Historic Global Climate Change Agreement Adopted in France

Paris-Talks
Share:

Paris-Talks

by Debra Chase

For over twenty years the myth of Sisyphus has been the ruling analogy of the global climate talks. The ball of past climate conferences has been consistently rolled uphill by diplomats and leaders from all countries only to have it roll back down again without a compromised text attached. Today Sisyphus can take a break because the ball is not rolling back down hill again but is maintaining its precarious position at the top of the hill…at least for now.

Today, December 12, 2015, a historical agreement was unanimously reached by representatives from 195 countries during a plenary session at the COP21 in Paris France. The agreement was presented to the representatives by the French COP21 Presidency, Laurent Fabius, amid strong emotions, peppered with applause and cheers just hours before the vote to accept it. The leaders of the world have finally come to the end of a road that lasted over 20 years and can now begin the journey along another road, that of implementation and accountability.

The compromise text is “fair, sustainable, dynamic, balanced and legally binding”, declared Laurent Fabius, in a trembling voice and on the verge of tears.   Fabius, who was applauded several times by delegates who rose from their seats, thanked them and standing with his hand on his heart stated, “This text, which we have built together, is the best balance possible, a balance which is both powerful and fragile, which will enable each delegation, each group of countries, to return home with their heads held high, having gained a lot,”.

The final draft included the pledge by all countries to halt global emissions at 1.5°c. This was more ambitious than the original goal of 2.0°c and is a “win” for countries already suffering from the damaging effects of the climate crisis, including rising sea levels, severe droughts and extreme storms that lead to food insecurity and homelessness.

Paris Talks

The Paris Climate Action Talks began on November 30 with all diplomats combing over a first draft of the agreement that showed 361 sections in brackets denoting disagreement.   The second draft of the agreement was submitted on Wednesday, December 10 and was showing 50 sections in brackets denoting disagreement. Like the melting glaciers and the rising seas, the progress was slow and the deadlines for completion were stretched to the last available moment in time. There were many discussions, both public and private from heads of State to environmental activists. The major sticking points included the differentiation of rich versus poor countries, the wording of an overall goal, and oversight in the future.

Amid a conglomeration of delegates from virtually every country in the world the United States delegation consisted of; President Barak Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, California Governor Jerry Brown, Todd Stern , the Obama administration’s special envoy for climate change, along with Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger and a huge number of NGO’s and private citizens.

The major objective in the agreement for all countries to achieve is for global emissions to be under 2.0°c with a preference for 1.5°c above pre-industrial levels; the latter is in line with science. Countries were also presented with a system to review and strengthen the commitments made at the conference and there were mechanisms developed to ensure that countries not only fulfill their commitments but to also provide aid to help the poorer countries convert their economies to cleaner energy sources and to assist them with coping with current and future affects of the climate crisis. Many of the richer nations pledged to give substantial amounts of funding with the US pledging at least $800 million by the year 2020. While this assistance is not guaranteed the document does recognize demands for loss and damage compensation but included a clause excluding any liability claims. This was one of the sticking points that the delegates had to overcome and at the urging of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to, “not let the quest for perfection become the enemy of the public good.” This part of the agreement left the poorest nations shortchanged, for now. The original draft text included an earlier pledge by wealthy nations to offer $100 billion a year to help developing countries by 2020 which would have been increased by 2015. This could very well be the “stitch in time” for the wealthier countries, for future damages to poorer countries could end up costing the wealthy nations more money in the long run. This was one of the more disappointing sections of the agreement.

However, as President Obama stated, “What should give us hope, is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it”.

Paris Talks

John Kerry noted in his closing speech at the conference that, “We are sending literally a critical message to the global marketplace. Many of us here know that it won’t be governments that actually make the decision or find the product, the new technology, the saving grace of this challenge. It will be the genius of the American spirit”.

It is that hope and that “American spirit”, after two decades of climate talks that will help to sustain people and motivate people to make positive changes in their energy choices, food choices and investment choices. It is these choices that will urge our leaders to stay on the right path and save us all from the devastating affects of the climate crisis.

As Bill McKibben the noted environmentalist said in an email to the Huffington Post: “This agreement won’t save the planet, not even close, but it’s possible that it saves the chance of saving the planet — if movements push even harder from here on out.”

One moving event at the conference were the letters written by French children presented to the delegates. A particular letter written by a young French girl held me in its grip of clear and honest concern.

Paris Talks

“Think of us children !

Our future is in your hands. Thank you to care.

What will become of us if you fail?

We understand that the situation is serious.

We have nightmares. It reassured us that you will succeed.

We are ready to change many things in our life, even if it is difficult.

Moreover , we have small ideas to offer.

But without you, it would be useless! We need you.

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

137 thoughts on “Historic Global Climate Change Agreement Adopted in France”

  1. Biddlin

    I never cease to be amazed at the nefarious, crypto-fascist sites you cite as sources. Yournewswire is  a hate site, inflaming right-wing christian terrorists and titillating the uninquisitive and simple minded.

  2. Don Shor

    BP, maybe you could tell us in your own words what your understanding is of climate change, and what you think the best strategies would be to reduce any harm that might occur from it.

    Your constant posting of links from very conservative sites is actually pretty pointless.

    1. hpierce

      Don, with all due respect, climate change has been happening for 10’s of millions of years.  The questions are: what causes it? is it inherently bad, or just something we need to adapt to? is there anything we can practically do about it (and should we?)? Did evolution stop in 1850?  Did dinosaurs think they were the be-all, end-all?  Continents continue to drift… I’m thinking there is a certain hubris in pretending we know what “normal” is… are we the anomaly?

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        Who specifically do you believe has received “billions of dollars” in order to falsify evidence regarding climate change ? Who, specifically do you believe has provided these “billions of dollars” ?

        1. Biddlin

          Frankly, and thank goodness I’m not, I’d love to get in on some of those billions. They come from the same murky, colonic source as the millions of dollars Moscow was giving to war protesters in the 60s.

        2. Frankly

          Ha!  Well you are a “frank” poster that likes to be provocative.

          The money that supports the telling of this theory comes from the public sector trough.  And that money-source is looted from the private-sector producers that will be penalized for their success in producing and sustaining the economy and growing wealth for themselves and everyone else that works.

          Which again demonstrates how leftism sounds great on paper, but always crashes as it runs out of other people’s money.

