could this be a way to scrutinize climate science enough for the skeptics

[stone]

Hi, I know that a lot of you guys take the  "freedom not climate is at risk" view when it comes to the subject of global warming. I've just had a go at a blog post looking into how the criticism of the skeptics could be taken on board when it comes to how the science is conducted:

http://directeconomicdemocracy.wordpres ... -skeptics/

........ To my mind what is needed by all sides is for a totally fresh set of people from a totally different background to meticulously reexamine the predictions for catastrophic climate change. The issue is not whether climate scientists are any less reliable than any other scientists; the issue is that in this case the stakes are so high that a totally extraordinary belt and braces level of assessment is needed. As a general rule, when assessing scientific findings, people working in the same scientific field are those most able to spot weaknesses that would simply be overlooked by outsiders. What is more, it would be an extremely arduous task to review some scientific work in an unfamiliar field, so people working in the same field are used by journal editors for scrutinizing scientific work. That peer review process however does little to allay the main concern of climate change skeptics.  Their concern is that the field of climate science as a whole has a political agenda or at the very least a worrying level of group think. We need a one-off rigorous investigation expressly designed to be entirely robust against any such danger.

I think it would be perfectly feasible to apply a process of “outsider review”? as a second safety net for this extraordinary case. The expense and effort would be trivial considering the context. It would be vital to keep the focus very tightly on examining the veracity of the key underpinnings behind the predictions of catastrophic consequences from burning all known recoverable fossil fuel reserves. Perhaps the ideal starting point would be a “global all stars”? paper submitted specifically for this purpose, by the climate science field, laying out their best evidence for such a prediction. The team of reviewers could be assembled by a search committee chaired by prominent climate change skeptics (eg perhaps the Koch brothers, Vaclav Klaus and Nigel Lawson). If that search committee had any sense (and I trust they would) they would recruit a team of people who -whilst perhaps being totally unfamiliar with climate science- nevertheless had the capability to get up to speed and do the necessary work over the course of a year of extremely intense full time work. Perhaps the team would be made up from geologists, physicists and chemists from the petrochemical and mining industries along with mathematicians and software engineers previously working in quantitative finance or whatever. By all means they could all be screened by the search committee as having political inclinations that garnered the trust of the skeptics. Salaries and compensation to employers for leaves of absence could be on a pay what it takes basis........

[Pointedstick]

The problem for me is not acknowledging climate change. Of course the climate is changing; it's always changing. There was global warming thousands of years ago that turned the fertile crescent into a desert, and an ice age during the middle ages that caused a five-year winter. The climate is wacky.

Are we changing the climate with our fossil fuel emissions? Possibly. Probably, even. But will we ever, EVER change our ways and radically re-organize the entire global economy to stop burning fossil fuels? Not in your life. It's a utopian pipe dream. 0% chance of success. This is what I find so maddening about most people worried about human-caused climate change: the general inability to comprehend that if indeed we caused it, that there's no way in hell we're going to stop. The realistic course of action is to prepare for the consequences, not try to stave off what a lot of scientists are already saying is inevitable, assuming the predictive models are correct.

[moda0306]

The problem for me is not acknowledging climate change. Of course the climate is changing; it's always changing. There was global warming thousands of years ago that turned the fertile crescent into a desert, and an ice age during the middle ages that caused a five-year winter. The climate is wacky.

Are we changing the climate with our fossil fuel emissions? Possibly. Probably, even. But will we ever, EVER change our ways and radically re-organize the entire global economy to stop burning fossil fuels? Not in your life. It's a utopian pipe dream. 0% chance of success. This is what I find so maddening about most people worried about human-caused climate change: the general inability to comprehend that if indeed we caused it, that there's no way in hell we're going to stop. The realistic course of action is to prepare for the consequences, not try to stave off what a lot of scientists are already saying is inevitable, assuming the predictive models are correct.

+1

What is happening?

[stone]

I totally agree that a 2oC rise in global temperature is probably inevitable and probably fine. So far we have raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 40% and the (moderate) effects from doing that will become apparent in coming decades and we will be able to adapt to them. That isn't the issue.

The issue is burning our remaining fossil fuels and raising atmospheric CO2 8x current levels. 40% and 1000% are totally different ball parks. A 2oC rise and a 20oC.

