Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

If you're going to tax "carbon", name one organic product that doesn't contain it and therefore shouldn't be taxed.

If you're proposing to heat your home with raspberries, or run your car on beansprouts, you'd be using something that is in the natural carbon cycle anyway (as opposed to fossil-fuels), so a carbon tax would arguably not be warranted, as your behaviour isn't increasing the atmospheric carbon.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You thought wrong. I am criticized for cut and paste when I produce evidence that all too often supports or explains only a portion of any issue, and is therefore often misleading.

Sorry, but your obvious lack of objectivity belies your claimed years as an educator in the field of science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Since low prices on fossil fuels have been the only thing keeping the U.S. economy (barely) positive, it only follows that some from a leftward persuasion would like to risk another, probably worldwide recession because . . .

1. Higher prices will encourage less consumption and thus lower fossil fuel emissions (the ostensible reason);

2. Taxes on energy will enable the govt. to encourage green technological development (the naive reason);

3. Taxes on energy will punish fossil fuel cos. with lower profits (the real reason as L-E kindly divulged for us, except it won't work).

#3 - I know you're trolling there, but for the record I just want to see fossil-fuel companies complete their transition to "energy" companies, and to see less government support for finding and extracting fossil fuels; I have no particular interest in seeing 'punishment' meted out. You're no more an economist than a climate scientist, but you seem comfortable dismissing their advice as well.

And you missed a reason that was in the economic post: economists see a carbon tax as a simple, efficient, fair and pragmatic tax instrument that will not only encourage a change in behaviour, but would enable other desirable tax changes, such as debt reduction and LOWER TAX on individuals and companies.

BTW I agree with you that absurdly unusually cheap fossil-fuel is currently a crutch for the US economy, and somebody needs to fix that. It's like an ill person gobbling amphetamines to keep active enough to work. It's not healthy. Sooner or later, they gotta kick their habit. Kickstarting the new energy economy would be beneficial.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You must be pretty smart, to believe that the vast majority of these scientists are wrong.

OK, I finally figured it out. There's someone else with a handle close to "Exile" on this thread that you must be confusing me with. Funny though, I don't fault you for being so convinced that all the dissenting scientists are "wrong." If you believe 97% of scientists and all the scientific institutions are "right," then why do you care if I view none of them as necessarily "wrong," but that the controversy simply reflects uncertainty in the science? Unlike some of the more adamant "deniers" on here, I don't have the tools or background to come to a truly objective conclusion on the science. Add in the loony-tune politics and a troubling amount of dishonesty, and you get a skeptic. I see this as pretty rational, but I'm sorry it troubles you so . . . .

You're clever enough to seek a "scientific" or rational basis for your personal-politics-driven opposition to taking any collective action against AGW, or against any other significant environmental or social problem, I imagine.

I'm smart enough to see this for what it is.

Of course you are, along with a host of other equally obvious narcissistic tendencies. But I'm sure you mean well!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't fault you for being so convinced that all the dissenting scientists are "wrong." ... the controversy simply reflects uncertainty in the science?

If you sift through the positions of all your dissenters, you'll see that they not only disagree with the IPCC, they frequently disagree with each other. And over half don't have climate as their specialty anyway. It takes a unique set of reasoning skills to conclude that the views of these 70 outliers set against that of many thousands of their peers equals serious "uncertainty".

But as always, the acid test of your stated position is to ask you again - so what do we do about the AGW you do acknowledge, or this uncertainty? To which you'll answer - "technology will save us", or "adapt", or "we can't reduce our fossil-fuel use". All of which equates to "nothing". Which kind of reveals your real position, doesn't it?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm smart enough...

Ummm...errr....okey-dokey...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you sift through the positions of all your dissenters, you'll see that they not only disagree with the IPCC, they frequently disagree with each other. And over half don't have climate as their specialty anyway. It takes a unique set of reasoning skills to conclude that the views of these 70 outliers set against that of many thousands of their peers equals serious "uncertainty".

But as always, the acid test of your stated position is to ask you again - so what do we do about the AGW you do acknowledge, or this uncertainty? To which you'll answer - "technology will save us", or "adapt", or "we can't reduce our fossil-fuel use". All of which equates to "nothing". Which kind of reveals your real position, doesn't it?
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Never, ever underestimate unique sets of skills.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="navy"]That will help you understand it . . . or not. And you'll probably enjoy all the acronyms. In fact, I thought you of all people would be careful to read a primary source document before relying on secondary ones, especially when these secondary ones are fraught with obvious & transparent bias.

The quotes are from page 23 of the link which you provided - you know - the original source.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The quotes are from page 23 of the link which you provided - you know - the original source.

The link to the actual judicial opinion appears in at least two of the articles you posted about this. It makes me question where you are choosing to get your information on other CC-related topics you post so often about. The quotes you used are indeed from that opinion; the hyperbole attempting to trash the expert opinions which the administrative court ultimately rejected appeared in your overtly biased articles. As you've probably discovered by now, the articles' slanderous misrepresentations of how the court treated the coal companies' expert witnesses bears little resemblance to how the court methodically explained why Peabody failed to meet its burden of proof. But in case you haven't gotten that far, the court imposed a presumption that the mainstream/IPCC's position on CC should be relied on in setting rates unless Peabody could demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this presumption was incorrect. In the court's view, Peabody failed to overcome this burden so therefore rates should be set according to the mainstream view.

