Why reducing CO2 Emissions is like the 'Prisoner's Dilemma'

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

prisoners-dilemmaThe Prisoner’s dilemma is a games theory scenario which explores cooperation in difficult circumstances. The classic description, there are two prisoners accused of a crime. Their options are:

  1. They both keep quiet, and when convicted they both receive moderate sentences.
  2. One prisoner rats on the other prisoner. The prisoner who betrays his fellow villain receives a light sentence, the other prisoner receives a heavy sentence.
  3. Both prisoners rat on each other – they both receive heavy sentences.

So how does the Prisoner’s dilemma apply to carbon dioxide mitigation?

The answer of course if that, if CO2 matters, it is a prisoner’s dilemma on a global scale.

Of course, if CO2 has minimal impact on global climate, then it makes no sense to reduce CO2 because it is a waste of resources. But lets consider the interesting scenario – what if CO2 is every bit as dangerous as the IPCC claims it is?

Consider two countries, country A and country B. Both countries have the following options:

  1. They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – both countries will accept moderate to severe economic damage.
  2. Country A could attempt to reduce CO2, while country B continues full steam ahead, maximising economic growth. Country B gets the advantage of an unencumbered economy, and the full benefits of industrialisation – they can afford to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather is too hot. Country A not only gets slammed with the costs of climate mitigation, and the economic damage of trying to compete with country B from a position of permanent structural disadvantage, but any benefit from reduced CO2 thanks to country A’s sacrifices are mostly enjoyed by country B.
  3. Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Both would experience equal pain from climate disruption, but with maximal economic development, both countries would be able to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather outside was too hot.

    Of course, in the real world we’re dealing with more than two countries – there are hundreds of countries. If just a handful of those countries decide to break ranks, to ignore CO2 mitigation, openly or covertly, the countries which betray the effort will receive most of the benefit which accrues from the sacrifices of everyone else.

In the paranoid swamp which is global politics, no serious attempt at altruism could survive the first economic recession it caused. Voters would quickly reject the pain, especially if they saw everyone else was accruing any benefit to be realised from their sacrifices.

So it never, under any circumstances, makes sense to be the sucker. Even if the IPCC is right about CO2, your sacrifices will mainly benefit the people who don’t make an effort.

It makes much more sense to steam full power ahead, maximise economic growth, and use the full resources of your expanded industrial base to mitigate any problems which arise from the consequences of climate change.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bloke down the pub

And all the time that a country or group is making those sacrificies and watching others do nothing, there will be the nagging doubt that maybe cagw is bs that could have been ignored all along.

Jim Francisco

“Others doing nothing”. Makes me think of Algore. Any one know if he still has those big utility bills?

Ah yes, but the LiberalGreenMelon are all ready with that jeering tone…..! “how dare you blast away at full speed ahead….!!!!!!! Think of your grandchildren….!!!!!!”

Ed Zuiderwijk

Don’t forget the Polar Bears!

David Harrington

How woud you feel if you wer both a polar bear AND a grandfather
[You wood feel much better if you were a grandfather OR a polar bear, than if you wore a grandfather polar bare. (obviously, if you only wore a bare polar grandfather, you wood bee very cold.) .mod]

James Harlock

Yet, those self-same people think nothing of saddling their grandchildren with crushing debt. Amazing!

Wait a minute Eric.
Are you trying to inject common sense into the CAGW issue?
Isn’t it a bit late for that?
You are probably one of those people who brings up facts and observable data when others tout “climate change” and you make them look silly.
That would make you a, a, uh, “party pooper”, yeah, that’s it, a PARTY POOPER!
Geez.

Jimbo

Imagine this scenario. Somewhere around the middle of this century it is found that climate sensitivity is known to be low and there will only be mild and net beneficial warming. No worsening extreme weather. The UK, US and Germany had made heavy sacrifices while co2 is at say 450ppm. Imagine how angry voters will feel – pain and no gain.
A glimpse of this possible scenario is from the date of the setting up of the IPCC and its first surface temperature projections to the present. The writing is on the wall.

DD More

It has been found already, just not applied.
Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
Christopher Monckton • Willie W.-H. Soon • David R. Legates • William M. Briggs
Received: 27 August 2014 / Accepted: 12 November 2014 / Published online: 8 January 2015
Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Why_models_run_hot__results_from_an_irreducibly_simple_climate_model_2_.pdf

Steve

The UK, US and Germany have made heavy sacrificies – and others like China and India have ignored the hoax and taken our places as industrial leaders.

Jimbo

Steve
February 9, 2015 at 2:30 am
The UK, US and Germany have made heavy sacrificies – and others like China and India have ignored the hoax and taken our places as industrial leaders.

Good news just in from Germany on wind turbines and solar.

NTZ – 7 February 2015
Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity!
NTZ – 8 February 2015
Analysis Shows Wind And Solar Power In Europe Is On Average 16 Times More Expensive Than Gas-Fired Power!

Listen up chaps. I’m not saying that we should not look at alternative energy but this is ridiculous, and it’s making lots of money for a few people until the bubble bursts. It’s a sucker’s game. Good luck India and China, forge ahead with your development and lift your poor out of poverty, just like the USA, UK and Germany did.

nigelf

This is called “adaptation”, what I’ve been preaching is the ONLY solution whether the IPCC is right or not!

ConTrari

Adaptation will not bring forth the 100 bilion dollars a year to the needy poor nations of the world. You must be afraid, very afraid, to pull such sums out of your wallet.

They really could not care less about the ‘needy nations’. All they see are the billions of dollaras in new carbon taxes — mitigating nothing — and flowing in to be spent by the same governments that publicly wring their hands over the ‘needy’.

Brandon Gates

dbstealey, Invoking Prisoner’s Dilemma is not caring less about the needy nations. In PD the winning strategy is to defect.

In PD the winning strategy is to defect.
Not if they both defect. That’s the dilemma.

Jimbo

IF, and a big IF, there was a breakthrough that made nuclear fusion viable and operative soon, would Warmists go silent over greenhouse gases? If not why not?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/15/encouraging-skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details/

James Hansen tried to push nuclear power a while ago, and that message disappeared without trace. Unless they start selling home fusion units in Walmart, I don’t think viable nuclear fusion will make that much difference to the push for “renewables”, unfortunately.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/

icouldnthelpit

(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo

Here is another side to the Easter Island story. You have to wonder why any inhabited Polynesian islands have trees at all???

Smithsonian – March 31, 2007
The Mystery of Easter Island
New findings rekindle old debates about when the first people arrived and why their civilization collapsed
In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond refers to the Rapanui’s environmental degradation as “ecocide” and points to the civilization’s demise as a model of what can happen if human appetites go unchecked.
But new findings by archaeologist Terry Hunt of the University of Hawai’i may indicate a different version of events. In 2000, Hunt, archaeologist Carl Lipo of California State University, Long Beach, and their students began excavations at Anakena,……….
Hunt suspected that humans alone could not destroy the forests this quickly. In the sand’s layers, he found a potential culprit—a plethora of rat bones. Scientists have long known that when humans colonized the island, so too did the Polynesian rat, having hitched a ride either as stowaways or sources of food. However they got to Easter Island, the rodents found an unlimited food supply in the lush palm trees, believes Hunt, who bases this assertion on an abundance of rat-gnawed palm seeds.
Under these conditions, he says, “Rats would reach a population of a few million within a couple of years.” From there, time would take its toll. “Rats would have an initial impact, eating all of the seeds. With no new regeneration, as the trees die, deforestation can proceed slowly,” he says, adding that people cutting down trees and burning them would have only added to the process.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/the-mystery-of-easter-island-151285298
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/the-mystery-of-easter-island-151285298/?page=2/?no-ist

You have become a master of links and pictures to educate others. Your skill is impressive.

old construction worker

“If just a handful of those countries decide to break ranks, to ignore CO2 mitigation, openly or covertly, the countries which betray the effort will receive most of the benefit which accrues from the sacrifices of everyone else.”
Not if you are paid by rich nation not to produce or manufacture any goods. Sort of like our government (U.S.) paying farmers not to grow certain foods.

Dodgy Geezer

Of course, a warmist would take issue with the three choices. They would portray them instead as:
1 – They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – this will cause little economic damage and will produce many jobs.
2 – Country A could attempt to reduce CO2, while country B continues full steam ahead, maximising economic growth. This will result in world disaster, which may be delayed for a while by the efforts of country A. However, if a tipping point is reached, all of country A’s efforts would be futile.
3 – Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Humanity would immediately become extinct.

It is interesting to consider the implications of this argument. As stated, it is a no-brainer – countries derive maximum benefit from action A, and no benefit at all from any other action. So we need to ask, why don’t countries all take action A, because it is so obviously correct. And the only answers can be:
1: Countries are too stupid to make correct decisions
2: There is something fundamentally wrong with the decisions tree.
Given that all countries have SOME intelligent people in them, I am inclined to the latter view…

Coach Springer

Countries are too stupid to make correct decisions for themselves. That’s why God gave us environmental activists. (/s)

NielsZoo

I thought the eco loons, sorry environmental activists, were there to either help countries make stupid decisions or to provide countries with stupid courses of action to choose from.

Mark from the Midwest

The three options are actually reasonable, but like almost all arguments they are over simplified. Option 1 is actually true, if all countries played by the same rules the net damage in terms of world-wide economic growth would be modest, and jobs in carbon-based energy would be replaced by jobs involving clean energy. But the damage to developing countries, as well as damage to lower income individuals in developed countries would be catastrophic. The short-term impact would be $7 gallon gas, and/or the need to buy a $30K hybird vehicle. Other energy costs, which are a disproportionate part of the lower income budget, would skyrocket. This would bankrupt about 1/3 of the families in the U.S., who depend on cheap fossil based energy just to get by. Of course we could just tell them all that it’s for their own good, I’m sure they would understand.

