Ronald Bailey

Ronald Bailey Outlines Solution to Climate Change Over at Scientific American

Richer is more climate-friendly, especially for developing countries.

|

Earthflourishing
modernyoga

Over at Scientific American, I am participating in a Forum in which various participants make their recommendations to the policy makers meeting at the Paris climate change conference about what to do about climate change. In my contribution, "Fast Growth Can Solve Climate Change," I note that economic growth and wealth creation produce various virtuous trends, including lower total fertility rates, lessening pollution, shrinking farmland, expanding forests, greater urbanization, and the wherewithal to move toward low carbon energy in the form of nuclear power and innovative renewables. Below is an excerpt from my contribution to the Forum:

As representatives from 196 countries gather in Paris this December to negotiate a universal climate treaty, they should keep in mind that richer is more climate-friendly, especially for developing countries. Why? Because faster growth means higher incomes, which correlate with lower population growth. Greater wealth also means higher agricultural productivity, freeing up land for forests to grow as well as speedier progress toward developing and deploying cheaper non–fossil fuel energy technologies. These trends can act synergistically to ameliorate man-made climate change. …

Finally, faster economic growth provides the wherewithal to spur innovation and create cheaper and more efficient technologies. Swanson's Law is an example of increasing economies of scale: Every time global solar panel production capacity doubles, the price drops 20 percent. At the current rate of growth, electricity from solar panels will be cheaper than that produced by burning natural gas in less than a decade. Similarly, climate scientist James Hansen and his colleagues have urgently argued that there is "no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." A recent study published in PLoS ONE by Swedish and Australian researchers estimates that replacing all fossil fuel energy generation with nuclear power could be done in 25 to 34 years. Economic growth supplies the capital needed to fund the global no-carbon energy transformation, not mandates to deploy current, expensive, clunky versions of renewable energy and nuclear technologies.

Just as cell phones enabled poor countries to skip over landline telephone infrastructure, economic development coupled with increasingly cheap solar panels attached to inexpensive, high-efficiency energy-storage systems, including batteries, could help them bypass centralized fossil fuel plants and power grids. To truly address climate change, responsible policy makers should select courses of action that move humanity from slow- to high-growth trajectories, especially for the poorest developing countries. This includes honest bureaucracies, the rule of law, free markets, strong property rights and democratic governance. Whatever slows down economic growth will also slow down environmental cleanup and renewal.

Go here to read the entire article.

Note: I will be filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference starting today.

NEXT: Obama Addresses Nation on San Bernardino Shooting, DOJ to Investigate Chicago PD, Authorities Say They've Arrested Variety Jones: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Note: I will be filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference starting today.

    Hardship duty.

    1. SS: UN meetings going from one conference room to another is an aquired taste.

      1. I guess if you don’t get all the bennies the “delegates” are, it could be drudgery.

      2. UN meetings going from one conference room to another is an aquired taste.

        My thoughts and prayers are with you.

  2. You assume that “fixing the climate” is their goal. It’s not. Replacing capitalism with government control is the goal, and the climate scare is simply the means. Note that any “solution” that doesn’t involve government control over the economy is dismissed without consideration. What does that tell you?

    1. s: I just gave the best advice I could within an 800 word limit.

      1. no book plug? I bought one for my brother hoping he reads it quick and we can trade at Christmas.

        1. Ron does not need to plug his book “The End of Doom,” because his book “The End of Doom” has an established reputation as the perfect holiday gift.

          1. And it’s a pretty good read if you want to debunk just about every current Malthusian.

          2. Actually Crusty, my wife got into a funk by paying too much attention to politics. I bought Ron’s book for her to encourage her to look at a bigger picture: that slowly and despite great opposition we are moving in the right direction, that things overall are getting better.

            It worked.

      2. I pity you Ron.Your in the belly of the socialist beast. It’s all about control and money.They fly in in jets,are driven in large cars and SUV’s and are guarded by thousands of men with ‘assault weapons’,well ,I guess the ones they carry really are.I hope you at least partake in the fine meals they’ll have for the top men [and women].

      3. “I just gave the best advice I could within an 800 word limit.”

        Pointing to the right path is pointing to the right path even if it is a proposed solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It is the solution to a lot of problems that do exist.

    2. Nice Conspiracy Theory but it doesn’t explain why hundreds of capitalist pro-market corporations are investing heavily in clean energy production.

