James Lovelock reverses himself:...'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thoug [Archive] - The Orange Mane

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun

04-25-2012, 09:15 PM

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/15621/Alert-Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-reverses-himself-I-was-alarmist-about-climate-change--so-was-Gore-The-problem-is-we-dont-know-what-the-climate-is-doing-We-thought-we-knew-20-years-ago

MSNBC, perhaps the most unlikely of news sources, reports on what may be seen as the official end of the man-made global warming fear movement.

MSNBC April 23, 2012: 'Gaia' scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was 'alarmist' about climate change & so was Gore! 'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago'

Contrast Lovelock's 2012 skeptical climate views with his 2007 beliefs during the height of the man-made climate fear movement. [ Flashback 2007: Lovelock Predicts Global Warming Doom: 'Billions of us will die; few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in Arctic' ]

How fitting that a major organ of the man-made climate fear promotion, MSNBC, would deliver one of the final and most dramatic death knells to the climate movement. One of the founders of climate alarm bails out with help from the media that helped hype and propel the movement.

More MSNBC article excerpts: Lovelock pointed to Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery's “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future...”The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added...Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I'm not a denier.” He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role. “It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said. 'I made a mistake' As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.”

End MSNBC article excerpt.

#

Climate Depot began reporting on Lovelock's conversion away from climate fears in 2010 as he began reconsidering the alleged 'settled science.” See below for Climate Depot's reporting on the evolution of James Lovelock's climate views.

SHOCK 2010: UK Green Guru James Lovelock Reconsiders Warming Views?!: Lovelock: Man-made Carbon Emissions 'Have Saved Us from A New Ice Age' -- Lovelock: 'I hate all this business about feeling guilty about what we're doing. We're not guilty' -- 'We haven't learned the lessons of the ozone-hole debate. It's important to know just how much you have got to be careful' -- 'According to Dr Lovelock's Gaia theory, the earth is capable of curing itself. 'A planet that is effectively alive can regulate itself and its composition and climate,” he said'

2010 Shock: Green Guru Lovelock warms to skeptics! 'The skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way'

Enviro Guru James Lovelock Admits Obvious: 'Peer-review process can be exceedingly prejudiced and exert censorship even'

Green Guru James Lovelock Admits the Obvious: 'Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out'

James Lovelock on Ozone hole science: 'We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad...' 'Something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done'

Lovelock: 'We haven't got the physics worked out yet...I think the public are right. That's why I'm soft on the sceptics. Science has got overblown'

2010: Green Guru Lovelock Says Warmists 'Scared Stiff': 'The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is'

Green Guru James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent global warming -- Urges 'putting democracy on hold for a while' to battle warming -- Lovelock on Climategate: Scandal left him feeling 'utterly disgusted' -- 'Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science'

lonestar

04-25-2012, 09:19 PM

rut ro

Lucy you have lots of splaining to do..

W*GS

04-26-2012, 05:39 AM

Figures Hobo and lonestar spurt all over each other about Lovelock, with Morano (the scumbag who runs "climatedepot") being the pivot boy.

Lovelock's views have always been far outside the climate science mainstream. I don't recall him ever publishing any peer-reviewed papers on the climate system. Morano's insistence that Lovelock's comments mark the "official end of the man-made global warming fear movement" is just plain silly and stupid, and typical of Morano.

"climatedepot" is the National Enquirer of denier blogs. Morano is just a PR hack.

Smiling Assassin27

04-26-2012, 09:27 AM

Blart

04-26-2012, 09:30 AM

Denialism is choosing to deny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial) reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-0) Author Paul O'Shea remarks, " is the refusal to accept an empirically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational) action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-1)
In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-2) It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-Diethelm-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-McKee-4) The terms [I]Holocaust denialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denialism) and AIDS denialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism) have been used,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-9) and the term climate change denialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial) has been applied to those who argue against the scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) that global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) is occurring and that human activity is its primary cause.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-11)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-goodman-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-13) Several motivations for denialism have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#cite_note-denial_ind_guardian-15)

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

W*GS

04-26-2012, 09:48 AM

SHUT UP, he explained. :giggle:

I never said "SHUT UP", just consider the source. Morano is the bottomest of the bottom-feeders of the deniers.