Mike Smith

1 – They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – this will cause little economic damage and will produce many jobs.
So the left have been screaming from the rooftops for a decade.
But the western nations have spent close on a trillion dollars on CO2 reduction and the fact is it’s created a miniscule handful of jobs. And almost certainly destroyed a much larger number.

Louis

Exactly right, Mike. Any jobs created by “clean energy” have to be subsidized to succeed. So only the elites and the politically well-connected benefit from those jobs, and everyone else gets a double whammy. The greens are okay with that because they’re convinced that they are among the elites and the well-connected, so those jobs will go to them. Even in a terribly depressed economy like that of North Korea, the elites are taken care of. And if many of the common people starve, well that’s a win-win to the greens because it reduces the population and helps the environment.

Sir Harry Flashman

” And almost certainly destroyed a much larger number.” Please cite your source for this.

You’ve got your finger on the pulse of the Warmists here.

Mac the Knife

DG,
It is interesting to consider the implications of this argument.
Consider that we are all already adapted to levels of 5000ppm CO2 in our N2/O2 atmosphere.
Consider that all plants flourish at higher CO2 levels.
Consider that cold weather induced hypothermia is a more lethal threat than a barefoot warm day in shorts.
Consider logic… and reason… and common sense.
As stated, it is a no-brainer….
I agree.

Dodgy Geezer

@nigelf February 8, 2015 at 6:41 am
This is called “adaptation”, what I’ve been preaching is the ONLY solution whether the IPCC is right or not!
Given that no AGW seems to be happening at all, ‘adaptation’ is only the correct solution so long as NO prior actions are taken, and the adaptation is only in response to things that have already happened. My assumption is that there will be no need for adaptation at all, because nothing will happen.
I should also note that cutting CO2 emissions in response to, say, sea level rise, can’t count as adaptation at all until there is a proven predictable link between the two…

This reminds me of the common sense from Willis a couple posts ago…
“The biggest threat to the environment is poverty.”
&
“Finally, since the biggest threat to the environment is poverty, that means that the biggest friend of the environment is development … strange, but true.”

Twobob

All this is assuming that when I get out.
I don’t break your legs

There are 1.96 hundreds of countries.

Janice Moore

While this is, indeed, an interesting mental exercise,
it has no relation to the real, observed, world.
“3.Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Both would experience equal pain from climate disruption,… .”
— all the evidence about CO2 (human and natural) says that this is false. Further, there is no evidence that it is true.
Premise 3 is False.
Thus,
there is no real dilemma.
There is NO evidence that CO2 mitigation is anything but worse than useless.

Gary Meyers

True dat!

urederra

I agree.
More CO2 is good for the environment. Once you know that fact, there is no real dilemma.

highflight56433

Yes, and at what point in history did CO2 threaten life? Probably at its lowest points of concentration.

I agree – but sometimes its fun to point out the inconsistencies in another person’s argument, even when arguing from their premises.

Dr. Richard Rounds

Eric: A good thought process. Wouldn’t the “Tragedy of the Commons” work as well.

Kaboom

Subsidies received to reduce CO2 will never make up for economic gains in developing countries who ignore CO2 limits. And those subsidies don’t earn themselves in debt-burdened developed nations, either. Finally any perceived benefit from CO2 reductions will not materialize, so the scenario we’re really looking at in the dilemma is that of both parties damaging themselves for no gain.

tomwys1

Countries with scientists not beholden to the tax motivated AGW political system, will quickly see the historical disconnect between CO2 and temperature – a steady 280ppm CO2 during both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Only the recent (likely human influenced) CO2 rise happens to coincide with a Little Ice Age exit. The recent 2 decade “stall” in temperature rise in the face of steadily increasing CO2 is the icing (PI) on the CO2 disconnect cake.
The wiser nations will leave economic dislocation to those headed by the dimmer bulbs. Unfortunately the United States is being led by one of them.

H.R.

tomwys1 sez in part:

The wiser nations will leave economic dislocation to those headed by the dimmer bulbs. Unfortunately the United States is being led by one of them.

Not so! Just look at President Obama’s A+++ grades at Harvard. Didn’t he have a 5.6 GPA on a 4.0 scale?
.
.
Oh wait…..
Well, maybe after Obama’s grades are unsealed in 2100, we’ll have the definitive proof of his towering intellect, assuming his chooming buddies don’t misplace the records before then.
(P.S. Who in the sam-#@%!? has their grades sealed anyway?! Even John “Genius” Kerry ponied up during his Presidential run.)
OT but worth it. My spellchecker just came up with the funniest one ever! When I finished typing John “Genius” Kerry, “Genius” was red-squiggly underlined and the option was Delete Repeated Word. I re-re-rechecked my comment – no previous use – and then near busted a gut laughing. I have absolutely no clue why that happened but perhaps the Heinz fortune can buy more then we ever imagined.

glenncz

This is interesting, but not what is really happening. The problem with your argument is that the Prisoners, in this case the Citizens are going to get the sentence. Yet for the people pushing this, the Scientists & Politicians, the CO2 reductions will have the opposite effect. They will get more money and use more CO2 because of it. If both the Citizens and Scientist/Politician groups suffered equally this analogy would hold true. The whole point of the CO2 is that the conspirators want more money so they can create more CO2.

James Parsons

Yes, the citizen prisoners face the potentially devastating consequences while the decision-making wardens continue to fly in private jets, live in multiple 10,000 square foot homes, and ride in 30 car motorcades … which adds a layer of complexity to the dilemma analysis.

To the extent CO2 is a problem, it is a so called problem of the Commons (the atmosphere, climate). The reason it is insoluble by mutual agreement is the Prisoner’s Dilemma in game theory. And that is why COP will fail although there are leaders like Obama who are apparently willing ro commit the equibalent of suicide.

Stevan Makarevich

You left out an important component: the warden of the prison (in this case the IPCC).
The more prisoners that the warden is responsible for, guilty or innocent, the more assured the warden is of being employed.

Ron Clutz

Actually, Countries A, B and others need to take a responsible position regarding climate change.
An appropriate legislative motion would read like this:
Whereas, Extent of global sea ice is at or above historical averages;
Whereas, Populations of polar bears are generally growing;
Whereas, Sea levels have been slowly rising at the same rate since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago;
Whereas, Oceans will not become acidic due to buffering from extensive mineral deposits and marine life is well adapted to pH fluctuations that do occur;
Whereas, Extreme weather events have not increased in recent decades and such events are more associated to periods of cooling rather than warming;
Whereas, Cold spells, not heat waves, are the greater threat to human life and prosperity;
Therefore, This chamber agrees that climate is variable and prudent public officials should plan for future periods both colder and warmer than the present. Two principle objectives will be robust infrastructure and cheap, reliable energy.

Mark from the Midwest

Excuse me, this makes too much sense. You are obviously not fit for employment in the public sector!

Streetcred

Quite, Mark, far too erudite !

Sir Harry Flashman

Your argument assumes that “business as usual” AGW is something that can be readily mitigated with appropriate application of financial resources, and further that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be economically disastrous. The first assumption is far from proven, and a great number of scientists would suggest it’s wrong. The second assertion is also dubious, as countries like Norway are managing to reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth. Since your basic premise is flawed, your conclusions must be also.

mebbe

Sir Harry Flashman says “Since your basic premise is flawed, your conclusions must be also.”
Welcome to the Light, Sir Harry!

Gentle Tramp

This quote by SHF is a perfect description for the whole mad CAGW scare-mongering crusade. Funny that he and the complete crowd of warmists are psychological unable to discover their own failure in spite of 18 years warming hiatus along with record high CO2 emissions…

Taylor Pohlman

I think the climate history of the planet is ample evidence that global warming (anthro or otherwise) will be successfully mitigated. Now how we will mitigate Global Cooling, that’s another and more difficult question…
And as for Norway, of course we can reduce emissions – the US is flat or down itself. The issue is the proposed draconian reduction scenarios . Minimum impact on climate, maximum (negative) impact on people’s lives.
Taylor

norway manages to reduce emmissions for its own population by shipping fossil fuel other places.
the same way the US reduces emissions by shipping them to China.
In the end Norway’s oil creates emissions. a proper accounting of who is responsible would take note of this.

highflight56433

…life produces emissions.

mikewaite

Unfortunately there are not many countries like Norway . which has a small population, very well educated and an abundant supply of hydro and hydrocarbon energy – not to mention capital reserves built up by selling gas and energy to the rest of the world to burn – increasing the customer’s CO2 emissions. Thus it enjoys the financial benefit of those emissions without apparently increasing its own.
You are in danger of arguing from the particular to the general.

Cbeaudry

SHF, you have just described the top right square of the prisoners dilemma.
Norway is “free” because they have gone full steam ahead, producing hydrocarbons for OTHERS to burn, while reaping the benefits of the economic growth. With their cash reserves, they are also much better prepared than the rest of the world to meet any calamity.

Janus

Regarding Norway:
Norway got prosperous and one might even say obscenely rich by exploiting oil and gas reserves in North Atlantic.
So all their “CO2 reductions” were made possible by fossil fuels being burned somewhere else.

