It's a newspaper. Expecting any of those things is misunderstanding what they're about. Though I agree that this article was truly, magnificently, horrendously full of crap.
I once saw a newspaper website ask readers to email in examples of global warming in their neighborhood. As you can imagine, "I didn't see many squirrels around this year as usual" and other such intelligent commentary topped the list. Way to "educate" the population, mainstream media!
Context: In Chicago, it was -3 F at the beginning of the week, 38 F (high) the day before yesterday and now it's back to 31 F (current). It also snowed for most of the past week and a half and there was still a thick layer of snow until it melted yesterday. Chicago's weather already has a relatively large swing from season to season, but it also has flukes like yesterday from time to time.
If you haven't seen how wildly Chicago weather can swing from day to day, you haven't spent enough time in Chicago. There's really no such thing as "non-typical weather" for any specific day in the Windy City.
Global warming is a terrible term for what's going on in the world.
Heck, carbon dioxide isn't even the real culprit for green house gases: it's methane. Methane is a much more potent green house gas, yet we're hearing more about carbon dioxide. There are more cows than there have ever been, because we're eating more of them because there are more of us to eat them.
We're going to have the coldest winters and the hottest summers we've had for quite a long time. Yes, we'll have some weird weather mid-season (like now, in northeastern USA its 56 degrees F, 13ish degrees C), but that doesn't change the fact that people are introducing stuff into the atmosphere that shouldn't be there.
Global Extreming would probably be a better term for what's going on.
I didn't bother with the article, but I'm curious: what temperature circumstances would give you doubts about what's going on? (Not "cause you to disbelieve in 'Global Extreming'" or anything; just make you uncertain that it's well understood).
"climate change" is ridiculous though. It's not like the climate has been static for millions of years and now suddenly everything is changing. The climate is always changing.
Software development is always changing, yet we spend great effort managing change. Just because the climate has always been changing does not mean we should not try to understand and manage it better.
Why then are we talking about "carbon credits" and "carbon sequestration" and limiting CO2 output when methane is so much more of a greenhouse gas? I haven't heard any politicians talk about reducing methane output, or methane caps, or methane sequestration.
CO2 is one Carbon and two Oxygen atoms per molecule.
CH4 (methane) is one Carbon and four Hydrogen atoms per molecule.
If you took an equivalent weight of CO2 and CH4 you would have more carbon atoms in the CH4 container.
To draw the line between these elementary school facts and the use of the term carbon when referring to greenhouse gas mitigation in terms even a certified scrum master can understand; the carbon atom is the common factor in the two most prevalent heat trapping gases involved in atmospheric chemistry.
Seriously, I hope the smart among them regard the little vendor merit badge with the right amount of sarcasm, because if you uncritically swallow a bunch of ritual packaged as a methodology and think that that somehow makes you safe from project failure... you're doomed.
A Google query for "methane and carbon sequestration" nets 179K results; not proof positive, but at least as relevant as your wikiwhack.
Also atmospheric methane breaks down into carbon dioxide and water in the presence of oxygen (at sufficient concentrations the reaction can take the form of a flame, or an explosion) so increased methane converts into increased carbon dioxide eventually.
Now, if I had infinite amounts of time and patience I would attempt to set you right; but my life is too crowded to waste time on someone who seems to delight in inflammatory political statements on a tech/biz forum.
Checking your google search, out of the first five pages _none_ are about methane sequestration. They all mention methane because, interestingly enough, methane is a by-product of CO2 sequestration.
I'm just going to ignore all of your barbs. Not really relevant to the discussion. You're right. You shouldn't engage in threads you don't know anything about.
We were talking about 'carbon sequestration' which, I've attempted several times to explain to you, also covers methane.
You can bloviate obtusely all you want, but it will not change the fact that I have formed the opinion that you are either an idiot, which is bad; or a troll, which is worse.
You pollute this site with an endless string of political cheap shots which; I'll be frank, even when I agree with you your tone and manner make me want to disagree with you.
And if I were a customer of yours I would be wondering how many of the billable hours I was paying for went to feed your HN habit; you're on here an awful lot.
For the same reason we make ethanol from corn: politicians, and redistribution of money. In both politics and economics, facts are almost entirely irrelevant today. I don't watch much TV, but when I watch the news, I could absolutely destroy any politician or economist that they bring on their shows. Their "facts" are generally half truths or outright false, and their logic is full of textbook fallacies. Although, it is quite interesting watching some of the good ones, how skillfully they can transition an answer to a question to one of their talking points, and appear to answer the interviewer question. I honestly can't blame joe sixpack for being so clueless if they get their information from TV news.
Maybe it's all a cycle in the sun's output and in 100 years we'll be burning more coal and feeding our cows beans so they will fart more to prevent an ice age. Meanwhile the prudent course is to assume it's our fault and reduce our carbon footprint.
