Then I take it that you believe that Price Anderson should be repealed by Congress — and let the nuclear power companies pay their own way in a free market on insurance?
This is the position of Ron Paul, and while I disagree with him — its a position one can at least respect to eliminate “ALL” subsidies.
Oh dear – it seems from that link that I might have broken and then there’s physics. Ah well, probably for the best – he did enter a battle of wits largely unarmed.
tonyb
you are a gentleman and a scholar
i can only aspire for the first, not much chance for second
The video of my talk is now available
again on the benefits of CO2 and warming:
Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870, Pretzsch, H., Biber, P., Schütze, G., Uhl, E., Rötzer, Th., (2014)
Nat. Commun. 5:4967, DOI:10.1038/ncomms5967
Abstract:
Forest ecosystems have been exposed to climate change for more than 100 years, whereas the consequences on forest growth remain elusive. Based on the oldest existing experimental forest plots in Central Europe, we show that, currently, the dominant tree species Norway spruce and European beech exhibit significantly faster tree growth (+32 to 77%), stand volume growth (+10 to 30%) and standing stock accumulation (+6 to 7%) than in 1960. Stands still follow similar general allometric rules, but proceed more rapidly through usual trajectories. As forest stands develop faster, tree numbers are currently 17–20% lower than in past same-aged stands. Self-thinning lines remain constant, while growth rates increase indicating the stock of resources have not changed, while growth velocity and turnover have altered. Statistical analyses of the experimental plots, and application of an ecophysiological model, suggest that mainly the rise in temperature and extended growing seasons contribute to increased growth acceleration, particularly on fertile sites.
CO2 and warming are historically associated, so it is impossible to disentangle their effects without factorial experiments.
@ kaushik1234
“What you know as climate science is mostly limited to a subset of actual climate science,…………”
Actually, I sorta agree with you.
Except that other than that limited subset, climate science, as done by real scientists following wherever the data takes them, has no more impact outside of ‘climate science’ than string theory has outside of physics.
The ONLY part of climate science with impact in the real world is that ssubset which treats ACO2 driven thermogeddon as an axiom and uses uses it as justification for implementing political policies which are ALWAYS designed to advance the cause of progressivism.
So yeah, there ARE real scientists studying real climate. And are never heard of unless they try to question the above axiom, at which time the referenced subset makes every effort to destroy them, personally and professionally.
Last week, Gijs Graafland from the Planck Foundation sent me an email describing his ideas …
*****
We’ll refer to him as Bob from now on.
Speaking of rational response, I don’t think betting the house on ingenuity can be considered reasonable, although the more we wait, the more this wet dream will impose itself, nor is asking for sufficiency conditions, for that matter, since it’s only the dual concept of necessity, which may be the mother of all inventions, but certainly not of empirical sciences.
The disingenuous wee willie seems to suggest that he wasn’t discounting innovation? Quite apart from mistaking a hypothecated tax for ‘putting a price on carbon’ and not clearly not appreciating Lomberg’s energy investment recommendations.
He is clearly deeply confused – and this seems to be a perennial condition.
There seems to be a belief among those proposing radical changes to economies that this will be tolerated by the economy–e.g., a huge tax on fossil fuels or shutting down all coal plants or switching to intermittent power. But we have examples in the world of draconian policies: Venezuela was a very rich country but is now a basket case, with shortages of everything including toilet paper. Their auto industry has shut down because they can’t get supplies. Argentina is making moves to follow that lead, such as trying to disavow debt they owe (and then who will lend them $?) and putting in place price controls and penalties on “profiteering”. These were the two richest countries in South America, going down the drain. An economy is not made out of rubber–it is possible to break it. It darn well better be a well-documented emergency before taking some of the actions these activists want.
I’m sure the photosynthesis deniers will be along shortly.
Reminds me of a story of a couple I knew who were very drunk one night and had pulled over to the side of the road so the woman could throw up outside the car. After she threw up the sight of it made him sick and he threw up also. The cops pulled up and got out and asked the guy, who was on all fours at the time, “Who’s driving here?” And the guy replied, “You think I’d let her drive in her condition?”
A comment above about “shouldn’t we consider the worst case”? Actually, no. Considering the worst case in daily life is called a phobia. If the Maldives and every other atoll went underwater by a several foot sea level rise, it would be far cheaper to pay these people to relocate. The total area of land that would be lost is not even a footnote in the total Earth land area. And while we lose a little land to the sea, we gain land in cold places where the ice has melted and the entire HUGE northern Boreal zone (Siberia, much of Canada, Scandanavia) might actually become habitable. Remember that people’s tendency when faced with change is to only imagine the bad effects. People were afraid of trains when they first came out and insisted in the early industrial revolution that factories were all bad.
Global warming will only compound the severity of water scarcity.
*****
I thought warmer oceans meant more rain. I’m sure there are regional patterns to take into account. Dr. Curry, should the Middle East expect more or less rain if average global temps increase?
The approaches discussed make sense if evaluated from a long term theoretical perspective, but in reality they seem to have little practical application for the foreseeable future. The issues today that make implementation impractical are associated with the nature of how the planet is governed and economics.
There is no single government entity looking out for the betterment of humanity overall over the long term. The planet is governed by nation states with frequently conflicting short term goals.
Where these types of proposals do seem to make sense to implement today, there are other issues in the individual countries that make implementation unlikely/impossible. Where can such proposals be implemented today where an acceptable return on investment can be found? Pick a country where such proposals would seem to make sense. On closer examination, I believe you will find that local culture, local political issues and economics prevent implementation.
Thanks for the interesting link, Matthew, although…
“Forest ecosystems have been exposed to climate change for more than 100 years”
In fact, forest ecosystems have been exposed to climate change for more than 300 million years. Maybe there were forests before the Carboniferous period, I don’t really know.
But it’s strange how one is allowed to use such hopelessly loose terms as “climate change” and “global warming”, without any qualification, in what is supposed to be a context of scientific precision.
I’d look out for “extreme events” as the next infinitely pliable expression. Why bother proving a proposition when it’s easier to just hijack the English language?
We know how to turn the deserts back 1000 years: abstain from drilling and developing nuclear power and throw more money at the ME.
