Print 37 comment(s) - last by maugrimtr.. on Apr 16 at 10:48 AM

The report was conducted by 1,250 international experts and approved by 194 governments

A new report claims that climate change can be halted affordably by eliminating fossil fuels entirely in the coming decades and embracing renewable energy instead. 

According to The Guardian, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report that says a worldwide rollout of clean energy would only cut a small fraction off economic growth. 

The IPCC report said that putting hundreds of billions of dollars into renewable energy and the cutting of energy waste instead of fossil fuels  would shave just 0.06 percent off expected annual economic growth rates of 1.3 percent to 3 percent.

In other words, the longer we wait to push fossil fuels out and implement renewable energy, the more difficult and costly such a venture will become. 


“It is actually affordable to do it and people are not going to have to sacrifice their aspirations about improved standards of living,” said Professor Jim Skea, an energy expert at Imperial College London and co-chair of the IPCC report team. “It is not a hair shirt change of lifestyle at all that is being envisaged and there is space for poorer countries to develop too."

The report further said that delays in acting could also force extreme measures to be taken, such as sucking CO2 out of the air through burning plants and trees that had absorbed carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is then used to bury the emissions. 

By acting now, the report says that air pollution can be reduced while energy security is increased. It added that quick action can still limit global warming to 2C -- which is the internationally agreed safe limit -- if low-carbon energy triples or quadruples by 2050.

The report says that renewable energy like wind, solar and hydropower are best replacements, considering they're becoming cheaper to use. Biofuels and nuclear power were mentioned as well, but the two have food supply and safety concerns respectively to deal with. 

The report was conducted by 1,250 international experts and approved by 194 governments.

Source: The Guardian

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No faith in the IPCC
By Manch on 4/14/2014 5:21:26 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry, but I have no faith in what the IPCC says. They been caught soo many times altering, hiding, or skewing data that their integrity is shot. Top it off, the multitude of "reviews" by all the governments pushing their own political agendas into the report you just cant take it as factual.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By Ima_Sillywabbit on 4/14/2014 6:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
You can't trust the IPCC, but you can trust the less than 5% of scientists who deny global climate change. Sounds like less of a crisis of faith and more like a crisis of education and a general lack of observation.
Despite what you believe, you have to know that the net result of reducing fossil fuel use is a) reduced dependency on foreign sources of energy b) cleaner air to breathe c) paradigm shift for the economy d) we can stop having pointless discussions about your personal beliefs.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By Manch on 4/14/2014 6:22:17 PM , Rating: 4
Where in my post did I deny climate change? Of course it's changing, has been and always will be changing. Of course we affect our environment. We need to be better stewards of the land we occupy.

No, I have no faith in a multigovernment bureaucracy pushing an agenda. The IPCC and their shenanigans have done a lot of harm in regards to the debate of climate change.

I am very much a conservationist and I welcome debate and consensus on issues that affect the environment and responsible ways of dealing with our pollution, moving to cleaner renewable energy sources, but I do not however buy into anyone's dogmatic agenda that's pushed with skewed information.

If and when the IPCC has an open and transparent process and leaves the political will of the countries out of it, and the reports they generate, I may start to listen to them.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By gookpwr on 4/14/2014 6:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
How can the IPCC say its not going to change our standard of life?? I love my gas burning Ducati, and i don't want an electric motorcycle until they can give it a clutch and I can rip on the tires like I can now. I love my V8 GTO! Sorry but I think those scientists better realize there isn't an all electric replacement for either of those just yet. When there is we can talk, but until then keep your electric car and I'll keep my gas one.

For them to tell me there isn't going to be any impact on my life... One of my main joys in life is cars and bikes, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way. Man they have some nerve.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By atechfan on 4/14/2014 6:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And notice the redistribution of wealth part. Not only are we supposed to stop using fossil fuels, we are supposed to pay for the rest of the world's energy use as well.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By Manch on 4/14/2014 6:54:15 PM , Rating: 3
And that's my issue with it. Its not a report to address the issues, its a political agenda

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By BRB29 on 4/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: No faith in the IPCC
By Dorkyman on 4/15/2014 10:36:43 AM , Rating: 2
Please elaborate. When were we dying at 30? I grew up in LA back in the 1950s and the smog was pretty bad in the summer. Biggest effect?--a deep breath caused pain. But no permanent damage. Glad the smog is greatly reduced, though.

If, instead, you're talking about places like London in the 1600s then it needs to be pointed out that when history books say the average lifespan is 30, they mean from birth. People still lived to ripe old ages, but a great many infants died before reaching the age of one.