BroncoBeavis

04-26-2012, 10:01 AM

W*GS

04-26-2012, 10:24 AM

It's simple really.

There is consensus among 'mainstream' climate scientists because anyone who disagrees with the proposition is of course not 'in the mainstream'

The Augusta National of Climate Science, if you will. :)

Well, no.

The deniers need to come up with a rival theory that better explains the observations, to be tested and evaluated.

So far, they've done nothing of the sort. They're just full of hot air.

Blart

04-26-2012, 10:35 AM

Americans are so skeptical of science, eager to follow psuedo-intellectuals and wackjobs, until they need a heart transplant.

BroncoBeavis

04-26-2012, 10:38 AM

Well, no.

The deniers need to come up with a rival theory that better explains the observations, to be tested and evaluated.

So far, they've done nothing of the sort. They're just full of hot air.

Which "observations" are you talking about?

W*GS

04-26-2012, 10:41 AM

Which "observations" are you talking about?

All of them. For a start:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Warming_Indicators_1024.jpg

BroncoBeavis

04-26-2012, 12:29 PM

All of them. For a start:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Warming_Indicators_1024.jpg

So your 'observation' appears to be that global temperature is changing. Is that accurate?

W*GS

04-26-2012, 12:55 PM

So your 'observation' appears to be that global temperature is changing. Is that accurate?

And much more than just temperature. The graphic shows just a few indicators.

BroncoBeavis

04-26-2012, 01:12 PM

And much more than just temperature. The graphic shows just a few indicators.

To me those indicators mostly point to one conclusion, which is increasing temperature. Or am I missing something?

W*GS

04-26-2012, 01:51 PM

To me those indicators mostly point to one conclusion, which is increasing temperature. Or am I missing something?

The graphic shows just a few indicators.

There's also ocean acidification, stratospheric cooling, changes in tropopause height, etc. etc.

BroncoBeavis

04-26-2012, 02:10 PM

The graphic shows just a few indicators.

There's also ocean acidification, stratospheric cooling, changes in tropopause height, etc. etc.

Have any of those things been proven to be unique to this time period?

W*GS

04-26-2012, 02:16 PM

Have any of those things been proven to be unique to this time period?

The observations don't have to be unique in Earth's existence to be anthropogenic in origin.

People died before cars were invented; doesn't mean people don't die in car accidents.

The climate changed before there were humans; doesn't mean we can't be changing the climate system.

barryr

04-26-2012, 09:21 PM

The observations don't have to be unique in Earth's existence to be anthropogenic in origin.

People died before cars were invented; doesn't mean people don't die in car accidents.

The climate changed before there were humans; doesn't mean we can't be changing the climate system.

That is about as stupid a thing you have posted and you have your share. What an idiotic comparison. If the climate can change before humans had anything to do with it, then obviously the planet can and will do its own thing and to believe we can somehow change that by riding more bikes shows just how inept and ridiculous the alarmists are.

Boomhauer

04-27-2012, 01:37 AM

1) I don't recall (Lovelock) ever publishing any peer-reviewed papers on the climate system.

2) "climatedepot" is the National Enquirer of denier blogs. Morano is just a PR hack.
Re1) "peer-reviewed papers on the climate system" - Isn't that like Halliburton and BP reviewing each other's notes about the gulf blowout? Or is it only 'a conspiracy' if 'big bad oil companies' pat each other on the back and say everything is peachy?

Re2) "the National Enquirer of denier blogs ... a PR hack" - That's quite amusing considering all you do is repost the same quality from CO2 hysteric sources, but claim them as proof. Even better is each time I've questioned you directly on the science, you either show your complete ignorance of it (an science in general) or regurgitate more 'opinions' and 'sources'.

I think it's time W*GS got his own bat****crazy thread like MacGruber has and MCGaffney should.

Boomhauer

04-27-2012, 04:09 AM

PS as prebuttal;
A while back I started a thread some may call bat****crazy, others may call genius
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98572

W*GS

04-27-2012, 05:31 AM

Re1) "peer-reviewed papers on the climate system" - Isn't that like Halliburton and BP reviewing each other's notes about the gulf blowout? Or is it only 'a conspiracy' if 'big bad oil companies' pat each other on the back and say everything is peachy?

