Its obvious you guys are not hairshirters. I don’t think it possible a Sci-Fi blog would be run by Luddites.

Sticking to the science of AGW, earlier, I let the comment pass about cooling since 1998 as being explained by an El Nino year, which is fair enough. However, that interview in the Australian mentioned that since 2002, temps have been flat, which contradicts what the so called models predict in an environment of rising CO2.

After reading Taken By Storm

http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Storm-Troubled-Science-Politics/dp/1552632121

it seems clear to me that climate models have been oversold as the arbiter of AGW theory.

I will come back to my central point again: the science is not settled on AGW (contrary to what is often repeated in the media), and even what we do know is not enough to implement a “son of Kyoto” pogram which will cost huge dollars, reduce freedom and likely cause more damage to our ideal of “playing longer and better” than if we do nothing at all (or simply adapt).

So, let’s assume that we’re all interested in maintaining the best state of play for the most people over the longest period of time – would it be fair to say we have that ground in common, at least?

I’m afraid I’m not buying an appeal-to-popularity fallacy, though, especially not with a book by Goldberg, who has (amongst other things) defended colonialism in Africa and opined that best thing for us stroppy Euros would be being controlled by Uncle Sam (a suggestion that, if it were reversed, would cause outright fury in the US, and rightly so).

Goldberg’s axe to grind against liberals may go back further than his mother’s involvement in the Clinton/Lewinsky affair, but I’m willing to assume that was a considerable influence in him deciding to tar approximately half the population of the nation he holds so dear with the label “fascist”. I’ll accept “hegemonising”, “centralist” and “big government” as labels for leftist politics (as they are the parts of leftist politics that make me shy away from the left), but this fascism thing is a cheap straw man that makes you look as if you have as big an axe to grind as Goldberg.

Climate change is not a political issue at core, though I concede it has been surrounded and co-opted by the machinery of politics – on *all* sides. Let’s address the science and the potential responses to that, having established our political views differ wildly. Otherwise we’re walking in circles to no purpose, no?

Reducing energy costs will happen with or without the AWG scare, especially with oil at $100 per barrel. The biggest enemy to an environmentalist is cheap energy.

Okay, so we agree the hairshirt approach is nonsensical. However this approach is at the forefront of the AGW movement.

Also, regarding the Nazi = Socialism analogy, here is a recent book that reached #1 on the NY Times bestseller list that links the two:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

The broken window parable is interesting, although it’s main analogy seems to be war – if the current right wing administration hadn’t gone to war, they would have had the resources thirty times over to deal with the financial problems, environmental problems and infrastructural problems such as bridge repair that are needed in the US in particular today.

I think much of the reporting on the eceonomy thinks it will happen but this isn’t the same as them wanting it to happen. Same with climate change. If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen and either we change to meet it or we don’t. The problem with your parable is that it assumes we have the choice to break the window or not. Now there’s a chance AGW doesn’t exist but we have no power over that chance.

At this point the hairshirt approach is nonsensical, i agree on that point. However, alternative energies, fuels and more efficient products have far more value than as AGW solvers alone. Even if I’d never heard of climate change, I’d still say changing to fuels that aren’t imported from across the globe, using less energy and resources on any particular item and in general producing less waste are inherently good things no matter how left or right you go on the political axis.

That’s what I don’t get about this kind of argument. The current capitalist state of thinking says that more profit=good. Most of these efficiencies and alternative energies have the potential to reduce costs of energy and resources for any particular product, which will increase profits. There will of course be a period of transition but it seems completely nonsensical to me that whilst efficiency in jobs, trade and government is seen as a good thing, this kind of efficiency is greenwashing and somehow going to doom us all? As far as I can tell it’s just good business sense, AGW or no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

Note the translation of the term “Nazi”. Workers Party, collectivism, anti-capitalist were their central principles. Where I come from, these are characteristics of left wing politics.

A couple of quick hits:

The current US government has had a mixed record of “dismantling government restrictions”, as you put it. For example, passage of Sarbanes-Oxley has dramatically increased financial compliance costs for US firms. Britain’s financial sector has benefitted greatly from this law, as firms reduce their financial activity in the US and increase it in the UK.

By the way, the campaign to see home ownership rise in the US started well before GWB was elected. A strong argument can be made that it was government policy started by Clinton that resulted in people with no business owning a home (called NINJAS – no income, no jobs) getting loans they are now defaulting on.

The US is not officially in a recession yet. You must wait for 2 quarters of negative growth before declaring one. Forget the experts…wait until you see it actually happen.

Here’s a thought. Do you think the average Jane/Joe care about environmental issues more, less or the same during an economic downturn? My guess is that when jobs are plentiful and income is growing, people care a whole lot more about the environment. Much of the reporting on the demise of the US economy appears to be wishing it actually happens. Which is odd, seeing as it will be newspaperman that will lose their jobs, should the downturn be severe. I would bet that environmental issues fall to the bottom of the average citizen’s concerns when they are worried about their economic security.

Now I am in a Wikipedia kind of mood, you could read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

One of the problems with the utopian view of switching from a hydrocarbon based energy system to alternatives is demonstrated by this parable.

We could trade interesting links all day about global warming that support or refute our respective positions. I remain unconvinced that we must make the sacrifices we are being told are necessary based on the evidence presented so far. To even begin to change my mind on this, it would take a far higher level of consensus on behalf of climate scientists than their currently is today and more accurate “models” that could at the very least model climate from the last 50 or 100 years accurately, which they can’t do.