The Irony of the Bali Global Warming conference

Why so cavalier with the risk though? Surely if you think the science is so ropey for the certainties to be only 10% rather than the generally accepted 90-95% (certainties the IPCC themselves give), surely the precautionary principle dictates that we start work on measures to avoid the dangers anyway?

Why are you happy playing Russian roulette with the ecosystem?

The science can only get clearer in the future. If, somehow, there's an astounding breakthrough that says everything we currently believe about the climate and CO2 is wrong, then what have we lost? But so far, over the last 20 years, the science has been heading continuously in the direction of more certainty of the problem being real. (Regardless of the denialists' selective trumpeting of every minor adjustment that goes in their preferred direction).

Why, solely in climate science, do you assume that uncertainty will be in the benign direction, rather than in the direction of it being worse than we currently think? Compare and contrast this attitude to all the nonsense about terrorists, WMDs, etc, and try to tell me there aren't predetermined agendas going on here.

 

Oh no, not Monsieur Singer again...!!!

 

How the U.S. Caved at Bali

...
It's hardly the first time the U.S. has been jeered at a UN event, but what happened next was unique. Nation after developing nation rose to criticize the U.S. in language more often reserved for a political debate than a UN conference. A representative from tiny Papua New Guinea — one of many small island states most immediately threatened by climate change — recalled the old Lee Iacocca line about leading, following or getting out of the way. "If the U.S. will not lead, get out of the way," he said, to gallery cheers. "Please get out of the way."

More importantly, with the exception of a confused statement from Japan, not one of the allies that had generally stood with the U.S. the past two weeks — Australia, Russia, Canada — rose in its defense. The near-total isolation of the U.S. on climate change — which had been building since its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol nearly a decade ago — was now obvious, apparently even to the U.S.

Dobriansky turned to speak. "We've listened very closely to many of our colleagues here during these two weeks, but especially to what has been said in this hall today," she said. "We will go forward and join consensus."...

 

Oh and BTW, Dr Dobrianski, who led the US delegation at Bali, is a member of PNAC and a signatory of a letter to president Clinton advocating invading Iraq.

If you want irony, look no further.

 

How much oil in ANWR are you talking about?
Since you're a "die hard conservative", a conservative estimate would do.

 

Global warming and foreign oil imports are different problems. And yet either way ANWR is a fart in a windstorm: it cannot supply more than a few percent of US needs and could not start doing so for about a decade. We'd get a better result sooner by weaning ourselves from the petro-teat.

 

You do know that the Australian Prime Minister who was in power and in a display of weakness also refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol just like the US in Kyoto was voted out of power and out of his seat because of his poor industrial relations policy and his absolutely crap environmental policies. This drip refused to admit there was an issue with CO2 or climate change until the lead up to the election. Kevin Rudd, our new Prime Minister was elected on preferences from the Green Party and a green campaign. The first thing he did after getting into office was ratify the Kyoto Protocol. I don't think Mr Rudd will be quite as good a lap dog as Howard was. He may well curl up at George Dublyas feet but not on his lap.
We are in for an interesting time.

 

I think you're wrong but I don't see all that much long term harm to the planet if we reduce our consumption of carbon fuels and you are right.
Work time.

 

Totally bad comparisons.

Hybrids are not the solution in and of themselves, but they are a bridge technology that serve as a catalyst for even more energy-efficient vehicles in the future. They demonstrate the commercial viability of energy conservation and emission reduction in real world applications.

ANWR is a finite source of fuel that will eventually get depleted if we use it up. After which there'd be no more (unless you're willing to wait a few hundred million years for Mother Earth to manufacture some more).

 

Well your math's not even right.

1. An increase of 85 ppm (i.e., 380-295) added 0.6 C.
2. You present another possible 320 ppm (700-380).
3. 320/85 = 3.76
4. 3.76 X 0.6 C = 2.25 C, not 1.75

But all this is unsourced anyway, and seems to be assuming a strictly linear relationship. What's your source on this data that so contradicts the IPCC

 

I understood your point. Question is, did you understand mine?

I don't believe ANWR is worth pursuing because it looks like the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Hybrids, on the other hand, are worth pursuing precisely because the benefits far outweigh the costs.

 

I would have a very hard time beliving there is a strict linear relationship between the CO2 rise and the current temps we are seeing. Very little in the natural world works instantly like that. If one were to look at buildup within systems you usually see little to no change for the first bits of input, then gradually you may see some changes, then you hit a tipping point and you see huge changes now that you have overwhelmed the system and thrown it too far out of equilibrium. Think of water building up behind a dam. The extra pressure may cause stresses and maybe some leaks. Add more water and BAM the whole thing collapses. From historical data we are starting to believe this is how climate can work. It may take 100 years for a glacier to form but only 1yr for it to melt.

Another case study would involve soil acidification. In the north-east U.S. the soils have become acidified due to many factors but mainly acid rain. Now at first the soil did not show immediate effects because buffers contained in the soil could neutralize the acid rain. Over time those buffers become depleted and the soil gradually becomes more acid. Now the same levels of acid rain falling on a hectare would show a higher rate of soil acidification that would have been measured 100yrs ago.

Tim, I know you read about ocean acidification. What do you think about the new papers that claim we may be reaching a saturation point with regards to carbon and that the oceans may reduce their uptake and start releasing more (source versus sink) CO2. This would create a positive feedback loop yes? Same goes for methane release in tundra, ocean floor, and under frozen lakes?