My first reaction to this IPCC report is that if, in fact, they discount nuclear because of "safety" then they are highly illogical and the report is BS. Nukes are orders of magnitude safer than any other energy source.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By maugrimtr on 4/16/2014 10:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, the original post didn't assert that the average life expectancy was 30 as a result of smog/pollution, only that some people died at/near 30 as a result. It's certainly true that emissions have shortened at least some people's life expectancy due to cancer, etc. Research what health impacts something like a coal burning plant creates.

I grew up in LA back in the 1950s and the smog was pretty bad in the summer. Biggest effect?--a deep breath caused pain. But no permanent damage. Glad the smog is greatly reduced, though.

That is seriously understating things. Smog is a long standing cause of premature deaths, birth defects and other illnesses. You should really do a bit more research since it's worth the trouble.

I do agree with you on nuclear power. We all know that nuclear power can be safe - you just need to put it somewhere with a very stable environment (away from earthquakes!), where there's little risk to population centers and water supplies if something goes wrong, staff it with professionals who are properly regulated (so they don't do stupid stuff and conspire to cover up problems), and don't use it to replace solar/wind energy - use it to replace the coal plants that has emissions.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By BRB29 on 4/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: No faith in the IPCC
By Proton2 on 4/14/2014 7:02:11 PM , Rating: 1
This report relies on the WGI report which has been found wanting. There has been no climate change that can be attributable to man. Do read the report for yourself, and not the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) which doesn't match the underlying scientific reports it supposedly is derived from.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By tonyswash on 4/14/2014 7:03:18 PM , Rating: 5
The oft quoted figure of 95% support for the theory of dangerous human caused global warming started with the paper by Doran/Zimmerman which was based on a survey of 77 top earth scientists.The raw data from the survey was only published long after the headline impacting results were announced. In that data it is clear that the way the survey questions were constructed was carefully and cleverly designed to constrain the participating climatologists into giving yes/no answers to just two questions whose answers could be packaged in to a neat 95% consensus result.

But the participating climatologists were allowed to make free comments about the topic of climate change attribution and the appendices of the paper includes all these free comments and they reveal anything but certainty and consensus. There are many, many comments from the scientists (hundreds) in the appendices and I strongly suggest you have a look yourself because what is clearly revealed are the profound uncertainties about the impact of CO2, about how the climate system works and what is driving it. Nobody reading the comments of the scientists could think for one moment that the science is settled.

The full paper, which includes the raw comments of the scientists, is available here, because it is an academic paper you have to pay for it but it's only a couple of bucks.

Here are a sample of just some of the pages and pages of comments by the scientists. Some scientists express certainty about a major human contribution to warming but most don’t, there is a very widespread range of different opinions, which one would expect on a complex topic like this. And yet this paper is a major plank used to prop up the delusional notion that there is 95% certainty amongst scientists.

Let the scientists talk and here is what they say……….

? “ “I assume you mean ‘substantial’ rather than statistically ‘significant’… It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but I am not sure if that is what you would define as ‘substantial.’ “I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it’s the term ‘significant’ I’m unsure about.”

? “I do not know what you mean by significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”

? “I don’ know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don’t know how you define ‘significant’.”

? “I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“

? “The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I’m not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“

? “I just did your survey on global warming and I just wanted to make a couple of comments as follows:
1. I believe in global warming, both short term (my lifetime) and long term (10,000 years). I also believe in cycles and that someday we will see cooling.
2. I believe that global warming is caused, to at least some degree, by human activity.
3. I am not absolutely convinced, however, that carbon dioxide is the culprit. I think that remains to be proved. Carbon dioxide is complicated, and I believe that there could be other both human induced and natural causes for global warming.“
? “natural factors are still dominant.“

? “measured changes don't agree with models, much carbon dioxide is missing from inventory, our understanding of other factors is so poor that it's hard to estimate relevance of human activity
Many factors are in play and it is a statistical thing. I think it is 'likely' that anthropogenic CO2 has contributed to warming, but is it the only contributor, or even a principal contributor? I'm not sure“
? “It is not certain that all factors controlling climate are well known and understood. And, the models that have implicated human activity as a factor in climate change have many assumptions that may be found later to be incorrect or over simplified.“

? “I think human activity is a factor, I'm just not sure if it is a 'significant' factor. I think global warming would have occurred with or without human influence so I'm not sure if we can be considered 'significant'.