        3. Jim Frame

          Which again demonstrates how leftism sounds great on paper, but always crashes as it runs out of other people’s money.

          Every economic system — liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, socialist, capitalist — crashes when it runs out of other people’s money, because *all* money is “other people’s money” unless it’s in your personal portfolio.  And all economic systems depend upon the existence of everyone’s money to function.

          P.S. To the Moderator/Editor/Policeman: I accidentally hit the “report comment” button again. Please ignore.

      2. Biddlin

        “When you pay someone billions of dollars to prove there’s climate change guess what conclusion they’re likely to come up with?”

        “The money that supports the telling of this theory comes from the public sector trough.”

        The real pigs at the public trough, taking billions in corporate welfare?

        Boeing-$13.18 billions

        Alcoa-$5.64 billions

        Intel-$3.87 billions

        GM-$3.58 billions

        Ford-$2.52 billions

        Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles-$2.06 billions

        Royal Dutch Shell-$2.04 billions

        Nike-$2.03 billions

        $34.92billions, total.

        That’s what I call gluttony, right there.

    2. Sam

      Don,

      I would like to read some articles or studies that prove that the increase in temperature is manmade, not simply that the temperature and CO2 have increased in the last few hundred years so one must be effecting the other. Do you have any recommendations?

  3. Tia Will

    hpierce

    I see the issue somewhat differently. It may be true that human factors are not the only, or even the predominant factor in global climate change. That in no way means that we should pretend that we do not have any effect and that we should not seek to lessen the deleterious effects of our actions that we can modify. Smog is the obvious example. A primary generator of particulates dangerous to humans is the gas burning automobile. When we take small steps as individuals, say driving less, or choosing hybrid vehicles, we can see real verifiable improvements in this environmental pollutant. I am now told from someone who recently moved to Northern Ca from Clarement where I lived for two years 25 years ago, that the sky is now predominantly blue as opposed to yellow which was the predominately yellow color when I was there. This change has been due to changes in human activity.

    My point is that we know, from personal experience, that some of our actives do affect our environment adversely, and probably affect the global environment adversely. Even if our activities are only a small part of the problem, since they are the only part we can address, should we not at least try ?

    1. Biddlin

      Excellent example, Tia. I lived in L.A.’s Silverlake neighborhood in the early 70s and most days, air in the basin was filthy. Now those days are the exception, due to strict air quality regulation and enforcement.

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      Yes, we should try. But at what cost?

      My understanding is that the air is cleaner for two primary reasons: 1) no more leaded gas, and 2) catalytic converters.

      Now, when we have this special “California blend” of gasoline in the summer, we spend millions and billions more for gasoline that on;y makes a tiny difference, Is that worth it to working-class families? I think not.

      What is the cost? What are the “unintended” consequences?

  4. David Greenwald

    From the NY Times:

    What does the new deal really mean for the future of the Earth?

    Scientists who closely monitored the talks here said it was not the agreement that humanity really needed. By itself, it will not save the planet.

    The great ice sheets remain imperiled, the oceans are still rising, forests and reefs are under stress, people are dying by tens of thousands in heat waves and floods, and the agriculture system that feeds seven billion human beings is still at risk.

    And yet 50 years after the first warning about global warming was put on the desk of an American president, and quickly forgotten, the political system of the world is finally responding in a way that scientists see as commensurate with the scale of the threat.

    “I think this Paris outcome is going to change the world,” said Christopher B. Field, a leading American climate scientist. “We didn’t solve the problem, but we laid the foundation.”

    1. Frankly

      The great ice sheets remain imperiled, the oceans are still rising, forests and reefs are under stress, people are dying by tens of thousands in heat waves and floods, and the agriculture system that feeds seven billion human beings is still at risk.

      Fear mongering lies that any of this, and certainly all of this, is related to anything man has done or is doing.

      I get the attraction though.  What a great way to push your ideological worldviews to claim scientific justification for it.

  5. Frankly

    A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest are undeclared.

    As for climate scientists, nearly all of them are government employees.

    Democrats and government employees.  We know the type.  We know that those birds of a feather tend to flock together.  They all subscribe to their left ideology as it were a new secular religion.   And that ideology in its modern form is clearly anti-industrialism and anti-free market capitalism.

    And there are more reasons to discount their “consensus” on the theory of anthropogenic global warming… they most telling being the fact that they have grossly over-stated that consensus. They have lied.

    You know that much repeated claim that 98% of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made?

    Well that was from an online survey done by a professor and graduate student at the University of Illinois where only 79 actual climate scientists responded.

    And then there are many more current and more comprehensive studies that indicate a lack of consensus even with this tenant of leftist secular religion.

    Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.
    The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

    Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement.

    The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters.

    What people need to start paying attention to is that this theory of global warming is actually a tool in the arsenal of those wanting to destroy free market capitalism and replace it with a global social order.

    The agreement in Paris was a milestone in their progress.

    Industrialized countries will not only have to give up more of their economy in the name of global climate change, but they will have to pay non-industrialized countries for their lost economic opportunity costs for forgoing industrialization.

    A giant global welfare program backed by “scientific” theories that have included copious lies and distortions and that presently are only accepted by the less than 50% of the scientific body even though that body is comprised mostly of left-leaning government employees.

    You know that it was important that the socialists get something done… because their opportunity was beginning to unravel.   The question is can they keep it from unraveling post agreement… since few other than a few will likely comply.

    1. Biddlin

      I’d report this comment for being irrelevant, impertinent and immaterial, but you expose your prejudice, ignorance and contempt for scientific method (and the rest of us) so clearly…

    2. Don Shor

      Democrats and government employees. We know the type. We know that those birds of a feather tend to flock together. They all subscribe to their left ideology as it were a new secular religion. And that ideology in its modern form is clearly anti-industrialism and anti-free market capitalism.

      “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

        1. wdf1

          Frankly:  I learn from the best!

          and

          As for climate scientists, nearly all of them are government employees.
          Democrats and government employees.  We know the type.  We know that those birds of a feather tend to flock together.  They all subscribe to their left ideology as it were a new secular religion.   And that ideology in its modern form is clearly anti-industrialism and anti-free market capitalism.

          Which is an ad hominem attack.  You really aren’t responding directly to the argument, which I take to be a sign of weakness in you — that if you can’t refute the argument, then attack the people making the argument.

          Frankly:  A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest are undeclared.

