Global cooling

[pueno]

[swchandler]

I don't know mac, at least from where I sit, I think that mrgybe's interests center on his historical relationship with oil companies. It's not a stretch to think that he has a continuing financial interest in the growth of oil, and their many varied interests. Needless to say, the Obama Administration isn't making him happy.

[coboardhead]

Politicians tend to go for the programs that have a major visual impact. Like windmills and solar farms. It is much more gratifying to look at something large and say..."I made that happen".

It is boring to facilitate legislation that provides tax incentives for LED lights and natural gas conversions in power and transportation. Even though these would be more effective in reducing carbon.

It's like my little town. Every town council wants to do something spectacular with the downtown. Landscaped medians, brick crosswalks, bronze statues of seagulls (good grief... we're 1200 miles from the coast). Why won't they just pave the damn alleys?

[mac]

Pueno and Chandler--it is systematic training in half-truths the Exxon way. I'm making my way through Steve Coll's "Private Empire", which shows that my experience with Exxon is not only usual, but there is a market in outing these guys. So here's a few things from the book.

On the arrogant attitude as corporate culture (page 40). 'The Exxon way came across as arrogance to many outsiders. ..."Exxon's attitude towards the other majors has always been, 'We are Oil--the rest of you are kids,' said a long-tenured executive at a competing company. [his daughter asked him] "Dad, do you think things will get so bad that you'd have to go to work for Exxon?" (No, I sure hope not," he answered.)'

On climate change, Exxon was worried that public policy would "..risk a reduced reliance on petroleum.." Workjing through the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon and others developed an "Action Plan", calling for spending $7.9 million to influence public opinion about Kyoto. In keeping with Raymond's direction to "embrace the uncertainty", the Action Plan was intended to help average citizens "understand" the uncertainties, make sure that that media coverage included and emphasized the "validity of viewpoints challenging the current 'conventional wisdom"'.

The idea was to recruit scientists who did not have a history working on climate science, and fund them to emphasize points of undertainty. Of course, there was also an effort to make sure that the financial ties were hidden and the information generated to media outlets was seen as "grass roots." Combined with political contributions and the selection of Cheney for vice president, it was effective--as mrgybe has bragged.

In the 2000 election, Bush denounced the Kyoto treaty, but issued a policy document urging mandatory reductions of four major pollutants--including carbon dioxide. But the energy policy task force ended that. According to Whitman, the well respected governor of New Jersey who was appointed head of EPA, "Energy production is all that matters...Cheney couldn't have been clearer." The response of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, "We just gave away the environment."

Now let's be clear, despite the half-truths that originate, or are parroted by mrgybe, that a movement towards renewable energy sources need not cripple the economy. Any such change must be slow--the one thing that I agree with deniers about is that poverty issues are equally important to climate change. It is also inevitable; the price signals that have occurred over the past 40-50 years have made GDP growth far less dependent on energy. Nor do I think that we should subsidize choices like wind-power where good information shows that they are not, and will probably never be, competetive. But accepting the talking points of one who apparently worked on the "emphasize the points of uncertainty" strategy, and prides himself in not having told a whopper, just half truths, would be foolish indeed.

[coboardhead]

Mac, I agree that petroleum dependence needs to, ultimately, be reduced. Applying a tax to oil to offset the environmental and defense costs is something that I agree with.

But...I believe it is necessary to take a look at who big oils is. The California pension plans are big players. In fact, XOM is one of the top three stocks held. Similarily, all large public pension plans, no doubt, have significant positions in oil stocks.

I will take a substantial hit in my retirement portfolio if oil company profits are reduced by decreasing oil dependence. But, I bet the beneficiaries in large defined compensation plans (teachers, state and local employees etc) will not see a reduction in their benefit. The shortfall will be borne by the taxpayer.

The pain should go around.

[mac]

CB--every responsible person who has had a role in energy policy thinks that change needs to be slow. That shouldn't cripple any energy investments, particularly those companies like Exxon that had the foresight to invest in natural gas. But transferring the costs to others who already bear the health impacts of emission, and will suffer the impacts of global warming, is exactly the opposite of market economics.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Irritation with the global warming industry is growing rapidly over here, and there will be a backlash. I sympathise with that view. Many of the warmers assertions have more than one interpretation.

The opening of Arctic Ocean shipping routes for example, owing to retreating ice cover. The last Ice Age has either retreated, or it has not. It started around a million years ago, came and went in phases, and seems to have progressively died away up to around a hundred thousand years ago. ( Our country has isostatically adjusted to the removal of the weight of ice by rising in the north (raised beaches 50 to 60 foot above sea lavel) and sinking in the south (drowned valleys and cutting of the Channel seperating us from Europe). (A jolly good thing in my opinion!)

If the Ice Age truly has ended temperatures MUST rise to what they probably were long before the Ice Age. That is, WARMER than the present. That being so the melting of the Arctic (and Antarctic) ice, and opening of shipping routes can be seen as confirmation that things are returning to normal, and little to do with our activities!

Did the Arctic and Antarctic ice cover exist before the last Ice age? If so, how extensive was it? I can't see how it could have been as extensive as it is today.

My view remains that warming (with counter hiccups of cooling) will continue in the longer term, BUT, that we are unwisely stoking the fire with our pollution (especially CO2) , and we should take sensible steps to cut it down.

[techno900]

Well said----------

It's the only logical conclusion when one looks at the earth's warming and cooling cycles that have been going on for millions of years with no influence from mankind. Cleaner air is a good thing, but even if we could make it cleaner than ever before, the earth will still continue to warm and cool as it always has.

In the past, much of the US has been covered by both water and glaciers, and it will happen again, but not for thousands of years or possibly much longer.

Man's ego thinking we can change this cycle is shortsighted and naive, but it makes for good politics.

[keycocker]

I am with GT.
You dont have to know why it is hot in the parlor to know not to light a fire to make it hotter.

[swchandler]

Well said keycocker.