Sir Harry Flashman

That’s fair, Norway has some unique advantages. However, the technology that permits serious greenhouse gas reduction is getting cheaper and better, to the point where it’s likely that developing countries will be better served by building out distributed solar power (for example) rather than expensive fossil fueled infrastructure for electrical generation. Moreover, the price of fossil fuels is rarely calculated to include the enormous (non-AGW) costs borne by larger society, like illness from dirty air and commensurate social unrest in China, or fracking earthquakes in Oklahoma.
Another consideration is the outcome if the AGW turns out to actually be catastrophic (a possibility I understand is not accepted by anyone at WUWT, although it is by many others) – in that case, the analogy changes, in that if all the “prisoners” choose to do nothing, everybody dies. The stakes are pretty high.

Reg Nelson

Sir Harry Flashman February 8, 2015 at 12:36 pm
That’s fair, Norway has some unique advantages. However, the technology that permits serious greenhouse gas reduction is getting cheaper and better, to the point where it’s likely that developing countries will be better served by building out distributed solar power (for example) rather than expensive fossil fueled infrastructure for electrical generation. Moreover, the price of fossil fuels is rarely calculated to include the enormous (non-AGW) costs borne by larger society, like illness from dirty air and commensurate social unrest in China, or fracking earthquakes in Oklahoma.
——————————
Pretty sure the cost of earthquakes in Oklahoma is nil.
If developing countries want to go with solar and wind, good on ’em. I don’t see any that are doing that though. In fact, solar and wind only seem to prevalent in industrialized countries, and only because of significant subsidies.
Moreover, the benefits to society and the standard of living are rarely calculated into the equation either. How do you quantify these costs and benefits? At most it is a wild guess.
China’s pollution problems are due to a lack of environmental regulation and enforcement that is standard in Western countries, and on their heavy reliance on burning dirty, brown coal, largely from Australia.

Alan Robertson

Despite your adherence to the Green meme, the earthquakes in Oklahoma are NOT from fracing.

rogerknights

“However, the technology that permits serious greenhouse gas reduction is getting cheaper and better,”
The proponents of that claim typically don’t factor in costs of maintenance (cleaning), degradation of efficiency (often sooner than promised), hazards to fire-fighters, and costs of items other than the panels themselves. The real-world experience of Spain is an object lesson–and Germany and the UK are now discovering that green benefits-calculations have been over-hyped.

PiperPaul

Norway is an oil-rich country with a small, largely homogenous population and a huge oil trust fund.

SandyInLimousin

I think the reason Norway appears green is nothing to do with her oil industry, that is a completely different issue.
Norway has two natural resources for producing electricity for a small population. Hydro power in abundance and much of it pumped storage and free wind power from Denmark. It also exports electricity back to Denmark when there isn’t enough wind for Danes. Denmark pays for this electricity. For Norway it’s win, win, win, win. What’s not to like for the Norwegians?
Plus they get to export oil and gas from a holier than thou position.

Reg Nelson

Norway is Europe’s largest oil producing country and the world’s third largest gas exporter. Fossil fuels are approximately a quarter of their GDP and half of the exports.
The reason Norway can afford to “Go Green”, is due, in a large part, to fossil fuels. A bit hypocritical if you ask me.

SHF is wrong.
The U.S. has been reducing CO2 emissions without any new laws being necessary. Most other countries are increasing emissions. And look at China, the prisoner that is double-crossing everyone else.
Aside from that, as others have pointed out CO2 is very beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. As usual, governments, controlled by self-serving special interests, are on the wrong track.
CO2 has been up to twenty times (20X) higher in the past without causing runaway global warming [or any global warming, for that matter]. More is better at both current and projected concentrations, because the biosphere is starved of CO2.
Finally, CO2 is harmless, in that there has never been demonstrated any global harm due to the rise in CO2 from 0.00003 of the atmosphere, to 0.00004. The whole ‘carbon’ scare is a deliberately fabricated false alarm.

Oldseadog

You say a great number of scientists suggest that the first assumption is wrong; but a great many other scientists say that it is right.
So, Sir Harry, which side are we to believe?

John in Oz

a great number of scientists would suggest it’s wrong.

If you are referring to ‘climate scientists’ who are apparently the only people trained in the arcane art of climate prediction, then what makes them also qualified to comment in subjects such as economics, engineering and psychology (amongst others) which are required to convince the populace that mitigation is possible and necessary?

Mac the Knife

…. and a great number of scientists would suggest it’s wrong.
Ahhhhh, the power of ‘suggestion’, the refuge of cowards and pHr@uds.
Since they cannot muster a firm conclusion, because the evidence is weak and needs continual ‘adjustment’, their conclusions must be weak and pHr@udulent also.

Sir Harry Flashman

And yet they remain the overwhelming majority, and the :”skeptics” are left grasping at conspiracy theories to explain why they are continually proved wrong.

M Courtney

I think the pause is significant.
It is had to blame a motive or a conspiracy theory ideation on the thermometers. They are inanimate.
Yet they keep on giving sceptical results when questioned about newsworthy Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Why trust the opinions of “experts” who can’t read a thermometer?

Mac the Knife

Golly – I don’t feel ‘overwhelmed’ by your ‘suggestions’.
Eighteen + years of no warming is the elephant in your climate extremest ward that continually proves you continually wrong. It leaves you grasping at straws to suggest otherwise.

Streetcred

Yeah, LOL, last time I looked it wasn’t Norway that was carrying the EU !

NancyG22

Saw this recently and I think it relates to this article by Eric.
“3 February 2015 – The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.””
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Sir Harry Flashman

So what? The industrial revolution – the last great restructuring – abandoned a paradigm that wasn’t working and brought the human race the greatest wealth and prosperity in history. Why would you be so terrified to do that again?

Alan Robertson

SHF,
Are you advocating for a particular “restructuring” plan? If so, let’s hear the plan, if not…

Sir Harry Flashman

I’m recommending a non-Luddite response to the benefits of new ways of deriving and using energy. If you’re seriously asking me to propose a global plan for economic restructuring in the comments section of a blog, I’ll have to decline.

Alan Robertson

What game changing new ways of deriving and using energy do you see on the horizon, or already in play? The industrial revolution was brought about largely by access to cheap, reliable energy sources. Where’s our game- changing cheaper, more reliable alternative?
No one asked you to structure a plan. That’s your strawman. I asked what plan you have in mind, since you were quick to denigrate Nancy’s remarks. If you don’t already have a plan, or agree to someone else’ plan, then you were just sniping without merit, engaged in subtle ad hominem and disruption of the topic.

Sir Harry Flashman

“No one asked you to structure a plan. That’s your strawman. I asked what plan you have in mind,” Sorry, that distinction was a little delicate for me.
I would suggest using renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, geothermal and tidal in lieu of fossil fuels for electrical generation. I would suggest filling the gaps with nuclear. I would advocate a new emphasis on conservation and efficiency in our use of energy. I would propose measures to reduce deforestation. I would suggest demanding as consumers that companies act sustainably, and as citizens that our governments behave responsibly and stop lining their pockets at the expense of future generations. Why people object to these ideas so strenuously is unclear, but I am always eager to be enlightened.

I would suggest using renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, geothermal and tidal in lieu of fossil fuels for electrical generation. I would suggest filling the gaps with nuclear. I would advocate a new emphasis on conservation and efficiency in our use of energy. I would propose measures to reduce deforestation. I would suggest demanding as consumers that companies act sustainably, and as citizens that our governments behave responsibly and stop lining their pockets at the expense of future generations. Why people object to these ideas so strenuously is unclear, but I am always eager to be enlightened.

Because these ideas will not work. Cannot work in the real world of copper, water, steel, and concrete. Such a world is possible.
At the levels of life we had in 1750. With lives only 30 years long, in squalid poor and starvation (like 7/8 the world lives now). Now, I grant that nuclear will help . A little. Renewables? Add them and 100% hydro to the mix, and you allow 6/8 of the world to live better. (But the enviro’s oppose dams as well.)

SHF:
I notice there’s no economics in your response. No cost/benefit analysis. And what the hell do you mean by “sustainable”??
Cost/benefit is central to the whole debate, and it is the reason that alarmists and skeptics are so far apart. Skeptics want to know what these schemes will cost, so we can try to determine whether they are worth doing.
But alarmists? They want their often pie-in-the-sky ideas implemented now, and damn the expense. Most of them have no skin in the game, meaning they are not paying the freight. A very large percentage are tax collectors [on the take; on the dole], they are not tax payers. And of the ones who are tax payers, many of those are self-serving rent seekers, people like Gavin Schmidt, who would be out of a job if the carbon scare was ever fully debated. See, it’s people like Schmidt who are lining their pockets, and they are doing it with no credible product — unlike fossil fuel companies, which provide necessities.
So let’s put each proposal in turn in front of the taxpaying public, and each side can argue for or against it. Are you game? If we did that, you know what would happen: about 97% of the eco-proposals would go down in flames.
That’s a big reason why the alarmist crowd runs and hides out from any fair, moderated debates. What they really want is to back-door these mostly über-stupid ideas, and leave the taxpaying public holding the bag.

Sir Harry Flashman

Pot, meet kettle. There’s not a single fact in that entire comment, just insult and opinion. If renewables weren’t economically feasible, implementation wouldn’t be growing globally faster than any other source of electricity. It’s called “capitalism”.http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/strong-growth-for-renewables-expected-through-to-2030/

SHF says:
If renewables weren’t economically feasible, implementation wouldn’t be growing globally faster…&blah, blah, etc.
It’s growing for one reason, and for one reason only: because of the massive taxpayer subsidies propping it up. If you had understood my comment above you would have seen that. You have a weird idea of what is “economically feasible”. Plenty of things are economically feasible if you shovel enough 3rd party money into them.
If you believe that’s “capitalism”, then you know nothing about the subject. Government support of industry is pretty damn close to fascism. That’s what is happening here.
There is nothing less expensive than fossil fuel power. Nothing. But if you give me enough money, I could hire millions of Chinese peons to peddle bicycles and provide power. Don’t mention the subsidies, and it will look cheap. That’s exactly what is happening here. There is no way in hell that windmills could compete on a level playing field with coal or natgas. Only the gullible and credulous believe that nonsense.

