
Global Warming's Terrifying New Math - ukdm
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
======
iwwr
What about the economic feedback effects? By a deliberate policy of expensive
energy, along with massive subsidies to unsustainable industries (see:
biofuels, windmills) there is a net creation of poverty. If we look at the
consequences of global warming, it's going to strike mostly in the poverty-
stricken areas of the world. By denying economic development to those regions
and by making it difficult for the developed world to grow further, we are
condemning many people to avoidable misery.

Note that we're not talking about pollution that causes direct health problems
(an often conflated issue in the environmentalist message today).

~~~
lolcraft
Today's first-world sub-economy is not limited by total energy output, but by
consumer demand and private credit. Furthermore, production of high-energy
products would be moved towards underdeveloped countries that aren't on the
Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol: that is, countries that don't have any
restrictions yet on their maximum CO2 output.

Yeah, non-Annex I countries would be screwed if they tried to export energy to
developed countries. That could be one way it could backfire, I guess. Given
our demand for petrol, the upcoming demand for coal in under-developed
countries once we move our primary and secondary economies there, and the
traditional "resource curse", I would argue they should worry about other,
more interesting things, like corruption.

You don't convince me. Also, please explain what this "net creation of
poverty" means.

------
crntaylor
I'm somewhat sceptical about an article with the word "math" in its title that
says, in the opening paragraph, that 3.7x10^(-99) is "a number considerably
larger than the number of stars in the universe".

~~~
tsahyt
A great start to an article that I'm skeptical about in its entirety.

~~~
davidw
I would humbly argue that most global warming articles - pro or con - are
likely not good for this site, as it's one of those politicized, polarized
debates that never really goes anywhere.

~~~
tsahyt
Yes, this, exactly. It's hardly a scientific topic anymore. Not that there
wouldn't be any science involved but it's become increasingly hard to tell the
science from the political scare mongering, which is why - for the time being
- I try to dismiss it altogether until the dust has (finally) settled and
we're presented with actual facts and objective articles.

~~~
geebee
Unfortunately, you'll be waiting for a long time. Almost every scientific
issue with a lot of money at stake will have a well funded opposition keen on
clouding the debate as much as possible. They've gotten much better at it over
the years. Instead of denying things, they instead attempt to create an
impression of greater dissent than there actually is.

This is very effective. Even intelligent, well-informed people have a limit to
the amount of time they can devote to simply understanding an issue.
Mainstream media also leans toward presenting "the other side", which is
admirable enough, but tends to give the impression of greater uncertainty than
there often is on scientific issues.

And lastly, there _is_ political scare mongering. Scientists tend to be
conservative about their projections and use language that often appears to be
equivocation ("we found no evidence of X", "early studies show some support
X"...") This opens the door for people who don't equivocate, including people
who want to undermine science because they don't like the conclusions _and_
people who want to reach conclusions that go far beyond the evidence. This
causes rifts which become fertile ground for people who seek to create the
impression of dissent on issues that aren not controversial among scientists.

I recognize that it is _exceptionally_ difficult to educate yourself on
complex issues in science, especially when faced with people who are
determined to confuse. If a physicist tried to explain to me how my microwave
works, and another physicist was determined to convince me that the first
explanation was bunk, I would ultimately not be able to tell truth from
fiction. In the end, I would have to either go back to school and study for
years, or decide who seems most credible.

This is why I am more likely to put much greater emphasis on opinions from
respected research institutions (such as the mayo clinic). Not blind faith -
they can be wrong. Just a greater inclination to listen and stronger emphasis
as I shape my opinions.

In the end, I'd emphasize that this _is_ a scientific issue, and that you are
capable of ignoring pop media and going to the source to read up on the
science on this issue if you are inclined to do so. Or, you could go on
smoking a pack a day for the next 20 years as you wait for all the dust to
settle on the highly controversial question of whether smoking correlates with
lung cancer.

------
Tichy
I only read the first page, but I didn't like how it started: pointing to
thousands of high temperature records in the last year as an indicator for
global warming. As any AGW person can probably point out, ice ages occur in
cycles and hence some global warming is probably natural. The real question is
- is there man made global warming? I think the science says yes, I just don't
like this article making a bad case for it and in fact feeding "the
opposition".

Of course even if the global warming is all natural one could still ask if we
should try to stop it, that is another matter.

~~~
aartur
And what is hard to believe for US citizens last summer was relatively COLD
globally - only slightly above 1950-1980 average:
[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-
bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_la...](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-
bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=8&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=08&year1=2012&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg)

~~~
smoyer
That's true ... here in Pennsylvania we didn't have as many blazing hot days
again this summer. Last winter was milder than many previous ones.

So from my perspective it seems like the temperature swings have less
amplitude but are centered around the same bias as they always were.

Note ... My opinion only. No data was harmed (or even used) to substantiate my
impression.

------
corporalagumbo
"If you put a price on carbon, through a direct tax or other methods, it would
enlist markets in the fight against global warming... And you could do it all
without bankrupting citizens – a so-called "fee-and-dividend" scheme would put
a hefty tax on coal and gas and oil, then simply divide up the proceeds,
sending everyone in the country a check each month for their share of the
added costs of carbon."

I don't understand this point. So he wants to tax people, then give everybody
the money taken back? Seems like a weasel response to me. Either you're
willing to face the massive social fall-out from rigorous carbon taxes or
you're not. You can't have your cake and eat it too with this one.

~~~
DasIch
He wants a working free market which requires companies to pay for all their
costs. At the moment the oil and gas industry is massively externalizing costs
that result from hydrocarbon output, if you stop that, for example with a tax
that will drive up the production costs and in turn prices, those will reflect
the actual costs.

This in turn will cause people to invest in things whose actual costs -
especially over the long term in this case - are lower such as renewable or
nuclear energy sources.

Obviously this is just economical theory, in practice the alternatives are not
as advanced as we would like them to be and as innovation necessary doesn't
happen instantly and will create delays in which people are forced to pay more
overall to sustain their standard of living or they will have to reduce it.

In the short to medium turn this will be painful but I believe that this is
the only way we will actually reach a useful solution.

------
smoyer
Summary (page 1) - Whining that the politician's didn't do anything. When do
they ever? And what did the author do to reduce _his_ carbon footprint in the
last 20 years? Is he better than the politicians? Perhaps the best way to
reduce emissions would have been to not have everyone take a junket to Rio?

Anyway, this was too tiring to read in its entirety, so if someone would like
to add summaries for the other pages, that would be great!

------
dotborg
aside of the "math", after reading this article I came to conclusion that
there is some swindle going on about "global carbon dioxide budget", a global
swindle.

------
ludovicurbain
CO2 is not a problem : [http://ludovicurbain.blogspot.be/2012/09/co2-is-not-
problem....](http://ludovicurbain.blogspot.be/2012/09/co2-is-not-problem.html)

