A way round the American veto? 17 May 05

than many who post here. The entire article is at http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/050511annaboda.ext.pdf.

Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr: A History Of Human Perceptions Of Anthropogenic Climate Change In The Past 1000 Years.

“In most instances on our list, the actual threat of anthropogenic climate change was either absent or an extravagant claim made by the scientific community. Of course, in the present case of “Global Warming”, we do not know at this time if it is a real threat or if the warnings are exaggerated as in earlier cases. The fact that the IPCC is examining the scientific evidence with great care and in 1995 made its famous statement that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” and that other official bodies such as the Enquete Commission of the Deutscher Bundestag voiced grave concerns, may be considered as support of the reality of the envisioned threat.

However, one hundred years ago, parliaments and governments in Europe (e.g. Prussia, Italy, and Russia) also established distinguished committees that were asked to deal with the reality of anthropogenic climate change related to deforestation. And about 200 years ago the British Parliament was discussing the climatic implications of human modifications in British tropical colonies.”

I think everyone reducing GHG’s is most fair. The Byrd-Hagel Senate resolution brought up the fact that not all parties were players in the GHG game and therefore Kyoto was fundamentally unfair. Additionally, even if all players were in the GHG reduction game the senate was not about to pass a sign a treaty which would drain the US economy on an ficticious goal.

My point about Kyoto is this:

Who (of those participating) is meeting these grandiose goals set so far? Canada? NO, Russia? NO, EU? NO… I think Japan may be close but that’s about it!

Second, why should a country who is producing too many GHG’s pay a country who isn’t. That is nonsensical! Instead the country who is producing the GHG’s should pay for R&D into better less GHG forms of production!!! That would be better use of the money. Better yet, why doesn’t the UN pay the countries producing more GHG’s and them help pay for the R&D and technologies?

In sum, all these treaties, political tensions, name calling and USA bashing because of a theory. A theory that according to the IPCC modeled data the earth has warmed a blistering .6 degrees celcius in 1000 years and will continue to go up in temp’s by 1-3 degrees celcius in the next 100 or so years if ALL GHG stopped now. As Lomberg argued, the money spent on this futility may be better used for things like desease prevention, education and betterment of living conditions in 3rd world areas! Oh and also on better uses of energy.

Funny, but the copied text was kinda not contextualized, which makes it look like it means something else. Here’s what appears before the last para:

[ ” ]

In most instances on our list, the actual threat of anthropogenic climate change was either absent or an extravagant claim made by the scientific community. Of course, in the present case of “Global Warming”, we do not know at this time if it is a real threat or if the warnings are exaggerated as in earlier cases. The fact that the IPCC is examining the scientific evidence with great care and in 1995 made its famous statement that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” and that other official bodies such as the Enquete Commission of the Deutscher Bundestag voiced grave concerns, may be considered as support of the reality of the envisioned threat.

• However, one hundred years ago, parliaments and governments in Europe (e.g. Prussia, Italy, and Russia) also established distinguished committees that were asked to deal with the reality of anthropogenic climate change related to deforestation. And about 200 years ago the British Parliament was discussing the climatic implications of human modifications in British tropical colonies.*

[ ” ]

The BOR was formed in the US around the turn of the 20th century to forest the American west and southwest, much like the passage above implies about deforestation. South Korea has a nice afforestation campaign, and China is just learning what happens when you deforest your south.

But it wasn’t called ‘anthropogenic climate change’ then, and afforestation campaigns don’t use that term now, so you wonder what the article’s about.

And of course, norb., do include quotes or italics when you quote a source. Not only is it rude to not do so, it’s kinda the rule in many instances. At the very least, it would make it look like you know how to do research.

Best,

D

Jim,

I agree with you that a country who is producing the GHG’s should pay for R&D into better less GHG forms of production.

However, the developing countries still need help so money should go directly to helping them reduce GHGs as they develop. Money should go to helping other countries develop a more energy efficient infrastructure.