Are you saying that politically it would be too awkward to try and avoid a 20oC rise? It is going to be fairly awkward having billions of people migrating to polar regions. Abandoning existing cities and farmland etc etc. London, New York, Singapore being left to the floodwater.

Unless we actively avoid it we will burn all of the fossil fuels. When oil becomes scarce, we will start producing synthetic liquid fuels from coal. People don't seem to realize how much of the total use of fossil fuels has been extremely recent. We have been using them for hundreds of years but the level of use is increasing exponentially. It is now billions of people living a high energy lifestyle whilst it was a few thousand.

I'm not sure that it would be so awkward to do things differently. In Europe (in their wisdom) they make us support the sugar beet industry. The analogy I see is between cane sugar being like fossil fuels in terms of it being economically the no brainer option. Nevertheless all it took to create a thriving sugar beet industry was to slap a 100% import tariff on cane sugar. Even though it costs twice as much to produce beet sugar as cane sugar, in Europe we all use beet sugar.

Perhaps all it would take would be say a carbon tax of say $100 per barrel of oil equivalent, levied on all fossil fuels as they were taken out of the ground (on oil, coal, tar, gas whatever based on the carbon content). That would then no longer leave fossil fuels as the no brainer option and so would create profitable investment opportunities for energy companies using renewables and energy conservation.

[Mountaineer]

A friend of mine just sent me this article.  I have not checked it out as to truthfulness.  Anyway, it is interesting.

.... Mountaineer

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born
12 February 1946
Residence
Australia
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions
University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide
Alma mater
University of New South Wales,Macquarie University
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

  Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary. PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p  light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ..... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.  And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt.  Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt.  Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it!!!!
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.  And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

[stone]

Mountaineer, there is something about that here, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ge-monbiot

He continues to restate facts after they have been shown to be wrong. For example, he maintains that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activity. The US Geological Survey (USGS) reports that human beings produce 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

Jones took up my charge and asked Plimer whether he stood by his claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the world's cars and industries.

Plimer replied "I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology", then launched into a disquisition on how I know nothing about science. Both of us pressed him to answer the question. So Plimer said that neither of us had read his book. We both replied that we had and pressed him again.

Plimer tried to argue that the US Geological Survey only measured emissions from terrestrial volcanoes – not from submarine volcanoes. Jones, who had plainly done his homework, pointed out that a UK journalist (I think he was referring to the Guardian's James Randerson) had gone back to the USGS and asked them whether or not submarine volcanoes were included in its calculations. They were.

Plimer went off at a tangent, starting to list the numbers and kinds of submarine volcanoes. This, I soon found, was a characteristic tactic: when faced with a tricky situation, he starts throwing out random facts. I pointed out that he had been told many times that the USGS figures include submarine volcanoes: he was making a claim on national television that he should know is wrong.

[doodle]

I'm actually quite optimistic (this week...i flip flop constantly) about the potential for alternative energy and efficiency to reduce the problem. I think world population is starting to level off and will probably begin to decline soon. At the same time children are being raised with a greater awareness of how our lifestyles impact the planet which will pave the way for a huge number of entrepreneurs with a "green" focus. In addition, while alternative technologies like solar are slightly more expensive today, they are almost at parity with other forms of electricity and they are improving every year. My new house will use solar energy for example. There is a slow shift in awareness happening and all that really needs to happen is that the politicians fall in line like they have more or less done with segregation, gay rights, or now immigration.

I think the most workable solution is a simple carbon tax. Even if not from a climate standpoint, emitting pollution into a shared resource should have an associated cost. I don't see how any freedom loving person could object to paying a penalty to pollute.

[stone]

doodle, I totally agree about the carbon tax (paid at point of extraction from the ground) being the best hope.
BUT check out the graph of carbon dioxide emissions in fig 1 of this: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0081648

It is an exponential ramping up not a tapering off.

If we don't do something like have a carbon tariff, then we will burn all of the fossil fuels, no question about it from what I can see.

[Mountaineer]

I think the most workable solution is a simple carbon tax. Even if not from a climate standpoint, emitting pollution into a shared resource should have an associated cost. I don't see how any freedom loving person could object to paying a penalty to pollute.