Sir Harry Flashman

I’d love to know what you smoke, db. Grid parity without subsidies is here, and that doesn’t account for the tax breaks given to fossil fuels, or the damage to human health caused by sourcing, digging up, and burning them. . http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=494

SHF:
Of course there are fossil fuel subsidies. So what? That does nothing to negate the point that on a level playing field, your stupid windmills can’t compete with coal or natgas.
And you still didn’t explain “sustainable”.

rogerknights

“the tax breaks given to fossil fuels, or the damage to human health caused by sourcing, digging up, and burning them.”
The tax-breaks-for-fossil-fuels argument has been refuted in WUWT in detail many times.
The damage to human health caused by digging up and fabricating the rare earths and other poisons in whiligiggs and solar panels are worse.

Sir Harry Flashman

Please document those claims.

Streetcred

Yo, Flash Harry … how’s Germany’s “Ernergiewende” working out for its people ?

Sir Harry Flashman

Sehr gut.

Streetcred

Meinst du sehr gut so?
Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity! – http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.9AleWwmZ.dpuf
[Ouch. That is less than the usual 17% effectiveness. .mod]

Martin Mayer

Christiana Figueres

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model …

She’s quite wrong. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot each tried it in the 20th century.

Alan Robertson

Martin,
Since Christiana Figueres has praised China’s political system for its ability to implement policies without having to undergo legislative process and has also declared that the US Congress is detrimental to the UN’s efforts to “fight” climate change, one could easily conclude that you have drawn up a list of Figueres’ mentors and authors of her business plan to “fundamentally change the world’s economic development model”.

Streetcred

LOL, I see that China has just banned the Islamic call to prayers … Man. that’s going to explode a few progressive heads with acute cognitive dissonance.

Leonard Lane

And Obama did great damage in the 21st century

Golden

I don’t think this is a very good example of where we should go. Assuming that the IPCC is right, which we know they are not, then everyone going full steam ahead will bring on the climate disaster that the IPCC has proclaimed. Let’s look at a couple of simpler examples.
A few liars might get ahead in business deals, but if everyone is a liar society goes downhill.
A few bums that don’t work (rich and poor included) might get away with bumming society, but if everyone is a bum, who’s going to produce all the things to bum from?
Machiavellianism is a high point of climate warmists. I would not doubt the book is on everyone of their night stands. It is something that this blog and sceptics have been fighting.

PiperPaul

The answer to the question in your third paragraph is: robots.

Golden

We’re not there yet and we have not idea how the economics is going to work if and when we get there.

Golden,
Niccolo Machiavelli was right on target. Did you mean Malthus? I could see Malthus being on warmists’ night stands. Lots of them would be very happy to starve people. They come right out and say it.
Machiavelli wrote, “All men are bad, unless compelled to be good.” Since no one compels the alarmist crowd to do anything, they have become unifomly bad.
Look at Greenpeace, which is apparently exempt from laws, and from taxes, and from ever being audited. So naturally, they have become thoroughly corrupt. Machiavelli could have predicted that outcome.
Who compels Greenpeace to have annual audits? No one. What compels them to be good citizens? Nothing. The directors live like kings on the dues of stupid people, who actually believe that by sending Greenpeace their money every month, they are helping to “Save The Planet”™. As if. They are only subsidizing a racket.
And who compels Obama? Anyone? I can’t think of any person, or any organization. He does whatever he wants, and it matters not what Congress or the courts say. Again, Machiavelli would know exactly what’s going on there, because he understood human nature very well.
If Obama had moral character, it would be one thing. But the ‘community organizer’ is completely character-free. Everything has been given to him his entire life, and he has failed upward. Now he is in an unassailable position — and the rest of us are the prisoners with the dilemma.

D.J. Hawkins

You have hit upon exactly the situation in the US. The “bums” are the 47% of wage earners who pay no federal tax, yet enjoy the benefits or living in this country.

Alan Robertson

Those wage earner “bums” are the result of reverse tax bracket creep, designed into the tax system, which is the prime indicator that their wages have not kept pace with inflation. The whole idea of wage taxes is to allow the masses just enough to survive after tax, to keep them from manning the battlements. In other words, wage taxes are designed to keep the little guy, little.

Golden

dbstealey,
What Machiavelli is best known for is The Prince where the author “seemed to be endorsing behavior often deemed as evil and immoral. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
The term used in this blog is Plato’s noble lie. I doubt warmists know much about Plato, but can probably recite Machiavelli’s political machinations by heart.

Taylor Pohlman

Old Construction Worker: “rich counties pay poor countries not to produce…”
Isn’t that what most NGO’s do already, in their own way, holding down local adaptation/mitigation on a host of topics, not just energy production? Such a shame, look at telephony – emerging nations went straight to wireless celluar, and skipped the copper infrastructure we’re maintaining. What if we helped them get clean(er) coal, gas and new gen nuclear? Instead we smugly suggest we’ll pay them not to get cheap energy, keeping them burning dung – crazy.
Taylor

LiberalGreenMelon

This article misses an important elephant-in-the-room. Deploy renewables whilst your economy is stable or booming and reap the benefits of low polluting, cheap energy.
Acting to reduce CO2 could boost an economy.

LGM, that is plain wrong. Read Bastiat’s “Broken Window Fallacy”.

dudleyhorscroft

Just one problem – renewables are not cheap. You end up with expensive renewables and excessive power bills. We are finding this to our cost in Australia, and no doubt in other countries that have gone down the same road. It is alleged that wind power is getting cheaper, and that solar power cells are getting much cheaper. This may well be right, but the electricity produced is still well above the cost of coal.
Only way to make solar or wind power approach even a reasonable price level is to combine the generation with pumped storage, so that energy can be delivered when it is needed, when demand is high, so the price of energy is high. No good providing the energy outside the peaks, when the price is low.

Even Google has given up on current generation renewables as being remotely viable.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
I mean, its always possible someone will create a marvellous game changing breakthrough, but with current technology the evidence is that subsidising renewables is a useless drain on the economy.

Brandon Gates

Eric Worrall,

They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – both countries will accept moderate to severe economic damage.

Rests on the assumption that the near term economic damage of mitigation is greater than the long-term damage of not mitigating. I’d like to know how you know this.

It makes much more sense to steam full power ahead, maximise economic growth, and use the full resources of your expanded industrial base to mitigate any problems which arise from the consequences of climate change.

Not necessarily because now you’re assuming that the “expanded industrial base” is capable of “mitigating” any future problems which arise. I’d sure like to know what economic model it is that inspires such confidence above and beyond what models of physics are saying.
Basically your dilemma identifies why doing unified global mitigation now will be difficult because yes, it’s pretty clear that achieving agreement and compliance from all or most parties is going to be difficult. The thing you might want to think about is that rolling back mitigation would probably be a lot easier than implementing it. As well, keep in mind that physical systems do not respond to the writing of policy; they respond to the actions of policy. Perhaps also see: tragedy of the commons, which also ties into game theory but is somewhat more applicable to the problem domain.

Pick your game theory – Prisoner or Tragedy of the Commons. It comes out the same:
The Ministries of Truth and Plenty will take you (oops – take care of you).

Brandon Gates

Not according to the theory of the games. They’re quite similar, but a properly constructed TC problem does not result in defection being the winning move.

Gates says:
I’d like to know how you know this.
I would like to know how he ‘knows’ that CO2 is any kind of a problem.
Because based on ALL available evidence, it isn’t.

Brandon Gates

That is an interesting assumption in his essay. Way I’m reading it he’s saying it doesn’t matter because it’s really not a problem to begin with.

That is the default assumption, because there is zero evidence to support the belief that CO2 is harmful.
But if we begin with your assuption: that CO2 is a problem, then we are back in witch doctor territory.

Brandon Gates;
I’d sure like to know what economic model it is that inspires such confidence above and beyond what models of physics are saying.

Those would be the same models that IPCC AR5 said are over estimating warming?
Brandon Gates;
Not necessarily because now you’re assuming that the “expanded industrial base” is capable of “mitigating” any future problems which arise. I’d sure like to know what economic model

How about the one in IPCC AR5? The one that wants us to spend 3% of GDP to mitigate 2% of negative economic impact? Let’s use that one?
As for your previous sentence, you don’t seem to understand that an expanded industrial base is the same thing as having money in your pocket. Money can’t solve ALL problems, but it can solve MOST problems. The less industrial base (money) you have, the fewer unforeseen problems you are in a position to solve. If you wish to make the argument that you KNOW what the outcomes of warming are, AND that they cannot be mitigated, you are free to make a fool of yourself.

Brandon Gates

davidmhoffer,

Those would be the same models that IPCC AR5 said are over estimating warming?

All models are wrong. Some are more wrong than others. Economic models are notoriously unreliable, if we must think in those terms, because human beings are singularly unpredictable. That’s one reason why there are four RCPs in AR5, not one.

How about the one in IPCC AR5? The one that wants us to spend 3% of GDP to mitigate 2% of negative economic impact?

I’m sorry but I don’t have AR5 memorized yet. I’m a bad warmist that way.

