Lensman wrote:That's what I find most puzzling the Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming alarmists. It seems as though all they ever want to do is argue over the causes of global warming,
Why should this be puzzling, it is most important that the cause of the current warming is resolved as the denial that this is related to human GHG emissions is being used as a reason for the US not taking any meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions.
No industrialized nation is going to ruin its own economy by taking draconian action to limit carbon emissions. This will become even more true as the kindergarten-level argument that CO2 is the "cause" of global warming continues to be eroded, and discredited even more than it already has been.
Kindergarten-level physics tells us that CO2 is a GHG and now the sceptics are starting to accept that the basic physics tells us that the increase in C02 levels are responsible for at least a part of the present warming.
As we have discussed before the more mature level argument is over the quantities of positive feedback that are a part of our climate system, this is definitely not a Kindergarten-level discussion. This is a just an attempt to belittle the discussion.
Again I post this
Now again I ask where is the evidence that CO2 levels are not relevant to our climate system? Where is the science to show this, where are the models that can show this?
I continually see shifting arguments (plant not warming now it is), misrepresentation of the published studies, misleading statements (COS2 is a harmless colourless gas etc), hidden agendas (Heartland Institute) and other nonsense but never any solid evidence that the sun cycles, galactic motions or anything else is responsible for the current warming.
And then there are the Sceptics with credentials such as this:
Richard S. Lindzen
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking." James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data."
Lensman wrote:Your singling out the USA here is wholly inappropriate. Some EU countries have agreed to limit carbon emissions, but this has proven to be just lip service. Germany and Denmark have discovered, the hard way, what happens when you actually try to use solar and wind power as a significant part of electrical grid power. Reality has finally sunk in, as was inevitable (and predicted by me), so they are now cutting back on their reliance on those unreliable power sources.
No industrialized country has made significant inroads into reducing CO2, and boom growth countries such as China and India are rapidly increasing their CO2 output.
Any serious discussion of reducing air pollution (whether or not that is a significant contributor to climate change) has to take into account that people will never voluntarily give up their refrigerators, televisions, and electric shavers.
It is entirely appropriate to single out the US in this debate, the US is still the worlds largest economy and has a greater influence than any other single economy. Their simply will be no world wide coordinated action without the US. However if the US were to lead most of the worlds nations would be willing to take part in a global response.
That's Kindergarten over for tonight.