How do you propose that gasseous emissions from both ends of animals (domestic, wild, humans) should be taxed and revenues collected?  Methane is a significant "greenhouse" gas and animals exhale quite a lot of CO2. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, there is something about that here, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ge-monbiot

He continues to restate facts after they have been shown to be wrong. For example, he maintains that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activity. The US Geological Survey (USGS) reports that human beings produce 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

Jones took up my charge and asked Plimer whether he stood by his claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all the world's cars and industries.

Plimer replied "I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology", then launched into a disquisition on how I know nothing about science. Both of us pressed him to answer the question. So Plimer said that neither of us had read his book. We both replied that we had and pressed him again.

Plimer tried to argue that the US Geological Survey only measured emissions from terrestrial volcanoes – not from submarine volcanoes. Jones, who had plainly done his homework, pointed out that a UK journalist (I think he was referring to the Guardian's James Randerson) had gone back to the USGS and asked them whether or not submarine volcanoes were included in its calculations. They were.

Plimer went off at a tangent, starting to list the numbers and kinds of submarine volcanoes. This, I soon found, was a characteristic tactic: when faced with a tricky situation, he starts throwing out random facts. I pointed out that he had been told many times that the USGS figures include submarine volcanoes: he was making a claim on national television that he should know is wrong.

Thanks.  Sounds like Plimer is another charlatan in the business of selling books and making money like Al Gore.  Drats, I should have looked it up before posting.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I think the most workable solution is a simple carbon tax. Even if not from a climate standpoint, emitting pollution into a shared resource should have an associated cost. I don't see how any freedom loving person could object to paying a penalty to pollute.

How do you propose that gasseous emissions from both ends of animals (domestic, wild, humans) should be taxed and revenues collected?  Methane is a significant "greenhouse" gas and animals exhale quite a lot of CO2. 

... Mountaineer

Edited to add:  I also remember from my working days with a major Fortune 500 Science company that pine forrests emit more "greenhouse" gasses than human sources.  Ditto the cow burps and farts mentioned above.  I do not know if that is still true as the data is about 15 years old. 

[stone]

Mountaineer, I only think fossil fuel carbon should be taxed. The biological emissions are part of an ongoing carbon cycle while the fossil fuels are a net addition. With living things, carbon dioxide gets fixed out of the air by photosynthesis and released back by respiration. You can't get a net addition from living things unless the size of the biosphere is shrinking (the carbon has to come from somewhere). Fossil fuels get dug out of the ground and will stay as increased carbon dioxide for as long as it takes to turn them into coal or limestone (a very long time).

I think the most workable solution is a simple carbon tax. Even if not from a climate standpoint, emitting pollution into a shared resource should have an associated cost. I don't see how any freedom loving person could object to paying a penalty to pollute.

How do you propose that gasseous emissions from both ends of animals (domestic, wild, humans) should be taxed and revenues collected?  Methane is a significant "greenhouse" gas and animals exhale quite a lot of CO2. 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

I totally agree that a 2oC rise in global temperature is probably inevitable and probably fine. So far we have raised atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 40% and the (moderate) effects from doing that will become apparent in coming decades and we will be able to adapt to them. That isn't the issue.

The issue is burning our remaining fossil fuels and raising atmospheric CO2 8x current levels. 40% and 1000% are totally different ball parks. A 2oC rise and a 20oC.

Are you saying that politically it would be too awkward to try and avoid a 20oC rise? It is going to be fairly awkward having billions of people migrating to polar regions. Abandoning existing cities and farmland etc etc. London, New York, Singapore being left to the floodwater.

You start to lose me when you talk about 20c rises in global temperature for several reasons:

1. What model can possibly predict with any accuracy exactly what temperature the average will rise by given a certain set of inputs? Even if this were possible, the world will not remain static during this time. The amount of variables is staggering. I remain deeply skeptical of any prediction that says anything along the lines of "given single input A, result B will occur decades from now."

2. A 20c rise in temperature is life-exterminating.  Humans couldn't live on planet earth anymore except maybe in the lush valleys of Antarctica. Such a dramatic event would cause mass action. It's not like one day we'll wake up and discover that the planet is 20c hotter. It will happen over decades and we will have time to prepare, begin to feel its effects, and perhaps then, change our ways. It seems to me that humanity is much better at adapting to impending calamity than staving it off. A gradual 20c rise in average global temperatures, if it's even where we're headed, is such a calamity that I have faith in the ability of humanity to react to it as soon as the early effects are felt.

