Two myths? "The hockey stick was wrong". "The cost of reducing global warming is too high."

Question

This question is asked partly to give amancalledchuda a chance to respond. He thought questions were closed out too soon.

The hockey stick was not wrong. It was perhaps overly smoothed (averaged). But its' basic conclusion was confirmed by the National Academy of Science. It has since been duplicated many times with more precise statistical methods:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

The cost of dealing with unreduced global warming will be enormous. Moving people, agricultural systems, and irrigation systems will cost huge amounts of money. And dealing with stronger storms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

The cost of reducing it to where we can cope fairly easily with the remainder is much less.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

The question will be up for 36-48 hours.

DDT - It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason. 1934 may have been hot in the USA, but it wasn't hot everywhere.

Here's the global temperature data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

1934 (or anything near) wasn't particularly hot.

Hello, hockey stick.

Campbelp2002 - "don't see how the goal of,
"reducing CO2 emissions by between 50 and 85 percent by 2050." can be done without reducing the whole economy by 50 to 85% by 2050."

Come on. You're smarter than that. Build a nuclear power plant, CO2 emissions drop, and the overall cost to the economy is quite manageable. Given the price curve of natural gas, by 2050 nuclear power will be a cheap alternative. We waste enormous amounts of energy, because fossil fuels used to be cheap. Fixing that is cost effective. We don't need a 6000 pound SUV to take a person a mile to the grocery store over paved roads, either.

To say that a certain percent drop in CO2 means a corresponding drop in the economy is foolish. It also implies the hundreds of scientists and economists who put together the reduction plan are total incompetent idiots. I know you don't believe that, even if you think they're wrong to some extent.

Willam 8_5 - Volcanoes aren't a significant cause of global warming. Proof:

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

Cows aren't a big problem. Cows in large feedlots are. Better management can reduce that factor.

Believe me, I don't want to be a "know-it-all". I'd greatly prefer people would do scientific research on this on their own, instead of just listening to politically biased people spout nonsense (like volcanoes). They'd soon find out this is real.

Matt - I agree, if you're a conservative, conservative sources are more credible to you. How about these?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart Company

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Answer 1

A valiant effort at dispelling yet more misinformation, Bob.

At what point do you give up though? People like chuda and Jello probably wouldn't be convinced of anthropogenic global warming even if predictions were spot-on and the planet were 5°C warmer in 50 years.

It's certainly worthwhile to correct their many errors so that people who are genuinely curious and uninformed can see the correct information, but the deniers themselves will never be convinced that they're wrong.

Answer 2

First off I do believe that the hockey stick graph is wrong because temperature on earth is not steady and then suddenly shoots up or down. There are flucutations in the temperature across time. During the Dust Bowl was a rise in temperatures and then just back in the 1970's the Earth was cooler then it had previously been. Now the temperatres are going up again. Do I think that we as humans are contributing to global warming, yes i do. All of our vehicle release millions of tons f CO2 every year. Though all that says is tha we are asssting the temperature rise. I t doesn't mean that we are the reason that the temperature is rising. The Earth goes through heating and cooling stages and all are natural.
On the subject if the cost of reducing global warming is to high the answer is no. There are so many ways that we as humans can do that could cut back on our emissions of greenhouse gases. For one using alternative forms of energy. Don't completly fase out fossil fuels because we as a people are so hevily dependent on them, but little by little began to clear out the fossil fuels. There is a hydropower plan on the Niagra River in New York which supplies power for most of western new york. Hydropower if a clean burning energy source that releases no emission plus is about 93% efficent which is more then I can say for coal which is only about 40-50% efficent. Then there is wid and solar power. Wind may have a high initial cost, but it ends up paying for itself in the long run plus, like hydro, it has no emissions. As for migratory birds. Wind turbines are not the leading killer. House cats kill many more birds every year then wind turbines do.
Also solar power especially in the soutwest is so valuable. Where I live in Arizona we probably recieve 355 days of unblocked sunlight. And the amount of energy thaat reaches the Earth from the sun would power the entire U.S. If you still think that reducing global warming is too costly please e-mail me.

Answer 3

Hey bob you know i think that as much as we want to reduce global warming i don't think we can, if we leave the earth as it is from now, it would take a few thousand years for the earth to cool down, but your right, moving people and everything would take a lot of money, but do you think that people would cooperate? I mean like the president is busy dealing with other stuff if you think that he'll use all the money he has to move people and make the environment better? But i think that as long as people are consistant in helping the environment something will happen.

