The Climate Change Hoax

[Alan Klein]

... For a short time, I was involved in academia (physics), and in my experience you can't get 3 scientists in a room together at the same time to agree on the colour of the wallpaper.

And while I'm on a soap box, I am getting pretty sick and tired of people complaining about the problems of climate models because they get some things wrong...

You stated my point.  If the science community can be confused and get it wrong, what do you expect the lay public to know and believe?  Especially when you insult them and tell them you want to take away their jobs and property. 

When I asked (assuming the science is right) where and what should we spend money on in the future, how it should be divvied up, no one answered me.  How do we protect people and industries who will be hurt if we implement all the plans of the supporters of climate change?  No one responded.  If you can't express measures that will help people due to changes in the economy to minimize warming, why would anyone want to support you?  Or believe you?   You see, people think you don't care about them.  That you would sacrifice humans for nature.  That you put a toad before someone's property.  That you tell a coal miner that for the sake of better climate 50 years from now, he should accept that he'll have to feed his family beans and water because he's going to lose his job now.  You really don't seem to care about him.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If the science community can be confused and get it wrong, what do you expect the lay public to know and believe?

If 97% of the scientists do agree, then why assume that they are wrong???????

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

If 97% of the scientists do agree, then why assume that they are wrong?

Cheers,
Bart

  You totally ignored the rest of my post which answered your post.  Let me re-post mine for you.
------------------
Especially when you insult them and tell them you want to take away their jobs and property. 

When I asked (assuming the science is right) where and what should we spend money on in the future, how it should be divvied up, no one answered me.  How do we protect people and industries who will be hurt if we implement all the plans of the supporters of climate change?  No one responded.  If you can't express measures that will help people due to changes in the economy to minimize warming, why would anyone want to support you?  Or believe you?   You see, people think you don't care about them.  That you would sacrifice humans for nature.  That you put a toad before someone's property.  That you tell a coal miner that for the sake of better climate 50 years from now, he should accept that he'll have to feed his family beans and water because he's going to lose his job now.  You really don't seem to care about him.

[Alan Goldhammer]

You stated my point.  If the science community can be confused and get it wrong, what do you expect the lay public to know and believe?  Especially when you insult them and tell them you want to take away their jobs and property. 

There is seldom confusion within the scientific community on probably 98% of the issues.  You will always find some outliers who will take a contrarian point of view.  Take for example of something that I've worked on.  There were a couple of papers published by a British MD saying certain vaccines caused autism.  The brought about considerable alarm and parents stopped having their children vaccinated.  We knew that these claims were false as many national health systems in Europe that have computerized medical records (unlike the US who are behind the eightball on this) showed absolutely ZERO correlation between vaccines and development of autism.  It turns out the British researcher had made up the data, was forced to retract it, and lost his medical license.  Even with all this happening there is still a significant population who continue to believe in the linkage including our President who made some comments on this a couple of months back.

There are issues that are too complex for almost all of us unless we are absolute experts in the field.  We must then rely on experts who will provide their judgement.  I doubt that any of us on LuLa can inspect a jetliner to assess it's safety yet there are people who do this every day and air travel continues to be the safest mode of transportation.  The same goes for the assessment of new vaccines and pharmaceuticals that require a number of different experts to pass judgement.

For complex systems things get more complicated and the modeling is difficult.  We will get information and then have to make informed decisions about how to proceed.

When I asked (assuming the science is right) where and what should we spend money on in the future, how it should be divvied up, no one answered me.  How do we protect people and industries who will be hurt if we implement all the plans of the supporters of climate change?  No one responded.  If you can't express measures that will help people due to changes in the economy to minimize warming, why would anyone want to support you?  Or believe you?   You see, people think you don't care about them.  That you would sacrifice humans for nature.  That you put a toad before someone's property.  That you tell a coal miner that for the sake of better climate 50 years from now, he should accept that he'll have to feed his family beans and water because he's going to lose his job now.  You really don't seem to care about him.