? “I'm not sure that the temperature change over about the last 100 years isn't part of a natural cycle. Some paleoclimate data indicate similarly warm temperatures about 1000 years ago.“

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By ironargonaut on 4/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: No faith in the IPCC
By tonyswash on 4/15/2014 6:26:13 AM , Rating: 4
Nobody denies global climate change. What many scientists are sceptical about or consider an unproven hypothesis is the idea that man made CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change (dangerous AGW for short ). In fact the scientists who are most sceptical about dangerous AGW are those who argue the most in favour of recognising that climate change is a constant feature of the earth’s climate system.

If AGW is not dangerous we can ignore it and slowly adapt to it as we have done over the last century of warming whilst humanity can get on becoming richer and much less poor.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and more of it will add warming to the climate system but the important questions are whether that warming is significant and how likely is it that it will lead to dangerous climate change, Bear in mind that CO2 (even with the amounts added by humans) is a only a trace gas and is present in the atmosphere in only tiny, minuscule, amounts. The warming effect of CO2 is also logarithmic, that is more you add the less per added unit it warms, doubling CO2 does not double the amount of heat absorbed. So it’s possible that the CO2 is adding heat in quantities that will produce undetectable amounts of atmospheric and climate warming or only produced a small proportion of the late 20th century warming while the bulk of that warming was produced by natural climate variations (that’s what I believe BTW). I don’t think that it was a coincidence that the 20th century, when it warmed, also saw solar activity reach an 8000 year high.

As for scientists - here are two worth listening too.

Bob Carter, he was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998, an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005

Richard Lindzen, he is an American atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983,[1] until he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By Dorkyman on 4/15/2014 10:41:38 AM , Rating: 2
One example I like to use with my sky-is-falling friends is to imagine a basketball arena filled with 10,000 people. They represent the atmosphere. Now put 4 of them in bright red shirts. They represent the CO2 concentration.

When I explain in this way, many people simply don't believe me. Such is the power of religious belief, which is precisely what the Global Warming crowd has.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By KFZ on 4/14/2014 9:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
And despite what these experts and governments believe, switching off fossil fuels is supposed to be economically sustainable and municipally viable for the entire

No, I'm sorry, but are we seriously going to take reports from underpants gnomes who don't explain how economies colossal and small, stagnated and booming, independent and wholly dependent are going to agree to, let alone *cope* with deleting coal, natural gas and petroleum from their energy assets? Are they expecting windfalls of money to come down and pay for a complete rewrite of their energy production and overhaul to their grids?

Do you have any realistic comments or is this just more pontificating against climate denialists as if they're extinction will break the dam and usher waves of progress and free proliferation?

It's not free energy. It may not cost anything to make wind blow or sun shine but you can't pay for complete infrastructures and enact economic upheaval with expert opinions.

Go ahead and claim the debate. Climate alarmists have no realistic plan of action and just expect the world to come together behind this cause, decommission massive industries they depend upon and agree to go all-in on technologies we haven't even mastered.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By PaFromFL on 4/15/2014 8:43:13 AM , Rating: 2
Climate alarmists actually have a realistic plan of action. Before AGW, climatologists were starved for funding. After AGW, they are rolling in the dough. They would have been ignored except that some politicians and opportunists have figured out ways to become richer and more powerful using the old "the sky is falling" gambit.

Weather involves complicated phenomena that current models cannot capture. Weather models cannot predict the weather one week away and there is no reason to believe that anyone can accurately predict the climate over longer periods with unknown major driving forces such as solar output, volcanoes, carbonate production/destruction, etc. It is clear that the climate has been relatively stable in the face of cataclysmic events, or we would not be here.

As the climate changes there will be winners and losers. If humans somehow figure out how to stop the climate from changing, there will also be winners and losers. The cure might not be worth the effort, or worse than the disease.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By TSS on 4/15/2014 12:28:09 AM , Rating: 1
Oh yes the IPCC has *never* been embroiled in scandals such as falsefying data, or having "experts" sign on a paper that either didn't even agree with a report or, even better, are experts in entirely different fields.

Let me just highlight a paragraph from the source article here (can't use tiffany's paragraph, it's rewritten a bit awkwardly):

Delay could also force extreme measures to be taken including sucking CO2 out of the air. This might be done by generating energy by burning plants and trees, which had absorbed carbon from the atmosphere, and then using CCS to bury the emissions.

Biology 101: Plants and trees absorb Co2 from the air and convert it into oxygen. If they store carbon at all it's because everything on this planet is a goddamn carbon-based lifeform.

