to carry reusable bags to the grocery store? To cancel all magazine and newspaper subscriptions and make do with what's available online? To keep my car's tires properly inflated? To look for Energy Star ratings when buying electric and electronic gadgets? To consider the packaging of products I buy at the grocery store and elsewhere? To pay a few bucks extra per month to opt in to my electric companies pilot wind program? Obviously, my actions alone don't even amount to spitting in the ocean. But if a really large percentage of the population do these things, too, then

Quoting themightypuck: Hybrids are nice feel good non-solutions.

Disagree. Same argument as in my reply to fedorovingtonboop. Short version: Agree that hybrids aren't the complete solution, disagree that they're non-solutions. Every little bit helps.

I enjoyed this diavlog quite a bit. It was a relief to hear a conversation on this that started with both sides accepting the premise that anthropogenic* climate change is a reality. There are a lot of uncertainties involved, no doubt, and there will have to be plenty of debate about the extent of the problem, the likely costs of likely projections, the possible costs of catastrophic projections, the need to find the right balance between mandating/incentivizing reducing emissions and not choking off economic growth, and so on. That's all good. I count it as a major win that the diavlog started from the point where it did, and that no commenter has yet checked in with talking points from the denialist camp. ==========
* Originally had anthropomorphic. Thanks to Wonderment for the correction.

Jim: You responded only to part of my post. You didn't deal effectively with the possibility of green technology offsets to the economic hampering posed by cap-and-trade. If cap-and-trade limits certain modes of corporate practice and opens up room for entrepreneurship in other areas - the economic come-from-behind theory - it doesn't seem at all clear that economic slowdown would be as significant as you believe. There is a great deal of uncertainty in this, but no more, I think, than in your hypothesis.

Quoting bjkeefe: I enjoyed this diavlog quite a bit. It was a relief to hear a conversation on this that started with both sides accepting the premise that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality.

I like that positive attitude! Certainly not one I share in this particular diavlog... I somewhat assume that there is agreement about the fact that we are contributing to climate change. What continues to be argued is how much is our contribution, relative to other natural factors, and also which aspects of our manipulation of the environment are the main culprits. While scientists are trying to figure that out, I favor taking some steps, which even if extremely modest in their overall impact, make sense from different perspectives. Americans are "wasters". This is the country where waste is so pervasive, that it has become a cultural feature. I have always found that to be a very disrespectful attitude. Waste is waste. It doesn't help anybody. Learning to minimize waste would be a positive change for Americans. Most of the waste that one can easily identify is serving a narcissistic function. It enhances the idea that Americans "can afford" their capricious taste. Bigger houses, bigger cars that consume

Ocean: I agree completely. There are lots of easy steps we could and should be taking now, and we Americans have got to convince ourselves that a lifestyle revolving around profligate consumption is not something to brag about.

I enjoyed this diavlog quite a bit. It was a relief to hear a conversation on this that started with both sides accepting the premise that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality.

genic, not morphic. --- Language Patrol

Quoting Wonderment: genic, not morphic. --- Language Patrol

Yes, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

Great question. I did a very long post on this here: http://theamericanscene.com/2008/04/...ssibly-be-zero I think your second point is astute. Many conservatives believe that the current financial meltdown will reduce the likelihood of a cap-andtrade system, but I'm not so sure. I think that taxes are very likely going up as a result of the bail-out. It may that in this environment a stealth tax in the form of cap-and-trade with full auctioning will become more likely. It's highly unpredictable at this point.

I have not made any projections, but have relied on those produced by expert bodies. Estimates obviously vary, but it would be hard to find projections that government coercion to restrict the use of fossil fuels would not substantially reduce material wealth for many years (recognizing that there is a respectable argument, that I was trying to address in the diavlog, that this would be offset by future benefits).

Quoting Ocean: Nice game! Nothing to do this morning folks?

I've got to leave for work and have no time to comment on the niceties of a hybrid or in the many solutions it brings. I'll just drop the most selfish one: my gas bill. 48- 50 miles/gallon. And a nonselfish one: very low emissions. Any objections to that?

Just one word: "nickel." Making the batteries for those things is, unfortunately, dependent on a noxious mining process to extract the nickel (not to mention lead and cadmium) for the batteries. That doesn't negate the positives for the things, but it certainly puts a thumb on the other side of the Manichean scales. (Sorry - it's a hobby horse of mine.)

Quoting AemJeff: Just one word: "nickel." Making the batteries for those things is, unfortunately, dependent on a noxious mining process to extract the nickel (not to mention lead and cadmium) for the batteries. That doesn't negate the positives for the things, but it certainly puts a thumb on the other side of the Manichean scales.

(Sorry - it's a hobby horse of mine.)

Are you saying that life is always a balancing act? Or am I saying that? Yes, we all pick our own goods and evils... Welcome back! (are you back?)

Quoting Ocean: Welcome back! (are you back?)

Yep. Pale (thank the FSM for SPF 50), rested and almost ready for another month of Presidential politics.

sunscreen?

Quoting SkepticDoc: sunscreen?

Sunscreen. Being plausibly describable as Scots-Irish, I'll never be "tanned, rested and ready."

Quoting AemJeff: Yep. Pale (thank the FSM for SPF 50), rested and almost ready for another month of Presidential politics.

Ready for another month? Maybe I should consider a break! I'm happy to see the smilies are becoming popular...

Quoting AemJeff: Sunscreen. Being plausibly describable as Scots-Irish, I'll never be "tanned, rested and ready."

If you had a lot of patience and a lot of time, you would. I know.

Quoting Ocean: If you had a lot of patience and a lot of time, you would. I know.

