See, I actually think it's the warmists who go with the all or nothing fallacy. Either we all do something or they're not doin nothin! You see, I'm definately for those who believe they can do something about it to quit driving, quit using air conditioning, etc. I don't believe that they should do nothing just because I'm not willing to do the same.

Fact is, the US is probably the only major industrial country that has actually diminished carbon dioxide emissions, largely as a result of the substitution of fracking-produced natural gas for coal.

Explain to me how much of a difference needs to be made in the world and what that means to humanity's state of industrial civilization.
If you want my attention you need to show me what's better, what's more useful...or imagine yourself perceived as one who keeps yelling fire in a crowded factory, a busy highway - ie a distraction and potential threat that's more immediate than any math model climate thing that comes from folks who don't have the best reputation for agenda-free or politically neutral items of discourse.

In today's Los Angeles Times, Bill McKibben was asked, "How much would that (5% reduction in fossil fuels) slow the pace of climate change? Would it make a significant difference, or would it simply be destroying modern economies for the sake of doing something? What will be the result if we don't do it?"

****

"What a good and useful question! The figure of a 5% annual redution in "carbon intensity" of our planet comes from a source most Angelenos will recognize: the accounting firm Price-WaterhouseCoopers. Turns out that it does more than tally the votes for the Oscars; it also produces a wide variety of reports for various clients as the try to deal with the future.

"In this case, its report, published in November, dealt with the following question: What would we need to do if we wanted to keep the planet's temperature from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius, which is the one thing even the planet's most conservative governments, from China to the U.S. tot he United Arab Emirates, have agreed on as a climate goal? (A 2-degree increase, it should be noted, is no picnic. So far we've raised the temperature one degree, and that's been enough to melt much of the Arctic ice, so most scientists are horrified by the thought of a two-degree rise. But on our current path, we're headed for 6 degrees which is a planet out of science fiction.)

"Cutting emissions by 5% annually will be a very tall task, it's far faster than we've gone in the past. It would require, in essence, putting our economies on a wartime footing, as we make the transition to renewable energy our highest national priority.

"Past wartime experience would indicate that yes, this will cost money. It would also indicate that the newly rebuilt economy will be far more efficient and productive--think back and compare the prewar economy of the 1930's and the postwar one of the 1950's.

"As for "destroying modern economies," the real danger lies in not doing anything about climate change. The most robust attempt to tally the likely damage--from the economist Nicholas Stern, who had been commissioned by the British government--found that the cost of unchecked global warming could pass the combined cost of both world wars and the Depression. To understand how such a thing might happen, consider the costs of ths year's drought and Superstorm Sandy: $100 billion price tags start to add up (and of course the biggest price was born by poor consumers around the world, many of whom saw the price of their daily bread rise painfully out of reach.)

"Bottom line: not easy or cheap, but easier and cheaper than the alternative of a hopelessly overheating world."

--Bill McKibben

Okay, now take that five percent annual reduction in context of four billion (that's ten times the population that's currently industrialized) people engaging in their society's industrial revolution activities - ie building roads, cars, factories...

what do you suggest?

Why would you ask me? That is something that should be done by governments and industry working together. You're against cancer, right, Jon? What are your suggestions for curing it?

I suggest that we do whatever it takes to keep that temperature rise to 2 degrees.

The alternatives we face won't be growing undeveloped economies or lowering the carbon footprint of the species.

The alternative to doing something is death, poverty, starvation and economic collapse.

"whatever it takes" is a vast and dangerous license to grant the "do gooders".

leveraging that license to do real harm against an imagined 'death, poverty...' is, IMHO, also dangerous as a moral principle.

Who said give the power to the "do-gooders" whoever they are? I said that we need to force our governments to take concerted and thoughtful action.

Your "imagined death" means that you don't really believe that global warming is a real threat. That is why you think it is a waste of time to do something.

If the house really isn't on fire, no point in rushing to the rescue.

But the evidence is strong that our house is on fire.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "

C.S Lewis had it right.

Yep "whatever it takes" is a dangerous tool to give governments and industry.

Let's take a moment to consider base reality. How would you feel if you heard on the news later today that as of this coming Monday:

1) Electricity will only be supplied eight hours a day. Hospitals will temporarily get an exemption for the buildings though not equipment.
2) Train service will be limited to the hours from five am to nine am and three pm to nine pm.
3) Gasoline taxes will be raised to include a new tax to support research. This tax to start at ten dollars a gallon.
4) Water supplies will be monitored with an eye toward maintaining our potable water at sustainable levels

What do you imagine happening? How do you feel even reading that list?

How do you feel about reading on Monday, Giant Fires Rage through Midwest! Worst blizzard in 100 years hits east coast! New dust bowl destroys 100's of thousands of acres of farmland! Laguna Beach oceanfront properties inundated! Worst Hurricane in years threatens Florida and Texas!

Federal government overcome, without equipment and funds to help the survivors!

It is only those who don't believe the dire predictions that can speak as you do, Jon.

I, for one, am more scared of a tyranny of multi-national corporations and government plutocracies that for the sake of their own huge profits are willing to subject the world to multiple life-threatening and economically threatening disasters caused by global-warming than I am of a few hundred $70,000 dollar a year scientists and "do-gooders."

Our civilization has a long history of people offering dire predictions. The Millennium and Y2K being among the most recent.

This is different. I am not inclined to believe Mayan astrologers. I am inclined to believe 98% of climate scientists, especially when their predictions seem to be coming true--ice is melting, temperatures are rising, storms and droughts are happening just as they said.

Consider that position in historical context. How many others felt that the "dire predictions" of their day were somehow different and justified extreme actions, sanctions, wars, taxes, imposed suffering, "doing what had to be done"... ??

Then again, in relation who climate change, here are ten predictions that DID come true:



http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.co......lwarming

Taking the presupposition of "real threat" as real would imply such lack of basic foresight, willful interest in suffering and determination to destroy our civilization - coupled with a century of silence among all who figured out what was coming... and this from the same people who did all that engineering work. That's an unlikely event, IMHO.

Couple that with our educational and social issues ... what's the likelihood of doing more than fighting each other - say creating some new viable energy production technology that we can put into production in the next twenty years or so? the basic logistics of deploying such technology to places where they are just starting to industrialize is also somewhat daunting in the face of local cultural conflicts.

How is the current alarmist argument of more merit than the one which launched the crusades in Europe into the middle east? The very best of intentions, right?

But how impressive when compared to Nostradamus - whose predictions seem all the more important if you read the papers at the supermarket?

So, Jon, you still deny the scientific consensus? You believe that the dire predictions are all wrong? On what grounds? Simply because people have been wrong before? The evidence is growing that this time, they may be right.

Of course I don't deny the "scientific consensus" on this matter or any others that have proved useful over time.
Look at how many of those "scientific consensus" items have proved to be less than accurate or used as justification for terrible actions.

IMHO you're suffering in fear arranged by a political agenda.

Look at what you believe "necessary" as it affects others where they live.

Maybe it would help you to consider what an abiding concern and interest in the matter would mean in your life as you eschew energy consumption by not using electricity, carbon based transportation or products made using powered equipment or shipped in using powered transport. Just how congruent are you to your position on this issue? How much are you already doing by way of your own choices in your life?

Jon-

Rather than engaging in an obscure application of the Socratic method, why don't you just explain to us what your precise position is on the issue of climate change? Please just respond with a clear statement rather than with a series of questions and suggestions.

What do you believe should be done, if anything?