So the IPCC, as an extreme measure, considers burning nature's Co2 scrubbers for energy to power devices that only store, not convert, Co2. They want to generate Co2 to store Co2, and eliminate the possibility of producing oxygen.

And these people you trust? Even go as far to mock people who don't? AND get rated up to 4 for doing so?

You, sir, are one hell of an idiot. Crisis of lack of observation and education? More like a crisis of intelligence and critical thinking. Please, if you're so inclined to believe these people, donate your entire net worth to Al Gore, as that will surely help fix the problem.

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By kattanna on 4/15/2014 12:05:06 PM , Rating: 2

one could always read the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

careful though..its not a light read at over 1,000 pages

but here is a summary icymakers.pdf

RE: No faith in the IPCC
By renewable guy on 4/15/2014 7:48:06 PM , Rating: 2

The IPCC is good enough to know that more co2 makes our climate worse and less is much much better. That's all we really need to know. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

No global warming for 17 plus years
By Proton2 on 4/14/2014 7:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
One of the datasets of global surface temperatures shows no global warming for 17 and 8 months. CO2 is plant food and increasing the amount of it in the atmosphere will make the world a better place.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Mint on 4/14/2014 8:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone quoting this figure is either disingenuous or an idiot.

There's nothing special about 17 years. There was a temporary upward spike from a historically large El Nino event in 1998. What possible justification do you have for cherry picking that peak and measuring warming from that point onwards?

The problem with AGW action isn't that it isn't happening. It's that averting it is a horrible waste of global goodwill (and that's what AGW action is about: making the world a better place to live). Using the IPCC's own figures, the solar tax credit works out to $1.3 trillion per HUNDREDTH of a degree C in averted warming. The wind tax credit is almost as bad. Even with all that pricey help, both have limited effectiveness without energy storage added on (which greatly increases cost), and limited adoption rate.

Trillions of dollars for hundredths of a degree! We have yet to give even a tiny fraction of this to the plethora of better uses of that money. Bill Gates and similar folk would get clean water to the entire third world and eradicate most disease. The World Food Programme would eliminate stunting from infant malnutrition (which, BTW, hammers productivity for their entire lives) for billions of kids in the coming decades.

Make no mistake: We can't avert global warming without telling the developing world to spend their scarce resources on clean energy instead of far more pressing needs.

All we have to do is figure out fourth gen nuclear power over the next decade or two, and we have cheap & clean electricity, industrial heat, and transportation fuel (though EVs/PHEVs). Problem solved by 2050 with a few billion in research and simply choosing lowest cost after that.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Proton2 on 4/14/2014 9:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
The linear trend of no global warming for the past 212 months starts in August 1996, 2 years before the El Nino spike. This is not disingenuous. I have been studying climate science full time for over 4 years now. I know the topic well, the science and the politics.
Nothing special about 17 years? This is during a time period of ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and is the most recent time period that starts from the most up to date data that we have.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Mint on 4/14/2014 11:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
The El Nino spike is coloring your conclusion. Take out the 1998 data, and your "212 months" figure changes by a whopping 5 years.

No valid scientific conclusion is so dependent on anomalies. By contrast, take the trend of the entire satellite record, and you'll get virtually the same answer no matter how you cull out anomalies: omit a year, omit the top and bottom 5% extremes, etc.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Proton2 on 4/14/2014 11:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
Here are a couple of articles that help explain why CO2 is not causing global warming.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Mint on 4/15/2014 5:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
You've been studying climate fulltime for 4 years and that trash is the best you could come up with?

I already addressed the 17-year-8-month fallacy. It's a result heavily dependent on that 1998 spike, and uses a methodology that fails the most primitive of tests. It doesn't give nearly the same length of time when used with the UAH dataset from skeptics John Christy and Roy Spencer.

