I'm not disputing the ethical or moral value of doing it.  That's a whole different debate.  I just expressed my personal objection to it.

Just as I expressed my personal support of it when I say 'it isn't a bad thing', ' my country focuses on redistribution',  I'm happy about that......I like that I live there etc. etc.   All about personal support.  

Morals?  Ethics?   What are those anymore anyway..........

So anyway, that global warming thing.

How's that working out?

Not well at all.  It got into a fight with 1970s global cooling, but then they both died during the Malthusian catastrophe.  Unfortunately there are no records of any of it because they all got lost in the "End of History."  

/shrug

I wouldn't know about 'global warming'.  I do know the last few winters in my neck of the woods have been warmer etc. (which is definitely odd for us here) and it has actually caused some changes with regard to home/property preparation for some of us.

Aside from what I've already posted on this topic many many pages ago I really have nothing to say about 'global warming'.   I only jumped in again with regard to some of the comments on the last page or so......... 

That's a major assumption, you're *assuming* that technology will solve everything for you. However, technology will also create problems. Just like solar panels may (or may not) become cheaper, coals plants will also become cheaper, and the digital revolution may (or may not) put increasing pressure on the resources of pure silicon, making it more expensive and thus leading to more expensive solar panels.

There are also other pressing points, like increasing population, reduction in wealth, increasing poverty. We are pretty rich nowadays, you may not realize it. We could well be at the peak (or just past the peak) of global wealth. An increase in population, coinciding with a depletion of resources, will create new problems that future generations have to solve, IN ADDITION to the problem of CO2.

So... you're assuming an awful lot. You're assuming technology will solve things, not make things worse. You're assuming that future generations have plenty of wealth and resources to tackle problems that we don't want to.

It reminds me a bit of a discussion about resources... in principle there is no resource shortage. You just take one cubic kilometer of crust, melt it and you've got all the iron, gold, rare metals and everything that you need to keep the economy going for a whole year.

However, while this may sound attractive, the energy cost is enormous. We simply cannot afford this. And for all I know, technology will not solve this problem for us either.

Unless there's going to be limitless free energy ... but that sounds too much like a fantasy story from the 60s. In any case I wouldn't bet my future on it.

And anyway... it won't have to cost us very much. The necessary changes can be spread over several generations, we don't have to pay everything ourselves. We just need to start and plan ahead and pay our fair share as well as we can.

Since we're off topic anyway the whole hoax being dead and all, where exactly did you learn math? At 7 billion 80% live on 2$ or less. If you want to 'spread the wealth' that means everyone will live on a subsistence level not counting projected population growth. You can pay your 'fair share' if you want, i realizing that this is an unsurmountable problem (equal to the USA ever paying it's debt) rather keep it myself and tough excrement for those whom life dealt a rough deal. There's just too many.

Dear sir, most of the pollution comes from the US, China, Europe and Russia. Those have enough knowledge and wealth that a small sacrifice to make a better world wont hurt.

And you should know that nothing is insurmountable... the US was able to send people to the moon in the 70s, without the aid of computers. It's just a matter of doing it.

How much will it cost, really... if the world would spend (for example) 1 trillion dollars each year on modifying the economy, a lot can be done ... not immediately, but slowly. And that's doable since the world earns about 30 trillions dollars/year.

No, I'm not.  Plain old resedential solar panels have increased in efficiency dramatically in just the last 5 years, while also getting smaller.  And that's just crappy old residential solar panels, never mind cutting edge solar power sources like Brad has mentioned elsewhere in this thread.  You really think that we're going to be on carbon derivative fuels forever?  Or is that just a convenient way to increase the immediacy of the supposed threat from AGW.  Pretend the solutions aren't around the proverbial corner and suddenly this "catastrophe" requires large scale immediate government action!  It's just a coincidence that's the issue is being pressed by people who ALWAYS think the solution to their flavor of the decade problem is large scale government action.  

This is just silly.  If we're at "peak wealth", whatever the hell that is, how is the IMF forecast for global economic growth positive next year?  And poverty isn't increasing, especially not on a global scale.  There are fluctuations year to year, but like you AGW people say it's all about trends.  Look at the economic trends.  By any measure poverty around the world is shrinking.  Here's the $2/day living standard that is commonly used.  

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20040961~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367~isCURL:Y,00.html

You and others have already said that you have no idea how much it will cost.  That's the whole point.  It's a poorly thought out magic bullet.  And, like most poorly though out magic bullets, the poor will be the ones who get screwed the most.  In this case the poor are the developing economies who suddenly can't use cheap carbon based fuels to develop and can't afford expensive Fat Rich White Western 1st-worlder Approved fuels.  

If you think Russia and China will do anything to combat global warming, you're fooling yourself.  They talk nice about AGW because they love to see the US and Europe, their main competitors economically and geopolitically, shoot themselves in the foot and voluntarily make themselves less competitive.  Same thing with rest of the BRIC countries.  Their is no chance they along with AGW, not really.  Not at the fundemental, change your economy level.  