In that light, if other countries use the money transferred to them to build an energy inefficient infrastructure, then how does that help solve the problem?

It does not!

Dan

Seems to me if a country starts off with a “blank slate” then they can build the plant, house, or whatever GHG producing thing in a way that makes less GHG… The US is doing this with newer more modern plants… but the older plants of all sorts are the problem. New is better efficiency and more “green.” The bigger the economy the more time it takes to replace things.

Proportionally speaking the larger and more GHG producing countries would need the greater amounts of money to help fund better ways to make the widget and do it with lower GHG’s. This goes for all things, more efficient cars, houses and whatever. But those changes are slowed if the $$$ is given away to some other country who is not even producing many GHG’s… In other words, upgrading is often more expensive than starting from scratch.

Besides if the US puts it’s mind to doing something then we can achieve it whether that be alternative power, more fuel efficient cars, cleaner power stations or better, healthier homes… look at what the high gas is doing to the hyrbid car market! Capitalism adapts. I think it is good thing to force the cars to get better mileage as long as the technology works.

If going green is the goal then why doesn’t the UN force countries whose whole economy is based on a polluting product pay into some sort of a “world green fee”. Better yet, the eco-types can go and bash and protest these countries as “selling out the world’s future” for today’s money and force them out of conscience to donate to a clean earth fund. An example would be the Middle Eastern countries, Brazil, Argentina and Russia who all have major exports being oil… they can pay out a fee for relying on “dirty” products rather than “eco friendly” products to survive. The US is just another consumer…

Personally, regarding the UN, it can’t manage it’s way out of a wet paper bag much less handle the affairs of others…

I really do not understand why you believe that the material that you posted demonstrates that my post was “a mischaractherization” (sic) of the content of the article.

The sentence, “Of course, in the present case of ‘Global Warming’, we do not know at this time if it is a real threat or if the warnings are exaggerated as in earlier cases.”, clearly says that Von Storch does not believe that the case for AGW is proven.

You wrote, “And of course, norb., do include quotes or italics when you quote a source.”

Look again; I enclosed the entire passage in quote marks.

1. The two passages are separated by other text. They don’t go together. They are two thoughts.

2. The thesis of the paper is that AGW is not a new concept.

You have characterized it as questioning the certainty that AGW exists.

Shoot, even the BushCo administration is “well aware of the scientific consensus that temperatures have warmed partly due to human activity.”

von Storch seems to be a dying breed, according to you sir.

D

Now, there is a thought worth posting.

Somehow, I feel encouraged by that. There is hope for the future after all.

Dan

The first three paragraphs of the Von Storch, Stehr article follow.

“Nowadays, the concept of anthropogenic climate change is widely understood as a ‘new’ concept, but a closer examination of the history of ideas reveals that claims of humans deliberately or unintentionally changing climate is a frequent phenomenon in western culture. Also, extreme weather phenomena have in the past often be explained by adverse human interference. A preliminary list of claims of anthropogenic climate modifications is presented; the remarkable similarity of the anthropogenic climate change debate in the second half of the 19th century is compared o the present situation.

Most observers take it for granted that the concept of anthropogenic climate change is of relatively recent origin. In the following we will demonstrate that the notion of anthropogenic climate change is by no means novel.

Concerns over extensive transformations of the earth’s climate have been expressed since the 18th century enlightenment and earlier. And it is plausible that initial discussions contained strong religious elements. In the following we present a list of cases. It seems reasonable to speak of a “history of anthropogenic climate changes”. Most of the cases were not real; as a matter of fact, none of them proved to be associated with significant impacts related to the suggested dynamical link. But all cases were associated with the perception of significant discontinuities; in most instances the apprehended change was seen as a threat; only rarely were they welcomed as a improvement.”

Those passages say that humans have been blaming themselves for climate changes for a long time and that in none of the previous cases were correct. Von Storch does not emphasize the religious nature of those previous cases strongly; he merely mentions that some of them “contained strong religious elements”. I believe that the words of the authors are a more accurate interpretation of the intent of the article than your opinion.