      1. Companies aren’t dumb, mandating the use of their technology could be very profitable. Or it could could end up like the ACA, it’s a gamble……

      2. Lots of companies are hitching onto the crony-capitalist bandwagon? I’m shocked! Let me show you my shocked face!

        =-o

        See?

        Shocked!

        1. Yes, why not double down on the nutty CT?

          It couldn’t be that clean energy is becoming cheap and they believe the evidence of AGW. That wouldn’t fit your nutty narrative!

          1. How cheap would it be without government subsidies and tax rebates?

            1. Exactly the same cost as it is now, just a money losing proposition for said companies.

            2. I have no issue with most subsidies. They are like tax cuts. I am opposed to a carbon tax though.

              Oh, and fuck coal. And fuck the entire coal business.

              1. I have no issue with most subsidies. They are like tax cuts.

                Um, no. They’re not. Subsidies are taking money from one person and giving it to another, while tax cuts are simply taking less money from someone. Man. I feel like my IQ has dropped by thirty points in the last twenty minutes just from interacting with you.

                1. Two dimensional thinking is shreek’s forte. Come to think of it, that seems to be the problem with most lefties.

              2. Well, it’s clear you have no problem with picking winners and losers, based on how closely the ‘winners’ huw to your favored agenda.

                Of course, you’re the kind of ideologue that thinks that too much competition is inefficient and wasteful – after all, who really needs a choice of 32 kinds of ice cream?

                1. All evidence validates AGW. Your viewpoint represents the triumph of political ideology over reality.

                  And if Apple wants a lower tax burden due to clean investment and IBM does not why do you care?

              3. Why all the hate for the free market shreek?

              4. Palin’s Buttplug|12.7.15 @ 9:55AM|#
                “I have no issue with most subsidies.”

                Still long Solyndra, turd?

          2. Wind and solar are a pipe dream for powering this country and you know it.Your a liar,and they are not cheap.They need large government subsidies and a back up,mostly natural gas.

          3. Cost of electricity by country, in US cents/kwh

            Spain, famous for solar power, 0.237 Euro/kwh = 26 c/kwh
            Denmark, famous for wind power, 0.304 Euro/kwh = 33 c/kwh
            Germany, famous for its greenies, 0.297 Euro/kwh = 33 c/kwh
            (Source: ec.europa.eu/eurostat)
            US, once famous for its freedom, 13 c/kwh

            What was that about “cheap” “clean energy”?

      3. You mean like many farmers growing large amounts of corn due to subsidies and the ethanol mandate,or sugar growers due to large government tariffs? You really are as stupid as others on here say you are.

      4. They aren’t capitalist pro-market. They are cronies lining up at the subsidy trough, you lying idiot.

        If you didn’t have mendacity shreek you would have nothing at all.

      5. What does a company have to do for you to consider it a “capitalist, pro-market” corporation?

        Just existing in the US, like Lockheed, Boeing, GE, Ben & Jerry’s, et al? Or does it take more?

      6. Miss the part of our economy being corpora-fascistic? Big Government + Big Business=Consumer Can Fuck Himself.

        I’d hope that the most here are in tune with the unholy union of government and “capitalism” in the form of cronies. The dialectic between Big Government and Big Business has been going on for a hundred years now. Business elements fought the good fight for a while, but they have largely given up – if they couldn’t beat’em (government and its parasites) they decided to join them (at least be able control some of the narrative). Highlighting the differences between the Buffett’s – father and son – will best illustrate the difference I’m talking about.

        1. Big business has always loved big government. Big government helps big business by making life difficult for the competition, while claiming to be protecting the people from greedy capitalist predators.

  3. Reasonable solutions within the confines of a supposed disaster, that is not ruinous enough.

  4. Richer is more climate-friendly, especially for developing countries

    I think the alarmists already realize this. That’s why they focus so much on getting rich countries to pay for poor countries to develop. Never mind that when this happens the money won’t be spent as intended. It will line the pockets of the richest people in those poor countries.

    1. Foreign aid: Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

  5. Ron knows how to prevent the next glaciation era? Has he submitted a paper?

    1. Really. Unless he was suggesting that we switch exclusively to coal, any “solution” would be for a problem that does not exist. Glaciation? It isn’t a question of “if” only “when”. Global cooling is going to be a major bitch.

      1. But you can help, burn everything you own to hasten warming to stave off the ice age and you also need more stuff so economic stimulus. See, this planning/ master of the universe stuff is easy.

  6. “In this study we make no attempt at identifying and quantifying all the specific factors (societal, institutional, political, economical, technological) that enabled the rapid expansion of nuclear power in countries like Sweden and France. ”

    I noticed Ron doesn’t either. I’ll take a stab at one of them which is of special interest to Libertarians. A centralized planned economy is vital to a healthy nuclear programme. This is true whether in Sweden, France or North Korea.

    1. Lying POS shows up to point out that nuclear power is totally co-opted by the gov’ts! Imagine our surprise!
      I’m still waiting for the cite on how the Ukrainians were ‘noted collaborators’. Can we assume you pulled that out of your ass like everything else you post here?

      1. “Ukrainians were ‘noted collaborators’.”

        Excellent point! Without Ukrainian collaboration with the politburo, Chernobyl would never have happened.

        1. And without their colonies “satellite SSRs” the Soviet Union would have collapsed even sooner.

          1. Even sooner without Ukrainians like Nikita Khrustchev, head of the Soviet Presidium and noted collaborator.

            1. “I’m still waiting for the cite on how the Ukrainians were ‘noted collaborators'” does not imply the person who said it thinks that Ukrainians are “noted collaborators”.

              Really, I implore you to develop a functioning brain.

              1. “Really, I implore you to develop a functioning brain.”

                My brain is the least of your concerns, really.

                1. What are my concerns, then? You seem so very interested in them.

                  1. “What are my concerns, then?”

                    Here’s a hint. Not me.

    2. A centralized planned economy is vital to a healthy nuclear program.

      Jesus Fuckin’ Christ. That has always worked out so well in the past, is working out beautifully now, so surely it would work for us.

      You are the dumbest motherfucker that ever breathed air mtrueman. I have dogs that are smarter than you are by several orders of magnitude.

      1. Read more comment less. You can start by checking out Ron’s sources:

        “Two features seen in all relatively rapidly expanding and successful nuclear programs were strong government involvement and support as well as some measure of technology standardization”

        More government, more regulation. Hardly the “bottom up” solution that Libertarians would favour.

        1. Yes, and it is illegal to do it any other way.

          “The government does things better/cheaper than the private sector!”

          They don’t pay taxes, they don’t adhere to GAAP, they are immune from liability, they are exempt from most regulations, their employees rarely go to jail for criminal acts, ….

          The government would be the worst, most abusive, most corrupt corporation if anybody held them to the same standards as the private sector.

          1. “The government would be the worst, most abusive, most corrupt corporation if anybody held them to the same standards as the private sector.”

            Maybe so. But thanks to government we have nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and nuclear disasters. Read Ron’s sources. He links to them directly. Another of Ron’s solutions is to make us all rich by putting us to work sequestering carbon. Also with the firm but expert hand of government involvement and regulation. Also just as top-down as his nuclear solution.

            1. “thanks to government”

              What part of “it is illegal to do it any other way” do you not understand?

              1. “it is illegal to do it any other way”

                You think that’s going to change any time soon? Not even Ron seems willing to go that far.

                1. The government does something that the government has made it impossible for anyone else to do. That proves nothing about the efficacy or necessity of government.

                  1. Ron’s sources would disagree. You might want to have a look at what they say. I already quoted what I thought was germane but you might want to look further.

                    “Two features seen in all relatively rapidly expanding and successful nuclear programs were strong government involvement and support as well as some measure of technology standardization”

                    1. Are you functionally retarded? Do you know the difference between necessity and sufficiency?

                    2. Why waste my time? Get on the horn right now and tell the governments of this world their involvement in things nuclear is sufficient but not necessary. They may find your wikipedia article persuasive. Or even better, you could just point out a nuclear programme (healthy or otherwise) that has come into being without the government involvement and regulations that Ron’s sources have discussed.

                    3. So, might makes right. An institution built on all the worst excesses of human nature, on violence, corruption, self-service, and vanity, is and should be the sole arbiter of human development. Because heaven forbid some icky private actor, some human being with initiative and intelligence, dared to do something better.

                    4. Along with your wikipedia article and your examples of all the nuclear programmes that came into being without government involvement, you should definitely add that IT’S JUST NOT FAIR!

                    5. Show me somewhere a nuclear program can be developed without government involvement. Go on, find a place.

                      And spelling words like a Brit doesn’t make you any more intelligent.

                    6. “Show me somewhere a nuclear program can be developed without government involvement.”

                      There is no place, and what’s more I doubt there is even one example of a successful nuclear programme that hasn’t enjoyed substantial support from a government. It’s a top-down solution as I pointed out early and often.

                    7. You are the one who shifted the goalposts from necessary to sufficient.

                      If all you want is sufficiency, then stop talking about necessity. If you want to prove necessity, you have to make it legal. Whatever else it is, nuclear power generation is capital-intensive. Unlike, say, the drug trade, it’s not going to spontaneously develop overnight. It’s a high-profile, high-cost, high-risk endeavor. Nobody is going to undertake it if they will be shut down or taken over by the government.

                      But if you are content with sufficiency then you must accept that government involvement is also sufficient for disaster. In other words, you basically have an intellectually vacuous argument.

                    8. IT’S JUST NOT FAIR!

                      What, like the drought in Cambodia?

                    9. “What, like the drought in Cambodia?”

                      You mean the famine?

                    10. A famine is a symptom, not a cause.

                    11. Famines are engineered food shortages, and are relatively rare. Droughts are lack of rainfall occurring with much greater frequency and less devastation.

                    12. You grow tiresome mtrueman, with your twisting of words and constant need to change definitions mid-argument. Fuck off.

                    13. Famines are defined as engineered food shortages. This is not a definition that I changed in mid-argument. A drought is a shortage of water. Also not something I changed in mid-argument.

                    14. Famines are defined as engineered food shortages.

                      Comrade Mark Trueman! Shall we send the crimethinkers at the Oxford English Dictionary to joycamps? Their entry for famine is doubleplusungood!

                      famine
                      noun
                      BrE /?f?m?n/ ; NAmE /?f?m?n/
                      a lack of food during a long period of time in a region

                    15. “a lack of food during a long period of time in a region”

                      Precisely. Cambodia’s problem was a shortage of food: famine. It was not a drought which is a lack of water as kblino claimed at 3:36 pm. Thanks for your unexpected support.

      1. Mistakes are a necessary part of any learning process. We optimists look on such disasters as learning opportunities.

        1. If you are unwilling to challenge your premises then you are incapable of learning.

          1. “you are incapable of learning.”

            Believe it or not, I am the least of your concerns.

              1. “A grammar lesson for the idiot”

                Believe it or not, I am the least of your concerns.

                1. Why don’t you address what I said, instead of dodging the point?

                  1. “instead of dodging the point?”

                    Your point that the Soviet nuclear programme had the essential support of the government? Nobody is disagreeing with you there. I said as much in my original post which you found so boring and disagreeable.

                    1. So, you got nothing?

                      A centrally planned nuclear program turned a thousand square miles into uninhabitable wasteland. That is not “healthy”.

                    2. Well isn’t marvellous that we have all these non-centrally planned nuclear programmes? Japan, USA, Iran to name but a few. No Chernobyl’s there.

                    3. No Chernobyl’s there.

                      Well, yeah, there aren’t. Three-Mile Island is still operating today (albeit the unit that had the partial meltdown had to be shut down permanently and had an expensive clean-up) and people are still living near it. Fukushima Daiichi was worse than that but the exclusion zone is a fraction of the size of Chernobyl’s and the evidence supporting its necessity is pretty thin anyway. I don’t know what you’re referring to with Iran.

                      And the government has tighter control of the economy and nuclear power in Japan than in the US. Oops.

                    4. “but the exclusion zone is a fraction of the size”

                      In one post you rail against government abuse and corruption. Here you use a government mandated exclusion zone as a standard to measure the severity of various nuclear disasters.

                      You presumably agree with Ron and his solution, but apparently disagree with his sources who found that strong government involvement was a part of all the nuclear programmes they examined.

                      I know you support a strong and healthy nuclear industry. My point is that you aren’t going to have it unless you accept strong government involvement and regulation.

                    5. I said the evidence for the exclusion zone in Japan was weak, and you extrapolate from that that I have theistic reverence for the government’s decision-making abilities?

                      I support what the market will bear. If nuclear power absolutely requires the government propping it up, then it shouldn’t exist. But the NRC would shut down or commandeer any attempt to set up a private nuclear reactor in this country. And that doesn’t even begin to address the bricks that would be shat by the state and local governments.

                      But apparently the government waving its magic wand and making all of those rules disappear for itself and its favored cronies is to be applauded. It would be an unconscionable crime for anyone else to do it, but government is soi-disant benevolent so it’s totally okay.

                    6. “If nuclear power absolutely requires the government propping it up, then it shouldn’t exist.”

                      I agree with you. As for the government waving away all the rules, I don’t see that happening any time soon. It also flies in the face of Ron’s sources who have found that deep government involvement and regulation is a hallmark of a successful nuclear programme. I suggest you reflect on what you think of as the world’s most successful nuclear programme. I’m certain you’ll find it has been up to its eyeballs in government involvement. If not, it probably exists only in your imagination.

                    7. It also flies in the face of Ron’s sources who have found that deep government involvement and regulation is a hallmark of a successful nuclear programme

                      There are no others! Jesus tittyfucking Christ, stop repeating the same stupid lie.

                    8. Shorter mtrueman: things the government has banned don’t exist, therefore the government should ban them.

                    9. “therefore the government should ban them”

                      I never claimed the government should ban anything. I am pointing out that Ron’s sources have found that government involvement and regulation was a part of the successful nuclear programmes they examined. Heresy, I know, but take it up with Ron. It’s his column, not mine.

                    10. You are the one who made the claim that government involvement is necessary. That is a unique claim that you made. I am arguing with you, over your own argument. Stop deferring to Ron.

                    11. Dude, you realize he will always circle back to get the last word? It doesn’t matter how insane that last word is; it doesn’t matter how jaw-droppingly moronic the last word is; he is determined to have it.

                      The question is how much of your time are you going to waste trying to deny him? Remember! The derpminator can’t be reasoned with; It doesn’t feel shame, or remorse, or humiliation. And it absolutely will not stop – ever! – until it has had the last word.

                    12. Meh, mtrueman is like an old itch. You can ignore it for awhile but then occasionally you’ll get the urge to scratch it.

                    13. “And it absolutely will not stop – ever! – until it has had the last word.”

                      Why don’t you take the last word? Still waiting for you to tell me how you can predict with certainty the global climate some 50 years from now.

                    14. “You are the one who made the claim that government involvement is necessary.”

                      Not true. Please read again if you need confirmation. I quoted a short selection that Ron cited:

                      “Two features seen in all relatively rapidly expanding and successful nuclear programs were strong government involvement and support as well as some measure of technology standardization”

                      The fault lies in their only considering actual, existing successful nuclear programmes. If they had expanded this narrow field to include imaginary nuclear programmes, they could have told us about these imaginary programmes and how they weren’t characterized by government involvement and regulation. But, weirdly enough, they only considered existing programmes. I guess they must be communists.

                    15. You know, you’re right. You said this: “A centralized planned economy is vital to a healthy nuclear program.”

                      Which apparently doesn’t mean anything at all, because trying to unpack it into any kind of logically coherent statement leads you to just spew nonsense repeatedly.

                      I’m sorry, I thought you actually said something of substance for once. My fault!

                    16. “I thought you actually said something of substance for once.”

                      That’s not evident from the comments you’ve posted here. All I see is a lot of ankle biting, insults and quibbles.

                      “A centralized planned economy is vital to a healthy nuclear program.”

                      You’ve convinced me that your imaginary nuclear programmes enjoy no support from the government. Now, if you have a counter example of a real one rather than an imaginary one, then let me know.

                    17. I mean shit, “deep government involvement and regulation” is also a hallmark of a disastrous nuclear program.

                      Hooray for deep government involvement and regulation!

                    18. It’s just so unfair.

                    19. What is unfair? Why do you keep repeating that like it means something?

                    20. “Why do you keep repeating that like it means something?”

                      To shame you out of your tedious whining.

                    21. “stop repeating the same stupid lie.”

                      You mean that there are nuclear programmes that haven’t benefitted from substantial government support? Or they exist in some imaginary way? Or that they just should exist if the world were a better place?

                    22. The lie is the extrapolation you make from that quote.

                    23. “The lie is the extrapolation you make from that quote.”

                      This extrapolation is in your head. This is the best you can do, putting words in my mouth?

          2. Hey man!!!!!

            You just don’t understand how evil free market actors are!

            You just don’t understand how benevolent the state is!

            Comrade Mark Trueman is either here to educate yourself, or posts stuff because he wants to see his name on a website other than his blog and doesn’t care how it’s received.

            You just don’t understand that!

            You just don’t understand anything… man!!!!

            1. “Comrade Mark Trueman is…”

              Enough about this nuclear power stuff. Let’s discuss something infinitely more important and interesting. ME!

              1. I’ve already refuted everything you’ve said. All that’s left to discuss is your lack of intelligence and honesty.

            2. Everybody gets bored now and then; revealing mtrueman’s ignorance-cum-mendacity is just a way to pass some time.

  7. Nice plan, but for it to succeed, you need to provide a new focal point for progressives’ ostentatious guilt, sacrifice, and Europe-envy.

  8. How do you reconcile your wealth argument with the fact that as third world countries get wealthier they eat much more meat, which is bad both because of methane and deforestation.

    1. “How do you reconcile your wealth argument with the fact that as third world countries get wealthier they eat much more meat, which is bad both because of methane and deforestation.”

      Because it’s not particularly bad. Pretty simple.

    2. Ah, well, that’s the thing.

      It only seems like a contradiction if you ignore the gulags and famine *before* the socialist utopia is attained.

    3. “…bad both because of methane and deforestation.”

      No, it is not.

      You should take an ecology class.

  9. So, I will say that your participation as well as your article suggests that you believe AGW is a problem, and one that needs to be addressed.

    Then your thoughts on how to address, and the solutions, are well received.

    If only that is what we would hear from the GOP, particularly the current crop of candidates. Instead, we get that it’s a hoax (Cruz and Trump) or its nothing to be concerned about (Bush and Rubio).

    Also in Scientific American is an article by Naomi Oreskes (by the way, she went way over 800 words…you should complain) and she nails the problem.

    “American rejection of climate action is based on suspicion of big government, often expressed as a threat to freedom…

    Opponents of an international treaty on climate change have allowed their hostility to government not only to lead them to deny the facts of climate change but also to spill over into conspiratorial thinking.”

    And after talking about things like a carbon tax and investment in new technologies, she says

    “Government is not the solution, but it has to be part of the solution.”

    I wonder if you agree.

    1. I am surprised you could type through the tears of Chavismo being dumped.

      1. Handkerchief

        1. “I’m sure new victories for the Bolivarian and Chavista Revolution will come under your leadership,” President Raul Castro wrote to Maduro, referring to Venezuelan independence hero Simon Bolivar as well as his late friend Chavez.

          You second that?

          1. I have no idea what you are talking about, but thanks!

          2. Be nice to joe, swizy.

            He never claimed to support Chavez; only the democratic method by which he came to power and by which he hung on to it.

            His unreasoning freakouts are over attacks on his religion. Soem argue they are also over politics, but I disagree; his freakout against “racism” directed at Obama, on the other hand, always struck me as a very calculated act of a man recognizing that his philosophy was about to be demonstrated to be shit, and who emotionally was unprepared to deal with the consequences.

    2. The facts of climate change would be…what?

      1. Summed up nicely here, Amercan Association for the Advancement of Science.

        http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

        Those facts apply everywhere, including the South.

        1. If 97% of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

          1. But 97% of my friends would not jump off a bridge.

            But 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is real. And yes, I listen to them.

            So you can deal with reality, instead of fantasy.

            1. I’ll take that as a yes.

              1. Alrighty then!

            2. I could be callEd a skeptic mostly because of the prescribed solutions to the problem, but the “97%” number was created by a very narrow selective process.

              1. Maybe. I think the overriding point is the clear majority agree. Whatever the number. And as support for that, I would suggest considering that ever single major science organization has made similar statements…AGU, NAS, AMS, Royal Society…all of them.

                If it wasn’t the clear majority of scientists agreeing, you would have science societies disagreeing.

                But I digress.

                1. Maybe Ross can point to just one…ONE…major science society that agrees with him.

                  He can’t.

                  1. Consensus is not science.

              2. Here’s the all sciency data Jack cited as showing Americans are ‘concerned and stuff!’
                http://environment.yale.edu/cl…..ent-paris/

                Jack, you’re a laugh riot on top of being a fucking imbecile.

            3. True enough: 97% agree that AGW is real if it is defined loosely enough. Whether it is significant, or even bad, is quite another matter. BTW, only 52% of the membership of the American Meteorological Association think AGW is mostly caused by humans.

              http://journals.ametsoc.org/do…..13-00091.1

              The paper does a lot of spinning, but it cannot deny the fact that only 52% of its survey results indicate a believe that AGW is mostly caused by humans.

              1. BTW, only 52% of the membership of the American Meteorological Association think AGW is mostly caused by humans.

                Nitpick: AGW means “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, so by definition it is caused by humans.

        2. There is no measurable climate change. Every weather event and overall climate is statistically normal. There hasn’t even been any warming in nearly 20 years.

          There are no facts on that page. Just assertions and claims of consensus. It is almost like you sought out the worst possible propaganda in support of your argument.

          Seeing shitheads like you make arguments like this over and over is what finally convinced me the whole thing is a scam. That, and the fact that there is no actual change.

          1. “Every weather event and overall climate is statistically normal.”

            Let me guess. One of your less intelligent dogs told you that.

      2. (1) It changes constantly.

        (2) We really can’t say what “natural” and “unnatural” rates or levels of climate change are.

        I think that’s about it.

        1. I’ll take all this AGW seriously when they come out and explain how they believed we were headed for an ice age 40 years ago and how they learned and accepted they were wrong. I would also want to know what all of the “ideas” they had to stop it would have done to the climate given our superior understanding of climate now.

          1. Thing is, the “solution” to the ice age and to global warming are exactly the same: total government control over industry.

  10. Your solution is accurate. Now we get to the question of implementation however.

    Tell me, even if you could get the bulk of the delegates to agree with your proposed solution what do you think the preferred methods of driving “economic growth” in the 3rd world are going to be?

    Will they propose UN drives to promote greater property rights, less corruption, and more political stability in those countries?

    or

    Will they propose taxing the US and to a lesser extent Europe in order to transfer funds to 3rd world governments making them “wealthier”?

    Cause I am pretty sure I can guess which it is going to be and that looks pretty much exactly like what they already want to do under all the other climate scenarios too.

    Your mistake is in believing that the people driving this effort at the top level even give a damn whether climate change is a potential catastrophe, it won’t be happening for decades and their kids can worry about it. In the meantime there is the possibility to create commissionerships in charge of the transfer of trillions of dollars from rich countries to poor ones and there are dictators in those poor countries salivating over the prospect of lining their pockets and shoring up their power with the money the west will “contribute” to solving global warming. Then there is the cadre of international Socialists who are looking at this as their chance to finally kill capitalism and replace it with a world governed by the wishes of the “right” top men.

    1. For all of them your solution works just as effectively as centralized pushes to limit carbon consumption or mitigate the impact of a warming globe, they can still use it as a dagger to the heart of western economic freedom and siphon what little wealth remains in the rich western countries off to 3rd worth dictatorships.

  11. 1: climate change doesn’t necessarily need a solution.
    2: man-made climate change is a scam.

    The best solution to the climate change catastrophe are a bunch of subpoenas.

    1. That is no shit.

  12. There has never been a better time to invoke the separation between church and state.

  13. Richer is more climate-friendly…

    I don’t know, North Korea is pretty climate-friendly.

  14. This Forbes article goes into another benefit of nukes – they run at high capacity.

  15. OT: Family member of one of the SB shooting victims just said “None of the 14 people in that room had a chance.”

    What he didn’t say: “If at least one person in that room had had a gun at least they would have had a chance.”

    1. But, but, but if we allowed people to be armed, then everyone would be armed! Then when the shooting started, no one would know who the bad guy was since everyone would have a gun out and be shooting! Everyone would die! Total carnage! Why do you hate the children?!?

      1. Yeah, I have heard people earnestly make that argument.

        Counter: Fine, don’t arm yourself. I am going to.

        1. I know I’d feel safer in a room full of regular people with guns than with cops. Mainly because regular people know they are responsible for every bullet, while cops know they can shoot wildly and not worry about any consequences if their misses hit another mark.

  16. The obvious solution is to get rid of humans. But if we get rid of humans and the problem persists, then we might have made a mistake. If so, we might have to back the Earth a little bit farther from the Sun. Maybe adjust the axial tilt, and possibly move some tectonic plates around.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.