/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3958225]

Why are climate skeptics always wrong?

[Anonymous No.3958226]

Wrong about volcanoes

[Anonymous No.3958229]

>>3958226
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

[Anonymous No.3958230]

>>3958226

Wrong about the "hockey stick"

[Anonymous No.3958234]

>>3958229

Skeptics often claim that volcanoes are actually causing global warming.

The Y-axis is in how many times greater anthropogenic CO2 is compared to volcanic emissions. So the middle estimate is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions is 130 times greater than volcanoes.

[Anonymous No.3958241]

>>3958230

Wrong about Climategate

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38702.htm
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
http://www.cce-review.org/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38702.htm
http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf

[Anonymous No.3958243]

>>3958241

Wrong about everything

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3958249]

>>3958243

>that picture

[Anonymous No.3958255]

>>3958243

They thought the BEST project would reveal the conspiracy to put thermometers in bad places. Wrong about that too

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

[Anonymous No.3958259]

>>3958255

They never seem to get anything right

Why do people keep listening to them?

[Anonymous No.3958263]

>>3958259

Easterbrook, despite being hilariously wrong, gets to write a $120 academic textbook on the subject. Let's have a look

[Anonymous No.3958264]

>>3958225
Shut up about 'climate skeptics', no one cares about them. You fear mongers seem to use these 'deniers' as a strawman argument for taking action against climate change - most of your opposition agree that the climate is changing, and we agree that we're a part of the cause. What you should be trying to do is convince us that there is good reason to do something about it. I for one don't see the point in crippling our economies to avert it.

[Anonymous No.3958267]

welcome to the fruition of scientific ignorance. wait until the faithful start DDOS-ing natiopnal science libraries...

[Anonymous No.3958273]

>>3958263

The illustrious contributors includes D'Aleo, Steve Goddard, and Christopher Tilted-Graphs Monckon.

Goddard's chapters often have no bibliographies, scant citations, and images lifted from online graph generators and various blog postings. Where citations exist, they point to blogs, newspaper op-eds and fishy websites like CO2Science and Ice Age Now.

[Anonymous No.3958277]

>>3958264

>implying our economies aren't already in the toilet
>implying a radical project to completely change most of our energy/transportation methods won't stimulate the economy
>implying I'm implying your implications

[Anonymous No.3958281]

>>3958264

maybe climate change is the strawman.

everytime someone says climate change.

they overlook landfills
recycling issues
production issues
sustainability issues
a lot more besides those.

and since nobody will do anything about climate change, nobody will change the way industry and big business works.

making money since before money was invented.. its not sustainable but we'll be out of here before they realise.

[Anonymous No.3958285]

>>3958273

This kind of shit would get you a zero, or even put on academic probation if you were a student. Why are we permitting bloggers write academic textbooks on subjects they know nothing about?

http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859563

[Anonymous No.3958288]

>>3958273

This kind of shit would get you a zero, or even put on academic probation if you were a student. Why are we permitting bloggers write academic textbooks on subjects they know nothing about?

http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123859563

[Anonymous No.3958295]

>>3958264

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the originators of your arguments being investigated for plagiarism.

When Climategate broke out, investigations began immediately and most were completed with a year. Wegman and colleagues' plaigarism has been known for years, yet George Mason University continues dragging their feet. Now what would that be?

[Anonymous No.3958304]

>>3958281

Climate change is part and parcel of most of the environment/sustainability issues you mentioned. Addressing one does not mean not being able to address the other, and mitigating climate change will probably in fact solve many of these other issues.

[Anonymous No.3958310]

>>3958304

yes but see how easy it is to see the problem before you start using a buzzword.

climate change is still apparently up for debate. its a clever tactic.

strawman... hhhmmm

[Anonymous No.3958311]

>>3958267

That stuff was already being done when Climategate broke out. Hacking of websites, pilfering of e-mails and so on. But it gets worse than that.

For example, Andy Weaver is a climatologist at the University of Victoria. Shortly after the e-mails were leaked, two unknown persons dressed up as technicians broke into his office. They disappeared when the cops were called on them.

In Australia, about 30 climate scientists are under police protection after numerous death threats and dead animals being left at their doorsteps.

[Anonymous No.3958313]

>>3958277
>implying a radical project to completely change most of our energy/transportation methods won't stimulate the economy
>He still believes that government stimulus spending creates prosperity!
>laughingeconomists.gif

>>3958295
>Get called out for making a strawman argument
>Respond with nonsensical reference to original strawman

[Anonymous No.3958328]

>>3958264

>What you should be trying to do is convince us that there is good reason to do something about it. I for one don't see the point in crippling our economies to avert it.

>implying we need to "cripple our economies" to do something about it

Leaving that aside, remember that economic analysis often leaves out factors that are difficult or impossible to represent in dollar figures. The Stern Review was published in 2007, and it was the first attempt at extensively quantifying the entire range of expected climate change impacts. It relied on outdated data and optimistic assumptions. What did it find?