Perhaps all it would take would be say a carbon tax of say $100 per barrel of oil equivalent, levied on all fossil fuels as they were taken out of the ground (on oil, coal, tar, gas whatever based on the carbon content). That would then no longer leave fossil fuels as the no brainer option and so would create profitable investment opportunities for energy companies using renewables and energy conservation.

When I hear things like this, I wonder where all the liberal compassion went. Such a tax would absolutely CRUSH the poor. Think about it. Who is the most likely to live in an inefficient house and need to commute long distances? The poor. Who is least able to absorb the increased prices of fossil fuels? The poor. Who is least able to conduct energy audits and switch to more efficient products and dwellings that may have a long-term payback? The poor.

This carbon tax will be easily absorbed by the rich and corporations, who will conduct energy audits, conclude that switching to self-generated electricity and highly efficient structures and products make long-term sense given the new tax, and then commit large amounts of money to executing the plan. People struggling to make ends meet are going to get skewered.

[Pointedstick]

Stone, let me say this: if I were completely, 100% convinced as you are that burning fossil fuels was causing a rise in global temperatures due to the greenhouse effect, and that the more we do it the worse it's going to get, and that the endgame is that most habitable areas of the planet become uninhabitable, possibly within my own lifetime, with the probable result of billions of deaths and the total loss of most of the infrastructure of civilization that didn't get airlifted to the poles, then my political and personal prescription would be VERY different from pushing for a carbon tax. Here's what I would be doing:

Personal:
1. Moving to Northern Canada or Siberia and learning English, French or Russian, as applicable. Seriously. Those places will be prime real estate.

2. Learning how to produce my own energy and building a house that did it. Solar, wind, heavily-insulated thermal mass house, all that jazz. Depending on the grid, let alone piped in fossil fuels like natural gas, will be suicide. You'd freeze. Anyone who worries about climate change but drives a petroleum-fueled car and doesn't have a 100% self-sufficient off-grid house is kidding himself.

3. Hardening myself. Learning survival skills, self-defense, becoming stronger and gaining endurance, etc. In this world, there will be mass panic and hysteria, with undoubtedly a lot of violence. I would want to be able to survive it.


Political:
1. In deference to the reality that humans--especially the Chinese and Indians--will NOT stop burning fossil fuels, I would start looking for a way to poison or destroy the world's supply of fossil fuels without burning them. That's pretty extreme, but how else are you going to get three billion people looking forward to fossil-fuel-based industrialization to give up their dreams of prosperity or severely hamper them by switching to far more expensive forms of energy. It simply isn't going to happen. 0% chance of success.


Basically, Stone, if you're right then the situation is far more dire than you seem to admit. A puny carbon tax--even if it could get passed worldwide, which it can't--won't do a lick of good. Far more serious and more drastic actions would have to be taken.

[Tyler]

Perhaps all it would take would be say a carbon tax of say $100 per barrel of oil equivalent, levied on all fossil fuels as they were taken out of the ground (on oil, coal, tar, gas whatever based on the carbon content). That would then no longer leave fossil fuels as the no brainer option and so would create profitable investment opportunities for energy companies using renewables and energy conservation.

When I hear things like this, I wonder where all the liberal compassion went. Such a tax would absolutely CRUSH the poor. Think about it. Who is the most likely to live in an inefficient house and need to commute long distances? The poor. Who is least able to absorb the increased prices of fossil fuels? The poor. Who is least able to conduct energy audits and switch to more efficient products and dwellings that may have a long-term payback? The poor.

Yep.

I'd be satisfied with a system for closely scrutinizing the solutions being proposed and honestly evaluating the scientific, economic, and societal tradeoffs.  So much of the issue is purely political, with the science debates a convenient distraction from the non-scientific motives behind the too-often unchallenged proposed "solutions" (such as global redistribution of wealth via carbon trading).  A review system for climate bureaucrats would do plenty to eliminate hot air while refocusing the angst to the proper bad guy.  And it would also ease the political pressure on the scientists to allow them to do their jobs with less interference and pressure for a desired political outcome.