The less industrial base (money) you have, the fewer unforeseen problems you are in a position to solve.

The market disagrees with you:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Sectors_of_US_Economy_as_Percent_of_GDP_1947-2009.png

If you wish to make the argument that you KNOW what the outcomes of warming are, AND that they cannot be mitigated, you are free to make a fool of yourself.

I’ve argued many times here that I do NOT KNOW what the outcomes of warming are which is a risk in and of itself, and about as good an argument I can think of for mitigating emissions. I like building a lot of nuclear plants to replace coal, myself. Which sounds industrial-like to me. Think of the GDP boost from all that construction.

It doesn’t matter to my scenario if the ultimate result of not reducing CO2 emissions is human extinction, because the evidence for that outcome is not compelling enough, right now, to drive the required levels of cooperation. The temptation to betray the CO2 reduction efforts of others is overwhelming – that is the point I was making.

Brandon Gates

Eric,
I agree with you that getting it done cooperatively is going to be difficult. Where we disagree is on the “why”. For starters, the serious thinkers among the impact assessors are not fixated on “human extinction”. Next — this is a nitpick, but it drives me nuts — there is no such thing as “evidence” for a future outcome, there can only ever be estimates. Finally, humans fundamentally do not do well planning ahead in very large groups when there are many conflicting interests at stake. By our nature we think we’re going to beat the competition when push comes to shove, or die trying. See just about every war ever fought … one side tends to end up deeply being wrong about their actual chances.
So, I argue that the rational thing to do is play the safe route and give all of us a larger margin of error. I totally get it that not everyone reads history the same way that I do.

Gates says:
I argue that the rational thing to do is play the safe route and give all of us a larger margin of error.
That isn’t rational, because it ignores the critical factor: cost/benefit analysis. Which is really what the entire debate is about. “Safe”? “Margin of error”? What about the cost??
If taking a particular action costs little or nothing and might avoid problems, sure, why not? But if the action results in deconstructing Western civilization — as many alarmists seriously propose — then they had better have irrefutable evidence that such a course of action is necessary and unavoidable.
But in almost all cases where the argument is about CO2, there is zero scientific evidence showing that there is, or has been any harm at all from a rise in that beneficial trace gas.
Try telling that to any of the wild-eyed extremists who populate these threads. They don’t want to hear it. Their attitude is based on Noble Cause corruption: they know they’re right, so anyone arguing must be wrong, and let’s do it — damn the consequences. And if they have to do it by hook or by crook, fire away!
But if we did as they want, our society would come crashing down, and then they would be nowhere to be found: “Nobody here but us chickens.” They are nuts, that’s all. Disregard them.

Brandon Gates

dbstealey,

What about the cost??

The cost of mitigation would be set by policy. The cost of not mitigating will be set by highly uncertain future events. You tell me which we have more control over, and therefore which represents the highest risk.

But if the action results in deconstructing Western civilization — as many alarmists seriously propose — then they had better have irrefutable evidence that such a course of action is necessary and unavoidable.

What a thoroughly stupid argument. If there was “irrefutable evidence” that Western civilization would be deconstructing by warming, you’d go along with a plan to deconstruct Western civilization. Fear really does make people stop thinking apparently. How does it feel to be an alarmist, DB? I’ve always been curious about that.

Gates, you must be looking in the mirror. The thoroughly stupid argument belongs to you alone. You own that kind of argument.
The answer for sensible people: we handle problems as they appear. But so far, there are NO problems with CO2 emission. Prove me wrong, and you win the argument. Fail, and you lose.
So show us those catastrophes, Gates. I’ll wait while you try to think up something scary…

Sir Harry Flashman

The point you’re evidently not understanding is that if it’s catastrophe, by the time it’s crystal clear it will also be irreversible and unavoidable. Whereas the work to mitigate will have a cost,but a controllable one (ie one that will not result in the downfall of Western civilization, because noone is going to support such a path) and will spur the development of processes and technologies that will be enormously beneficial. There really is no downside, unless you own an oil company.

Sir Harry Flashman

Here’s one for you DB.
http://mic.com/articles/110216/australia-saw-an-anomaly-that-should-occur-once-in-12-300-years-here-s-why-it-happened?utm_source=Mic+Check&utm_campaign=ee4f6c8bb9-Mic_Report_2_10_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51f2320b33-ee4f6c8bb9-285324149
” …researchers were able to calculate likely temperatures in a “natural-only” environment — the earth’s climate without the effects of man-made greenhouse gases. They found that in the absence of human influence on the climate, the staggering temperatures Australia experienced in 2013 had a likelihood of happening just once in 12,300 years — a mere .00008% chance. ”
Those crazy Aussies and their wild imaginations.

Brandon Gates

dbstealey,

The answer for sensible people: we handle problems as they appear.

Another truthy nugget of wisdom which isn’t held by sensible people. I imagine, I hope, that you personally have the good sense to insure your house and automobile against wholly unforeseeable damage or destruction. Liability insurance is required by law for people who don’t have that kind of good sense, the reason being that’s how insurance companies keep the risk pool large enough to keep from getting wiped out by people who think they’re such careful drivers that they’ll never cause an accident they’d be held responsible for.
To extend that analogy a bit, imagine that you’re driving a car on a dark road in the fog. Every rational person on the planet slows down in such situations in the off chance that there’s some obstruction ahead that they’d rather not collide with. We do the same thing going around a blind turn on a narrow country road. We especially slow down going around blind corners on a foggy evening when the road we’re on is one we’ve never driven on. What’s the cost of that? We add a few minutes to our trip. On balance we might actually lose more time slowing down for poor driving conditions than we save in cost of accidents, but we also know that reckless drivers get into crackups more often and at higher rates of speed which causes more damage.
Risk management is about playing those kind of odds and balancing the controllable cost of insurance against the potentially uncontrollable cost of loss. I can’t give you “evidence of catastrophe” before it occurs. It’s idiotic to even phrase the question that way. All anyone can provide are estimates of future losses, which need not be catastrophic to warrant action today to mitigate. And for damn sure mitigation itself need not be presently catastrophic — it wouldn’t make any friggin’ sense to do such a nitwitted thing. The nightmares you manufacture about proposals to gently transition out of fossil fuels and into technologies like nuclear, solar and wind power are the alarmism here.
You demand evidence of things which have not occurred, and reject evidence of things which have. Reasonable thinking people see your panicky rhetoric exactly for what it is: illogical horseshit not to be taken seriously.

Sir Harry Flashman

Your logic is impeccable, your conclusions irrefutable. And yet quite wasted, I fear.

Gates says:
I imagine, I hope, that you personally have the good sense to insure your house and automobile against wholly unforeseeable damage or destruction.
Yes, I do. But I don’t insure my house against an asteroid hit — and that is much more likely than CAGW.
The rest of your comment, including your analogy, is a bunch of nonsense. There is zero evidence showing that runaway global warming is happening, or ever will occur.
I’m sure some insurance company would be happy to take your money to insure against that — laughing all the way to the bank, as they recall a famous P.T. Barnum quote. ☺

SHF says:
Here’s one for you DB.
Then Flash quotes from his link:
…researchers were able to calculate likely temperatures in a “natural-only” environment — the earth’s climate without the effects of man-made greenhouse gases. They found…&blah, blah, etc.
How did they ‘find’ these “likely temperatures”? Here’s how:
Using climate model simulations…
You left that part out, Flash. I wonder why?

Sir Harry Flashman

I thought it was self-evident. Researchers can’t actually create another Earth, so they use models.

Brandon Gates

Thanks Flashman. Mostly I write such things for me but with some faint hope that more neutral, silent, third parties may find them compelling. DB riffs off me in similar fashion, so as I see it one good turn deserves another.

Sir Harry Flashman

Hey, it’s fun, no? But this is a political website (and a very strange one) dressed up in a rhinestone labcoat to look sciency.

Brandon, you and Flash need to get a room, you’re so much in love [not that there’s anything wrong with that☺]. But first, I should remind you that what I wrote was:
…so far, there are NO problems with CO2 emission. Prove me wrong, and you win the argument. Fail, and you lose.
I gave you a very fair chance to show me I’m wrong. Instead, you ignored it, and made a lame analogy that I showed did not apply. Insurance is for real threats, not for supremely unlikely events.
So now you’ve given up entirely on posting any solid evidence supporting your belief in runaway global warming, which, despite zero evidence, you seem to believe is sneaking up on us.
Once more: post evidence showing that human emitted CO2 is harmful. Or any kind of a problem. You would like to win an argument for once, wouldn’t you? Now is your chance.

Eugene WR Gallun

And that is why Socialism does not work either.
Socialism is a prisoner’s dilemma situation.
The government structures the economy so, Ideally, all groups share burdens and profits — but that never happens. Everybody is soon gaming the system producing the worst possible consequences. Socialism destroys all that it touches because it makes wrong assumptions about basic human nature.
Capitalism demands that human nature structure the economy, not the government. It is not a prisoner’s dilemma situation.
Capitalism fails when it entwines itself with government becoming, well, socialism.
Government needs to regulate Capitalism not control it. Regulation comes after Capitalism acts. Control comes before Capitalism acts. A Socialist government controls while a Capitalist government regulates.
But regulation can quickly become control and socialism with all its terrible consequences will result. When regulations are used to “direct” Capitalism they have become controls.
Or so it seems to me.
This is so off topic that a sensible moderator would eliminate it.
Eugene WR Gallun
[But, the policy here is to “expose” it and “expand on it”, rather than “eliminate” such a topic. .mod]

Jim Francisco

I don’t think you are too far off topic Eugene because I think that the real objective of the global warming alarmist is to bring communism to all. Some may think that democratic socialism is what they want but tyrannical communism is what they will get. It is what happened to the Russian sailors in the early 1920s (see Kronstadt rebellian).