I don't think anyone is callous enough to tell a coal miner to go shove it.  However, what is happening in coal country (we get a number regular stories in the Washington Post about what is going on in that region) is there is a recognition by a lot of those who live in the Appalachian mining region which is where all the deep tunnel mining is going on that those specific jobs are disappearing and will not be coming back.  It's being replaced in Appalachia by mountain top removal.  Areas outside of Appalachia are all strip mines (some parts of Indiana, Utah and Wyoming).  As I have noted in a number of posts, the energy economics right now are working against coal and this is why new plants are all gas fired.  Gas is much more efficient, less polluting,  and costs less so it's a purely economic decision on the part of the power company.  This is purely a market driven event, the sort that you and I champion. 

The loss of jobs in one industry and the creation of jobs in another industry that are tangentially linked to climate change is happening.  The President realized during the campaign that he needed to win certain states.  He campaigned hard against the climate regulations arguing that these are costing jobs in the coal industry when such jobs had been on a downward trajectory for the past 40 years.  The voters in those regions wanted to believe him and they voted for him in big numbers.  That is their right.  They may be disappointed that the way of life that they want is not going to come back.  This is no different than what is happening in many Midwestern farming communities where population is dropping.  That's a trend that has been going on for well over 100 years.  Change is difficult but this is what's going on right now. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

When I asked (assuming the science is right) where and what should we spend money on in the future, how it should be divvied up, no one answered me.

Why would one, if you can't even handle the truth?

Besides, suggestions to gradually shift the efforts towards energy conservation and renewable energy (which would only be a partial solution) where more jobs are to be found, are immediately dismissed because that's not what Trump is doing. In fact, he is doing the opposite ...

Cheers,
Bart

[DeanChriss]

...
You see, people think you don't care about them. 
...

I can't find the number of jobs in coal mining worldwide, but in 2013 there were 80,209 people employed in coal mining in the US. There are less now. The lowest estimate I could find of the number of people who will be displaced by climate change by the end of this century is 50 million. Who cares about them? Who cares about people a few generations from now who will have to contend with the weather and environmental mess we're leaving them?

[Alan Klein]

Why would one, if you can't even handle the truth?

Besides, suggestions to gradually shift the efforts towards energy conservation and renewable energy (which would only be a partial solution) where more jobs are to be found, are immediately dismissed because that's not what Trump is doing. In fact, he is doing the opposite ...

Cheers,
Bart

  No one is dismissing clean energy jobs.  Trump only retracted new regulations on coal that would hurt existing coal jobs.  If there is a market for clean energy, private industry will create the jobs just as any other job is created.

[Hans Kruse]

  You totally ignored the rest of my post which answered your post.  Let me re-post mine for you.
------------------
Especially when you insult them and tell them you want to take away their jobs and property. 

There are many reasons why jobs disappear and new ones come along and as we all know this has happened all the time through history although with an increasing rate now. A much more important loss of jobs or change of jobs is likely to happen when self driving cars and trucks arrive within the next few years. The coal miners are a small number of people compared to these numbers. In 8 years or 12 there will be a Trump mk II that will get votes to stop self driving cars and get drivers behind the steering wheel again

[Alan Klein]

I can't find the number of jobs in coal mining worldwide, but in 2013 there were 80,209 people employed in coal mining in the US. There are less now. The lowest estimate I could find of the number of people who will be displaced by climate change by the end of this century is 50 million. Who cares about them? Who cares about people a few generations from now who will have to contend with the weather and environmental mess we're leaving them?

What will it cost to make a difference? What will you do?

[Alan Klein]

There are many reasons why jobs disappear and new ones come along and as we all know this has happened all the time through history although with an increasing rate now. A much more important loss of jobs or change of jobs is likely to happen when self driving cars and trucks arrive within the next few years. The coal miners are a small number of people compared to these numbers. In 8 years or 12 there will be a Trump mk II that will get votes to stop self driving cars and get drivers behind the steering wheel again

You probably are right.  However, if government interfered, that would be harmful just as it was harmful that Obama put in more regulation to damage the coal industry without even considering the people he would hurt.  Government should not be choosing winners and users and let free markets work.  I realize that some regulation is required to check harmful conditions.  But these should be kept at a minimum.  The pendulum has swung to far the other way.  Trump is pulling it back to the center.