          I’m not surprised.  This is from decades of growing Republican embrace over the years of opposition to scientific evidence of the harm of lead in gasoline, harm of smoking, of evidence for evolution by natural selection, that Earth and the solar system are about 4.5 billion years old, and now of course evidence of human contribution to global warming/climate change.  I majored in science and watched my politically conservative mentors turned away from Republican affiliation, significantly for these reasons.

          There is little dispute among scientists who study this that Earth’s average temperatures are increasing on a trend beyond past geologic trends, that CO2/greenhouses gases have increased beyond past geologic trends, and that the best explanation for it is the cause/effect of CO2/GHG absorbing heat.

          Science is democratic (little d).  If you have a viable alternative explanation to those observations and conclusions, you can contribute to the conversation.

        2. Frankly

          Science is democratic

          Science is a collective.  It has struggled at times to be democratic as peer pressure and egos prevented the adoption of the new truth.  That problem has grown worse because science more often relies on government research grants and cushy government jobs… and those that argue for truth that threatens the flow of money get pushed out of the collective.

        3. wdf1

          Frankly:  Science is a collective.

          I don’t know what the hell you mean by that any more.  Society is collective.  Humans are social beings.  You are part of “the collective” by choosing to engage with society.  Science is there to serve society.  If you want to dispute that, I will elaborate.

          If you see an error in a scientific conclusion, you are free to present an alternative for debate and discussion.

        4. Frankly

          Scientific peer review is broken.

          http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

          Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused—respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

          This resource shows how many peer-reviewed papers have climate skeptics published that deny or cast doubt on human caused global warming.

          You see?  This is how the science collective protects its hive.  See something you don’t like, then just don’t review it… then you can claim that the stuff you like is the only scientific stuff because it was peer reviewed.

          And this was from a website dedicated to casting doubt on scientists that are skeptical of the the theories of man made global warming.

          I foresee a massive and terrible crash of scientific respect as the pillars of this politicized theory of man-made global warming collapse with ongoing climate change and the people look to the profession of science as being directly responsible.

          1. Don Shor

            It is very clear to me that you do not understand the link you just posted. Here is the explanation of it, which you would have found had you clicked through: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html
            Just as one example, Roger Pielke Sr., who your link shows with 3 peer-reviewed publications that meet the criteria of the article, has “published more than 300 scientific papers, 50 chapters in books, and co-edited 9 books.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke#Publications
            He is highly respected, and nobody is suppressing his views.

            So frankly, Frankly, this sentence is utterly false:

            You see? This is how the science collective protects its hive. See something you don’t like, then just don’t review it… then you can claim that the stuff you like is the only scientific stuff because it was peer reviewed.

        5. Frankly

          No you are either ignoring the point or are unable to grasp it.

          The hive ignores many of the scientific articles disputing the theories claiming that these are not papers from REAL scientists (read, not of the hive).

          And those that they cannot so easily dismiss, they spend scant time doing peer reviews.

          1. Don Shor

            Amazingly, Frankly, I read the article, I read the explanation of the article. I recognize a number of the names of those researchers. I read what you wrote, and it is not proven by the link nor is it the point of the authors.
            “The hive” does not exist. Many of the researchers cited on the link have numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals in their fields.
            You have not proven anything. To put it another way, your hypothesis isn’t proven by the evidence you provided.

    3. Biddlin

      “A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, ….”

      They must have had better scores on their SATs.

    4. Don Shor

      I like this research because it asked much more detailed questions than the usual either/or simplistic type of survey. But it doesn’t really help your cause, assuming your cause is (as it clearly seems to be) to discredit the principle of scientific consensus about climate change.
      From your linked study: “Consistent with previous studies, we found that the level of agreement with the IPCC position increases with increasing expertise in climate science, as judged by the self-reported number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change. Likewise, this level of agreement is stronger for respondents with self-reported domain expertise.”
      There is very broad agreement reflected in your linked study about the basic principles.

      “The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al”
      Cook et al doesn’t say that, at least not the abstract. And 97% is a bit of a strawman argument. Your link shows that those with expertise in the field consider the human contribution to be 65 – 80% of global warming. With respect to the IPCC question, the graphic shows that almost 100% of those who believe the human contribution is over 50% consider that likely, very likely, extremely likely, or virtually certain.

      In the past I’ve provided links* for you where climate scientists debate the research. There’s plenty of healthy skepticism about many aspects of climate science. There’s also plenty of consensus.

      * links reflecting a range of opinions in the field of climate science:
      http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/index.php
      http://realclimate.com
      http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com
      http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com
      http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
      http://judithcurry.com
      http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com
      http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0
      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/biblio?s=year&o=desc&f%5Bterm_id%5D=225

      1. Don Shor

        If you want to see how the range of opinion is reflected in the IPCC report, look for the italicized words as you read this summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
        You will see

        … the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain).

        During the lead-up to the most recent version I saw this chart posted once summarizing the debate among the researchers about specific outcomes of climate change that had been discussed.
        http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/climatecatastrophe_2013.jpgclimate outcomes
        As I’ve said before, I think much of your debate is with climate activists, not climate scientists.

        1. Frankly

          As I’ve said before, I think much of your debate is with climate activists, not climate scientists.

          A useless distinction because your definition of both and my definition of both would be subjective.

          Just because they are pushed out of the collective does not mean they are not valid scientists.

          Is Barack Obama a politician or an activist?

          1. Don Shor

            There are 24,000 earth scientists in the Bay Area right now for the American Geophysical Union annual meeting. The number of climate change activists is a tiny fraction of that number, and many or most of them are not even earth scientists. A few prominent scientists are also well-known activists; people like James Hanson, but he’s really an exception IMO. I don’t think Bill McKibben even has a degree in science. Al Gore is not a scientist.
            It’s not a useless distinction. You regularly tar the whole field of earth sciences and geophysics with this brush of liberal bias, when you probably don’t even know personally anyone who works in that field, because you don’t like the policies espoused by the activists. We actually have at least one geophysicist who posts occasionally here on the Vanguard. Research scientists in my experience (and I’m quite sure I know a lot more of them than you do) are generally not politically active or very ideological.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Don Shor wrote: “Research scientists in my experience (and I’m quite sure I know a lot more of them than you do) are generally not politically active or very ideological.”

          Possibly. But they know who butters their bread and who pays for the research, right?