The sentence, “Of course, in the present case of ‘Global Warming’, we do not know at this time if it is a real threat or if the warnings are exaggerated as in earlier cases.”, makes it clear that Von Storch accepts the possibility that the present hue and cry is much to do about nothing. He says, “we do not know at this time if it is a real threat”.

I did not say as you opined that the paper questions the certainty that AGW exists. I said that Von Storch seems less convinced of its certitude than “many who post here.”

I believe that you do not accept the possibility that the models are incorrectly construed and inaccurate. You do not appear to believe that we may find that human inputs to the ongoing climate warming will be found to be minor.

Mark Lynas certainly does not believe that AGW is not proven. Dan Kellogg, Brendon Westacott, Phillip Castevens, and Lynn Vincenathan all seem more convinced than Von Storch that AGW is proven.

Those constitute “many who post here”. Therefore, my statement, “Dr. Von Storch seems less convinced of the certitude of AGW than many who post here.” is correct.

The problem with GW/CC and energy issues in particular is that national boundaries become obsolete. If China for example used energy inefficiently or did not use the best advances to thwart their emissions then that affects us and the rest of the world. If we do not do our part, then we would also be irresponsible in our own way. Remember, we use more energy per capita and produce more emissions per capita then all the countries of the world except for Canada and Australia who both have lower populations. Canada signed Kyoto. China and others simply want a higher standard of living and we cannot blame them for that!

Your issue is about fairness and the best use of funds. Mine is that we actually solve the problems we talk about. Since both fairness and efficient use of funds would help solve these problems, I think are objectives are the same and we stand in agreement in principle.

There is a concept about having a limit whereby the rich nations reduce and the poor nations cannot go over as they develop. I think this idea was meant to create a means for fairness for limiting GHG emissions worldwide which would address the poor countries as well. I believe this concept is called “contraction and convergence” and our UK friends like Adam Ramsay could enlighten us more about those ideas.

For me, increasing land albedo and addressing other factors other than GHGs has been a flaw about Kyoto. There is no incentive for albedo management and this could help the process. Specific international laws addressing issues such as forest and peat bog burning would be good. We could employ other aspects and this might allow us to take some of the “heat” away from the difficulty of decreasing GHG emissions.

Your points are well taken. However, the USA can do better Jim and we need to. With all our advances, we should not be so low on per capita emissions and so high on energy use. I do not see us maintaining are “richness” if we do not increase efficiency and embrace the idea of conserving natural resources.

Being personal, your home being more advanced in energy efficiency should never be using more energy than your previous home. If large windows are a necessity, then they should be triple pane with special coatings other than being double pane alone. Whatever it took, your home should have been built even “more” energy efficient than it is. Spending that energy-efficiency dividend to create “more house” and more window area at the expense of our energy resources is our national irresponsibility.

The problem with this philosophy is that by employing even higher standards, as I am suggesting, may have made your home not affordable for you unless a lowering of the window-area percentage or the total house envelope insured a lower energy usage and making windows more efficient is expensive.

The truth is when energy prices rise, then the savings on your current lower mortgage from not having a higher energy efficient home built to these suggested higher standards will be offset by rising utility costs and this may increase the value of smaller more energy efficient homes in the future reducing the value of your home! BTW, I can only make these comments because I understand the trends in the USA and would know exactly about your new house based on the very few comments you made about it. The reason for your house to be built that way was for the increased profits of the developers and the builders and in many cases it has to do with the quality of where you live in and the quality of the school systems as well.

I do know my country’s penchant for wealth but it is draining our energy base and creating other problems. We worship wealth so much that a person like “Mother Teresa” would be considered mentally ill for being overly altruistic at her own personal liability. We worship people who are greedy instead and could care less about how they made their success rather than a poor person who would give their last crust of bread to help another. We do not see the mental illness of the greedy person, now do we? I see that as part of the problem. We should respect people like Mother Teresa more than Donald Trump.