Gunga Din

You’ve brought up the political aspect, not the scientific aspect of AGW. But it is the political aspect that has had a greater negative impact on people than any CO2 Man has ever emitted. That impact is scientifically next to immeasurable.

Streetcred

Socialism didn’t do much for East Germany either. Boy, were they keen to “tear down the wall” !

Oldseadog

“Voters would quickly reject the pain ….. .”
Not much sign of this so far …… .
(Mainly because the MSM isn’t reporting things properly, of course.)

highflight56433

…unless they have something to gain. Obummer phones etc

John in Oz

It appears that most people will ignore this entire issue until it affects them personally.
For example, in Oz at the moment we have a Government keen to reduce our national debt and they were voted in quite strongly with this as their platform. Now that they are attempting to perform (what they consider) the necessary fiscal changes, the polls of the same people that voted them in but are going to have to pay for the changes have them as the bad guys and not as popular as during the elections.
At the moment, it appears very people who put us in the debt problem in the first place would win an election.

Latitude

It’s not that complicated….
Say there’s 300 countries….
10 countries pay……..290 countries get paid
…and they vote on it

‘Voters would quickly reject the pain, especially if they saw everyone else was accruing any benefit to be realised from their sacrifices.’
Oh, how I wish that were true. Voters didn’t reject the pain in 2012.

Dawtgtomis

A vast majority of folks in my “circle of acquaintance” can’t feel where the pain is coming from -yet. They feel the climate change issue is very low on the scale of reasons to vote, just like the poles show. I hang with “middle-of-the-roaders” mostly, who haven’t looked into the science beyond what the media tells, and are largely unaware of resolutions at the international level promoting a global governance.
Those who have known me all my life know that I have always been a conservationist and steward of the environment, so my questioning the green motives is a change of perspective. Yet some still insist that if anthropological climate change is not real, the people they put in office will figure that out, so why should they have to really educate themselves or even be concerned?
While there are so many more “fight-or-flight” inducing stimuli in the media to take priority, it is easy to “slip things by the populous” under the rationalization of “erring on the side of caution”

highflight56433

“…the people they put in office will figure that out, so why should they have to really educate themselves or even be concerned?”
Jonestown

PiperPaul

No, they re-elected him.

Thanx to plenty of lies, voter fraud, and Obamaphones…

Reg Nelson

Yes, but only after Obama pushed out the implementation of the painful parts of Obamacare to beyond Election Day.

Gunga Din

And let’s not forget how the MSM hyped Sandy just before the US election.
“CAGW” indeed.

George Daddis

Could Eric’s point be that the Western leaders, India and China at the urging of the UN have ALREADY agreed to a defect/cooperate strategy, and thus the game is lost from the start? For example, Obama’s agreement with China allows the latter to proceed unrestrained until 2030 and then they will CONSIDER leveling off;while the US starts cutting back on CO2 immediately. (He is so proud of that achievement he’s declared he wants the same agreement with India.)
Our reductions can’t possibly stay even with China and India’s increases, so the whole exercise is pointless with respect to any attempt to reduce worldwide CO2 levels (regardless of you opinion on the impact of CO2 on warming).
Of course, if your goal is actually a global redistribution of wealth…….

George,
Thaut’s exactly what it is.

Patrick

May I say “encarserated” for a “clrical” error? Now how many times does THAT happenen?

Patrick

Dammit! “Clerical” error!

Phil Cartier

you can say “incarcerated” if you mean put in prison, or you can, maybe, “encapsulated”, which means surrounded, completely coated, or put in a capsule.

Patrick

Spelling aside, you get the message.

Janice The American Elder

[after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]
Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Gunga Din

😎

Mike Maguire

Since the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been greatly beneficial to life on this planet, we should add that the crime they are charged with is helping less fortunate people after the government ruled that helping less fortunate people was a crime (akin to EPA’s ruling that CO2=pollution) (-:

richard verney

On a human timescale, there is no such thing as global warming, or global climate. On a geological timescale; the globe is either in a galcial or interglacial state.
The fact is that climate is regional (and temperature is only one of many different components that go to make up climate). Some parts of the globe are warming, some are cooling and some are not experiencing any significant chage in temperatures. Every country experiences climate change/changes in temperature differently.
For some countries a warming climate would be a God send (eg. countries in high northern latitutes such as Canada, the UK, Scandinavian Countries etc). For some sea level rise would be no problem at all, eg Switzerland (in fact there are almost 50 landlocked countries) and countries like Norway that have high rising cliff/mountain coastlines, for other countries sea level rise would be an inconvenience (possibly even a serious one; although sea level rise is gradual).
The big con in all of this is the globalisation of the scare. It is a political conscript; we are all in it together, we need a global solution. This is wholly untrue. But if the IPCC/UN was honest, then every country would evaluate its own self interest, and would assess whether (so called) Global Warming was a problem for that country, or a benefit and would then act in its own self interest. Some countries would therefore not be concerned about their own (or indeed others) CO2 emissions, and would wish to maximise their own industrial and economic strength.
There is a global power grab, and this is why cAGW is presented as a global problem requiring global solutions.
The obvious ‘solution’ would be adaption, and if a country adversely affected by Gloabl Warming cannot afford the expense of adaption and if it is a low CO2 emitter, possibly there is a case that high CO2 emitters who have benefitted economically from not curbing their CO2 emissions should assist the low CO2 emitting country that has been adversely impacted.
The real application of the precautionary principle points strongly towards adaption; since the real disaster scenario would be that the developed countries bankrupt themselves by curbing CO2 emissions and reducing their energy production/dependence and thereby losing industrially and economically, AND cutting global CO2 has no effect (because CO2 is not the control knob) such that the world continues to warm (because the present warming is of natural origin) AND this warming has negative impacts and the developed world no longer has the financial capacity or industrial resourse to mobilise the adaption work required in the developing world that has suffered the adverse consequences of the naturally warming world, and the developing world does not have the financial or industrial wherewithal to deal with matters because the UN prevented it from industrialising and developing itself because of the fear of CO2 emissions. The upshot is that all countries are too broke, lack the infrasture/industrial capacity to meet the challenges and needs required.

Alx

When changes occur, the meaningful impacts are always local. Any kind of change, industrial, disease, economic, or climate requires strong leadership. Instead we have corruption, ignorance, and incompetence. A case in point is when foreign competition changed the auto industry, Detroit never adapted and slid into ruin.
What is bizarre about climate politics, is they are arguing climate is not relevant locally. It is a “global” issue, ignoring that over millenniums changing climate has both enhanced and diminished life depending on what part of the globe it inhabited.
Adapt or die is the way life on Earth evolved, I didn’t think the UN is changing that. Evolution does not preclude having compassion, it precludes acting stupid and expecting good results.
If I had to sum it up, climate change is the biggest ego trip since we thought the universe revolved around the earth.

Alx

This article points out the third leg of the climate change farce. Below are the three legs.
1. Data collection has been and still is inconsistently collected and tabulated. Too much data correction, too much massaged data, and too many massaging techniques. Input is unreliable.
2. In terms of the earths, land, life, air, and water system the models are incomplete, They simplify a much more complex system. Output would remain unreliable even if the input from number 1 above became fully trusted.
3. Even if 1 or 2 are both proven true, as this post shows there is no politically practical way to reduce CO2. Going further even if by some miracle there was a combined political will, the amount of CO2 reduction required to get back to pre-industrial levels would require civilization regressing to the 17th century.
Actually, due to natural variation, CO2 could well increase after we shutdown all of the power plants and oil rigs. Boy, wouldn’t that suck. All those environmentalists having to give up their iPhones, Starbucks, and easily available energy for no reason at all.

richard verney

Further to my comment above the point I was making is that:
The ultimate disaster is that the world bankrupts itself/fails to develop because it employs an ineffective strategy of mitigation (because it turns out that CO2 is not the control knob and the warming is of natural origin) and is then incapable of adapting because it has run out of cash and/or de-industrialised and/or not developed.
Further adaption is preferable to mitigation because CO2 brings with it many KNOWN benefits, eg., plant food and the greening of the plant, and also, it may well be the case that a warmer world benefits the majority of countires/the majority of the population (most people prefer to live in warm locations), and is a detriment only to a minority of the world. Historical evidence suggests that a warmer world is a good thing (the advent of civilisations and technology, the move from the bronze to the iron age can be traced in accordance with warm temperatures), and we know that greater bio diversity is to be seen in warm/wet locations and least bio diversity in cold/arid locations; historic, archaeological evidence and commonselnse all tell us that warm is preferable condition, and personally, I consider that this (ie., the fear of warmth) is an area where the ‘warmist’ have very seriously gone off the rails

PiperPaul

The ultimate disaster is that the world bankrupts itself
Some see this as a feature, not a bug.

Jim Francisco

Richard. Your comment reminds me of what I consider wrong actions taken by many countries prior to WW2 to prepare for the approaching storm. I think the whole disaster could have been avoided if different preparations were made. If the US would have had a strong military, if France would have used the money and effort it put into the Maginot lines fixed fortifications (monuments to the stupidity of man- Patton) into mobile systems then Germany probably would have been deterred.
Wastfull wrong actions were taken then and the results were horrendous. Let us not do the same kind of wrong action again.

