What do you believe has been adequately demonstrated in climate change science?

[Wezil]

China has done more unilaterally to combat climate change than any other country in the world – namely the One-child policy enacted in 1979 (not to mention its efforts at population control since the ‘50’s). Since then it estimates that it has 300-400 million fewer people in 2008 than without the policy – basically the population of the USA!

The average Chinese person is responsible for less than a third of greenhouse emissions compared to an American, or a Canadian.

China’s proposals for cutting CO2 by 2050 is more than twice that of the USA (40% to 17% IIRC).

Any more excuses for sitting on your arse and continuing to pollute the world as you see fit while having the cheek to blame others?

How about the coal plants Moby? Tell us about the Chinese coal plants please.

Yes, the average Chinese pollutes less today than we do. It's easy to be frugal when you are dirt poor. How about their average consumption over time? I bet it's rising.

Christ what misleading post you made.

[Robert]

Are there more disasters, or are there more people living on earth, making every catastrophe worse because more people are hit?

[Elok]

I have no idea what's adequately demonstrated; I saw about two minutes of Al Gore's movie and it almost put me in a coma, so I said screw it. I'm not a climate scientist, I have no means of evaluating their claims, but since (as I said in my other thread) we're unlikely to do a damned thing about it, I've settled into ostrich mode on the whole thing.

[KrazyHorse]

To all those using the word "proven": I said "adequately demonstrated".

[notyoueither]

China has done more unilaterally to combat climate change than any other country in the world – namely the One-child policy enacted in 1979 (not to mention its efforts at population control since the ‘50’s). Since then it estimates that it has 300-400 million fewer people in 2008 than without the policy – basically the population of the USA!

The average Chinese person is responsible for less than a third of greenhouse emissions compared to an American, or a Canadian.

China’s proposals for cutting CO2 by 2050 is more than twice that of the USA (40% to 17% IIRC).

Any more excuses for sitting on your arse and continuing to pollute the world as you see fit while having the cheek to blame others?

Do you care to explain why you think that petroleum from some jurisdictions should be taxed based on emissions during production, but that oil from others should not?

Is Nigerian or Venezuelan CO2 politically correct?

I am not for doing nothing. I am against taxes applied in ways that will distort markets and be self-defeating.

[Japher]

It has not been adequately demonstrated that reducing the human influences on greenhouse gases will positively impact the welfare of the people of Earth.

[Maniac]

The climate on Earth has changed dramatically in the past, it'll happen again sooner or later. Adapt or die.

Apparently the last time extinction of species happened at such a rapid pace was 65 million years ago.

[Asher]

Not too long ago, in the grand scheme of things.

[rah]

(1) and (2) i'll go along with. The rest could be impacted by other factors outside our control. (like sun spots)

[Felch]

a) Extreme weather events (floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc.) are already killing thousands of people globally each year and this is the tip of the iceberg. Also imagine the socio-economic effects of mass displacement, competition for dwindling resources (water, fish stocks, viable land for farming, peak oil, raw materials etc.) – riots will be triggered (witness the food riots of last year), wars will be fought…
b) This is a no brainer – or at least was. I think we may have already passed a point where it would have been relatively affordable to do something about it. Mitigating stuff from a) above is going to be hugely costly and spiral ever upwards. How much has it cost so far dealing with New Orleans?
c) They already are! Too much or too little rain for an area is a significant negative effect. I’ve seen first hand the ongoing droughts affecting Australia – droughts and their severity are on the increase wherever there is a susceptibility to them. The converse is also true of floods. In the UK again, 2 out of the last 3 years have seen extreme localised flooding events – costly ones too (see b)).

a) Extreme weather events have always killed thousands of people. Mass displacement would be an issue that takes place over years and years. Resources would probably be more plentiful, since warmer weather and increased CO2 would lengthen growing seasons and increase crop yields. Riots and wars happen all the time, regardless of the weather.

b) New Orleans flooded because Louisiana politics are as corrupt as humanly possible. They aren't even ashamed of it down there. If it had been a well run city in a civilized state, the levees never would have failed. As it is, I see no reason to rebuild it. Keep the French Quarter as a tourist spot, and let the rest sink beneath the waves.

c)Droughts and flooding have always occurred. They're why ancient civilizations from the Nile to the Indus took calenders and irrigation so seriously. They're expensive to deal with, but certainly manageable.

Let me just note that it seems like every year we get predictions about the Atlantic hurricane season, and every year they're exaggerations. There's already a Colorado State University prediction that 2010 will have above average hurricanes. The past few years haven't been any worse than most years on record, but every year the news is full of nonsense about how this is gonna be one for the record books.

Also, what population control efforts in the PRC date back to the 1950s? The Great Leap Forward?

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, and one thing I suspect is absolute bunk (or at least, is completely unproven) is the "global warming is causing every weather catastrophe that happens" meme.

You picked a poor time to make this criticism, considering the climate change induced snowstorm that just got done ravaging Middle America.

[HalfLotus]

Climate claims fail science test

...while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

We can compare these huge swings (both up and down) in atmospheric CO2 with current computer-modelled estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC which suggest that a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial times will produce a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C.

...

The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position.

The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.

What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.

[CrONoS]

This doesn't lend itself well to a poll. Plus

i) A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system will both find the same equilibrium no matter how permits are initially distributed (Coase theorem) and both have the same initial deadweight costs

Hi Kh,
In reality a cap-and-trade system can lead to a different outcomes than a carbon tax. ( But in textbook, they do have the same effect)

My reasons are:

1) Volatility of price: I'm not too sure what will be the effect on CO2 price of the volatility of emission right but a risk premium could be incorporated into it.

2) From the experience of the acid rain market. The success of cap and trade will depend on how it is implemented and how big/small it is.

The acid rain market was really successful but as I understand it, it worked because it was small (there was no trespassing of jurisdiction((only in USA) and was enforced by the EPA) also only coal-burning power plants were forced to buy SO2 and NOx emission right. It 's more easy to monitor 200 power plants than thousand of it in several states/provinces and between several countries.

My opinion is that a carbon tax would be much more easy to set and will lead to a better environmental outcomes for the prices paid.

If we ever do a cap and trade systems in Canada/USA we should start small. Even if, a first, we will be having many independent regional(CO2) market . One in the north east of north America, one in central north america, etc. And we should start with few industries. And expand more that the bureaucratic tools seems to function well, Otherwise it wouldn't work.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree that a carbon tax is preferable, for many of the reasons you list. My point is that most of the "debate" over the difference between the two is retarded. Any cap on emissions will raise the price of emissions-intensive goods in the EXACT SAME WAY a carbon tax will.

The difference between the two is an Econ 301 question. Politicians, the media and the public don't understand the Econ 101 equivalence.

[Theben]

Re: What do you believe has been adequately demonstrated in climate change science?

People are stupid.