Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[OzarkFishman]

You dream of poppyseed ... I don't judge much, but that is very weird.

[Al Agnew]

Wayne, what I don't understand is how the failure of one company that received federal money from the current administration negates the whole concept of putting governmental resources into finding alternatives to fossil fuels. The whole Solyndra thing turned out to be tailor-made for opposition politicians to beat the administration over the head with. But does that mean the administration gave them the money knowing that they were bogus or destined to fail (and thus give those opposition politicians all that ammunition)? Perhaps not enough due diligence was used in selecting that company to receive funds, or perhaps not enough foresight was used to see what would happen with China dumping cheap technology in direct competition with American companies. But companies and technologies do fail. Does that mean the whole concept of putting resources into alternative energy development is a bad idea? Does it mean that you can tell ahead of time which ones will fail?

Kinda the same question applies to the folks who fudged the data to make their position seem stronger. Does that mean that the whole concept of human induced climate change is bogus? As Tim has repeatedly pointed out, there is a lot of raw data out there for all with the background to examine. The East Anglia people are far from the only scientists coming to the conclusion that human induced climate change is valid. One bunch of bad apples doesn't spoil the whole truckload.

I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. The vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields still accept human induced climate change. To believe they HAVE to be wrong is to believe that they are all either incompetent, dishonest, or have a hidden agenda of some kind, while the smaller number of deniers are mostly competent, honest, and above-board. That flies in the face of human nature. It's probable that about the same percentage in each camp are good scientists, and it's likely that it's a fairly high percentage of each camp. Certainly this isn't a case of simply following the money, because there is a lot of money (and reputations) riding on each side being right. That doesn't mean the deniers have to be wrong. But I still think you have to go with the prevailing opinion until enough evidence builds up that it's no longer the prevailing opinion.

As a concerned layman who has read quite a bit about the whole issue, I'd be the first to say I'm not convinced that CO2 is the most important component of human induced climate change. The continual loss of rain forests, the continual paving and development of land that once collected carbon, the fact that there are other, much more potent greenhouse gases, all call into question just how important CO2 is, and whether reducing CO2 emissions is all we need to do to fix things. But to believe that it's all a natural thing, you have to be able to figure out what NATURAL things are causing it. So far, I haven't seen any good explanation of how it's happening naturally.

[ozark trout fisher]

The thing that really gets me is this...40 odd years ago we were able to put forth the money and effort to successfully get a man on the moon...And there was no real point to that one, except for winning the "space race" and otherwise satisfying our own curiosity. And yet when it seems pretty obvious to most scientists that the collective well-being of humanity could be on the line, we're somehow unable to put forth the resources to make any significant, widespread progress on transitioning to alternative energy to reduce CO2 output...Mostly because either a majority or a sizable minority of American citizens aren't willing accept the prevailing scientific opinion that it is even a problem that needs our attention.

[Al Agnew]

You're forgetting the other part of the equation. There wasn't a huge industrial complex that was in direct competition with the space race. All it took was spending money, and the military industrial complex was fully on board since they would be profiting from it. With climate change, there IS a huge industrial complex that stands to lose big time if we are no longer dependent upon fossil fuels. They have the money and power to control politicians and advance their message. I think it's as simple as that.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Come on page 10!!!!

[Justin Spencer]

Were it not for the bs we would probably be burning natural gas in most of our individual transportation. It produces less co2 and, and, doesn't have to be imported and refined. Local transport like busses could be burning hydrogen and long haul could be burning bio diesel, which would absorb some CO2 before it's refined.

We could be filling spaces with trees, we could do a lot of things rather then give money to handpicked businesses.

I knew Wayne was on our side. In this case i think the bs is big oil. They have too much power to allow this to happen. They are one of the hand picked businesses getting money, or at least tax credits. We still need big oil to help drive our economy, but it will take government intervention to start the shift toward natural gas and other energy forms.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Wayne, what I don't understand is how the failure of one company that received federal money from the current administration negates the whole concept of putting governmental resources into finding alternatives to fossil fuels.

It was the concept Al. It was like swelling indicating infection. Why one company, why have others in the industry believe they will have to compete against government coffers? What the failure did was expose the fact that government is more interested money and influence then in CO2 levels.

[Tim Smith]

It was the concept Al. It was like swelling indicating infection. Why one company, why have others in the industry believe they will have to compete against government coffers? What the failure did was expose the fact that government is more interested money and influence then in CO2 levels.

Awful.

Companies have to compete for grants and subsidies. You're so focused on one political talking point that you don't see the hundreds of other companies that have benefited from those kinds of start up initiatives and tax breaks.

The state of Texas by itself put 6 million dollars into solar energy subsidies last year. http://www.window.st...ergy/subsidies/

The total 2011l Federal subsidy for renewable resources was 24 billion spread over multiple industries. http://money.cnn.com...idies/index.htm

By what stretch of the imagination is that picking a single winner? Each of those companies has to compete for that money. The selection process is probably far less biased that the cliques and classes and family connections in the free market.

It is well past obvious that the real objections to the human role in climate change have nothing to do with science. The denial arguments are fatuous at best. The real debate revolves around cooperation. People to who individualism and personal interest are paramount would rather just do for themselves and ignore or rationalize the rest away.

They're the ones in the lifeboat elbowing their way toward the food and water without regard for the consequences of their actions.

I suppose it's pretty hard to stand up and admit that. Still, I have a lot more respect for people who are honest about their selfishness that than those who cover it up with nonsense.

[Wayne SW/MO]

initiatives and tax breaks.

Tim quit comparing apple to oranges. The one mentioned and another that failed because of publicity had nothing to do with tax breaks or initiatives!

We're talking government loans, not through an open program, but through the back door.

Tax breaks and initiatives are fine if fairly applied.

Your approach is to defend any and all money applied to CO2 abatement, whether it's well spent or not. You seem more than ready to assure us all that if we level off our CO2 output global warming will also level out, and if it drops, so will temperatures.

[Tim Smith]

Tim quit comparing apple to oranges. The one mentioned and another that failed because of publicity had nothing to do with tax breaks or initiatives!

We're talking government loans, not through an open program, but through the back door.

Tax breaks and initiatives are fine if fairly applied.

Your approach is to defend any and all money applied to CO2 abatement, whether it's well spent or not. You seem more than ready to assure us all that if we level off our CO2 output global warming will also level out, and if it drops, so will temperatures.

Well I do appreciate the specifics you have about policy above. It has been pretty hard to draw you out on those but please do continue. I could re-list the questions about your positions that are still on the floor if that will help.

As for MY approach, no I don't think just anything will work, but yes if we reduce carbon emissions over the long haul it seems obvious the trend could reverse...if the methane releases and albedo effect haven't locked us into this trend already.

It is clear that CO2 abatement removes the main driver for higher temperatures in the modern era. A commitment to that goal on the level of the space race or the creation of the interstate freeway system could work. Both the free market and government have a role but it seems clear government has to lead. The market doesn't see past individual profits and is a notorious despoiler of the commons.