So really what you're doing is hamstringing the US and European economies for no real reason, because those other countries' CO2 production will continue to grow and make up for any savings in the US and EU.  And then developing 3rd world economies' CO2 use will continue to grow, unless you force them not to use carbon based fuels because when they see the BRIC nations ignoring it, they will too.  

We can't stop poor ass completely isolated North Korea from getting nuclear weapons.  You think we can enforce economy damaging AGW solutions world-wide?  Seriously? 

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

But we're not going to see eye to eye on redistribution. It's funny you should mention the 1930's. My father was a child of the great depression. He and my Aunt waited in bread lines for food. Under your philosphy, they shouldn't have received this assistance because it was in effect someone elses money (taxes) paying for the bread, who probably wasn't receiving that service/assistance.

Now, should taxes be used to buy everyone an Ipod? Of course not.

But IMO, taxes should be redistributed to help those who are truly needy, (for a fix period of time, not indefintely).

And I am a big advocate of weeding out cheaters and system abusers. But as gov't budgets are being cut, there are fewer people available to chase after the cheaters. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

And here it is... What you are really after under the guise of "AGW" is one world government. Thanks, but no thanks.

That is not true.  It says "promote the general welfare".  And the welfare that it is referring to is not welfare payments.  Due to the 16th amendment, it does indeed give them the right to tax.  But neither that amendment nor any other place in the Constitution gives them the right to confiscate property and give it to others.  Indeed, courts have ruled continuously throughout history that the government cannot do that.

And that is what Brad is saying.

it pays to read the Constitution.

Dr. Curry has a new paper out nicknamed "Stadium Wave".  It basically shows a high degree of correlation between the AMO and the temperature trends over the past 100 years.  Very interesting. http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/

Russia is preparing for global cooling apparently

Just sayin'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.^[1]

Except for Kelo v New London.  A decision that will live in infamy.

They're "cheaper" because the Chinese have made some huge losses on them. Chinese local governments are heavily subsidizing their solar panel factories to boost work. This was not sustainable and has stopped more or less. Chinese wages are also increasing quickly, meaning they cannot produce for "free" anymore.

Also, there were some major fluctuations in resource costs in the past, leading to some major, major losses at a few companies that invested poorly.

My point is: you are thinking solar panels will keep getting cheaper, but they won't. In the coming years they will more likely become more expensive.

But I hope I am wrong... hopefully sometime someone will invent some cheap method to produce solar panels for free.

Why not... you can boycot such countries. China also has interest in cleaning up their rampant pollution... the people there can hardly breathe. They don't know what the sun looks like.

People are better than that. We set our own standards for what we think is important, it doesn't matter what our neightbour does.

We're already "better" than China. Our cities aren't always covered in smog (only sometimes). Aren't you incredibly happy with that?

Now imagine a city where most cars run on electricity, where you can smell the flowers and dog poo instead of exhaust fumes, wouldn't that be a great city to live in?

I think it would be great. I'd be willing to pay some extra for that.

Quite frankly....flowers give me hay fever....dog poo smells like....wait for it....shit....

I'm a 'petrol-head'...I'd MUCH prefer the smell of exhaust.

...but I'm a purist....not the catalytic converter hydrogen sulfide ....that STILL smells like shit...

I mean real PETROL ...;)

But Kelo was a State, not the feds.

I must admit though...my number one favourite smell is freshly cut cyprus.  For those why might be wondering...it's like cedar ... a naturally preserving softwood.

For me...a Chanel No.5 for men would be made from cyprus...;)

Great! Share with us pics of your electric car and solar array.  

I read this thing, which you apparently did not:

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.

Looks great for you deniers right, until you think of when it happens the other way: 

The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.

So when the pause is over, IT WILL ENHANCE GLOBAL WARMING. 

Think about that for a while. But hell it could extend into the 2030's, so lets pretend it does not exist and we can all live happily in denial?

Edit: When I think about this, this could actually be a good thing. Maybe a sudden rapid shock rise in global temperatures will make people wake up. Lets hope it happens sooner than the 2030's though

However, then I will probably be on the other side of this fence, cooling things down from all the "World is ending" people. 

I did read it.  Your problem is that you did not read my comment.  Brad asked about the current state of Global warming and I linked a very recent paper.  The paper does not claim global warming or claim it does not exist.  It does not predict anything.

What the paper does is show a high correlation between the AMO and the temperatures over the past 100 years (gee, I think I said that).

So you want to READ what I said and comment?  You are welcome to critique the paper, and even offer your own opinion.  But you are not free to lie about what I said.

You are right, I assumed from previous posts you were still trying to deny global warming. My apologies if you've changed your mind. 

I don't have those things! I'm living in an apartment. But I did move closer to work, so I can go to work by bike instead of by car. It is much more relaxing than driving on congested roads and highways. I hardly use the car anymore.

But I did buy some land with trees a while back... it's useless for anything but despite that, I like having it. I didn't buy it to be "green", hardly anybody knows that I have it. I just happen to like trees. And birds too, those are beautiful graceful creatures... except ducks, I don't like ducks. But global warming will take care of those, muhahaha.