[LesPalenik]

We should put a carbon tax on steaks.

Converting carnivores to vegetarians would be much more effective. The only problem is that by extending life expectancy of all the converts the pension system would collapse. On second thought, the government would save billions on medical care, so all things considered, it should be revenue neutral.

[Alan Klein]

...I don't think anyone is callous enough to tell a coal miner to go shove it.  However, what is happening in coal country (we get a number regular stories in the Washington Post about what is going on in that region) is there is a recognition by a lot of those who live in the Appalachian mining region which is where all the deep tunnel mining is going on that those specific jobs are disappearing and will not be coming back.  It's being replaced in Appalachia by mountain top removal.  Areas outside of Appalachia are all strip mines (some parts of Indiana, Utah and Wyoming).  As I have noted in a number of posts, the energy economics right now are working against coal and this is why new plants are all gas fired.  Gas is much more efficient, less polluting,  and costs less so it's a purely economic decision on the part of the power company.  This is purely a market driven event, the sort that you and I champion. 

The loss of jobs in one industry and the creation of jobs in another industry that are tangentially linked to climate change is happening.  The President realized during the campaign that he needed to win certain states.  He campaigned hard against the climate regulations arguing that these are costing jobs in the coal industry when such jobs had been on a downward trajectory for the past 40 years.  The voters in those regions wanted to believe him and they voted for him in big numbers.  That is their right.  They may be disappointed that the way of life that they want is not going to come back.  This is no different than what is happening in many Midwestern farming communities where population is dropping.  That's a trend that has been going on for well over 100 years.  Change is difficult but this is what's going on right now. 

I've asked in previous posts what the cost will be to stop warming.  No one wants to answer my questions.
The issue is that we're not only talking about coal.  If global warmists have their way, there will be profound changes to a huge part of our economic system.  You'd see major legislation phasing out coal completely followed closely by phasing out all carbon.  Regulations would force electric cars into your garages and mandated solar panels on everyone's roof.  The cost would be astounding.  We'd have to de-militarize, pull out of NATO, let Japan and So Korea worry about nukes in North Korea.  We'd have to cut back on Medicare and Social Security and Obamacare.  That's the true cost. 

It's not just about a few coal miners. 

[Hans Kruse]

I've asked in previous posts what the cost will be to stop warming.  No one wants to answer my questions.
The issue is that we're not only talking about coal.  If global warmists have their way, there will be profound changes to a huge part of our economic system.  You'd see major legislation phasing out coal completely followed closely by phasing out all carbon.  Regulations would force electric cars into your garages and mandated solar panels on everyone's roof.  The cost would be astounding.  We'd have to de-militarize, pull out of NATO, let Japan and So Korea worry about nukes in North Korea.  We'd have to cut back on Medicare and Social Security and Obamacare.  That's the true cost. 

It's not just about a few coal miners.

I don't think anybody can answer your question especially now without knowing the timespan and what cost curves (and new tech) will be in play 5-10-15 and 20 years from now. It is simply not known and therefore your question cannot be answered with any degree of precision. But there are some trends and it is pretty clear that e.g. EV's will be on par with fossilcars in purchase price in the early 2020'ties probably around 2022 or so. Maintenance and "fuel" for these cars will be way cheaper than fossil cars. On top of that they will be self driving within that same timespan and therefore you may not even need a car or at least not multiple cars. So it is highly likely that the cost actually will go down instead of up for that part. That does not mean, of course, that all cars are replaced at that time, but I think we can expect that a lot of fossilcars will be worthless at that time (and a few car companies that didn't see this coming in time will go bankrupt). If not 2022 then 3-5 years later. Many things can change much faster than we think, just think of the digital photo revolution and smart phones. A lot fo what we are discussing here cannot, of course, go quite as fast, but I think the cost curves will break the back of the fossil camel.

