Reader poll results: Chamber of Commerce -vs- EPA on CO2

William (13:37:44) wrote:
I fail to see why the burden of proof will be on the AGW side to provide a bullet proof theory, on the contrary the skeptic side will have no plausable alternative explanation that is as good as the GCM’s and CO2. If there was we would not be having this discussion.
Nonsense. Since CO2 is not a poison, and since there is non-correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels in recent warm periods (for the past few millennia), and since the most recent warming is within the limits of normal variability, etc., etc., it is up to the warmists to prove that there is something unusual going on and that it is irrefutably tied to rising manmade CO2, and that it is a major threat, etc.
I also don’t see the requirement for the cost benefit analysis to be bullet proof but EPA standards based on externalities would still provide the basis for strict standards on CO2 the same way they did for CFC’s, particulate matter and other smokestack emissions.
Since CO2 is not a poison, there can be no application of the ordinary strict standards rule that applies to poisons. Rather, the strict standard should be applied to the warmists’ case, which has many weak points.
The equation is $100 billion in CO2 control or sequestration vs destroy the world, flood the LDC’s, drown the polar bears.
The cost is over a trillion (I’m fuzzy on the exact number, but it’s out-of-sight), the effect on the world of action by the US will be tiny unless Asia signs on in a timely and effective manner, which it won’t, and the threats are very iffy. (E.g., the sea level is stable, or anyway not rising any faster than its long-term rate, and the Arctic ice’s recent decline is not much different from what has occurred in the past 1000 years—or if it is, it’s due mostly to soot from Asia, which can be scrubbed fairly easily.)
The AGW side has already won this argument.
They’re “ahead,” but they haven’t yet “won.” They’re ahead mostly because they’ve controlled the forum and employed both sophisticated sophistry and heavy-handed intimidation techniques to ensure conformity, because they’ve got most of the funding, because the UN’s IPCC was set up to please Ted Turner, a warmist who donated a billion $ to the UN, which has tilted the playing field, and because the debate has not yet reached the court of public opinion, or even the court of ordinary scientific opinion. Consensus has been engineered by sweeping opinion leaders and gatekeepers off their feet with a SEEMINGLY sound case, complete with one-sided “refutations” of skeptics’ claims. But there has been no real engaged ARGUMENT with the skeptics yet. For instance, Monckton’s refutation of the IPCC’s analysis hasn’t been engaged with and debunked, except in a superficial way. And many of the dodges of the warmists—data obfuscation, avoidance, manipulation, etc. have not yet been forced upon the media’s attention, generally recognized, let alone confessed to. Our side has not yet “had its day in court”—any “court.” When it does, and only when it does, can the superficial and sophistical rebuttals of our claims be exposed for what they are. The debate has not yet begun.
You refer to CAGW what is that?
Catastropic AGW. It’s in the Glossary, and is used here fairly regualrly. (“Catastrophic” is the nub of the debate, not whether the world is warming slightly–which it is, as a result of a rebound from the LIA and a warm phase of the PDO. etc.)
As I mentioned earlier, another 15 years will validate or invalidate the models with actual data. Another two years will not establish a cooling trend and we have not yet had a cooling trend even over the last 10 years.
Strawman. What I said was: “all that’s needed is for CO2 to continue rising and the temperature to fail to cooperate.” I.e., a flat temperature trend is sufficient to greatly weaken the alarmists’ case, which asserts that there is a fairly tight correlation between more CO2 and increasing annual temperatures over the long term. (This tight correlation is why some warmists were until recently predicting an ice-free Arctic Ocean within a few years.) Non-confirmation of this tight temperature correlation would give us breathing room for further studies, thinking, and debate. Further, if the PDO and other oceanic oscillations enter a cool phase, as seems to be happening, or (less likely) if Svenmark’s (sp?) cosmic ray theory is correct, a sharp turn for a distinctly cooler global temperature is possible in the next two years. A cooling trend seems to have started three years ago, at a conservative estimate, so a five-year cooling trend (3 + 2 =5) could not be dismissed as mere noise—particularly since the only “forcing” at work that could produce such a substantial long-term trend, according to the IPCC, is an absence of manmade CO2. (Provided there is no huge volcanic eruption.)