          There are billions of dollars trading hands in the Global Warming movement, right?

          1. Don Shor

            .But they know who butters their bread and who pays for the research, right?

            The National Science Foundation. Your point?

            There are billions of dollars trading hands in the Global Warming movement, right?

            I’d imagine any money “trading hands” is dwarfed by the revenues of the energy companies.
            Your point?
            Research scientists are generally not ideologues.

        3. wdf1

          TBD:  .But they know who butters their bread and who pays for the research, right?

          Don Shor:  The National Science Foundation. Your point?

          There’s this joke making the rounds among some research scientists:

          “I asked Santa for a research grant.”

          “You still believe in research grants?”

          source

  6. Tia Will

    Frankly

    the private-sector producers that will be penalized for their success in producing and sustaining the economy and growing wealth for themselves and everyone else that works.”

    What you leave out of your equation is any mention of the potential harm done by these private-sector producers, many of whom do not give a damn if their product is resulting  in the direct detriment of the users of their product or someone who themselves does not use the product, but is adversely affected by it. The prime example for me is cigarette manufacturers. While it is true that they “grew wealth” for themselves, and minimally for their lower level employees ( just enough to keep them hanging onto their jobs), they did this at the expense of many, many preventable chronic illness and deaths, and they kept doing it long after they knew that this to be true…. and are still doing it now. And, not only did they keep doing it, they spent large sums of money trying to confuse the issue by the creation of doubt and deniability and when that failed, simply moved their product overseas.

    The issue is simply not as you portray it,  manufacturers good, government bad.

    1. Frankly

      Private producers are already taxed and regulated to the hilt for their “cost” to the environment.  And that “cost” is more than offset by what they pay and what they provide society.

      But then you always discount those things.  Because for a progressive to admit progress, she would destroy her own stock and trade to keep criticizing for “action”.

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly

        I do not discount “those things”. I freely admit to progress. But, for me, progress does not mean that we sit back on our laurels and celebrate our success while ignoring other opportunities for improvement. It is continuous improvement that is of interest to me. And example from medicine. We have dramatically decreased the incidence of cervical cancer. I acknowledge and celebrate this success. And, I continue to push for similar improvements in breast, uterine and ovarian cancer.

        “that “cost” is more than offset by what they pay and what they provide society.”

        And on this point, lacking any definitive measures of how much “offset” is enough, we will just have to agree to disagree.

        1. Tia Will

          TBD

          The US Government is actually a massive polluter, possibly the largest polluter. It is also quite inefficient in allocating resources.”

          We agree on this point. However, since you have entered it as a reply to my post, I am wondering if you think that my points are directed solely at the private sector. This is not the case. It is the action of pollution that we should be attempting to minimize. Finger pointing about who is doing more is in my view counter productive, immature, and futile. Also, since the US government is acting as a representative of the collective of the American people, public actions are ours to own through our votes, not so the public sector which is a vast compilation of individual actors who we have very little ability to influence except with our individual purchasing power.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          We also need to be efficient with our scare resources, and trade offs. These are terms I rarely see liberals use. My example of car pollution I believe is an apt example.

          Switching to non-leaded gasoline, and using catalytic converters, made a huge difference for our environment. But the ‘California summer blend’ of gasoline seems to have minimal effect yet robs working-class families of hundreds of dollars per year. Likewise, lighter cars – made so to get higher MPG – leads to more auto deaths (last time I read).

          Recently I heard California government spent hundreds of millions on energy efficiency – yet spent half the money studying where to spend the dollars! Tens of millions of dollars studying where to spend the money, when we already have reams of date on where energy efficiency works.

          Jerry Brown pushes Global Warming, but then has the state government do studies for him on the oil deposits on land his family owns. Hypocrisy x 2?

  7. Tia Will

    Frankly

    The agreement in Paris was a milestone in their progress.”

    Oh, if this were only true. Alas, I believe that this is merely a bit of “fear mongering” on your part.

     

  8. Tia Will

    Jim

    And all economic systems depend upon the existence of everyone’s money to function.”

    Thanks for pointing this out. This is true on the local, regional and national levels. I think it is very naive, if not duplicitous, to talk about the use of “other people’s money” when their own money is clearly also at stake. This obliviousness to the obvious was recently made with regard to a local Democrats comment that she “liked taxes” and felt that they do “good things” for us. This was from a long time Davis resident who clearly pays the same taxes that she says she favors.

    Once your taxes are paid, you can certainly choose to see this as a confiscation of “your”money, or you can choose to see this as an aggregation of “our” money, usable for “our” purposes.

    At least in a democratic socialist system, as in our capitalist system we have the ability to choose who will be making the decisions about how to use “our money” through our ability to vote.

    1. Frankly

      What you don’t appear to get is that money has to be earned or printed.  If it is printed then welcome to the old Soviet model.   Money does not just grow on trees that you feel obligated to protect at the expense of actual people.

      1. Biddlin

        ”  Money does not just grow on trees that you feel obligated to protect at the expense of actual people.”

        Once again, you don’t know what your talking about. My family has been in the logging and lumber business on this continent since before the revolution. Wood is a very valuable and negotiable asset.

        http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/styles/w768/public/photos/201508/gettyimages-481642494.jpg?itok=D5Pj4zKf

        This pile of tropical hardwood logs, bound for furniture makers in China, is guarded 24/7

        It is so valuable that many species of tropical hardwood are being poached, at great risk in some countries and harvested to extinction. When the canopy is removed, the rich forest floor is desiccated by the Sun and converted to desert very quickly.

        https://selvavidasinfronteras.files.wordpress.com/2011/1/deforestation2.jpg

        http://www.whydoes.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Deforestation.jpg

        The loss of oxygen generators, food sources, medicinal plants and habitat for indigenous people and other species is a death sentence for the planet if deforestation is not curbed.

        http://www.greenpop.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Icon-picture-small.jpg

         

  9. Tia Will

    “A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, ….””

    There are a number of ways that we could interpret this statement.

    It could be interpreted to mean that “scientific evidence ” has an anti Republican bias.

    It could be interpreted to mean that Republicans do not believe in “science” and choose not to participate.

    It could be interpreted to mean that Republicans are more interested in making large amounts of money which does not tend to go along with a scientific career ( at least in academia).

    I am sure that all readers hear can make up their own equally valid interpretations of this statistic, which in and of itself, is only that, a single statistic.