Ultimately, climate change will commit our economies to an unrealistic minimum of 5% of GDP towards adaptation and paying for damages, to 20% of GDP or more, every year, indefinitely. That would be roughly equal to a neverending Great Depression. Optimistic cost projections for global warming mitigation hover around 1.5% of GDP, or 3-4% of GDP at pessimistic end. Even the most pessimistic economic analysis shows that mitigating climate change is less expensive than business-as-usual.

[Anonymous No.3958356]

>>3958328

The other thing to consider is that other attempts at quantify economic impacts of climate change, especially those relying on computer modelling, are extremely unreliable at higher levels of warming. Past 3 degrees increase in global average temperatures, even the authors of these models don't recommend drawing any conclusions.

A specific example, Nordhaus's DICE model, which is used in the IPCC, goes to 19 degrees of warming, where it cuts off because the complete destruction of the global economy is implied. The economic impact at that point? Only 50% of GDP. Keep in mind that 19 degrees of warming would extinguish most forms of life on Earth.

The problem here is that 3 degrees of warming is now very likely. The pie chart on the left shows how much warming is expected by 2100, in terms of probability. We have a 9% chance of exceeding 7 degrees Celsius of warming under business-as-usual. This warming is so extreme that it has literally never been seen before in Earth's history, save for maybe during large asteroid impacts. What would the economic damage from that be?

[Anonymous No.3958362]

>skeptics always wrong
The noun for these dipshits is denier not skeptic. When confronted with overwhelming evidence a skeptic can change their mind. When confronted with overwhelming evidence a denier closes their tiny brain.

[Anonymous No.3958371]

>>3958356
The problem with these arguments is that we're on the brink of an energy revolution, an energy revolution that will enable us to deal with climate change much more easily in the near future, rather than fumbling around now.

[Anonymous No.3958374]

>>3958313

>implying a radical project to completely change most of our energy/transportation methods won't stimulate the economy

Implying that fossil fuel industries don't already receive tens of billions in unneeded subsidies, tax breaks, tax credits and regulatory loopholes. Implying these industries don't avoid fielding the cost for hundreds of billions more in negative externalities (health, environment, security, etc.) not reflected in the price of their products. Implying that alternative energy is not already economically competitive despite these advantages to the fossil fuel industries. Implying all mainstream economists, even Milton Friedman and Fredrich Hayek, agree on the need for polluting industries to bear costs that accurately reflect their externalities.

>implying implications

[Anonymous No.3958385]

>>3958267
This makes me sad.... Why would ignorant people be so evil?

[Anonymous No.3958386]

>>3958371

i dont think so, oil rich countries are those that have recently undergone revolution.

expect there economic and social development to go hand in hand with keeping an oil dependent civilisation chugging along

[Anonymous No.3958398]

>>3958362

I am trying to maintain a modicum of respect by calling them by their preferred term. They are deniers, though.

>>3958371

Are we? Global carbon emissions are tracking the most pessimistic IPCC reference scenario. The latest IEA report shows that the recession barely made a dent in emission trends.

It may be cheaper to deploy technology the longer we wait, but the steeper reductions will have to be to stabilize, and the more warming we are committed to. If we hit a "tipping point" for the major ice sheets or permafrost melt, we won't be able to prevent further global warming even if we cut emissions to zero. Why should we take the risk and continue to delay?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/23/us-warming-idUSTRE79M2L720111023
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08017.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nclimate1258.html

[Anonymous No.3958412]

>>3958385

They're not evil. If they accept the global warming is real and something must be done about it, their political ideology and worldview, and their self-conception will be shattered. To them, denying global warming is a necessary to their keep going about their lives. That's why scientists, Greenpeace, Al Gore, etc. are considered villains and scum, while they position themselves as the "good guys."

[Anonymous No.3958459]

>>3958398
>Why should we take the risk and continue to delay?
Think of a society powered by nuclear fusion and carbon nanotube solar generators. Why is any of this a problem for them? Both of these technologies are literally just around the corner, with LFTRs and ADSNR as stepping stones along the way. A lot of the potential problems of climate change are 'think of the children' issues. I'm thinking of the children, I'm thinking they can deal with it themselves. I mean I don't mind taking steps to prevent it as long as they're not significantly detrimental to industry, but what I'm seeing here in Australia is some sort of movement to drive us into the third world and its not only going to hurt us, its going to hurt technological development, and leave the children burning coal.

[Anonymous No.3958472]

Nice thread, OP.

The answer is simple: Being a climate "skeptic" means that you're never wrong. Note how many of them are now backing away from the criticism of the surface temperature record, pretending that it was never an issue. For them, science is just a set of talking point they can throw at people.