[stone]

Pointed stick, in Europe we have to pay twice as much for food due to import tariffs. Why is that different from paying a carbon tariff? As I said whole industries have been created by those food tariffs. Sugar beet would not exist if it were not for the tariffs. Likewise we won't get a switch to renewables whilst there is still coal in the ground and no tariffs.

The coal that China and India uses comes to a significant extent from the USA and Australia. If the tariff was charged on the US and Australian mines, then at least that coal would stay in the ground.

There is a time lag between increasing atmospheric CO2 and seeing the temperature rise. It takes time to heat the earth up. The oceans and melting ice caps absorb a lot of heat. BUT it is a time lag not a mitigating feedback. It takes thousands of years for the CO2 to come back out of the atmosphere. If say in thirty years time we think it is too hot, then sadly we are stuck. We could stop putting any more CO2 in the atmosphere but, the damage so far will still be with us.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0081648

[stone]

Pointed Stick, the geological record concurs with models that each doubling in the atmospheric CO2 causes a 3 oC temperature rise. We know that reported recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are enough to cause an 8x increase in atmospheric CO2.

Also exxon mobil spend $100M dollars per day on prospecting for more reserves.

[Pointedstick]

Pointed stick, in Europe we have to pay twice as much for food due to import tariffs. Why is that different from paying a carbon tariff?

Are you saying that paying twice as much for food doesn't also hurt poor people? They both do!

Are the import tariffs popular? Do Europeans like paying twice as much for food?


Far more than any laws, what I think you need is a cultural shift. Liberals you already have on your side because they like your policies. You don't have to worry about them; they're not the issue. But right now your cultural campaign is one of fear: fear of loss, fear of change, fear of the destruction of our way of life. These appeal powerfully to conservatives, but your policy prescriptions do not, so they cancel each other out and conservatives do not trust you. You need to learn to speak their language better or offer them something they do like. Talk about how renewable energy makes the country safer from foreign dictators cutting off the supply of oil. Talk about how domestic industries increase the robustness of society. Talk about how protectionism has been successfully used to stimulate many domestic industries.

You can get libertarians on your side by talking about efficiency, which is their primary motivator. Libertarians hate waste. Point out how wasteful fossil fuels are! How the efficiencies from extraction to consumption are extremely low. Talk about how self-generated renewable energy increases one's freedom and self-sufficiency.

[Pointedstick]

Pointed Stick, the geological record concurs with models that each doubling in the atmospheric CO2 causes a 3 oC temperature rise. We know that reported recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are enough to cause an 8x increase in atmospheric CO2.

Also exxon mobil spend $100M dollars per day on prospecting for more reserves.

I think I understand what you're saying here. Even though the geological record shows that dumping carbon into the atmosphere can happen without humans doing it, it also gives us a (hypothesized) causal relationship. So independent of the "natural" cycle of temperatures rising and falling, any carbon we add moves the midpoint upwards.

Assuming this is totally true, you have still not demonstrated how the political process could feasibly be used on a global level to address this problem. You Europeans may be willing to suffer higher prices when your rulers deem it in your own interests, but we Americans are not, by and large (unless we're tricked into it through subtle policies that increase prices while purporting to lower them or something). And I'm willing to bet that the Chinese and Indians are as well. If Australia and the US tax carbon, the Chinese will find their own domestic sources, or maybe invade Russia and take their oilfields. They might. The USA and UK has done the same to other countries. Why wouldn't the Chinese?

[stone]

Pointed Stick, over geological time, plate tectonics cause volcanic activity to be much more in some periods than others. That releases more CO2 from limestone back into the atmosphere. That increase in CO2 and the resulting temperature change can be seen in the geological record. The Eocene had temperatures 20 oC higher than today and had matching CO2 levels. Mammals were around then. We would be able to survive on Earth.

The only efficiency of renewables is that they avoid climate change. It will always be cheaper to dig up and burn coal until almost all of it is burnt.

[Pointedstick]

Pointed Stick, over geological time, plate tectonics cause volcanic activity to be much more in some periods than others. That releases more CO2 from limestone back into the atmosphere. That increase in CO2 and the resulting temperature change can be seen in the geological record. The Eocene had temperatures 20 oC higher than today and had matching CO2 levels. Mammals were around then. We would be able to survive on Earth.

