[jellicle]

> Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing.

No, it sure isn't. It's been made into a political thing because one group of businesses and their wholly-owned political party have decided to deny reality.

[twoodfin]

Let's pretend for a moment that the entire Republican party has a miraculous change of heart, and agrees to everything the "scientists" are asking for. Cap and trade, emissions taxes, unshackled EPA emissions limits, huge subsidies for renewables... you name it. A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure.

What will we have accomplished? China's still going to keep right on industrializing. They'll probably industrialize even faster because we'll have pushed all our "dirty" energy consuming industries their way, where they'll be run at less efficiency and with even greater overall emissions.

The Chinese are the "deniers" you should be worried about: They've never promised to do anything but potentially reduce their emissions "intensity", which means emissions/GDP. That was always bound to happen anyway as their industries become more mechanically efficient. In absolute terms their emissions are going to keep on growing and growing. Even if they go as "green" as the nuclear French, they'll be emitting more than the U.S. in a decade or so. They are smart folks and they've decided that giving their people a Western standard of living is more important to them than a few potential degrees of warming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it.

EDIT: Oops, they're already emitting 50% more than the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...

[jellicle]

>A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure.

First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S., so the first $50 billion/year spent in any sort of anti-climate change effort is "free". Denmark, China, Germany are all countries making large investments in renewables which are likely to provide large returns. Much of what can be done for climate change are investments with real returns, not just money sinks.

The tragedy of the commons you describe is real, of course. A pound of coal burned in China does damage just like a pound of coal burned in Ohio. And yet, the U.S. does quite well at pushing countries toward what it wants, in other areas. Worldwide, the U.S. has pushed nearly every country toward supporting pro-U.S. copyright laws. These laws hurt every other country, but the U.S. has been mostly successful at pushing them. Is there some reason the U.S. would be unable to push climate laws, if it wanted to? And at the various climate conferences, it's clear that many nations are ready and willing to combat climate change, but the U.S., Canada and perhaps a few other nations are strongly opposing any action.

Why should I not throw trash in the park? Someone else could come along and throw trash in the park (perfectly true), so I should too? It's a group effort: each piece of trash not thrown in the park makes a park that is slightly cleaner.

[twoodfin]

> First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S.

Those supposed "oil industry subsidies" just keep getting bigger and bigger. In 2009, the claim from an environmental think tank was "approximately $72 billion over 5 years":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090918100004.ht...

Where do you get your figures?

EDIT: Here's a good summary of where things stand. Nowhere near $50B, and the oil companies have a reasonable argument that the money they pay in royalties to drill in foreign nations is aptly described as a tax. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-oil-i.... Most of the other "subsidies" are the sort of tax breaks available to any producer of manufactured or extracted goods. Even windmills.

[gouranga]

I think you haven't been around long enough to remember the climate scandals of the 1970s. You know when we had an impending ice age. My grandfather also reminded me of the heatwaves in the 1950s and the associated "science" which came out then.

In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.