[Anonymous No.3958486]

> be governments
> have viable alternative to fossil fuel based power generation (LFTR)
> have some viable non-fossil fuel based power generation already in place (nuclear and hydro)
> Shut down existing nuclear plants and don't fund the development of LFTR
> Bulid overpriced shitty solar panels that produce electricity at 10x current market rates

[Anonymous No.3958506]

>>3958459

>what I'm seeing here in Australia is some sort of movement to drive us into the third world

Oh come on, this is simply pure alarmism. You've gotta do better then that.

Also:

1. Climate change isn't just "think of the children". It's happening right now.
2. Energy revolution is always "around the corner". Take fusion technology, for example. It has been around for what, 50 years? So where are the reactors?

[Anonymous No.3958516]

>>3958459

>Both of these technologies are literally just around the corner

In the sources I linked, peak emissions must occur by 2020, or 2030 maybe if you want to push it, in order to stabilize emissions at an acceptable level.

I believe Bill Gates, who is investing heavilly in the technology, said in his TED Talk that LFTR can be expected to become commercialized for the first time in 20 years. The rule-of-thumb for the introduction of new energy technologies (including fossil fuels when they were first commercialized) is that it takes 30 years to achieve 1% market penetration. Can we afford to wait 50+ years? It could be faster with the right incentives, but I can't see it arriving before 2030 under the most optimistic circumstances. LFTR and new nuclear tech will arrive eventually and probably succeed in their roles, but that's too far off to stave off dangerous levels of global warming.

>but what I'm seeing here in Australia is some sort of movement to drive us into the third world

I hear often skeptics say "they want to take us back to the stone age," but that's just bullshit. There will be a cost of course, but overall the impact is not going to completely reverse Australia's standard of living. The standard estimate for mitigation, using off-the-shelf technology is about 1.5-2% of GDP per year for a few decades. It's about the same we pay for sewage and sanitation, and back in the 19th century people made the exact same arguments about how terrible it would be for business if they had to install pipes and toilets. Of course nowadays we don't even think about the cost of these things we take for granted.

[Anonymous No.3958538]

>>3958516

Another thing that these cost estimates hide is how much economic benefit mitigation can provide.

Reduce soil erosion with no-till farming and other land-use changes? Saves money for farmers.
Phasing in CCS for coal plants and efficient cars? Reduces burden on the healthcare system when less people are getting respiratory illnesses or developing asthma in childhood.
Expand public transit and high-speed rail? Provides immediate benefit to businesses and people in urban areas, and reduces traffic congestion.
Feed-in tariffs for renewable energy and on-site generation at homes and businesses? Saves/makes money for everyone.

Hell, you could just couple the carbon tax/cap-and-trade/whateverthefuck with a 1.5-2% tax cut across the board. Now you're making money AND mitigating climate change!

[Anonymous No.3958550]

I say we take out one stone with two birds. Let's take some ice off the North Pole (Santa will understand) and drop it on the sun. I mean, the sun is just a big hydrogen fire, like in those cool water cars. We could just put out some of it.

[Anonymous No.3958560]

>>3958550
And I almost forgot, the less amount of ice means less water rising!

[Anonymous No.3958568]

>>3958472

>Note how many of them are now backing away from the criticism of the surface temperature record, pretending that it was never an issue.

It's weird. They're both backing away from it AND never letting it go. They're saying:

>I never questioned global warming in the first place! (which is a lie) But is it really caused by man?

and

>There are still problems with the temperature record and/or BEST's methodology! The Earth isn't warming!

and

>CLIMATEGATE, therefore you can't trust anyone

... all simultaneously. It's pretty weird.

Example of Door #2:

[Anonymous No.3958575]

>>3958472

>Note how many of them are now backing away from the criticism of the surface temperature record, pretending that it was never an issue.

They're both backing away from it AND never letting it go. They're saying:

>I never questioned global warming in the first place! (which is a lie) But is it really caused by man?

and

>There are still problems with the temperature record and/or BEST's methodology! The Earth isn't warming!

and

>CLIMATEGATE, therefore you can't trust anyone

... all simultaneously. It's pretty weird.

Example of Door #2:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtual
ly-flat-century-scale-trend/

McIntyre predictably nitpicking the shit out of everything:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-surface-temperatures-released/#comment-125594

[Anonymous No.3958578]

>>3958550

Take water from the Sun to make hydrogen for cars, then take ice caps and give it to the Sun to make hydrogen

Fucking

Brilliant

[Anonymous No.3958581]

>>3958516
Perhaps. But Australia's entire economy is mining with a touch of agriculture, and the government wants to fuck the mining companies with CO2 taxation at the same time the agricultural industry stands on shaky knees. There're plenty of other places in the world with minerals - give mining companies enough incentive to bugger off and they will, even a small drop in mining will lead to a huge drop in quality of life for your average Australian's quality of life because we simply have nothing else to hold our economy together.