My understanding is that in the past C02 levels have been a lot higher than 400ppm (8000ppm is one figure that I heard) and since we are discussing this, after CO2 reached these unprecedented levels, then CAGW is a non-event.
We need to maintain economic growth to continue to feed, clothe and defend ourselves, eventually replacements for fossil fuels will be discovered so that economic growth can continue (hydrogen fusion springs to mind. Renewable power sources (apart from hydro-electric) are unreliable and will not provide modern computer driven economies with the necessary stability of power.
To me, this is all reminiscent of the calls by the political left in the 1980’s of unilateral nuclear disarmament in the deluded belief that the USSR would disarm too. I can guarantee that if USA, UK, Australia and EU were to cut back our emissions the rest of the world wouldn’t and we would become the new Third World.

Andrew,
Your understanding is correct. Evidence that CO2 was much higher in the past can be seen everyday in every commercial greenhouse around the world. Growers use various methods to raise CO2 concentrations to 1500 ppm. In doing so, one can practically watch plants grow before his very eyes, so fast is their progress. Why? Plants evolved when CO2 was much higher; now they are starving!
Indeed, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just not in the way cAGW morons think.
BTW, I wonder if there are any marijuana growers who believe in cAGW. That would be ironic, to say the least. Pot calling the kettle black 😉

Ha Ha Max!
Also my understanding is that if CO2 falls below 170ppm plants will be unable to use it and of course if the plants die off so does every other living thing.

Yes, at less than 170 ppm CO2, plants get all yellow and spindly … kind of like warmunists.
(Perhaps it would have been funnier if I had said, “Pot calling the kettle green.”)

Flyover Bob

The Prisoner’s Dilemma assumes that both are guilty, or the system will get them no matter what. With CAGW the system is corrupt so everyone gets screwed, NO MATTER WHAT! The only difference is timing and method.

I have long thought about the Prisoner’s Dilemma that is self-evident in the ‘reduce CO2’ construct, so I applaud this article. (Incidentally, the simple graphic is very nicely done.)
Something to always keep in mind about cAGW — and I know it’s been stated directly and indirectly countless times by others in myriad ways — is that there is nothing rational about cAGW. It’s not intended to be rational. It is meant to be destructive, and to that end it is certainly a success!
Sure it is meant to have the appearance of great output from great minds, but, much like the idiotic Quantity Theory of Money, it is an emotionally-potent oversimplification — a catchy (infectious?) metaphor.
— More CO2 = higher temperatures; less CO2 = lower temperatures.
— More $$$ = higher prices; less $$$ = lower prices.
Both the Quantity Theory of Money and the Quantity Theory of CO2 are socialist weapons designed for one purpose: to destroy society.
Go ahead and argue logically against cAGW. We must. But always be aware that doing so is — in part — playing into their hands.

Reality Observer

Tch. Very poor equivalence, there.
There is no equivalence between CO2 and temperature (at least at the levels it has taken for most of geologic history). This is due to the inverse logarithmic nature of it’s effect.
Your second one is a valid criticism, but only when ignoring production. More money, with production held constant = higher prices. Less money, with production held constant = lower prices. And this is a linear relationship. The consistent inflation we suffer under is simply that money is increasing without a corresponding increase in production.
Which the invention of green scams (along with all of the other scams that have a neutral, or negative effect on production) only exacerbates.

You are entitle to your opinion, but QTM is demonstrably false several times over, not the least of which, the money supply cannot even be defined. However this is a not a money-related site, so I will drop the issue.

Steve Thayer

“It makes much more sense to steam full power ahead, maximize economic growth…”
Its stories like this that make me think oil and coal companies love the issue of global warming because it distracts from the issue of pollution. Some parts of China are living in a pollution haze that is shortening lives drastically, 25 years shorter by one report in parts of China. Many other parts of the world too are living in air quality that is most likely causing health problems and shortening lives. I live near Los Angeles and I see the smog dome over the area that has existed for decades it has always concerned me. I do not worry about global warming, I think its a non-issue. When I read stories that imply the only reason to cut carbon fuel usage is to curtail global warming I think coal producers and oil companies are smiling ear to ear, thinking “This global warming thing is brilliant! Threaten them with sea level rise rate of half an inch per year and people aren’t even THINKING about us taking 25 years off their lives RIGHT NOW! Simply Brilliant!”

Eugene WR Gallun

Economic growth in all its forms has increased life span greatly. The problems it creates certainly have a minor negative effect on that large lifespan increase. Nothing is perfect.
The average lifespan of a person living in Los Angelos has gone way up from horse and buggy days. Even in China there has been a huge increase in lifespan in the last fifty years (if you ignore direct government killing of its citizens — Mao undoubtedly had a negative impact on the average Chinese lifespan of his times – but, hey, that communism for you — comes with the territory)..
The law of diminishing returns implies that as long as we use fossil fuels we are going to have some level of pollution. Any more money spent on eliminating it would have a bigger impact spent somewhere else on some other REAL problem (not global warming).
Eugene WR Gallun

William Astley

Come on man. Include reality when creating the scenarios. The silly prisoner dilemma problem ignores the key issues.
Consider two countries, country A and country B. (Reality is all countries are affected by the choices. Reality is the choices are different than the warmists are telling us.) Both countries have the following options (note physical reality is taken into account when defining the scenarios.
1. Both developed countries (Reality is the warmists are trying to get all developed countries to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work and send billions and billions of dollar to developing countries to be spend on climate change).
Warmists Fiscal Magic Wand:
Note the warmists assume there is a magic wand in their scenario. There is only so much GDP to spend on everything. Is that or is that not true? Where is the magic wand to create trillions and trillions of dollars to spend on green scams. What are the consequences of spending trillions and trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work and what are the benefits?
Warmists ignore imported goods
Roughly 40% of CO2 emission is from consumption. The warmists ignore the CO2 that is produced from goods that are produced in Asia and imported into the developed countries. i.e. Developed country CO2 emission drops as we have lost manufacturing jobs to Asia and South America.
Consequences of spending money that we do not have on green scams
Electrical power costs will triple (Germany electrical costs are three times higher than the US, Germany has reached the limit of the green scams (15% reduction, a significant portion of the German CO2 reduction is that they now import goods manufactured in Asia and they purchase high energy bulk products from the US and other countries, that is a fact not a theory) and is now constructing coal plants.
To truly reduce anthropogenic emissions by let say 70% (note under the IPCC paradigm we must get to zero), airfare must be banned, consumption of all goods must be forced down, and all electrical power must be produced by nuclear. Without converting to nuclear power (i.e. Ignoring engineering reality the green scams are intermittent power sources) there will be brown outs and further loss of jobs to Asia, government expenditures on health care, roads, education, aid to developing countries and so on must be reduced to free up trillions and trillions of dollars of GDP to spend on green scams that do not work.
Physical reality A:
There has been no warming for 18 years. There has been no warming of the tropical troposphere at 8km. This fact supports the assertion that the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) any forcing change. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve.
Physical reality B:
Planet cools due to the solar magnetic cycle interruption. It is a fact, not a theory, that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo climatic record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. Roughly 75% to 90% of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes which affect planetary cloud cover. If this assertion is correct the planet will significantly cool as the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
This scenario is lose – lose. Do to physical reality A there is no extreme AGW problem to solve. Regardless, spending money on green scams that do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions is madness – a bad idea not a good idea – as the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes, warming as opposed to cooling causes the biosphere to expand and thrive, anyway -warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes of less than 2C is a good thing not a bad thing. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve.
An alternative that is less lose for scenario 1 is for the developed countries spend money to convert to nuclear power.
1A) Alternative to scenario 1. Reality is that Salby’s hypothesis that the majority of the CO2 increase due to natural CO2 emissions rather than anthropogenic CO2 is correct. Planet cools and atmospheric CO2 drops. Changing anthropogenic CO2 emissions will have almost no affect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
2. Both developed countries (reality is all developed countries can stop this green scam madness) do not spend trillions and trillions of dollars on green scams and instead invest in advanced coal plants and energy efficient products with consideration of cost vs benefits. Electric power costs drop by 30% rather than increase by a factor of three. Trillions and trillions of dollars are freed up to address the developed countries problems (high unemployment and unsustainable spending which we in the US call kicking the can down the road). A portion of the money not spent on green scams that do not work can be used to address developing world problems such population explosion and access to electrical power (solution is to construct advanced coal plants).

Adam

Ok, just to point out the obvious here. In your argument CO2 would be a REPEATED prisioner’s dilema. The differnce of course being in the original game if you defect the other guy can’t punish you for doing so, therefore giving all the incentive to defect and no incentive to cooperate.
In your game if you don’t reduce CO2 then other countries will see this and say, “Hey, they’re not reducing their CO2 so lets stop reducing ours.” Therefore the only way to get the benefits of CO2 reduction is to also do so yourself.
And of course this is also why CO2 reduction has failed in real life. Because there will always be countries that don’t want to reduce their CO2 – even if everyone else did it, and therefore no country wants to because the other guys aren’t doing it.
And just to be nitpicky – because, why not – this is really a repeated voting game (sorry, I don’t remember the official name off hand). That’s where you have any number of people and each can vote either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If you vote ‘no’ nothing happens. If you vote ‘yes’ you lose 2 points but everyone gains 1 point including you. You can make your own conclusions on what will happen…

The defection can be moderately subtle, such as the EU problem with carbon permits. In my opinion, all the national governments in the EU turned a blind eye to their own industries inflating the calculation of the number of free permits they were allowed, to give their own national economy a covert boost at the expense of the other EU member states. The problem is all the member nations had the same “clever” idea – the result was a glut of carbon permits, and a farce of a carbon market.