The Central England Temperature record is from a tiny, localized spot of the earth's surface. It's complete nonsense to use that as a gauge of normal global temperature variation. Look at how much individual stations vary from each other in the surface temperature record.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Proton2 on 4/15/2014 6:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
That "trash" is factual information. I could spend days typing out all the information I have learned about climate science. We are on a forum with limited capacity and what I linked was very topical to todays discussions here.
Look, I began just over 4 years ago to seek the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on climate science. I started with almost no knowledge of this topic. I have a scientific background, I'm a computer scientists and a mathematician with a good dose of electrical engineering experience and I have studied physics, graduated from high school with honors (within the top 10% of all students), went to Simon Fraser University. So I ain't no dummy. :-)
I quickly discovered that there was a lot of junk science masquerading as real climate science. And then there's the climategate emails. I'm thinking of writing a book about my voyage of discovery. I'm going to call it "Something Funny Happened On The Way To The Climate Science Forum".
Anyways... I know the climate science extremely well and I'm developing software to help visualize and bring the science to the masses, fellow climate science research enthusiasts, via native apps on current and future consumer computer devices.
You can watch this place: for details, but I'm very busy with my research and development.
Not only am I not concerned about global warming / climate change, but the science informs me that more CO2 in the atmosphere is better for the planet. Will make it greener, will help feed more people, plants and other animals. Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is being green and environmentally friendly.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By Dorkyman on 4/15/2014 10:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
I read one report years ago that said methane gas is an extremely potent greenhouse gas and is emitted from cattle in prodigious quantities. And cattle herds also increase as "quality of life" increases.

I need to build a slip-on catalytic converter of some sort. I'm sure the cows won't mind.

By Mint on 4/15/2014 3:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
Methane is potent but short lived. If you release some, it gets oxidized into CO2 and water at a rate of 50% every 7 years.

By Mint on 4/15/2014 3:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
That "trash" is factual information.
It is irrelevant information. Fitting a straight line on a data subset without justification proves nothing, and CET covers <0.01% of the earth in a single localized spot. You know damn well that it's bad science to use that as a proxy for global temperature variance.

If you really are a computer scientist, then test your claims with some modelling like I suggested. Mask an underlying signal (e.g. a straight line with a slope of 0.010-0.015 deg/year) with some low frequency noise (about 0.5 deg in amplitude), and do some selective linear regression.

That's what someone who's really after the truth would do.

RE: No global warming for 17 plus years
By ironargonaut on 4/14/2014 9:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
Let me see possible justification would be, I don't know maybe that's the length of time since we have had no warming. It's not "cherry picking". It's going back in time until you reach the point where no statistical warming has occurred. The math picks the number not the person.
Go back to 1999 then if you think it is caused by 1998 umm still a pretty flat line.
You ever notice how the trend lines for warming always seem to start at a dip.

By Mint on 4/14/2014 10:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's not "cherry picking". It's going back in time until you reach the point where no statistical warming has occurred.

Yes it is cherry picking. You can do that with any noisy signal.

I can plot a synthetic signal y(t) = a*t + n(t), where n(t) is a noise signal of some defined spectral character, and I guarantee you that there will be values of t for which where your methodology will conclude that the underlying signal is flat for the last x years.

That proves your methodology to be bunk.

If it stays flat long enough that non-GHG factors can't explain it, then you can start having confidence that the underlying trend has changed. But at this point, you're just another Michael Asher, who claimed a decade long "cooling trend" in 2008:
You ever notice how the trend lines for warming always seem to start at a dip.
No, I don't notice that, because it's a flat out lie. How about you try the entire satellite record? Or any year other than 1998 in the 20th century?

Global climate change
By ptmmac on 4/14/2014 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
No one is going to take away your mustang or your motorcyle. If they do there will be riots in the streets.

My own views about this are summarised below:

A successful solution to global warming will be a political battle not a scientific one.  The first step toward a successful solution will be one that deals with social and economic fears that are driven by the search for a solution to rising CO2 and temperatures.  I would argue that what we really need to do is to focus on spreading out our energy dependance to as many sources as possible.  This is a political policy decision that will reduce the dependance of the Global economy to the current main sources of energy supply: coal and oil.  Please note that this does not require destroying those industry with laws and regulations.  It requires investing in new power production technologies that can match the cost of coal and petroleum.   Innovation in nuclear power, solar and bioreactors are what I believe to be the most promising choices.  Reducing waste, better managing electrical networks, and adding batteries to the electric grid are some of the other solutions awaiting our decisive action.  

The single most underutilized source of power is nuclear.  We have used overly complex custom installations gigantic projects that cannot be used to produce a lower cost per scale of production.  Technology Review has already awarded an innovator award to Leslie Dewan for her work in this area. Even if her design is not the specific one used, it does have all the characteristics to make a solution workable. A mass produced reactor that burns current nuclear waste with virtually no risk of meltdown. Please google for more information.  The biggest block in the way of adopting this type of Nuclear power is obviously regulation and politics.  A political decision in this area will face intense lobbying from entrenched current suppliers like GE and the oil and gas producers.  