The only efficiency of renewables is that they avoid climate change. It will always be cheaper to dig up and burn coal until almost all of it is burnt.

…Really? I think you're selling the technology short, probably because that's the aspect you care about, as a climate change worrier. In the American city of Seattle, for example, renewable hydroelectric power enables the residents to enjoy electricity prices of $0.06 per kilowatt hour. On a personal basis, on-site electricity generation from solar or wind sources eventually pays for itself and becomes a household profit center, not to mention insulating from the consequences of grid downtime.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Stone. If you want to convince people that renewable energy sources are worth it, you need to learn about their other advantages besides avoiding dumping carbon into the atmosphere, because that's an argument that doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Instead of trying to convince them to accept this argument anyway, just emphasize the other advantages that do appeal to them.

[Benko]

Real scientists provide testable hypothesis which they can look at and see if the data fits their hypothesis.  The earth is warming (e.g. faster than normal) is such a hypothesis. When the data clearly did not fit the "global warming" hypothesis (because the globe has stopped warming) they changed it to "climate change".  There is no testable hypothesis (that I have heard) for climate change.  THis is convenient because the climate change folks can never be proved wrong.  OTOH without a hypothesis, it is not science.

Mountaineer, I only think fossil fuel carbon should be taxed.

The fact that the "solution" to a "problem" happens to match the wish list of the same people (we should all use green energy) and the fact that many of these scientists get a lot of funding from global warming means there is a conflict of interest. How much money has Mr. Gore made from global warming/climate change?

Furthermore the fact that the globe has not warmed much over the last 15 years and the fact that global warming scientists were caught suppressing data i.e. acting like politicians not scientists that did not agree with them should be a wake up call. 

[Pointedstick]

Pointed Stick, the geological record concurs with models that each doubling in the atmospheric CO2 causes a 3 oC temperature rise. We know that reported recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are enough to cause an 8x increase in atmospheric CO2.

Also exxon mobil spend $100M dollars per day on prospecting for more reserves.

I think I understand what you're saying here. Even though the geological record shows that dumping carbon into the atmosphere can happen without humans doing it, it also gives us a (hypothesized) causal relationship. So independent of the "natural" cycle of temperatures rising and falling, any carbon we add moves the midpoint upwards.

Assuming this is totally true, you have still not demonstrated how the political process could feasibly be used on a global level to address this problem. You Europeans may be willing to suffer higher prices when your rulers deem it in your own interests, but we Americans are not, by and large (unless we're tricked into it through subtle policies that increase prices while purporting to lower them or something). And I'm willing to bet that the Chinese and Indians won't, either. If Australia and the US tax carbon, the Chinese will find their own domestic sources, or maybe invade Russia and take their oilfields. They might. The USA and UK has done the same to other countries. Why wouldn't the Chinese?

[stone]

Benko, the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 has had little effect on the climate so far. It is very hard to model the time delay between increasing CO2 and getting the resulting temperature change -whether a say 2 oC change takes ten years or 30 years to take effect. It is much easier to model the size of the eventual change. Also the geological record shows what size the eventual change has been for a given level of CO2 in the past. The geological record does not tell us about the time delay.

We'd be crazy to let all of that cloud our judgment when it comes to assessing whether an 8x increase in CO2 (as we will get if we burn all of the fossil fuels) is going to have a massive effect.

[stone]

Pointed Stick, I have to apologize that this isn't properly fact checked by me but my understanding is that the Chinese are doing a lot towards getting the world using more renewables. They on purpose are flooding the world with dirt cheap silicon for solar made at a loss in China. You say that renewables make sense on the basis of current costs but with solar there is that underlying subsidy.

Hydro is very very cheap. BUT there isn't much unused potential capacity. In the UK, even if all of the potential energy of every spot of rain that fell was harvested it still wouldn't give us much energy compared to what we use. We just don't have much high altitude land to collect the rain.

Globally we would need to harvest solar either directly or via seaweed biomass if we wanted enough renewable energy. To replace all current oil consumption would require seaweed farms covering about 3.5% of the sea surface -a big effort.