All skepticism aside, the carbon tax scheme can indeed be seen as a form of wealth re-distribution but with the potential to dwarf any other form of financial aid to those countries. If that happens the other forms of funding will dry up and as the developed world reduces their carbon use so will the collection of carbon tax which means that over time there are no funds going to developing nations. The “west” is keen to stop the financial aid to corrupt regimes and this will do so over time but by then they should not need it any longer either.
To get the developing nations to a better standard of living makes economic sense not only because it increases their demand for the few goods still produced by nations other then China and India but also as it will slow down (stop) the flow of people out of those countries seeking a life in the developed nations which is putting a huge strain on their own infrastructure and economic well being in the short term. A bit of a two edged sword that, these countries need the influx to stop the decline of their own “native” populations in order to maintain growth (tax revenue) but can’t deal with it. Europe in particular.
Central and South Americans easily crossing into the US and Africans and Asians even more easily crossing into Europe. China and India in particular are already outsourcing production to Africa where possible (making economic sense, i.e. cheaper that is).
While CO2 is the nonsense argument it has always been it is about a world which was told already in the 70’s that carbon fuels would be running out within our life time. Two oil crisis’s and that prospect together with general pollution, China is still a good example, left a world that needed to change. Not sure which bright marketing consultant suggested to use AGW and CO2 as the enemy needed to unify all peoples, but anyway. It is possible that the chemist prime minister in the UK at the time had something to do with it. The good Lord who writes here from time to time may be able to shed a better light on this, he worked with her at the time.
Now, 40 years later having used about twice the known reserves of the 70’s, of course we know that we still have at least another 150 odd years of conventional fossil fuel of the various kinds and if the potential of methane hydrates and possibly cold fusion can indeed be unlocked we can look a fairly reliable energy future in the face. But despite all euphoria over the next 10 billion barrel oil find we need to keep in mind that this only delays “world out of oil day (wood)” by 110 days at current consumption. (and not many of those finds around these days, the oil world is now happy to find 4 billion barrel, 43 days consumption, potentials). And oil, coal and gas are by far the cheaper to extract. Cold fusion has been the next big thing in 10 years for the last 60 years so it is possible that it stays that way. Methane hydrates are a long way off from being commercial, Japan does a lot of work on it at the moment.
Renewable of course makes sense on the face of it, except that it is not really renewable. We have to keep mining the minerals to make the turbine magnets, average lifespan about 12 years at the moment, solar panels etc to get to that point. Processing the rare earth minerals is a messy job with plenty of toxic (radio active) waste. Solar panel production leads to vast increases of SF6 in the atmosphere (talking about man made green house gas pollution, here is one). Best left to China as long as they don’t crank up the price too much and it keeps the environmentalists out of the streets protesting in the west just in case people start to realize that green is actually not green at all. Costs of these technologies is coming down and subsidies in 20 or so years will be a thing of the past, which means that the direct energy cost to the consumer will go up further, unlikely of course that the governments will reduce the tax rates to compensate for the fact that they now no longer pay these huge subsidies.
In the meantime we have to wish for never running out of carbon based fuels as it would mean a huge change in our industrial production methods as so much is based around carbon. And if we can only get to these carbons by getting it out of the first 30 cm of topsoil to produce these goods we are indeed scraping the barrel. Once that is gone no crop will grow there again unless we put C back in, which defeats the purpose.
In the end we have to look beyond 150 years from now and through “democratic” processes it will take about that long to change anything of this magnitude.

Curt

I long ago concluded from logic like this that the only way we could get the magnitude of CO2 emissions reductions alarmists say we need is to have a unitary global dictatorship. Democracies will vote out leaders who impoverish them; individual nations play prisoner’s dilemma with each other, without much trust.
Even if the implications of continued high CO2 emissions are as bad as the most alarmed alarmists say it is, it will still be preferable to living under a global dictatorship.

Gentle Tramp

Curt said:
“Democracies will vote out leaders who impoverish them”
Well, that is not quite true. The eco-brainwashed Germans for instance love their failed “Energie-Wende” still, though they pay the highest electricity-costs of all industry nations, because they believe strongly their noble sacrifice will save the planet from warmageddon…
Thus we see, many years of brainwashing by the MSM can be stronger than common sense, unfortunately!

Streetcred

But they are starting to wake up GT: Former German Minister Of Economics Calls Energiewende “A Disaster”…”Careened Completely Out Of Control” http://notrickszone.com/page/2/#sthash.iGUFVyVd.dpuf

mickcrane

when I was 8 or something I saw the the river in my home town in the UK entirely covered in 20-30 feet of soap suds from the textile mills. I thought, “that has got to be a bad thing”. But there also was the feeling “well that is industry, human progress must take precedence, I think that is why they do it “.
and so I’ve never really understood the decision to close the pits and the coal powered stations. I think, well if there is a problem with something let’s fix it. Not just throw it away.

Neil

After reading Joe Bastardi’s post ‘Megabust in UKMO temp forecast ignored’, it make me (again) wonder if the whole CO2 ‘debate’ continues simply because it stops people from thinking to look at the man behind the curtain.
“a Bust of 1C ( forecasted plus .5 actual -.5). Do you realize the implication of a 1C cooler temp as far as water vapor goes in that area, vs the rise of the same amount in the arctic. It blows it away! It was in effect forecasting the eternal enso, the dream of all AGW pushers.”
CO2 is pushed time and time again, simply because it’s not the problem; it’s a convenient strawman.
http://www.weatherbell.com/premium/joe-bastardi/megabust-in-ukmo-temp-forecast-ignored/

SAMURAI

Anyone with even a modicum of business acumen realizes IPCC’s CAGW “solution” of massive economic destruction to keep CO2 induced warming below 2C by 2100 is a deal made of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots…
The physics and empirical evidence indicate ECS will be around 0.5C~1C by 2100, which isn’t even CLOSE to being a problem. Conversely, the positive effects of increasing CO2’s levels (50% increase in crop yields and forest growth, plants’ decreased water requirements from leaf stoma shrinkage, extended growing seasons from slightly warmer global temps, increased arable land in Northern latitudes, etc.,) offset any possible negative effects possible from higher CO2 levels.
Moreover, China now expects to have commercial Thorium reactors ready by 2024, which makes this entire CAGW scam moot.
Rather than wasting about $80 TRILLION on insane CO2 sequestration programs (UN’s estimate) it’s far cheaper to do NOTHING and enjoy 0.5C of CO2 induced warming its other benefits.
China is playing this CAGW farce beautifully. They’ve negotiate a special dispensation to continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions until 2030, so a second wave of industrial production will shift to China as the West wastes $trillions on CO2 programs, then China’s thorium reactors start rolling out from 2025, leading to a 3rd wave of production moving to China to take advantage of the cheapest energy in the world…
The West has gone temporarily insane…

highflight56433

…their is no cure for that kind of greed.

Reality Observer

Hmmm… The situation is far more like the “Gambler’s Dilemma.” If you haven’t heard of that one…
Several gamblers (of equal ability) are having a game (it needs to be a long one, or several with the same players).
Possibilities:
1) All of the gamblers are honest. Over the long run, nearly all of them leave with no more money than they came with (unless one or more had an especially bad run of luck).
2) One or more (but not all) gamblers cheat. Over the long run, the cheaters leave with more money (the amount primarily depending on how many cheat); the honest ones need to find a heat vent somewhere.
3) All of the gamblers cheat. Over the long run, nearly all of them leave with the same money they came with, unless they are especially good at cheating, or especially bad (note – the initial supposition is that they are all equally good gamblers, not equally good cheaters).
Now, what we have in the world economy is approximately a four or five handed poker game – US, EEU, China, and India. Possibly Russia as the fifth hand. Every other player that can focus on a single economic policy has too small of a “stake” to influence the game in any significant way.
In this game, we have two players that are probably honest (for certain values of “honest”) – the US and EEU. We have one player that is not real certain, they would like to be honest, but will regretfully cheat to keep themselves from being cleaned out – that player is India. Then we have two players that will cheat in any way they think they can get away with – and some that they really can’t get away with, but the honest players are afraid to call them out on it.
So – in this game – what should we do?

Walt D.

There is a fifth option. Do nothing and fix the damage as it occurs, if it occurs. Bjorn Lomborg has publish articles that claim that this is a much more effective course of action.

Ray Kuntz

As a Model “Prisoners Dilemma” is too simple, the Economics and Politics involved are nearly as complex as Climate Change itself is and are completely intertwined with it. Two variables my a**, it’s not modelabel.

It most likely works the other way.
If all countries produce plenty of “the precious air-fertilizer” (as Scientific American accurately called CO2), then all countries will benefit from much improved agricultural productivity.
If most countries produce plenty of CO2, all countries will benefit from improved agricultural productivity, including the freeloaders who aren’t contributing to global CO2 levels.
If only a few countries produce plenty of CO2, they’ll experience little of the improvement in agricultural productivity which their CO2 production should gain for them.

les

Reality is not a game. Real people suffer in poverty and in order to survive destroy the enviroment they live in. Real people and real enviroment suffer abuse at the hands of unrestrained ‘development’. Real profits enable better living. Real profits enable war, gluttony sand debasement of all that make us human.
In all of this there are real people and a real environment. It is not a game. To reduce it to a game is to render yourself a cipher in a mathematical code. Once you do that, is there any meaning to anything?

If you can’t understand the reasons for something, even if attaining that understanding requires a level of abstraction and modelling of the situation, then there is no hope for improvement.