[Anonymous No.3958583]

>>3958581
> huge drop in quality of life for your average Australian's quality of life
Oops.

[Anonymous No.3958589]

>>3958538
>CCS
You still think that shit is workable?

[Anonymous No.3958592]

>>3958581

So you're saying that even in this time of increased resource demand (china etc.), the mining companies in Australia are in such a bad condition that even a slight loss of profit will plunge Australia into huge depression? That doesn't seem right.

[Anonymous No.3958597]

>>3958592
>>3958594

Cont.

[Anonymous No.3958594]

>>3958592

Cont.

[Anonymous No.3958595]

>>3958575
>... all simultaneously. It's pretty weird.
It's not. Despite their similar motives and ultimate conclusions, the "skeptics" are not one giant hivemind. It's not surprising to find them taking various routes of denial to justify their positions.

[Anonymous No.3958603]

>>3958581

That's a little overdramatic. Australia's economy is now more than 70% services, just like the rest of us. Australia also heavilly dependent on petroleum imports. This is an area where climate change mitigation would have strongly positive economic benefits.

Mining will be problematic, but that's where the whole drawn-out nail-pulling process that Kyoto started is supposed to help. If all major carbon-emitting nations sign onto an international treaty, and everybody follows the same rules, then Australia will not be unfairly disadvantaged. The EU's financial woes have nothing to do with their ETS or other climate policies, and Germany (a major export manufacturer) has fared pretty well. So the EU gives us a practical example of self-imposed carbon caps that don't completely wreck their economy. Even China is getting on board, doing even more policy-wise than the US:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvkfRzOQiDpOu3GBA8J6OcXzzztA?docId=57cd62758dea4db
e9dbe7ad5cb59b002

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2119407/report-china-set-regional-energy-caps

[Anonymous No.3958616]

>>3958595

What's weird is that a single person can hold these views simultaneously. But I guess you're right, it can be explained as mere human psychology.

[Anonymous No.3958640]

>>3958486

Solar and nuclear are going to be part of the future bro. Solar PV is already price-competitive:

http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

Baseload energy production: nuclear, geothermal, hydro, molten salt storage-equipped CSP
Peak/variable energy production: solar CSP, solar PV, wind, thorium (future)
Storage: pumped-water hydro, compressed-air, flywheels, fuel cells, plug-in cars
Transmission: HVDC lines (there won't be no wind and no sunshine everywhere), superconducting power lines (future)

[Anonymous No.3958648]

>>3958603
But the assumption that all nations will join is entirely unrealistic.

>>3958597
This highlights my point. Mining companies are making good profits right now and making them in Australia. These profits will drop by some amount with the tax, if they drop enough to make profit projections suggest that say, South Africa is a better place to fund exploration then they will do just that, right now we're a good place to explore and set up mining operations, risking that for environmental agenda is in my view foolhardy.

The economic climate is unstable enough as it is, if mining companies start to shift their operations it will have repercussions throughout the entire market, its our primary industry - of all developed nations Australia is almost certainly the most dependent on mining. There's no reason to be shaking things up with a carbon tax right now, its an unnecessary risk.

[Anonymous No.3958659]

>>3958589

No, probably not.

Nowadays we just lump in CCS with the feasible stuff because we want to give the coal industry some glimmer of hope. Otherwise they'll die screaming and take us all down with them.

[Anonymous No.3958693]

>>3958659
The most reasonable compromise is to phase them out. Start by building more of the renewable power plants, try to reserve the useful liquid petroleum reserves for more inflexible and economically/politically-precious uses (transportation, military, space exploration)... as long as we cut the BULK of fossil-fuel usage, then we can mitigate the BULK of the AGW and reign things under control again without completely destroying the oil companies in one go.

If they're smart, they'll adapt, too. They've already begun to. They are some of the largest contributors to biofuel research, because they know what's coming and they want to preserve their industry in the new green era as best they can. It's just a matter of easing them into it at a comfortable-yet-reasonable rate.

[Anonymous No.3958697]

>>3958648

>But the assumption that all nations will join is entirely unrealistic.

I brought up the EU and China's recent measures to show you that it's not impossible to go it (sort of) alone and still succeed economically. The EU less so but as mentioned before, their financial troubles have nothing to do with green investment. Lots of people are disgruntled with the whole international negotiating gridlock and they're trying to do things on a more regional level. For example, there's the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), and now even China is developing their own. None of these systems caused their constituent economies to economically self-destruct. There's no reason why it should be ruinous for Australia either.

Nevertheless, it is preferable to have a working international treaty where everybody plays ball. But even if only USA, the EU, China and India join, that would be enough to bring about the adequate political momentum to ensure no major emitters are left out. Right now the major stumbling block is the US Congress, which will refuse to ratify any climate treaty due to being filled with tea party faggots.