     

      1. Don Shor

        I often wonder how Frankly would have responded if his daughter came to him and said she wanted to become a research scientist, and that her goal in life was to get a good job at a university.

        1. Frankly

          It would depend on the reasons, but if it were my kid I would have confidence it would be for the right reasons.  I would also have confidence in my kid’s honesty and objectivity.

          My guess is that she would leave that career at some point not being able to tolerate the collective group-think.

        1. Tia Will

          Frankly

          Conservatives are not anti-science”

          This is simply not true as written. There are some conservatives who are not anti science. There are many conservatives who are. This mostly applies to those who define themselves as highly religious and who believe that all truth is as expressed in the Bible. These literal truth believers clearly disdain science. These folks believe that all the needs to be known has already been written in the Bible and that everything else is either in error, or a hoax, or a conspiracy against them and their true beliefs.

          To pretend that these folks are not out there, or to minimize their political impact is to ignore the words of some of their current leaders: Carson, Trump….. and those who will not publicly disavow their politicization of religion.

          1. David Greenwald

            A Gallop poll last summer found that 60% of Republicans believe that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. How can you possibly argue, Frankly, that conservatives are not anti-science.

        2. Barack Palin

          A Gallop poll last summer found that 60% of Republicans believe that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.

          The Earth or humans?

          There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

           

          1. David Greenwald

            I don’t know why you believe that a percentage of Democrats aren’t religious – after all you have Catholics, Hispanics, and percentage even of Protestant Christians who vote Democratic.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      Here is another way to interpret this statement.

      I know a few professors, and the conservative ones often feel pressure to keep their views to themselves. They almost consider it a hostile work environment. Some feel very strongly if their views got out, they would lose a chance at tenure or other perks.

      It could also be that conservatives are more practical, i.e., if they have a good science idea, they’d like to perfect it and market it for mankind / business.

      1. Tia Will

        TBD

        I know a few professors, and the conservative ones often feel pressure to keep their views to themselves”

        Or maybe they are just being “hypersensitive” as our fellow poster Frankly would say.

        t could also be that conservatives are more practical, i.e., if they have a good science idea, they’d like to perfect it and market it for mankind / business.”

        Or maybe they’d like to perfect it and market it for……their own profit. Let’s leave out the” for mankind”. No one who keeps their work secret instead of putting it out for mutual use is doing it “for mankind”.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          As Thomas Sowell says, there are whole departments at Stanford without a single conservative – what happened to diversity?

          Bernard Goldberg has written a whole book about the liberal groupthink of New York media.

          Tia, did you not read my full sentence? Why did you edit a few words out? “and market it for mankind / business.

          BTW, I’ve also heard stories about doctors with medical inventions – for mankind and profit – that were killed by ObamaCare. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

    2. wdf1

      Tia Will:  There are a number of ways that we could interpret this statement.

      It could be interpreted to mean that “scientific evidence ” has an anti Republican bias.

      Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

  10. Tia Will

    What you don’t appear to get is that money has to be earned or printed”

    Money does not just grow on trees that you feel obligated to protect at the expense of actual people.”

    Again, you seem to believe only in dichotomous thinking and in this case a false dichotomy as well, since no one believes that “money grows on trees”. There are a number of ways that money can be generated besides earning or printing.

    Money can be inherited in which case the beneficiary has neither earned nor printed the money, but has only benefited from the work of someone else.

    Money can be acquired through less than ethical means. Cigarette manufacturers are again a great example. Long past the time when they knew the harms of their products, they were still attempting to mask the harm by, amongst other tactics, trying to discredit the science.

    Money can be stolen, either through the criminal behavior that we all seem to fear, such as robberies, or through white collar crimes which is much more lucrative and harder to detect, prosecute and appropriately sanction.

    Money can be generated through the exploitation of others to accumulate wealth as we see WalMart doing by paying less than living wages while encouraging their employees to donate to others so that they will not go hungry , meanwhile raking in millions for themselves.

    I believe that we have enough wealth in this country to provide an “above poverty level” living for everyone. I do not see this as materially harming anyone which would seem to be apparent to at least some of those at the top of the  economic heap ( the Gates, the Zuckermans, some celebrities) who publicly acknowledge that they will not be “materially harmed” by contributing huge sums of money  to those who are actually being materially harmed by our current inequality of both opportunity and distribution.

    1. Biddlin

      That’s the only ammunition the pseudo-conservatives possess. Not surprising. Counter to the “we’re not stupid” plea, a 2012 Gallup poll found that fully 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      Living in and understanding a complex world requires complex thought.

       

      In “Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism,” researchers over at the University of Arkansas performed studies, which reduced subjects’ ability to use “effortful, deliberate thought,” and they found that situations causing low-effort thought resulted in more conservative beliefs. One study found that, as an individual becomes more intoxicated on alcohol, their conservative beliefs increase.

      In “Political Orientations Are Correlated With Brain Structure in Young Adults”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

      researchers using MRI imaging find a significant difference in the brains of liberals and conservatives.

      They found that “conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals.” Conversely, the anterior cingulate cortex of liberal students had more gray matter than their conservative counterparts.
      That’s significant, because the amygdala is active during states of fear and anxiety. The anterior cingulate cortex helps sort out complexity. It’s biological. You can’t prejudice an MRI. Liberals’ brains are biologically more able to handle complex thought, and conservatives base their beliefs on fear. ( This explains the fear conservatives showcase for immigrants, Muslims, minorities and any of the other million things they’re bigoted towards.)

      …Blue” states have higher graduation rates and those who seek higher levels of education are overwhelmingly liberal…
      [moderator] edited

      1. Frankly

        Here is some science for you Biddlin, since people in your ideological camp seem to like using it to back your ideas.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614001081

        Carl (2014) analysed data from the U.S. General Social Survey (GSS), and found that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat.

        I would be real careful with your assumptions that liberals are smarter.  First, I have only worked for one in my long and diverse career and he did not last very long… actually left the business world due to stress and became a college professor.  Whenever there was competition for a promotion, the liberal ended up working for me.   In many cases these liberals had achieved move years of college education.  Which always led me to consider that they might have wasted time and taxpayer money given their extra years of college didn’t seem to help them in the working world.