[Alan Klein]

I don't think anybody can answer your question especially now without knowing the timespan and what cost curves (and new tech) will be in play 5-10-15 and 20 years from now. It is simply not known and therefore your question cannot be answered with any degree of precision. But there are some trends and it is pretty clear that e.g. EV's will be on par with fossilcars in purchase price in the early 2020'ties probably around 2022 or so. Maintenance and "fuel" for these cars will be way cheaper than fossil cars. On top of that they will be self driving within that same timespan and therefore you may not even need a car or at least not multiple cars. So it is highly likely that the cost actually will go down instead of up for that part. That does not mean, of course, that all cars are replaced at that time, but I think we can expect that a lot of fossilcars will be worthless at that time (and a few car companies that didn't see this coming in time will go bankrupt). If not 2022 then 3-5 years later. Many things can change much faster than we think, just think of the digital photo revolution and smart phones. A lot fo what we are discussing here cannot, of course, go quite as fast, but I think the cost curves will break the back of the fossil camel.

You mean to tell me that after all this time and arguing in the public arena, no one has published figures to quantify costs and what reductions in global warming there will be based on those costs?  Even a little start-up has a business plan that projects costs and income.  Otherwise no investor or bank will loan them money.  Certainly we can expect some analysis before making a national and global commitment to changing the ways our economy works that will effect us profoundly. 

Let me make it easy for you.

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

[Hans Kruse]

You mean to tell me that after all this time and arguing in the public arena, no one has published figures to quantify costs and what reductions in global warming there will be based on those costs?  Even a little start-up has a business plan that projects costs and income.  Otherwise no investor or bank will loan them money.  Certainly we can expect some analysis before making a national and global commitment to changing the ways our economy works that will effect us profoundly. 

Let me make it easy for you.

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

The thing is that I already answered you question.

[Peter McLennan]

Let me make it easy for you.

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

All of those questions are unanswerable by the laypersons here, as you very well know. Total red herring.

I'd ask: What changes in global warming will happen if we continue exactly as we're doing?

To which 97% of climate scientists answer in unison "DISASTER!.  Probably by the end of the century."

I'd venture to say that those scientists know better about this topic than you, Ray or anyone here.  Including me.

[Alan Klein]

All of those questions are unanswerable by the laypersons here, as you very well know. Total red herring.

I'd ask: What changes in global warming will happen if we continue exactly as we're doing?

To which 97% of climate scientists answer in unison "DISASTER!.  Probably by the end of the century."

I'd venture to say that those scientists know better about this topic than you, Ray or anyone here.  Including me.

Peter:  Fine.  If the people here don't know, provide analysis from the experts.  If they don't use my criteria below, use their criteria.  But indicate in actual values the costs and the reduction in warming.  Hans;  You provided no data.  Only general statements and bromides.
 
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

[Alan Klein]

Peter:  Fine.  If the people here don't know, provide analysis from the experts.  If they don't use my criteria below, use their criteria.  But indicate in actual values the costs and the reduction in warming.  Hans;  You provided no data.  Only general statements and bromides.
 
What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $50 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $100 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

What changes in global warming will happen if America spent $300 billion a year to reduce CO2 and carbon emissions?

OK I found one answer to my question.  It seems like a lot of money for not much.

Quote: "Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: 'We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree...the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years...Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model.'
'If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.'
'But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free -- quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.'"

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Peter:  Fine.  If the people here don't know, provide analysis from the experts.  If they don't use my criteria below, use their criteria.

This has a.o. been agreed in The Paris Agreement on climate change: each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that it intends to achieve.

Here you can find the details:
http://unfccc.int/focus/long-term_strategies/items/9971.php

Here is THE UNITED STATES MID-CENTURY STRATEGY (other nations have goal and strategies specific to their geography):
http://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mid_century_strategy_report-final_red.pdf
and here some additional documentation:
http://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/us_mcs_documentation_and_output.pdf

Of course, without proper funding of e.g. the EPA, it is very likely that progress will fall behind schedule, and then additional cost will be involved when trying to catch up with the rest of the world at a later date. And of course, the fact that the USA is the current no.2 polluter of the world, makes an extra effort unavoidable.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

OK I found one answer to my question.  It seems like a lot of money for not much.

According to ... who is 'climatedepot.com' (sponsored by ..., mission statement ...)?
What is, according to them the cost of doing nothing?

Cheers,
Bart