[Anonymous No.3958709]

>>3958693

I don't doubt that they're already making baby-steps, but they're still putting up a fight. There's no need to go over continued funding of science denial groups by these companies, or their campaign contribution to the GOP. Still, if you actually talk to people in the private sector, they all say that once the regulatory framework exists, businesses will fall in line. The trick is to get the laws passed in the first place, which in Canada and the US is easier said than done.

[Anonymous No.3958720]

>>3958648

>This highlights my point. Mining companies are making good profits right now and making them in Australia. These profits will drop by some amount with the tax, if they drop enough to make profit projections suggest that say, South Africa is a better place to fund exploration then they will do just that, right now we're a good place to explore and set up mining operations, risking that for environmental agenda is in my view foolhardy.

Uh, what? I don't follow that logic at all.

Why would the companies abandon all those resources and flee to Africa the moment their profits decrease? Wouldn't it make much more sense to keep reaping profits and simply open new mines elsewhere?

I mean, for example, the manufacturing industry makes much less and you don't see them abandoning the country en masse.

[Anonymous No.3958752]

[Anonymous No.3958784]

>>3958581

>at the same time the agricultural industry stands on shaky knees

Missed this earlier. Climate change will not help. Not even in most temperate zone countries, unlike what you've probably have heard. It is in the farmers' interests too for there to be a mitigation policy. I understand that they'd be hit hard by the carbon price simply because industrial agriculture is so oil-intensive, but there are ways to get around this. No-till agriculture and organic farming for example substantially reduce the oil required to reap commercial yields.

[Anonymous No.3958841]

>>3958720
>and simply open new mines elsewhere?
This is exactly the point... Reduction in investment. Obviously its not like they're just going to shut down mines that they have operating already, but they will reduce investment, that hurts the economy.

>>3958697
While I see your point Australia is of all the first world countries the most dependant on mining, we have nothing else going for us economically. Its something of a special case.

[Anonymous No.3958857]

>>3958784
Farmers cannot make a living as it is, the government is holding together the agricultural industry (think USA's bailouts, but for farming), but its failing to do so, we're seeing huge disinvestment in agriculture because it is simply not viable any more. Neither agriculture nor mining industries need the burden of a carbon tax.

[Anonymous No.3958867]

>>3958841

You're moving the goalposts. You started off with with mining companies "buggering off", but now a hypothetical reduction in investment is going to screw the economy? It seems to me you have no real economic projection behind this, and you're simply going by your gut feeling.

[Anonymous No.3958877]

>>3958867
Let me be clear, I haven't changed what I was saying from the beginning, perhaps buggering off was a bad term to use, though I'd have thought the audience would be rational enough not to think I meant they would suddenly shut down perfectly good mines...

Since when has reduction in investment not been a bad thing for economies? Especially reduction in investment in a primary industry...

[Anonymous No.3958909]

>>3958877

>bad term to use

And what about that "huge drop in quality of life" and "being driven into the third world"? Do these expressions adequately convey what you wanted to say? Because I can't see how a hypothetical reduction in investment can get you there.

[Anonymous No.3958950]

>>3958909
Yes they do. I believe disinvestment creates the potential for a huge drop in the quality of life, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. As to being driven to the third world, I believe you're purposely taking it out of context. I said we're seeing "some sort of movement to drive us to the third world", and I stand by that - our government is trying to drive us to the third world with consistent poor decision making, like the carbon tax. Obviously the 'trying' part is not meant literally, to clarify, I don't believe its a devious conspiracy so much as terrible leadership.

[Anonymous No.3958967]

>>3958950

>I believe disinvestment creates the potential for a huge drop in the quality of life

So now a hypothetical disinvestment creates "the potential" for a huge drop in the quality of life.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not good enough. When you make a claim, it's your job to support it when challenged. Unless you can present something that at least resembles an economic argument, I can't see why anyone should be worried that a carbon tax will devastate the Australian economy.

[Anonymous No.3958982]

>>3958841

>we have nothing else going for us economically

Pish posh. Remember that 70% service economy? Yes, mining constitutes a large part of Australian exports, but it employs relatively few Australian workers. Its profitability provides tax revenue to the state, but if it's anything like America's resource extraction industries, this is probably not as much as you think it is. Granted, I don't know the specifics about this.

The question is, will mining be completely destroyed as an industry in Australia? Will all exports from mining be reduced to zero? Of course not. Mining will take a hit but it won't disappear, it probably won't even be substantially less profitable. Depending on what form the carbon price takes, it will barely scratch the profits of the industry (based on the graphs the other anonymous provided) but perhaps even provide more tax revenue than today.