Or it could be an opportunity to get further and further away from oil and develop a technology that you can later sell to other oil dependent countries.
"spending trillions, whether its for cleaner energy, or buying iPhone fart apps, _is_ an economy. Nothing is "lost"."
True, and False.
Yes, it is the economy, but saying nothing is lost is debateable. Simple mental experiment....consider a few scenarios of projects society could undertake in a year:
a) Spend $500 Billion developing several different versions of iPhone Fart applications
b) Spend $500 Billion dropping bombs on any arbitrary country
c) Spend $500 Billion on having holes dug in the ground by one crew, and then filled up by another crew
d) Spend $500 Billion installing solar/wind power infrastructure using the currently most efficient technology we have
e) Spend $500 Billion building plants to manufacture a variety of useful products
In each case, it is perfectly true that we have a $500 Billion economy, but if you look at your balance sheet at the end of the year, there most definitely would be differences.
Well and concisely put. This is the actually the one fact we should try to get into these people's heads. The only change is in the _distribution_ of wealth.
What we should be worried about is not wealth but welfare. And I'm not sure polluting the environment and using up non-renewable resources improves anybody's welfare. Not even that of the people profiting from it.
You are incorrect, the distribution of wealth means less money spent on healthcare or drug research, or growing food. If it takes more effort, that effort has to come from somewhere.
Okay, so the _re_distribution of wealth by a certain political action implies less money spent somewhere. Yes, that's what redistribution of wealth means.
But again, how would spending less effort on digging up non-renewable resources negatively impact healthcare? True, the effort must come from somewhere and it comes from not doing certain things we're doing that we now know are impacting us negatively.
It's not spending less effort on non-renewable resources; it's spending more effort on renewable resources to achieve the same amount of production from the non-renewable resource. So to maintain current levels of production the level of effort would have to increase, when switching which means everyone works harder/longer for no increase production.
Broken window fallacy. Redistributing capital to renewable energy sources means that more money is needed for the same amount of energy (at least right now) which means that money which could have been used for other purposes like food, water, the US infrastructure, houses, or medical bills now must go into satisfying this absurd need to conform to some arbitrary green standard. Its called opportunity cost, go read up on it. TANSTAAFL.
It's only broken windows if there is no net benefit. Bringing externalities into consideration by the market is the function of government to a first approximation.
And, ahem, "some arbitrary green standard" cite please?
Yes, if central planners know the optimal way to spend each marginal dollar, then there is no broken window fallacy. I haven't heard any such case made for the popular green schemes.
I don't know what "popular green schemes" you're referring to, but a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme are very nearly equivalent and require no central planning at all (save that required to enact, collect and enforce the tax of course) yet both bring externalities under market purview quite nicely.
And what happens to all that extra cash collected in the name of climate change? Oh the federal govt. centrally plans on how to waste it on congressional pork.
As long as the tax revenue isn't spent on directly contradictory pursuits (tax breaks for SUVs or something) the increase in costs will do its job no matter how stupidly the government spends money.
I think we should just blow it all on a space elevator personally but that's why I'm not in office I suppose.
The point is not that the carbon tax/cap-and-trade/you favorite policy will work but that they will impose an unacceptably high cost in the process. Your comment does not respond to that concern. All that revenue for federal tax/subsidy policies will come out of the private economy which eventually means that it will come out of yours and my pocket and spent by the federal govt. Unless this is offset by corresponding decreases in income/payroll/corporate taxes, this will result in a loss to us and from the numbers that I have seen, this loss is unacceptably high.
(Nearly) all spending by the gov't comes right back to (someone's) pockets so in the aggregate it's only a loss of the frictional losses to run the bureaucracy not the entire revenue base.
Granted there are valid concerns about how the money is spent but you can't just take the dollar amount of revenue from the tax and say that's too high a price. It's much more complicated, sadly.
That argument is shaky when you consider the opportunity cost associated with the inevitable increase in the cost of energy from non-renewable sources caused by both increasing demand and decreasing supply. The redistribution of capital to renewable sources is just a matter of when.
Possibly, and understand that when is a very important question. Notice how if you place money in a bank, it gains interest. Similarly, the private capital system is very effective at deciding where and when to allocate resources. Allocating resources in an industry too early often means that all that money is lost or that it was not invested in another industry which could have had a significantly higher payoff. If history has anything to say about this matter, private markets are much better at allocation of resources (see famines of USSR and the "great leap forward" in maoist communist china).
And what would you call the fossil fuel industry? A mom and pop enterprise?
I'm not even sure what this criticism is supposed to be about. Business is omnipresent in Western society. Would you be happier if no businesses were involved? Or would that just make it a government / scientific / European conspiracy?