        Right-leaning people tend to be happier too.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/conservatives-are-happier-and-extremists-are-happiest-of-all.html

        I suppose you can write that off as ignorance is bliss (addressed in the article); but then if being so knowledgeable makes you a depresses cat, then one has to wonder how smart that cat must be for pursuing so much of it at that cost.

        I don’t buy the “liberals are smarter” bit… at all.   I do agree that elite liberals tend to have more years of education than do elite conservatives.  But smarter?  I think not.  In fact, I think all those years of education have indoctrinated many people into a sort of secular religious stupor that closes their minds to the thinking of people not like them.  And it constrains their capability to think outside of the box and accept others’ ideas.

        In terms of what makes us different… I think John Haidt does a very good job explaining it.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?_r=0

        He and his colleagues have compiled a catalog of six fundamental ideas that commonly undergird moral systems: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Alongside these principles, he has found related themes that carry moral weight: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation.

        Faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order — these Republican themes touch all six moral foundations, whereas Democrats, in Haidt’s analysis, focus almost entirely on care and fighting oppression. This is Haidt’s startling message to the left: When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

        He chides psychologists who try to “explain away” conservatism, treating it as a pathology. Conservatism thrives because it fits how people think, and that’s what validates it. Workers who vote Republican aren’t fools. In Haidt’s words, they’re “voting for their moral interests.”

        Another aspect of human nature that conservatives understand better than liberals, according to Haidt, is parochial altruism, the inclination to care more about members of your group — particularly those who have made sacrifices for it —than about outsiders. Saving Darfur, submitting to the United Nations and paying taxes to educate children in another state may be noble, but they aren’t natural. What’s natural is giving to your church, helping your P.T.A. and rallying together as Americans against a foreign threat.

        1. Don Shor

          Saving Darfur, submitting to the United Nations and paying taxes to educate children in another state may be noble, but they aren’t natural.

          Unless you define your “group” more broadly than how Haidt or the book reviewer you cited defines it.

        2. Frankly

          I’m not sure I understand your point here.

          In a nutshell, I think conservatives tend to hold a longer hierarchical list of fundamental values that drive their opinions while liberals tend to put care and equality so strongly at the top of their list that they overwhelm everything else.

          This difference causes liberals to consider conservatives as ignorant and less caring for focusing on those “lesser” values, and conservatives to consider liberals as blind, myopic and obsessed for ignoring these “lesser” values.

          But I don’t see any evidence that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

        3. Biddlin

          “I don’t buy the “liberals are smarter” bit… at all.”

          Yeah, but you don’t buy global warming or white priviledge, either, so considering the source…

        4. Frankly

          Yeah, but you don’t buy global warming or white priviledge, either, so considering the source…

          Well you don’t buy that God is your savior and that people kill people not guns.  And you don’t believe that liberal policies to protect the crappy education system and support big government create dependencies that ruin people’s lives.  So who is the dumb-dumb?

          1. Don Shor

            [moderator] No more name-calling, please. I think this part of the conversation is becoming unproductive. Please keep it on climate change.

    2. Frankly

      Tia – Do you not agree?  I really wasn’t trying to be derogatory.  I was paying you a complement.

      I admire Bernie Sanders more than I do Hillary Clinton by a wide mile because he says what he thinks, and she says what she thinks will get her elected and will get her out of trouble.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        I agree. Hillary has ridden her husbands coattails and made numerous mistakes. I’m old enough to recall TravelGate … why would a first spouse fire the entire non-partisan travel office if she really is for worker’s rights and being fair? It was an idiot power move by a power-hungry spouse.

        Despite her top education she comes off as banal and small-minded. My God, she laughed about her defense of a brutal child rapist! (You can google the audio tape which was released the past year or two.) She ignores 600 requests for more security in Libya, yet exchanges emails back and forth with numerous political hacks.

        I can respect Eleanor Roosevelt, not this thin act.

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

        Do you not agree?  I really wasn’t trying to be derogatory.  I was paying you a complement.”

        I agree that I am honest ( to a fault as my medical assistant attested to one of my students).

        I agree that I am liberal. And I agree that I am a democratic socialist ( although you left out the democratic part) which is important to me.

        But I will stand my ground that you decided to go with the labeling, rather than addressing the points that I was making whether complimentary or not. I also admire Bernie Sanders for his straight talk and personal integrity and I am much closer to him philosophically than to any other candidate for president.

         

  11. TrueBlueDevil

    There are numerous significant problems with the Global Warming theory, here are a few that come to mind.

    1. We’ve had a Global Warming hiatus (google the term) for 12, 13, 14 years that scientists can’t explain. Their best guess is that the oceans are magically capturing (all of a sudden) additional amounts of CO2 that will be later released.

    2. Predictions of massive new hurricane activity and 50,000 islanders having to relocate (due to rising oceans) have proven false.

    3. The Vostok Ice Core seems to show the opposite – that rises in temperature cause a rise in CO2 levels.

    4. The massive amount of CO2 which exists in the oceans naturally. When I read the figures I was flabbergasted at the size and power of nature, and how we can supposedly cause massive change by this small contribution.

    5. Last I read, CO2 levels dramatically increased during the Industrial Revolution, and temperatures declined.

    6. Scientists have lied and manipulated data to suit their needs. (ClimateGate emails.)

    7. The media and Left are now claiming that “99% of scientists agree that Global Warming is for real” – this is an absurd statement.

    8. Global Warming Father and Zealot Al Gore said the poles would be devoid of ice by now, when in fact we have record ice levels in some areas. This is just one of the laughable examples.

    9. A UK judge found that Gore’s film had 9 factual errors and that portions of it were “alarmist”. In the film, Gore predicted that cities like San Francisco would be buried under 20 feet of water due to rising sea levels. Gore has made millions as a Warmist, yet puts tons of CO2 into the environment flying his private luxury jet around the world.

    1. Davis Progressive

      “1. We’ve had a Global Warming hiatus (google the term) for 12, 13, 14 years that scientists can’t explain. Their best guess is that the oceans are magically capturing (all of a sudden) additional amounts of CO2 that will be later released.”

      this has been explained to you many times, several by me.  There is nothing magical here.  You just don’t understand the science.  I can’t help you.

       

    2. wdf1

      TBD:  7. The media and Left are now claiming that “99% of scientists agree that Global Warming is for real” – this is an absurd statement.

      It depends on what you mean in the statement, “Global Warming is for real.”  If you interpret it one way, I see how you would probably get 99% or close to it.