>Farmers cannot make a living as it is, the government is holding together the agricultural industry (think USA's bailouts, but for farming)

Protip: that's every agricultural industry in the developed world. Every single one. USA, the EU, Japan and Australia (and to a lesser extent Canada) all subsidize the shit out of their farming sector. There's a deeper structural problem with the way the world produces its food that goes beyond carbon prices.

One option is the subsidize the farmers instead of their product. But this is a topic for a different thread. Climate change is expected to have a severe negative impact on agriculture, and indeed we're already seeing the link between the extreme weather of 2010-2011 and a collapse in yields and rising food prices. There needs to be a major restructuring in how we produce food. It probably won't involve forcing all farmers out of business or silly nonsense like that.

[Anonymous No.3959007]

>>3958877

>Especially reduction in investment in a primary industry...

Isn't that the goal of most developing countries? Being completely reliant on primary resource extraction is a recipe for all sorts of trouble, Why do you think the Middle East is one of the most troubled spots on Earth? Countries like Canada and Australia are the exception and not the rule. In general, states seek to create "value-added" products for export, i.e., manufacturing and services, as soon as they are able.

>>3958950

That's still quite the rhetorical stretch. We have tried to demonstrate to you that a carbon tax or carbon markets have not really destroyed, or even substantially reduced, any economy in which it was tried out. Sometimes even in parts of the world that rely on primary industries, like the carbon tax in British Columbia. It is not clear at all why a carbon tax would be especially traumatic for the Australian economy when it hasn't hurt anyone else. And the industry has a very poor track record on statements like these, always claiming that regulation and taxes will mean the death of their business, millions of out of work, etc. Invariably, the cost of environmental policy is far lower than opponents claim it is.

[Anonymous No.3959045]

>>3958982
>but if it's anything like America's resource extraction industries
It isn't. Its not at all like America's resource industries, as I keep pointing out, we're the most mining reliant first world country.

>>3958967
>I'm sorry, but that's simply not good enough.
Not good enough for what? I'm supporting my claim - there doesn't need to be guaranteed economic failure to make a carbon tax a bad idea, there's no way its going to help the economy, so there needs only exist a possibility it will hinder it for it to be a bad decision. Let me just point out a few things

The tax will effect mining companies profit projections.
They will act on these profit projections in a profit maximising manner.
If they elect to disinvest in Australian exploration it will hurt the economy.

Do you disagree with any of these? I'd point out that this has already happened before, companies like BHP kicked up a shitstorm about it when the original 40% mining tax was anounced, even after its being cut it reduced investment simply by the shock it introduced to a market once thought safe and exploration plummeted.

If you don't disagree with these few things then we can get down to grit of it, whether disinvestment creates economic risk or not.

[Anonymous No.3959082]

>>3959045

Alright, enough of this. Since you obviously aren't going to deliver, I decided to do your work for you and look up some projections regarding the carbon tax. So here we go:

There's an ACIL Tasman modelling study (funded by the coal industry!!) that says that the tax might cost 4000 jobs in the mining industry, with and impact on the overall economy of 12,000 lost jobs over the next decade.

Now tell me, do you think that this is going to sink the entire Australian economy?

[Anonymous No.3959083]

>>3959007
Yes, you're right about moving away from having a resource based economy. But that would imply a developing manufacturing industry or some such thing. This is not what is happening.

As far as the tax not affecting other countries the problem comes down to the fact that we are in direct competition with countries that would not ever consider introducing a carbon tax. Mining simply makes up too large of a portion of the Australian economy to be comparable with almost any other first world country. British Columbia is a good point though. What it boils down to though is that we rely on being fertile ground for international investors to dig coal. The competition aren't increasing their taxes, so we're shooting ourselves in the foot by doing so.

Remember this isn't competing against some option that will increase profit, its take risk vs don't take risk, and the risky option has no reward other than its environmental one. The environment takes a back seat to industry in my eyes.

[Anonymous No.3959092]

>>3959082

Cont.

Also the mining industry doesn't seem to be too concerned:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/carbon-tax-manageable-says-gold-mining-giant-
barrick-gold/story-e6frg9df-1226106646378

[Anonymous No.3959119]

>>3959092
>>3959082

Cont.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8006232/Worlds-largest-mining-group-calls-for-carbon-ta
x-in-Australia.html

[Anonymous No.3959141]

>>3959082
>>3959092
>>3959119

Cont.

Well, I can't really find anyone who's saying that the tax will ruin the economy. Even the free market think tanks (paid by guess who) aren't predicting the collapse of the economy. It seems to me that there is no support for your argument at all.

http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1875/carbon-tax-will-cripple-australian-coal-industry-new-study

[Anonymous No.3959250]

>>3958264
>Shut up about 'climate skeptics', no one cares about them.

I just love this stuff - it's the denial of denial.

>We never said that climate change is a hoax, no sir!

I guess our resident "skeptics" will be very disappointed to hear this.