Answer 4

I don't see how the goal of,
"reducing CO2 emissions by between 50 and 85 percent by 2050."
can be done without reducing the whole economy by 50 to 85% by 2050. Statements that it would only require a 0.12% drop are just nonsense. All the things that are listed in the Spiegel article are already being done and CO2 continues to rise just as fast as always because the economy is still growing. You can set all the goals you want, but there is no way to meet them. All the countries that committed to the Kyoto Protocol are going to exceed their targets, even France, which now gets over 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors that emit no CO2.

Answer 5

Have you not heard that energy costs are high and
they will get even higher if this bill is signed?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070805/D8QQNQM00.html

You don't tax oil companies if you want more oil. It is stupid.
And biofuels are nowhere near available to replace oil.

China and India are growing. The more properous a nation is the more energy a nation will use. China's people will be buying a bunch of cars over the next 10 years.

Whatever the rest of the world does on reducing their carbon footprint will not matter if China doesn't do anything.

Energy prices are going to increase if we do nothing about reducing our carbon footprint. If we do something, energy prices will increase dramatically, especially if that stupid bill is passed from the link above.

Anybody that tells you that reducing our carbon footprint will not cost a lot are idoits.

We are already having side effects from increasing ethanol in gasoline. There is a storgage of steaks in New York because of the increase in corn prices.

http://www.nysun.com/article/60032

The increase in farm land for corn use will hurt other commodities, mainly wheat and cotton. Expect to pay higher prices on anything made of cotton in the future.

On the hockey stick graph, if the hockey stick graph is true and Co2 is the cause of warmer temperatures then why is it not causing record warming on Greenland? Co2 is at a record high and scientist had to drill a mile into the ice to find that Greenland had a warmer past.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/06/climatechange.climatechange1

Most of this stuff is just common sense. It is best to not listen to liberals - AP, Reuter, IPCC, and Wiki.
Truth doesn't matter to liberals if they know that they will be given a license to steal money(taxes) from the oil companies and the people.

Answer 6

Begin wining income with the Zcodes System from here https://tr.im/B2nkT .
Zcodes System is an easy yet strong system. Forget about guesswork or counting purely on an extremely fickle woman Luck. You get just the thing you need and are shown just what you have to do in order to gain constantly
If you use Zcodes System you are supplied with extensive video lessons and tutorials to show you just how the system works and what you need to accomplish to be able to make money.
Zcodes System is excellent for novices to because even if you know nothing at all about sports when you join, you will learn all you could have to know fast and simply and you'll exclusively discover ways to maximize your paying to reap the greatest earning rewards.

Answer 7

If you want to learn ways to leverage it to increase your sports betting winnings then this method is for you https://tr.im/u6wLI because Zcodes System is about this.
Zcodes System may be the name of a activities betting process that has endured, in some form or yet another, since 1999. Zcodes System is an advanced statistically based program that has damaged the “code” of how activities games will play out.
Zcodes System is your very best friend in activity betting.

Answer 8

The hockey stick graph is a myth. I do not need proxy studies when history shows the existence of a medieval warm period.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Proxy studies done by others all over the world show it was a world wide phenomena.
The hockey stick graph has done a lot of damage to the climate science community. That fact that it is flawed, passed the peer review process, and was widely and enthusiastically accepted by your peers, simply because it agreed with the dogma, makes us sceptical and casts doubts on the other areas of research. Sulphates responsible for global dimming during the mid century, is that another hockey stick graph?

Now for the really puzzling question. Do you really believe that skeptics are the ones who appose nuclear power? If the government announced plans to build nuclear power plants you are not going to get much apposition from the right wingers. It is the left wing, environmentalist movement that is going to appose it. So I suggest you spend more time arguing with environmentalists about how nuclear power is the best way to reduce "global warming". They are the ones who are going to campaign against nuclear power.

So for once I am going to agree with you. You want to replace coal fire plants with nuclear, I am with you. You want to ban SUVs, I am with you. They are a major source of smog in the cities. If Germans can drive two litre cars on the autobahn at twice the speed limit in America, Why do Americans need three and four litre cars?

My concern is that if we close coal fired plants and replace them with wind and solar power, which are as of today expensive, it will hurt the poor, and with hurt industry.

Answer 9

WOW! Amazing that apparently smart people place more effort in protecting their beliefs rather than to admit the data was faulty. It's been shown that even random data produces a hockey stick graph.

What's really amazing is that it looks like this whole debate is being driven by only 2 people, Mann and Hansen.

Mann runs realclimate.org and Hansen the GISS, two sources most often quoted by believers.

Yet with all this knowledge, they STILL can predict the climate in any way, even as short as 6 months out.

Answer 10

How about looking at the latest surfacestations.org site where they forced GISS to come clean that 1934 was the warmest year in the USA? Infact of the 10 warmest years half are before 1940. Bye bye hockey stick. I wonder if the Gorester will refund those carbon credits. Hey chuckles how about linking to a graph that reflects the new findings like the one below.