    3. wdf1

      TBD:  1. We’ve had a Global Warming hiatus (google the term) for 12, 13, 14 years that scientists can’t explain. Their best guess is that the oceans are magically capturing (all of a sudden) additional amounts of CO2 that will be later released.

      Global Warming Hiatus

      The Dow closed up today.  Last Friday it closed down.  Does that mean the economy is growing or shrinking?

      Notice in the temperature trend that there have been other hiatuses followed by a continued climb.  The most recent couple of years of data are showing an increase beyond what existed before.

      1. Frankly

        The Dow is probably not a good analogy for global temps.

        But they do have something it common.. their trends are impossible to predict and there are too many factors to know the exact causes of trends and swings.

        Here is my basic problem.

        1. We do not have anything close to even a small fraction of alternative green energy options.  And those that we do have are fraught with problems that make them unreliable and also challenging to the environment.

        2. Many of the same global warming alarmists are anti-nuclear power… something that we would absolutely need to significantly invest in if we are to destroy other traditional energy production in the name of global warming.

        3. We cannot predict what temperatures will do and we cannot predict what weather will do.  We could blow all this money and growth and still end up with climate change and weather.  In fact, I guaranty it.

        4. We really do not know that all or even some of current measured climate change is man-made.  The evidence is all circumstantial.

        5. We cannot reverse global warming even if it is man made.  That is another scientific consensus.  We should be focused on adaption, yet the collectivist scientists and politicians are pushing policy away from adaption and toward “feel-good” things that will not help, and will cause a lot of global pain.

        6. There have been many recent stories of the difficulty for non-industrialized countries to grow their middle class, and with the restlessness of unemployed youth become targets of radicalism.

        7. Industrialized countries are all swimming in debt from overspending.  They have blown the doors off the treasury.  At a time when we need to be working on growing our GDP by 4 % to take care of the most vulnerable, this global-warming alarmism policy making is doing the exact opposite.

        8. We hear and read all this data backing the climate change alarmist claims and backing their demands for a call to action; yet little is done to analyze the long-term social and economic impacts from the destruction of industry and economic growth.  Every scientific theory on climate change that is the justification for political policy should be partnered with an equally rigorous scientific study on the long-term social and economic impacts of the policy.   Ironically we are told that the actual social and economic impacts are impossible to calculate… but of course we are to just trust these climate change alarmist crusaders that theirs is the bigger problem we should be concerned about…  even though they also cannot accurately predict climate impacts.

        There were two days that killed the reputation of science:

        The first was the first day that Al Gore opened his mount on the theory of global warming and no climate scientists came out in opposition to Al Gore opening his mouth about it.

        The second day was the day that scientists claimed consensus on the theory of man-made global warming.  Nothing this complex should every have come close to being agreed with by 97% of climate scientists.    Since it was stated, it was clear that it was political.

        1. wdf1

          Frankly:  But they do have something it common.. their trends are impossible to predict and there are too many factors to know the exact causes of trends and swings.

          My point is that two days in the stock market isn’t the right scale to note a trend in the economic cycle.  This is happening over a span of time longer than 10-12 years, as TBD was arguing w/ respect to the “global warming hiatus.”

          Frankly:  3. We cannot predict what temperatures will do and we cannot predict what weather will do.  We could blow all this money and growth and still end up with climate change and weather.  In fact, I guaranty it.

          How long should we wait to satisfy you that it’s happening or not?

           

    4. wdf1

      TBD:  4. The massive amount of CO2 which exists in the oceans naturally. When I read the figures I was flabbergasted at the size and power of nature, and how we can supposedly cause massive change by this small contribution.

      CO2 concentration in the oceans is increasing, too.  What’s your point?

    1. Frankly

      Biddlin, I was referring to liberals in general, not you personally.  But I reread what I wrote and I can see how you would see it otherwise.   You are correct, I do not know about your faith.

      Debating climate change sure generates a lot of heat!

  12. debra

    Okay, so the leaders of 196 countries that attended the COP21 in Paris and unanimously voted to accept the agreement, went there because the science of Global Warming is not correct and they all just wanted an excuse to go Paris for the week?

    “While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer”. David Suzuki

    1. Topcat

      OK, The link refers to things in 2006 – 2008.  I presume that nothing more has been done about this since I have not seen more heard anything more about it.

  13. Frankly

    So ya’ll know what is driving the climate change alarmist movement and why liberals join it and conservatives reject it.

    http://thischangeseverything.org/book/

    If you were a person afflicted with collectivism in your brain and blood, you could not come up with a better play than “Capitalism is Killing the Planet”.

    All you would need is the scientific community to back you.

    And all you would need to do to get the ball rolling is to get a political position or job in government to keep expanding taxation and government regulations that expand government payments to the scientists while shrinking the private economy  (the other way scientists used to be employable).  Then comes your exciting time when you can deliver the coup de grace killing industrialism by pushing the RICO law to be enforced against anyone that speaks against your climate alarmism.

    1. Don Shor

      Naomi Klein is an activist, not a scientist, and she has criticized the Paris accord. The Paris agreement is, in many ways, the triumph of pragmatism over alarmism. Ignore the rhetoric and look at the content of the agreement.

      1. Frankly

        I see you are honing this device to disqualify people with the “activist” label and “non-climate-scientist” label.

        Interesting.

        So I guess then we need to eliminate the opinions of ALL people we can define as activist or non-climate-scientist.

        So then, why post any VG articles on the topic?

         

  14. debra

    Climate change “has become one of the gravest challenges humanity is facing.”
    – Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”
    – Pope Francis, who said it’s “now or never” in solving the issue of climate change.

    “This one trend, climate change, affects all trends.”
    – U.S. President Barack Obama, who went on to say that “If we let the world keep warming as fast as it is and sea levels rising as fast as they are, and weather patterns keep shifting in more unexpected ways, then before long we are going to have to devote more and more and more of our economic and military resources not to growing opportunity for our people, but to adapting to the various consequences of a changing planet.”

    “We are the forgotten ones, although we suffer every day from climate change.”
    – Diallo Déidia Mahamane Kattra, a former minister for employment in Mali, who echoed the statement from many developing nations that the countries who contribute the least to global warming suffer the most.

    “I urge you to consider the needs of the youngest generation, because none of us has the right to assume that for our today they should give up their tomorrow.”
    – Britain’s Prince Charles.