Too many scary-"oma"s to worry about. I hardly ever make it out of the house without a hat!

Quoting AemJeff: Too many scary-"oma"s to worry about. I hardly ever make it out of the house without a hat!

Yes... you're really pale...

Quoting Ocean: Yes... you're really pale...

You have no idea!

Quoting AemJeff: You have no idea!

LOL!!! I think that I must have watched with my kids all the TNG episodes over the years. I have a vague recollection of this one being "silly", but don't remember much. Are you trying to tell us that you were born on a spaceship as a white cloud with a cute smile coming out of the reactor (or whatever that was)? No connection with my comment about the episode being silly, of course.

If either of you are big-time sci-fi fans, you might enjoy this: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...r.php#comments

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: If either of you are big-time sci-fi fans, you might enjoy this:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...r.php#comments

How's this, from Matthew, for awesomeness?

Clearly this is a question that calls for a made-up answer.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: If either of you are big-time sci-fi fans, you might enjoy this:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...r.php#comments

This-woman-doesn't-care-about-battleship-spaceships-small-craft-or-any-other-battle-war-equipment-or-imaginary-devices. If-technology-reaches-that-state-of-development-war-must-have-been-abandoned-as-a-primitive-barbarian-practice-of-the-male-dominated-species. Ocean

Quoting bjkeefe: How's this, from Matthew, for awesomeness?

That was just perfect, wasn't it?

I gotta say he has the best bullshit threads out there for a political blog.

Clearly this is a question that calls for a made-up answer.

I think Palin might co-opt this line.

Quoting Ocean: LOL!!!

I think that I must have watched with my kids all the TNG episodes over the years. I have a vague recollection of this one being "silly", but don't remember much.

Are you trying to tell us that you were born on a spaceship as a white cloud with a cute smile coming out of the reactor (or whatever that was)?

No connection with my comment about the episode being silly, of course.

It was one of the better moments in the series, that's for sure. Star Trek often unconsciously ventured into absurdity - that particular moment was inspired lunacy. I'm not sure what it is exactly that I'm trying to say in this thread, but i fear that my ability to continue finding appropriate pseudo-smileys is cratering.

I was a relatively regular watcher of Next Generation. I loved the wierd space-time bending philosophical episodes, (like the one with the poker-game where they keep going through the wormhole) and the ones involving Q.

Quoting AemJeff: It was one of the better moments in the series, that's for sure. Star Trek often unconsciously ventured into absurdity - that particular moment was inspired lunacy.

I'm not sure what it is exactly that I'm trying to say in this thread, but i fear that my ability to continue finding appropriate pseudo-smileys is cratering.

Nice view! The fact that you are not sure what exactly you are trying to say, is telling.

Quoting Ocean: This-woman-doesn't-care-about-battleship-spaceships-small-craft-or-any-other-battle-war-equipment-or-imaginary-devices. If-technology-reaches-that-state-of-development-war-must-have-been-abandoned-as-a-primitive-barbarian-practice-of-the-male-dominated-species.

Ocean

As a pscyhologist (psychiatrist?) do you really believe that humans are capable of overcoming violence? ^ I realize this sounds like a rhetorical question, but I'm really curious what you think. My own feeling is that violence is an inextricable part of humanity, but, unlike you, I don't really have any qualification to talk about which behaviors are truly impossible to overcome.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I was a relatively regular watcher of Next Generation. I loved the wierd space-time bending philosophical episodes, (like the one with the poker-game where they keep going through the wormhole) and the ones involving Q.

The Q episodes were always great. The episode where John de Lancie suggest that to solve a particular engineering problem he'd "alter the gravitational constant of the universe" (he'd lost his powers at the time, so it was just a reflexive thought) killed me. I also loved the Klingons-go-to-war episodes which struck me as some of the truest to the spirit of Space Opera television I've ever seen.

Quoting AemJeff: It was one of the better moments in the series, that's for sure. Star Trek often unconsciously ventured into absurdity - that particular moment was inspired lunacy.

I hate to admit I don't recall that episode, but can you remind me again, which episode that was and what was going on with that cloud? It's been a long time since I used to religiously watch that show, though it's one of my all time favorites.

Quoting TwinSwords: I hate to admit I don't recall that episode, but can you remind me again, which episode that was and what was going on with that cloud? It's been a long time since I used to religiously watch that show, though it's one of my all time favorites.

Here's the Wiki page for the image I used.

Yeah sometimes the scientific element would be so lacking that I'd have to watch something more scientifically grounded...like Quantum Leap ;-)

Quoting TwinSwords: As a pscyhologist (psychiatrist?) do you really believe that humans are capable of overcoming violence?

^ I realize this sounds like a rhetorical question, but I'm really curious what you think. My own feeling is that violence is an inextricable part of humanity, but, unlike you, I don't really have any qualification to talk about which behaviors are truly impossible to overcome.

Psychiatrist. I don't want to get too philosophical, but it depends on what you consider "humanity". Is that us and our descendants? Even if our descendants continue to evolve? If the answer is yes, then I'll say, yes, we can overcome violence. We have already made some progress.
If you think that if we (our descendants) evolved and ended up being able to get rid of the more primitive animal reactions, such as violence, we would stop being "humans" to become something else, then I guess you'll say no.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I was a relatively regular watcher of Next Generation. I loved the wierd space-time bending philosophical episodes, (like the one with the poker-game where they keep going through the wormhole) and the ones involving Q.

I liked the Q episodes too. What a pain! But so... fascinating! He was more of a regular in Voyager. But the best were the first episodes with Q. Like the one when "humanity" was on trial. I loved that one.