The true American spirit is one of balance and a win-win attitude. Somewhere, we are regressing in character when we think in terms of our prosperity at the expense of others.

Sometimes, and to be quite candid, I marvel at how you fail to see the inequity outside this country and that our leverage over others might have something to do with that.

Would it be better if China paid their people more so our imported products would be more expensive at Wal-Mart? Would you support that? Maybe, then they would have the national funds to develop their infrastructure in a more energy-efficient manner without any “foreign aid” from those poor rich-countries!

Again, we all can do better. We need to and you like the rest of us here on this blog will continue to develop in acumen. For me, political party loyalty and even national pride become obsolete as we are becoming more global. For me, I consider the acumen of the people who regularly participate on this blog to be advanced. We are ahead of politics and politicians and certainly ahead of our mainstream cultures.

Jim, you are smarter than all our politicians. Maybe it would be better not to bash politicians like Bush as you seem very sensitive to that. I am not happy with either of our main political parties at any level. I could bash Kerry and the Democrats just as passionately as I could bash Bush and the Republican Party.

But, what good does bashing anyone really do and you are correct about that. I happen to agree with Mark about a grass roots effort. Jim, Mark feels that way about the UK. The real problem is that the politicians lead and we are supposed to buy into their rhetoric. It is time for Americans to figure out what we need to do and lead our politicians instead. We have been poor about doing this I think. In that we can make a huge difference and we would benefit from that proactively as would the rest of the planet.

I believe in you Jim more than I believe in Bush. I hope that one day you look in the mirror and recognize that you are much smarter and wiser than Bush or the Republican Party. I hope that you continue to discern the issues from your own mind and not from the rhetoric of others. It is in our American character to have freedom of thought and to respect the opinions of others. I think we should all free ourselves from any sort of influences which would tend to distract us from the truth or prevent us from taking personal responsibility for our future.

As the military folks often say about people protesting a war they have to fight:

“I may disagree with what you say, but I will go to my death defending your right to say it”

I that light, even though I was against the Iraq War, I still share that same value and will continue to support your search for the truth since your intentions are not to mislead but to find the truth and achieve balance. I hope my thoughts have helped because I share that same focus as well.

We owe it not only for the planet to be more responsible but also for our collective modern civilization which was hard won over thousands of years just to be able to write on a computer and share our thoughts with others all over the world as we do here on Mark’s blog.

I would hate to see our advances deteriorate because we failed to be responsible. We all enjoy the Internet do we not? And, the Internet requires much energy to run and also produces a lot of GHGs. I hope we can keep that going. We need to find better ways to solve our problems.

All the best to everyone on this blog!

Best Wishes, Dan

I did not say as you opined that the paper questions the certainty that AGW exists. I said that Von Storch seems less convinced of its certitude than “many who post here.”

I guess we can argue semantics here. This is your standard doubt-sowing tactic. The thesis is about the history of AGW perception. You have to dig for the other stuff, but fine.

I believe that you do not accept the possibility that the models are incorrectly construed and inaccurate.

This belief is incorrect. They are broadly accurate. Two can hindcast with good accuracy. The hair-splitters want complete accuracy in order to, in part, avoid attribution.

They are accurate enough for policy decisions.

Many economic models are based on false assumptions (rational utility maximization without factorization of how often this does not happen), yet there is no hue and cry for their abolishment.

You do not appear to believe that we may find that human inputs to the ongoing climate warming will be found to be minor.

This is incorrect. If science finds this to be true, I will accept those findings.

Mark Lynas certainly does not believe that AGW is not proven. Dan Kellogg, Brendon Westacott, Phillip Castevens, and Lynn Vincenathan all seem more convinced than Von Storch that AGW is proven.

Science doesn’t “prove” anything.

“Dr. Von Storch seems less convinced of the certitude of AGW than many who post here.” is correct.

OK. You have convinced me.

Best,

D