     

     

     

  15. Al Jebra

    Just curious – TBD, BP, F’ly, and others who are so sure the scientific argument is a fraud:  what are your scientific credentials?  Education, training, degrees?  F’ly, in particular, insists that no one understands business and capitalism as much as he does, and therefore have no business (sic) making any judgements about those topics.  So, putting the shoe on the other foot, what qualifies you guys to make pronouncements about the accuracy of science?  Just sayin’.

     

        1. Frankly

          Your comment indicates that you have a very narrow view of the total issue, and may be incapable of debate or discussion at that level.

          I already know that Biddlin suffers the same.

  16. Al Jebra

    F’ly…it’s very interesting that you know exactly what I think and am capable of…why are you unable to address the issue I brought up?  You seem to do that a lot – I’m thinking that you are the Davis Psychic that advertises on I-80.

     

  17. Al Jebra

    One more question, F’ly, which you will also probably brush off.  Why does the Pentagon accept the reality of climate change, and warn that it is a very serious national security issue?  Do you agree with our military establishment, or do you have your own reality?

      1. Al Jebra

        I read the story.  Not sure what your point is, but the story sure doesn’t support your negative attitude.  You’re saying we should just give up?  I’m sure your kids will really be happy with you 30 years from now.  And I’m not sure your brain is capable of any kind of logic, if you think nothing can be done.

        Best business scenario:  leave the hydrocarbons in the ground, and invest in alternative energy.  Lots of opportunity, lots of jobs, and lots of investment potential.

        1. Frankly

          I appreciate these comments because it demonstrates the common problem with climate change evangelists… they don’t understand a lick about economics or business.

          And you did not read the story, or else you don’t get it.

          I will go with the “didn’t read” it since the latter explanation raises some ugly points.

    1. Barack Palin

      The Pentagon, Nasa and other government agencies have to follow the climate change agenda of the White House or none of their higher ups will have jobs anymore.  Not hard to understand.

  18. tribeUSA

    I’m a hydrologist, not a climate scientist, but have some familiarity with the major issues–put me in the category of researchers who judge that it is ‘highly likely’ that over 50% of the warming that has occurred over the last 150 years is caused by human activities. Perhaps I’m hedging a bit, I would not use the qualifier ‘certain’, as there still is some room for doubt.

    Would be interesting to see what odds Las Vegas has on this, as a long-term (e.g. 15 year) gamble–will over 10 of the 15 years between 2016 and 2030 have higher mean global temperature than the mean for 2010- 2015?

    We do know as a fact that humans have removed vast quantities of carbon, in the form of coal, petroleum, and gas, that have been locked up in the earth for 10s of millions to hundreds of millions of years; and are mainly oxidizing it to CO2. As a consequence CO2 levels have increased about 45-50% (? if I remember rightly, from about 270 ppm to slightly over 400 ppm) in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. This is a significant change in the composition of the atmosphere.

    At this point we can’t predict with  100% certitude what the climate will be like in 30-40 years and beyond, for our grandchildren or great-grandchildren–it is essentially a gamble that we are taking, that most people over 40 today won’t have to personally experience much in the way of negative effects from. I think it’s prudent to do some things to lower CO2 emissions, and that some modest efforts will  not seriously damage the economy.

    I’d like to see equal attention to the issue of population control, wherein the ~80 million net (births minus deaths) humans added to earth each and every year each will have needs for material and energy that will entail more CO2 emissions, or overwhelm efforts to otherwise reduce emissions (may have lower emissions per person, but still higher emissions overall as population increases). Africa and India and most of the middle east in particular are on course to be mega-disasters; vast regions that are already having trouble feeding themselves, with the population continuing to increase 2-3% per year or more–the millions who are looking for a better life in Europe these days will likely balloon to 10s of millions within a decade or two, and if Europe and USA do not hold the line on a limited number of immigrants, they too will increasingly become crowded countries with vast slums and with larger and larger proportions of the population consisting of impoverished people–if USA does not slow down its immigration rate, then in your grandchilds lifetime when the USA population has increased by another ~200 million or so, the USA too may reach a point where it has difficulty in feeding its population–as for having a nice garden or lawn in your yard in Davis–fuhgeddaboutit unless you’re one of the 1%, basic things like water and a moderate size yard space will become luxuries–a browner and dustier future for Davis.

     

    1. Frankly

      One of the better posts here.

      On poplation growth… the best way to combat population growth is a robust global economy backed by a robust global education system.  By global I don’t mean new world order.  But for all the bloviating our President and other western leaders do on climate change, if they would focus that energy on economic growth and education excelence… along with beating the crap out of Islamic extremism to help those Muslim cultures modernize so their women can go to school and work, we would start to see a move toward lower population growth.

      The current direction does the opposite.  I keeps non-industrialized backweards countries longer stuck as non-industrialized and backwards.  And the women of these countries tend to produce children at a higher rate.

      The other possibly better solution to combat global population growth is another world war.

  19. Tia Will

    tribeUSA

    I’d like to see equal attention to the issue of population control”

    Believe me when I second this statement. We have the technology currently to enable a woman to change the default from an 80% chance of pregnancy to a default of a <1% chance of pregnancy with a safe, simple and potentially inexpensive rod placed in her arm. No sterilization of equipment, a bed and an aseptic stand and topical lidocaine as the only equipment needed for insertion. The procedure takes under 5 minutes and can be taught to anyone capable of performing an injection. If we only had the will, we could make unintended pregnancy as well as abortion basically a thing of the past.

    We could easily place these in the arms of any woman who wanted to control the timing of her children, but we do not have the will to do so, largely because of religious beliefs. Now how is that for the logical thinking of conservatives and the religious amongst us ?

     

    1. tribeUSA

      Tia–good news some physicians are concerned about helping to educate and prevent unwanted conception/pregnancy,  so that more drastic  (and morally troubling) steps like abortion are not taken.

      I hadn’t heard about the rod in the arm–presumably it is quite small? Does it last for a year or two, and is removable in case the woman decides she wants to get pregnant?

      I think most christians are comfortable with birth control; though many (especially Catholics) balk at abortion.

      I think persuading most of the large population of Muslims in the mideast to think about family planning and keeping their populations sustainable will be a very hard sell–maybe Trump the dealmaker can help to pull it off if elected (I enjoy pulling peoples legs wrt The Donald).

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for