The solar industry is already making headway towards improved efficiency and cost.  The factors limiting mass solar adoption include costs of installation, associated equipment costs like inverters, battery costs and entrenched utilities desire to avoid competition.  Our current system of government lobbying that allows the deepest pockets to determine political outcomes is poorly designed to face these challenges.  We must reform the legal system to remove protection of current systems.  

The most interesting area of power generation and reduction in greenhouse gasses could be the bioreactor.  Every day the science community finds new complexity in biological systems and new possibility for catalysts in metamaterials.  This is probably the most difficult to model what is to happen over the next 10 years and thus to produce a coherent policy for support.  The upside here is that it is very difficult to derail innovation that is this multifaceted.  Our current municipal waste including sewage, garbage and yard waste could produce the feed stock for power generation in each home or business.  If this happens the expense of municipal landfills, water treatment and recycling programs may well drive income for municipalities.  

As an example of how broad the research is in this area you might google the following terms to find an article about recent photosynthesis studies:
Dual role of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis: Pioneering findings

When we don't even know such basic facts about photosynthesis such as CO2's role, it becomes obvious that we are not ready to start geoengineering our planet.  That is the real strength in the argument against global warming based taxes and regulations.  We really don't know enough to describe in detail the full causal nexus involved in producing global warming.  We know CO2 and Methane cause heat retention and have been increased by human activities. We do not know all the heat sinks, and feed back loops that determine our planets full CO2 cycle and climate changes.  We can't predict the weather 3 days out with precision.  How are we going to truly predict the climate?

We do know we are not going to be safe simply putting our heads in the ground and saying everything is wonderful.  Common sense does offer us a middle ground.   Current policy can be changed to reduce our risk of rising temperatures on a global level by promoting new technology.  I believe we should take that road. This can be done with out resorting to a carbon tax or regulation of carbon dioxide as a waste product.  

The other current ecological problem is the extinction event caused by modern human societies increasing effects on wildlife. The controversy over global warming is distracting us from this far more inevitable problem. The current best case scenario is a 50% loss of diversity of life on this planet.  This is a problem we can fix.  Please look for EO Wilson's work on this issue for more information

  We should not fight for unjustified control of our society, we should fight for a better tomorrow for our world.

RE: Global climate change
By marvdmartian on 4/15/2014 7:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
I have never advocated for cranking up a bunch of coal burning plants that belch pollutants into the atmosphere....

....but wonder what good it will do for us to "go green", when the coal we're no longer burning is simply being shipped to China and India, who are more than happy enough to get their hands on cheap coal, that will help them develop, economically, while they ignorantly pump the same pollutants into the same atmosphere, not caring about the overall effect to the planet.

You're not going to get anyone to change, until you get everyone to agree to the change, and it has minimal or no effect on their everyday life. That's just how us stubborn humans are, and no group of scientists is going to change it.

RE: Global climate change
By Dorkyman on 4/15/2014 10:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
That's precisely the point. To reduce carbon output will have a trivial effect, if the models are to be believed. And that's assuming EVERYONE goes along, which will never happen. Never.

So we spend many billions or trillions and what is the effect? Maybe 0.01 degree reduction. Absurd waste of resources. How about we learn to adapt? After all, humans are extremely good at adapting to an enormous range of environments.

RE: Global climate change
By Mint on 4/15/2014 2:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, and the sooner the anti-AGW crowd realizes it, the sooner they can stop wasting time and credibility by attacking science and instead go after the real Achilles heel of the movement.

$1 trillion per one or two hundredths of a degree is absurd, and everyone knows it. Get scientists to admit this figure, as it's derived directly from IPCC claims and gov't policies (wind/solar subsidies, social cost of carbon, etc).

RE: Global climate change
By JoJoman88 on 4/15/2014 11:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
This is the same green people who are pushing to make 20 million illegals US citizens and how will that help global warming with them trading in their small third world green foot print in for a carbon making US citizenship? The White House saw the draft and had them change the report to make it sound like cost will not be a big deal. This is the same group who said Obamacare will not cost more than a $ trillion(wrong)or that the stimulus package was going to keep unemployment below 8.0%(wrong)etc.
Anybody get the picture yet, governments are the last people who need to be giving the cost of what they want or need to do. They are almost allways so wrong with their overly optimistic projections of cost savings or just false assumtions, etc. These are the same people who can't field a weapons system at contract price agreed to by the government and a contractor, yet they know whats best for all.
This is true of all pols not just the greens. They will say anything to sell there position to others if they think that it is needed.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki