Originally Posted by zilch

There is little doubt that this spring's deep freeze is contributing to the growing consensus among scientists and political experts. Once July's heatwave begins to scorch mother Earth, this consensus will probably reach a boiling point. It remains to be seen whether America has that much time left in order to reverse the effects of Global Warming, but I guess we'll find out in the next couple of months.

OK, I'll bite.

Are you seriously asserting that the earth's average surface temperature is not increasing? If so, that would put you at odds with not only 99.99% of the people who study climate for a living, but also your Dear Leader Himself! You'll have an awfully difficult time defending that position, even against your remaining fellow Republicans.

More likely, you'll fall back to muddying the waters by challenging the notion that human activity is causing the climate change. Fair enough, now the level of confidence has dropped from 99% to about 95%, a big enough opening for a snake to wiggle through...

But here's the rub: if you assert that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and thus that any correction to human activity is insufficient to affect its outcome, then you are explicitly asserting that the problem is beyond our control; in short, We Are All Freaking Doomed..

Now that may be a comforting position to you, and I freely admit that I often adopt such a stance... it's much easier than admitting that we do have a responsibility to our children and children's children...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I know that a lot of the factors in the construction industry are internal, but do not Austrailan devolopers compete on the international market for some of the same raw materials as devolopers in other nations? Here in South Carolina, much of the local contruction industry has been effectivly taken over by subcontractors using mostly undocumented Mexican workers. In theory, this should make homes cheaper, but it does not. It just pads the profit margin of the contractors. This isn't supposed to happen but it does.

The devolopers are going to charge what the market will bear. It is fairly consistant in urban areas in the devoloped world. Ending regulation will not result in cheaper housing, it will just cause the local government to lose the ability to amelorate the local problems. As conditions becoe untenable, a Federal approach that will likely not take into account local conditions is likely to be imposed. You will yearn for the days of local control.

The overwhelming component in the rise in house prices, has been land prices here. The cost of building a house has not risen anywhere so much.

For instance I have done research around where I live, the average 200m2 or so new house costs around USD128,000 to build.

The people who build houses here generally get paid at least decent wages.

Originally Posted by Tristan

The overwhelming component in the rise in house prices, has been land prices here. The cost of building a house has not risen anywhere so much.
For instance I have done research around where I live, the average 200m2 or so new house costs around USD128,000 to build.

Again your looking at the demand componet. How much of that land price is simple demand. It is possible that even the landowners in the undevoloped areas near your center cities are anticipating what they think may happen.

The people who build houses here generally get paid at least decent wages.

Good. At least you Aussies haven't gone as far down certain roads as we have.

Originally Posted by Finch

But here's the rub: if you assert that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and thus that any correction to human activity is insufficient to affect its outcome, then you are explicitly asserting that the problem is beyond our control; in short, We Are All Freaking Doomed..

There is a distinct possibility that, like the natural seasons of the yearly cycle, the earth warms and cools like generational cycles, yet on an even lengthier basis. It's a kinda natural occurence, serving our benefit rather than demise. But this theory, while plausible, ain't gonna garner much media attention or scientific consensus because it ain't sexy and it can't serve to further the cause of Bigger and Bigger Government folks.

I am a bit humored at how eagerly those who eagerly latch onto the S&H theory also eagerly latch onto the notion of Global Warming. It's kinda cute, really.

Originally Posted by Finch

Now that may be a comforting position to you, and I freely admit that I often adopt such a stance... it's much easier than admitting that we do have a responsibility to our children and children's children...

Iraq, of course, is a diversion from the real aims of we conservatives. We know Al Gore's right, and that Global Warming's the thingy that's gonna kill us all. We're just using the threat of another 9/11 to fool everybody from the real threat. Obviously it's not working, but ya can't blame us for tryin'.

Well, heck, who knows, maybe we'll someday lock arms with al Qaeda and really fix this weather thingy, eh? Maybe we'll all be driving Camels in the future! You never know.

Originally Posted by zilch

There is a distinct possibility that, like the natural seasons of the yearly cycle, the earth warms and cools like generational cycles, yet on an even lengthier basis. It's a kinda natural occurence, serving our benefit rather than demise. But this theory, while plausible...

This "theory" is pure fiction. The seasons occur because the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the plane of orbit. Natural cycles due to effects of orbital/rotational geometry are not responsible for recent warming. That is not a theory but plain fact. No skeptics who actually understand the science would propose anything as silly as this.

Originally Posted by Finch

But here's the rub: if you assert that human activity is not the cause of global warming, and thus that any correction to human activity is insufficient to affect its outcome, then you are explicitly asserting that the problem is beyond our control; in short, We Are All Freaking Doomed..

No, he is asserting that he doesn't want to do anything about it. Zilch lives in Ohio, even if both polar icecaps melt the ocean ain't going to flood Ohio. Other than that his winters will get milder and the summer somewhat hotter. People live in Alabama, so if Ohio becomes like Alabama is now so what? And he can always move north.

Gee, would that the "theory" of man-mad climate change garner even a tiny bit of the suspicion my little theory aroused, perhaps the scientific community really would get to the bottom of the matter.

Alas, media-induced "consensus" instead rules the day. What can you expect, I guess, with so much tax-payer money and political power at stake??? All we need is to show a few pictures of polar bears suffering amid the "melting" ice flows in a Hollywood movie, and hysteria trumps science.

Hey, let's take poll to find out the truth of the matter. And may the best snake-oil scientist win!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Again your looking at the demand componet. How much of that land price is simple demand. It is possible that even the landowners in the undeveloped areas near your center cities are anticipating what they think may happen.

Well in this country state governments, through planning departments control how much land is released for development. There is just not enough land being released for development to meet the demand.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No, he is asserting that he doesn't want to do anything about it. Zilch lives in Ohio, even if both polar icecaps melt the ocean ain't going to flood Ohio. Other than that his winters will get milder and the summer somewhat hotter. People live in Alabama, so if Ohio becomes like Alabama is now so what? And he can always move north.

There are those who might say that milder winters in Ohio would be a good thing. Brrrrr!!!!

Personally, however, I can honestly say the few things I miss about Ohio (and believe me, they are quite few) include the snow, the fireflies, and Smokey Bones' BBQ ribs.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Well in this country state governments, through planning departments control how much land is released for development. There is just not enough land being released for development to meet the demand.

Interesting. And as Australia is a parlementary system, it would follow that the policy input in question resulting in such outcomes is the state parlement.
Does every state have the same policy? If so, how did such a strong consensus emerge?

Originally Posted by zilch

Gee, would that the "theory" of man-mad climate change garner even a tiny bit of the suspicion my little theory aroused,

Your "theory" isn't suspicious, its silly. It's like taking the X-files seriously. You might also have "theories" about UFO abduction or some such claptrap and those would be just as silly.

I am heartened that Our Commercial Republic has an expanding Trade in Filth (The Carbon Credit Exchange). In is in the tradition of the philostogen negators, the phrenology disallowers, the lysenkoism repudiators, that the Global Warming Deniers are shown a proper scorn by polite society.

Poltical Science has enabled wealth creation before as it does today and will again. The cash needed to heat Mr. Gore's stately manse must come from somewhere and someone; and in a Commercial Republic that has lost its taste for Xian Elmer Gantryism might as well buy the equal of prayer kerchiefs from an ever expanding Mr. Gore. There is money to be made just as their was in philostogen, phrenology, and lysenkoism not to mention the funding of research and researchers.

We still have combustion, crainial bumps and nooks, guided change of a Progressive nature. Climate Change promises even larger rewards and a longer time span to be brought to market. I see even more air travel as conferences and dinners on a planetwide basis are needed to consider and implement such ideas as the Market in Filth and the Frenchifying of our Power Grid and the Gallification of our Trains! It may not last but some who affirm Progressive Political Science will do very well indeed!

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

We still have combustion, crainial bumps and nooks, guided change of a Progressive nature. Climate Change promises even larger rewards and a longer time span to be brought to market. I see even more air travel as conferences and dinners on a planetwide basis are needed to consider and implement such ideas as the Market in Filth and the Frenchifying of our Power Grid and the Gallification of our Trains! It may not last but some who affirm Progressive Political Science will do very well indeed!

I picked up a copy of Time magazine last weekend. They had an article which included fifteen ideas for improving energy use, scored by effectiveness, how soon it might be implemented, and a 'feel good factor.' Two stuck in my head. One was a San Francisco federal office building that is just opening up. It might be twice as expensive in construction as it could have been, but they anticipate saving money overall within a few years due to efficient energy use, recycling water, and the like. [irony] They implement such radical modern progressive innovations as having windows that open, and considering the direction of the sun as part of their energy management and heating plans. [/irony]

Then again, one of their other suggestions was to eat less beef. Between the energy required to produce an unhealthy food product and reduced methane emissions, they seemed to think this was an easy way to get a quick return.

No mention of the economic stress this would put on cowboys...

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Your "theory" isn't suspicious, its silly. It's like taking the X-files seriously. You might also have "theories" about UFO abduction or some such claptrap and those would be just as silly.

In the course of a rare dissent in the ranks of scientific consensus, Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offers some compelling claptrap wrt current weather rage in week's Newsweek. Among the many things Linzden addresses is the notion of unexplained warming and cooling patterns:

At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Newsweek, of course, has a bit of egg on their face, having loudly trumpeted the, then, global cooling fears of many so-called climate experts back in the 1970s. Perhaps this error has taught them to be a bit skeptical with the current claims of today's climate prophets, like Mike Alexander and Al Gore. At anyrate, when something's unexplainable the general rule is to trump science in favor of consensus. It's much easier to prey upon the fears of the ignorant than to uphold standards the of scientific inquiry, let alone have to wait for respectable research results.

In the meantime, hurling insults and engaging in outright Stalinism ought to be enough to silence the few, like Professor Linzden who dare to question the consensus view of man made global warming.

Originally Posted by zilch

How can you debunk a "consensus" among scientists? If more say the world is flat, than those who say it's not, then the Big Government research $ub$idie$ go to the flat guys.

Actually, the "consensus" is that the world is round, but those controlling the research $$$ continue to fund flat-world research on the off-chance that someone can prove the contrary.

That's faith-based science according to Incurious George.

Originally Posted by zilch

Gee, would that the "theory" of man-mad climate change garner even a tiny bit of the suspicion my little theory aroused, perhaps the scientific community really would get to the bottom of the matter.

I would guess that the theory of man-made climate change only exists because hundreds (thousands?) of man-years have been devoted to data collection and analysis while it was still just an hypothesis. the theory emerged from that little effort you deride so cavalierly.

Now your theory, as you call it, is nothing more that supposition. It's not based on anything more substantial than your desire for things to be the way you want them to be. In that regard, you have a long way to go just to elevate it to the level of hypothesis.

Originally Posted by zilch

... Alas, media-induced "consensus" instead rules the day. What can you expect, I guess, with so much tax-payer money and political power at stake??? All we need is to show a few pictures of polar bears suffering amid the "melting" ice flows in a Hollywood movie, and hysteria trumps science.

Based on this comment, I can be glad that you make videos for a living instead of doing science. You obviously don't have a clue.

Originally Posted by zilch

... Hey, let's take poll to find out the truth of the matter. And may the best snake-oil scientist win!

Had your fun yet?

Originally Posted by Tristan

Well in this country state governments, through planning departments control how much land is released for development. There is just not enough land being released for development to meet the demand.

Be thankful for that. Here, land-planning variances are issued as a matter of course, and the result is often too little infrastructure to support the new development - what ever it is. Of course, the developer is happy with all the new-found wealth. The new owners, on the other hand, have to pony-up for roads, schools, fire and police stations, and so on.

They save up front and pay double on the back side.

Originally Posted by zilch

Newsweek, of course, has a bit of egg on their face, having loudly trumpeted the, then, global cooling fears of many so-called climate experts back in the 1970s. Perhaps this error has taught them to be a bit skeptical with the current claims of today's climate prophets, like Mike Alexander and Al Gore. At any rate, when something's unexplainable the general rule is to trump science in favor of consensus. It's much easier to prey upon the fears of the ignorant than to uphold standards the of scientific inquiry, let alone have to wait for respectable research results.

In the meantime, hurling insults and engaging in outright Stalinism ought to be enough to silence the few, like Professor Linzden who dare to question the consensus view of man made global warming.

Did Professor Lindzen speak of the dual pollutant effects, distinguishing between warming greenhouse gasses and cooling particulate matter? To some degree, the soot masks the effects of the greenhouse gasses. Particle pollution stimulates cloud formation, which like volcanoes, reflects light back into space. Thus, the cooling / heating effects of pollution are related to the rations between particle emissions and greenhouse gasses. As it is easier to clean up the soot than the greenhouse, you do see shifts in the gap between the sunspot / Milankovitch curves and the measured curves explained by the First World starting to clean up soot, followed by developing countries building first generation industrial plants with no emission controls. Many of the warming deniers do not incorporate the double effects. Global dimming is still a fairly new area of research that isn't well integrated with many of the models.

Thus, many are concerned that when developing countries like India and China look at health problems related to soot release, and start implementing controls similar to the First World's, the soot to greenhouse ratios is apt to come way down. This will make for a much worse heating problem. Some are proposing we should be researching ways to generate and release clean soot, something that will reflect away light without producing health concerns.

Thus, I try on occasion to insert global dimming into the conversation, but it doesn't seem to catch very well.

Originally Posted by zilch

In the course of a rare dissent in the ranks of scientific consensus, Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, offers some compelling claptrap wrt current weather rage in week's Newsweek...

Newsweek, of course, has a bit of egg on their face, having loudly trumpeted the, then, global cooling fears of many so-called climate experts back in the 1970s. Perhaps this error has taught them to be a bit skeptical with the current claims of today's climate prophets, like Mike Alexander and Al Gore...
In the meantime, hurling insults and engaging in outright Stalinism ought to be enough to silence the few, like Professor Lindzen who dare to question the consensus view of man made global warming.

So you found a sceptic. Of course you did. This one works for Big Oil. Others toil in equally well paid vineyards. That you chose to believe the one or two contrarians is not surprising. They validate your faith.

So we're left with the original argument that's been thrashed about here for months: what is the best course of action? If we do nothing and the problem is real (highly likely, considering the imbalance in proponents v. opponents), then catastrophe occurs. If we do what we can, but the threat is false, what have we done? We will have cleaned-up the environment, developed non-petroleum based energy and lowered overall energy usage.

Being wrong has costs, but the clear winner in this lottery is option 2: do something. The worst that happens is, we spend some money on things we don't really need, which is certainly far superior to our current energy policy that seems to require us to buy a war no one wants. We also reduce our balance of payments and clean the air. We might even return to fiscal self-sufficiency.

So, I don't give a whit about Dr. Lindzen's view of things. His is an obfuscatory position - one with no saving grace I can see. Perhaps you want Ohio to be Georgia? If so, then move to Georgia. There is no shortage of Conservatives there. You'll feel right at home. Bring shorts and sandals.

Originally Posted by zilch

Among the many things Linzden addresses is the notion of unexplained warming and cooling patterns:[indent][i]At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between.

If you had read my posts I explictly dealt with this very issue. But you don't read. You don't think. You simply believe what you want to believe.

This Linzden fellow claims that temperatures 20 years from now will not be warmer than today. When offered a bet with 2:1 odds in his favor that his prediction would turn out to be false, he refused, instead asked for 50:1 odds. This suggests that he is only 2% sure that his critique is right, but you wouldn't get that from what the article says.

Originally Posted by zilch

In the meantime, hurling insults and engaging in outright Stalinism ought to be enough to silence the few, like Professor Linzden who dare to question the consensus view of man made global warming.

Judging from the last couple of posts, it looks like I called that shot pretty accurately. It was by no means a tough call, mind ya, it happens everytime anybody questions a liberal point of view.

Here is a quote from Dr. Lindzen:

"There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed"

Here your skeptic acknowledges as fact what I have been saying. The direct effect of CO2 is sufficient to explain all the warming so far seen. As CO2 rise above 500 ppm, above 750 ppm, above 1000 ppm, this direct effect will get larger and larger. CO2 and other human-generated greenhouse gases are the only drivers that can rise without limit. All the other drivers are bounded. Thus, at some point the effect of CO2 must dominate.

This is reflected in a statement (from the same Wiki article) from another skeptic

Originally Posted by Claude Allègre

In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust.

The direct effect of CO2 is of sufficient size to give observed warming. This direct effect is moderated by other effects, (but not solar--observations rule this one out). These other effects (Allegre mentions the water cycle and particulates) can be larger than the CO2 effect and so can overwhelm it. But how are the skeptics so sure that these factors will diminish the CO2 effect in the future as opposed to adding to it? If these factors are actively countering the effect of rising CO2 (and so we don't have to worry about 500-1000 ppm levels of CO2) why hasn't temperature fallen in the last 30 years?

I wasn't concerned about global warming in the 1980's precisely because although CO2 had been rising over the previous 40 years, temeprature had not. Thus, other factors (such as those Allegre mentions) were overwhelming the warming effect of rising CO2. But this has not been the case over the last 30 years. Temperature has been rising along with CO2 levels and the solar factors that can explain pre-1940 warming are absent.

And when the skeptics who claim there is nothing to worry about want 50:1 odds before they will bet that they are right, I don't find what they say all that reassuring.

Originally Posted by a T4Ter, at sometime styled thusly: a small, petty and purely disgusting person

If we do nothing and the problem is real (highly likely, considering the imbalance in proponents v. opponents), then catastrophe occurs. If we do what we can, but the threat is false, what have we done?

<<<

Originally Posted by a mid-18 Century Progressive Majoritarian

If we do nothing and the problem is real (highly likely, considering the imbalance in proponents v. opponents of Phlogiston), then catastrophe occurs. If we do what we can, but the threat is false, what have we done?

<<

Originally Posted by a mid-19th Century Progressive Majoritarian

If we do nothing and the problem is real (highly likely, considering the imbalance in proponents v. opponents of Phrenology), then catastrophe occurs. If we do what we can, but the threat is false, what have we done?

<

Originally Posted by a mid-20th Century Progresive Majoritarian

If we do nothing and the problem is real (highly likely, considering the imbalance in proponents v. opponents of Lysenkoism), then catastrophe occurs. If we do what we can, but the threat is false, what have we done?

This does not preclude that a Progressive Majoritarian of the Present Century being on the Right Side of History upon the question at hand. It might give one pause.

Originally Posted by zilch

Judging from the last couple of posts, it looks like I called that shot pretty accurately. It was by no means a tough call, mind ya, it happens every time anybody questions a liberal point of view.

H-m-m-m. I notice that the points raised in those posts are ignored, and your response focuses solely on your cleverness at getting us to respond in the first place. You are your own world: a narcissistic masterpiece. Congratulations on exceeding expectations.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

<<< << <

This does not preclude that a Progressive Majoritarian of the Present Century being on the Right Side of History upon the question at hand. It might give one pause.

What aspects of the now discredited theories of phlogiston, phrenology or lysenkoism made any of them prime motivators of change? They portended no risk ... real or imagined. In turn, they offered no rewards. They were vessels for philosophical thought of the techne sort.

I might have spent a pleasant afternoon in earnest discussion of phlogiston, while smoking my pipe and drinking a fine ale; none the wiser for the effort. I would never have recommended a large conflagration as a test of the theory, though I might have felt the bumps on my head.