Notwithstanding, I'm sure this will be a useful precedent for advocates of AGW who believe that imposing higher costs and taxes on consumers will help save the planet. I am simply providing some context and balance to show the distinction btwn. a legal proceeding as opposed to a scientific determination.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you sift through the positions of all your dissenters, you'll see that they not only disagree with the IPCC, they frequently disagree with each other. And over half don't have climate as their specialty anyway. It takes a unique set of reasoning skills to conclude that the views of these 70 outliers set against that of many thousands of their peers equals serious "uncertainty".

What did I do to deserve such praise?! When you've achieved your first couple of Ph.D's in climatology you can ask Drs. Curry, Christy & Spencer why they believe their "uncertainty" is justified. I'm sure they'd all be more than pleased to talk to such an informed and clairvoyant guy like you.

But as always, the acid test of your stated position is to ask you again - so what do we do about the AGW you do acknowledge, or this uncertainty? To which you'll answer - "technology will save us", or "adapt", or "we can't reduce our fossil-fuel use". All of which equates to "nothing". Which kind of reveals your real position, doesn't it?
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

You have my "real" position, and it is likely the best one my admittedly limited expertise can offer based on the current alternatives. You can misstate and misrepresent it as many times as you please but that won't change the folly of believing we can eliminate or reduce fossil fuel consumption to the point of mitigating MMGW to a level which would make an appreciable difference.

But again, this only applies to this particular point in time. Things are always changing, science is evolving, technology is advancing, but apparently the hubris of people who believe they have all the answers remains the same.

I'd say the only "acid test" is why you seem to be so enthralled with an opinion from a layman like me? Rather than being all consumed with such disapproval of everyone else, why don't you offer your opinion about what you think we should do and why? Or is the answer simply whatever the IPCC and other govt. authorities say we need to do? Have any original thoughts on this or any other subject, L-E?

[adoxograph]

Here is my solution:

"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." 1 Corinthians 15:32

[SailOar]

The IMF Is Pushing for Carbon Taxes, But at What Price? | Wall Street Journal

Dec 2015
As world leaders try to hash out a controversial deal to cut greenhouse gases in Paris, the International Monetary Fund is ramping up calls for carbon taxes.[...]

The economists say an era of low fossil-fuel prices is discouraging development of low-emission energy technology and intensifying the need for governments around the world to impose carbon taxes.[...]

Nearly 40 countries already have national carbon-pricing programs, largely represented by the European Union’s emission trading system. Along with some minor regional efforts, those cover about 12% of global emissions. With prices typically around $10 a ton of CO2, those efforts are insufficient to cut emissions to levels officials in Paris are considering.

The U.S. Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon in 2013 suggested a range of $12 a ton to $129 by 2020. Based on one IMF economist’s calculations, that could add on the high end more than $40 to every barrel of oil.

The IMF doesn’t make an official recommendation for an appropriate carbon cost. (Nor has it published estimates for the potential net impact of assessing carbon taxes on global growth.) But a paper published last year by the fund’s fiscal affairs department said an average of $57 a ton for the top 20 largest emitting countries would cut global emissions by around 11%.

That’s roughly the amount needed to meet the level the United Nations Environmental Program has targeted by 2020.[...]

Mssrs. Obstfeld and Arezki suggest that carbon pricing should reflect not only the potential domestic damages from emissions, but also the damages to foreign countries.

Signaling the challenges to such an effort, they direct readers to a paper that says trade sanctions may be the only way to spur international action.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Here is my solution:

"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." 1 Corinthians 15:32

You will mate if its Vegemite....

this is what yah need...!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

When you've achieved your first couple of Ph.D's in climatology you can ask Drs. Curry, Christy & Spencer why they believe their "uncertainty" is justified.

That would certainly take less time than asking the hundreds of equally qualified specialists why they have concluded that action is required.

Speaking of Dr Curry, her recommendation, as expressed last year, is

We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.

Can we count on your support for these pragmatic solutions?

You have my "real" position, and it is likely the best one my admittedly limited expertise can offer based on the current alternatives. You can misstate and misrepresent it as many times as you please but that won't change the folly of believing we can eliminate or reduce fossil fuel consumption to the point of mitigating MMGW to a level which would make an appreciable difference.

... I take that as a 'no', with your skepticism around MMGW as the excuse, and ignoring the many other non-MMGW reasons and benefits for taking most of the same steps.

why don't you offer your opinion about what you think we should do and why? Or is the answer simply whatever the IPCC and other govt. authorities say we need to do? Have any original thoughts on this or any other subject, L-E?

Heh. This from a guy who's papered over the dominant knee-jerk rightwing anti-AGW position with "science".

Many countries are, slowly, beginning to take concrete steps to shift away from fossil fuels, and are electing governments who have pledged to go in this direction. Whether or not you accept the warnings around AGW, the steps have other justifications and benefits. Such as weaning countries off of an economic dependence on low fossil-fuel prices.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by weavis

You will mate if its Vegemite....

this is what yah need...!

Sorry Weavis. Nothing at all wrong with a Vegemite sandwich. Both are a great source of vitamin B.