It’s possible our government will implement a policy that is very costly and ultimately turns out to be worthless but then again that’s been the main business of the US Government for the last 50 years. Why get so worked up over this when we keep so many scientists employed and feel so good about ourselves possibly saving the world? 20 years from now all the politicians who voted for it will be retired and living on fat pensions anyway.
The cost to the developed world is somewhere over a trillion, which will sink its economy. It could lead to a loss of legitimacy of our form of government, and of Science as an institution, if citizens were heavily taxed (indirectly) and temperatures failed to keep on rising the way they should according to AGW theory. (Measures to reduce CO2 emissions would not have much effect on temperatures for at least a decade, according to the AWGers, so they couldn’t take credit for a fall in temperatures for at least ten years.) This could lead to a political crisis, in conjunction with the next down-leg in the economy. I.e., there’s a chance it could mean the end of our democracy and the start of a new dark age. We should avoid that risk.
Finally, there will be no light shed at all on AGW. The press will take the AGW side and present it in the light that they wish.
How do you know? Why should I accept your sweeping pronunciamentos? The media hasn’t really been exposed to an even-sided debate on this matter. The tide is turning in the media, in minor ways, such as in the reaction of some pro-AWG reviewers to Plimer’s book, to Monckton’s testimony, etc. They aren’t completely hopeless. They’ve been caught up in a fad, like the rest of so-called informed opinion. And they will have to avoid a one-sided presentation of the proceedings, lest their shifitness be exposed by popular media (talk radio, Drudge, etc.) and the MSM thereby they lose even more readership and credibility than they already have.
The skeptics may score debate points but it’s a no win as the AGW side will bask in the glow of a favorable media.
On the contrary, it’s a no-lose situation, since the media has been so one-sided to date. I.e., it can’t get any worse.
The public will be as motivated to watch the “trial” as they are to watch C-Span or watch paint dry.
How do you know? The public massively followed every twist and turn of the Nixon Watergate scandal and impeachment hearings. They (or at least those with TVs) also followed the Army/McCarthy hearings, which I’m old enough to remember. If the public is faced with a major threat to its lifestyle, they could display a similar interest. Certainly some would watch the daily or weekly highlights on YouTube, or would read online snippets and debates about the highlights, etc.
It wouldn’t be necessary for a large audience to watch the raw proceedings. You can bet that talk radio would play “juicy” extracts from the trial and point out the flaws in the warmists arguments, the gaffes they make, etc. Don’t forget, this issue could be one that the Republicans and their allies could use to exploit public anger against know-it-all, overbearing liberals and MSM and thereby regain control in Washington. Such an issue is their only hope at this point. If the Republicans sense that the wind is shifting, which opinion surveys indicate, they could force a major national debte on the issue, give skeptics who testified at the “trial” various venues to make their case, invite them on TV shows, etc. The public hasn’t turned off appearances by skeptics like Monckton on theGlennBeck show—instead, they’ve been fascinated.
Anyway, the whole issue of whether the public would watch or not is a strawman, since I proposed that the proceedings could be secret (which is my preference—I want the trial to be a scientific exercise, without any grandstanding to the crowd). I wrote, in the other (second) thread on this topic, “Incidentally, here is a tenth item for my long post above: The trial’s proceeding needn’t be open to the public. Upon conclusion, a written transcript would be posted.”
It’s a no-win any way you look at it.
Then why is it that the warmists are the ones who are horrified at the prospect of a debate? The answer is that it’s a no-win situation for THEM, not us.

These 20 concurrent trials I advocate needn’t require the physical presence of the witnesses, judges, and jurors, which would be expensive and logistically awkward. Each trial could be conducted online.
In fact, that would be a superior method, because links and documents could be posted and easily quoted and referenced, and the trial could last as long as necessary to reach a resolution or exhaustion–which I guess would be about six months, on average. Jurors and witnesses could ask questions of each other. Judges would keep things from getting too disorganized and unruly. There’d be no need for a transcriber.