Actually Im more on the right regarding global warming .... i should have said, "It's big business wrapped in a cloak of goodness!"
I mean GreenLand ..well used to be green and now it's covered with ice. Cyclical to me it is, but hey why not create this great movement/cultural change and profit from it!
Not that Im against recycling and all that, but the cow methane and other over the top stuff ... please
I paraphrase a critique on google's "submit an idea to make the world a better place"...
If you have an idea that could change the world for the better, and implementing that idea takes time and effort, why don't you start a company, develop the idea, help the world, and make a living doing it.
Okay, let me try to respond in a different way. Supposing I fully accept the idea that global warming is a genuine phenomenon and that the aggregate of human activities is its main cause, why is it valuable to me to stop it? What benefit do I and similarly situated persons gain from carbon taxes, mandatory sequestration, restrictions on the use of certain technologies, or whatever else is proposed as a means of preventing anthropogenic global warming? Please note that I am not asking "Why would I support reducing global warming if I had magical powers?" but rather, "Given currently foreseeable technology at currently foreseeable costs, are the political and economic arrangements necessary to slow global warming worth as much to humankind as devoting time, effort, and money to solving other pressing problems?"
When the data shows a cooling trend since 1998, while we shouldn't be complacent, we should also celebrate that what we're doing is, to the extent that we influence the environment at all, working, and resolve to keep up the good work.
Um.. what exactly have we done? Before the economy tanked the US was using more gas then ever. China hasn't slowed their opening of new coal power plants much, if any. So aside of thinking positive thoughts about climate, what exactly has changed that could have had any kind of effect?
You've hit the nail on the head -- our CO2 output has been going up all the while, which suggests that (dare I say it?) the increase in temperature isn't caused by man. CO2 output didn't decrease in the 50s, either, when we had our last decade-long period of cooling.
Many people think CO2 is actually a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. In other words, when things get warmer, more CO2 is generated, not the other way around.
CO2 only absorbs energy in a certain spectrum. After that spectral "fingerprint" is removed, the remaining energy could care less how much C02 is present. I believe the math works out so that after ten meters, additional CO2 does little damage.
Here's an article I just googled. The author writes in a flame-bait-like manner, but he does make the CO2 absorbption case very well.
If I understand the counter-argument correctly, when the data shows a day's worth of weather, it's too small to mean anything. When it shows a month's weather, it's still to small to mean anything. When it shows a year, same deal.
Now I believe the wisdom is that when the data shows a decade of weather trends, it is also too small to draw conclusions. If the article is true and most of the last decade has canceled out the small increase over the last century, then perhaps the same "wisdom" is true at the century level as well -- 100 years of data for naught. To me this seems a little strange since we only have large-scale climate readings for the last 100 years or so. Past that it's sparse readings, interpolations and projections.
The next five years or so will be interesting. If it shows a continued cooling, and if global warming proponents continue to promote their case, I will be curious as to what we mean when we say "climate" -- because I must be missing something.
The real thing to be looking at is that if we continue to cool, or even stay steady for a couple of years, we fall off the 95% confidence intervals for the global warming predictions made a few years ago, which all uniformly took the form of lines going straight up (pretty much). That will mean that the models are wrong, and if the models are wrong, the model makers are not entitled to claim that despite the fact they couldn't predict anything, they can still use the broken models to make claims about mankinds contribution to the climate.
I can't emphasize the importance of the word "wrong" enough. A wrong model is not sort of correct, it is wrong, and should not be used to determine the fate of trillions of dollars of capital.
Further, if climate change can't be demonstrated to be the critical pressing crisis the alarmists claim, then there are other way more important problems facing the environment that need to be addressed, such as the Pacific dead zone and horrible overfishing. If AGW advocates are wrong about the scope of the problem, diverting funds into it anyhow is not a good idea; it is (and I mean this literally) one of the worst ideas ever put forth by mankind. If AGW advocates are wrong, they are not holy, they are the most dangerous threats to the environment in the world today.
Trillions of dollars of capital are very important, and if there is any reason to believe the science isn't "settled", it behooves us all to look at the problem with an open mind, not to insist that even though AGW predictions clearly said that the 95% confidence interval doesn't actually encompass what is happening in reality we should still just believe them, despite the scientific evidence that they are (and again I can't emphasize the importance of this word enough) wrong.
Making wrong predictions is a big deal in science; only a political mindset can wave that fact away like it's not really a problem.
☑ no useful set of data presented (anecdotal evidence, selection bias)
☑ failure to understand nonlinear, chaotic systems
☑ logical fallacies (we have other issues that have people more worried, so climate change is solved)
☑ sweeping generalisations
☑ a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure
I think I'll pass, and go for a walk outside, where unusually for the season, there is no snow!