[Anonymous No.3959345]

>>3959250
Why are YOU denying the rational skepticism of those who don't buy into heavily tainted eco doomsday predictions?

Never mind, fuck off to RealClimate OP or keep licking the ass of deluded shills like Michael Mann, or worse, that dumb turd William Connolley who makes a living babysitting wikipedia climate articles.

"BUT, BUT", you bluster, "our fucked up computer models that use manipulated and incomplete data sets are scary looking! How else can we get funding this year without scary models??"

Simple, go join the rest of the scientific community that does REAL, rigorous, empirical, productive science.

[Anonymous No.3959357]

>>3959345
You're misreading me - I'm not denying the rational skepticism of anybody, the skeptical poster I'm responding to does. He claims that you are irrelevant - why aren't you angry at him?

Also, where do I find the "rest of the scientific community"? There isn't a single scientific organization in the world that disagrees with those "heavily tainted eco doomsday predictions".

[Anonymous No.3959363]

Facts
Deny Deny Deny "Richard Muller will into truth".
Deny Deny Deny "I'm a skeptic".
Richard Muller agrees with Facts.
Rage Deny Rage Deny Rage Deny.
There is no helping some people.

[Anonymous No.3959379]

>>3958225

Yeah, the McLean thing was hilarious. You know what he said when he was confronted with this?

"the year isn't complete."

hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.3959406]

>>3959362
Follow the money, fool.
There's no doomsday scenario. Global warming shills constantly ignore past warming trends, ignore solar cycles, ignore the marginal to negligable effect of Total CO2 (of which anthro-based is an even smaller portion) has on the entire planet's greenhouse gas compostion and refractive index compared to Water Vapor, methane, etc., ignores cloud cover, ignores the shoddy and manipulative use of surface stations & temperature proxies in their cherrypicked datasets, deliberately fucks with incomplete and misleading computer models, ignores FOIA requests to data...all to scare us into accepting additional carbon taxes and other nefarious moneymaking schemes for global financial elites.

Make no mistake, these global warming advocate clowns have been in heavy damage control ever since Climategate hit the news. Too bad their scare tactics are about as irrelevant as the global cooling scare in the 1970s is to us today.

[Anonymous No.3959428]

>>3959357
I don't claim he's irrelevant, I claim that you need to stop basing your arguments for action on climate change around spiting these 'deniers' you get so worked up about. As I said no one cares about them, they're a small albeit vocal demographic, and you put all your effort pretending that everyone belongs to either the 'deniers' or the your side - what they call the 'alarmists'. Its not so black and white, Joe public does not take sides quite so strongly, he just wants you to provide some arguments that deal with the issues instead of spending all your time down each other's throats. You've spent long enough saying 'its happening and you're stupid if you don't think it is' now you need to start taking about why we should care.

[Anonymous No.3959436]

>>3959406

Congratulations, you've just beaten the record for squeezing the highest number of septical talking points into one post. Also, why did you link to a post about shitting oneself?

[Anonymous No.3959440]

>>3959406
Money! Look at all of those rich climate scientists buzzing around in private jets!
Koch industries should fund a physicist to look at the data.
Oh wait.

[Anonymous No.3959444]

>>3959428

>As I said no one cares about them, they're a small albeit vocal demographic, and you put all your effort pretending that everyone belongs to either the 'deniers' or the your side - what they call the 'alarmists'. Its not so black and white, Joe public does not take sides quite so strongly, he just wants you to provide some arguments that deal with the issues instead of spending all your time down each other's throats.

Yeah man, I wish.

[Anonymous No.3959451]

>>3959444
Eh, America is a special case, under-educated public.

[Anonymous No.3959465]

>>3959440

Dr. Muller has obviously been brainwashed by the NWO.

[Anonymous No.3959482]

>>3959444
Are those numbers real? Everyone talks about American's being stupid but really? that green bar would drop below 90 for any group other than 'religious extremest' no where else in the developed world.

[Anonymous No.3959524]

>>3959482

Well yeah, except that "religious extremist" is not exactly a rare species in the world...

[Anonymous No.3960712]

>>3959482

Unusually it seems like religion is not a very accurate predictor of whether or not you believe that global warming is happening. You actually have some major religious groups now, even Evangelicals, lobbying the government for climate legislation.

On the other hand, political affiliation is a very strong predictor of views on climate change:

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011/

And it's not just the Americans. Saudi Arabians and Russians also tend to disbelieve global warming (for obvious reasons) but Canada, Australia, and even the UK has their fair share of skeptics. Just something about us Anglophones.

[Anonymous No.3960734]

>>3959083

>British Columbia is a good point though.

So why does BC, which is also reliant on resources (forestry and mining), able to have a carbon tax without destroying itself, and but it would spell disaster for Australia?

>The competition aren't increasing their taxes

But they are. Even China is, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

[EK !EPReY/RFF. No.3960768]

>>3958225

What are they incorrect with?

[Anonymous No.3960779]

>>3959083

>the risky option has no reward other than its environmental one. The environment takes a back seat to industry in my eyes.

For the sources posted here (from the mining industry!) it seems that the Australian mining industry will take a small hit, and we've seen that climate policies have not seriously hurt any economy it was tried out it.

But what's the risk of unmitigated global warming?

>>3958356

The two options are incomparable. The latest projections are in agreement: even 3-4 degrees of global warming is enough to raise sea levels tens of meters, and the rapidity of change is guaranteed mass extinction. All the crazy droughts, fires, and flooding these past 2 years will become regular events rather than exceptional ones. And all this is actually the low end of the range of probable warming under business-as-usual.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.short
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/tao.zhang/2010GL046582.pdf

Munich Re and the other major reinsurance companies think that global warming is an enormous risk. As discussed previously, the lowest and most unrealistic expected impact on GDP from unmitigated climate change is higher than the most expensive mitigation policy. From a risk management perspective, it's ludicrously irresponsible NOT to have a climate policy.

[Anonymous No.3960788]

>>3960768
Did you not look at the picture. See how the deniers blue prediction fails to match the observed data.

[Anonymous No.3960816]

>>3959406

>Follow the money, fool.

The starting salary for atmospheric scientists is somewhere around 50k.

>Global warming shills constantly ignore past warming trends

Isn't that the whole point of the "hockey stick"? I can't even think of a single paleoclimatologist who tells us the past shows us that there's nothing to worry about.

>ignore solar cycles

See image.

>ignore the marginal to negligable effect of Total CO2 (of which anthro-based is an even smaller portion)

Lol recycled Heartland talking points. BTW 40% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, and overall CO2 is a powerful GHG, despite relatively small concentrations, due to it's long residency time in the atmosphere (whereas H2O rains out, CH4 breaks down, etc.), and being well-mixed throughout the atmosphere:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

>ignores the shoddy and manipulative use of surface stations & temperature proxies in their cherrypicked datasets
>Climategate

See these posts:

>>3958225
>>3958241
>>3958255
>>3958472

>ignores FOIA requests to data

I'd ignore them from these assholes too. You know McIntyre could have just e-mailed Environment Canada and asked them for the data right? Or he could compare the unadjusted and adjusted data for the GHCN and various other datasets using the magic of Google?

[Anonymous No.3960832]

>>3959345

>Simple, go join the rest of the scientific community that does REAL, rigorous, empirical, productive science.

Where is this REAL scientific community? Don't tell me you think that the National Academy of Science, Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, Science Council of Japan, AAAS, AMS, National Research Council, USGS, NCAR and the American Association of motherfucking Petroleum Geologists are all practicing fake science?

[Anonymous No.3960870]

>>3960816

>Follow the money, fool.

This line of argument is kind of funny. Here's a quote from a long-time skeptic who happens to be a real climate scientist, Pat Michaels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguJod_voPc

>Zakaria: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?

>Michaels: I don't know. 40%? I don't know.

Or perhaps you've heard of Willie Soon, who is the lead author of an infamous 2003 paper which was so awful that half the editorial board of the journal resigned in protest when the editor-in-chief allowed publication and refused to allow a rebuttal. Senator Inhofe likes citing Soon in his congressional testimony. As it turns out, Soon has made $1,000,000 over 10 years above and beyond his normal salary.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/C
ASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/

In b4 "it's Greenpeace so it's biased," it's from FOIA-obtained info and acknowledgement by Soon himself and shareholder reports from his funders.

[Anonymous No.3960898]

>>3960779
wow, good thing there's only a bogus projection for a 0.5 degree change either way then, huh

crisis averted

[Anonymous No.3960926]

>>3958264

>most of your opposition agree that the climate is changing

Depends what time of day it is, if said skeptic is tired due to working late, etc.

Case study: James Delingpole

Delingpole today:

"In the first half of his piece, Professor Muller sets up his straw man. He does so by ascribing to "skeptics" views that they don't actually hold. Their case, he pretends for the sake of his wafer-thin argument, rests on the idea that the last century's land-based temperature data sets are so hopelessly corrupt that they have created the illusion of global warming where none actually exists.

No it doesn't. It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend - emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age."

Delingpole in 2010:

"Global Warming: is it even happening?

Check out this magisterial report by our old friends Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and judge for yourself. In brief: the surface temperature records are such a mess that they simply can't be trusted."

>>3960898

>a 0.5 degree change either way

Someone doesn't know how to read charts

Hint: It's you

[Anonymous No.3960958]

Why are people who underestimate the power of nature always wrong?

[Anonymous No.3961064]

[Anonymous No.3961596]

>>3960958
>Why are people who underestimate the power of nature always wrong?
Because "underestimating" requires being wrong by definition? Duh.