You're the one claiming conspiracy - all the world's climate scientists, and others, going back over a century, are in on the scam. I'd like to see some evidence that Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius (for starters) knew decades in advance how things were going to turn out. I'd also like to know how this has been kept quiet, globally, for decades.

Re2) "the National Enquirer of denier blogs ... a PR hack" - That's quite amusing considering all you do is repost the same quality from CO2 hysteric sources, but claim them as proof. Even better is each time I've questioned you directly on the science, you either show your complete ignorance of it (an science in general) or regurgitate more 'opinions' and 'sources'.

You've never questioned me directly about the science. IIRC, you didn't even know the difference between relative and specific humidity, and the difference between observations and reanalysis. Those kinds of basic foundational errors makes it extremely unlikely that you've genuinely studied the issue, but have merely skimmed the denier blogosphere and left it at that. That's not knowledge or understanding. That's a joke.

I think it's time W*GS got his own bat****crazy thread like MacGruber has and MCGaffney should.

I ain't the one believing in crankery, like Mills' hydrinos. There's yer bat**** crazy for ya.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 05:32 AM

<a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/">Hydrinos: Impressive Free Energy Crackpottery</a>.

<a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/7/1/127/fulltext/">A critical analysis of the hydrino model</a>.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 05:36 AM

If the climate can change before humans had anything to do with it, then obviously the planet can and will do its own thing

You're right. The Earth cares not one whit if there are people on it or not. What it does "care about" is the basic physics and chemistry that describes the energy balance of the climate system, and that we're changing it, and that the climate system is responding as expected.

and to believe we can somehow change that by riding more bikes shows just how inept and ridiculous the alarmists are.

Mitigating anthropogenic climate change involves more than just riding bikes.

If what any one person does makes no difference, then why don't you dump your used motor oil down the gutter? Is that an infringement of your property rights?

Boomhauer

04-27-2012, 07:06 AM

You've never questioned me directly about the science. IIRC, you didn't even know the difference between relative and specific humidity, and the difference between observations and reanalysis...
Thanks for verifying my point by bring up another thread I schooled you in. In truth, I not only explained the differences between the two, but whet on to explain how their measurements relate to the climate and what can be extrapolated from those measurements - but that was all completely over your head as you were hoping for the wikidictionary explanation that could be cross-referenced against your spam stockpile.
And yes, I've questioned you directly about the pseudoscience behind CO2-hysteria, though not the measurements taken, but as you've repeatedly proven ignorant of the science, your responses were interwebz reposts of bad science you consider proof.

W*GS = epic poser deserving of a bat****crazy thread for all his 'science'

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 07:19 AM

If what any one person does makes no difference, then why don't you dump your used motor oil down the gutter? Is that an infringement of your property rights?

This is retarded hyperbole. This would be the equivalent of asking if you want to save planet earth, what you're doing consuming fossil fuels on a computer when you could be living in a tree somewhere living a truly carbon-neutral life.

The funny thing is there's a lot of economics backing the fact that people will often find the most (overall) energy-efficient solutions because they're also usually the most economical. All the poking and prodding in the world won't change this fact.

The problem is that some of the central-solutionists aren't interested in finding more energy efficient ways to do the things people want to do. They want to change the things people want to do... enforce lifestyle change. Which is where they really start to meet opposition.

Nobody wants to go back to the environmental policies of the 60's. Things in this country have improved significantly since then. But that isn't licence for perpetual change for change's sake. It's also not an excuse to unilaterally disarm our industry while others across the Pacific pick up all the slack (with virtually no environmental standards to boot)

The doomsdayers had their day. Their predictions have already been shown to be laughably off-base. Now it's time for some common sense and deliberation to take over.

barryr

04-27-2012, 07:25 AM

You're right. The Earth cares not one whit if there are people on it or not. What it does "care about" is the basic physics and chemistry that describes the energy balance of the climate system, and that we're changing it, and that the climate system is responding as expected.

Mitigating anthropogenic climate change involves more than just riding bikes.

If what any one person does makes no difference, then why don't you dump your used motor oil down the gutter? Is that an infringement of your property rights?

The funny thing is people worried about man causing global warming do the very things in their own lives that hardly help the environment, so until those people start practicing what they preach, they can't be taken seriously and have no right to tell others what to do.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 08:27 AM

The funny thing is people worried about man causing global warming do the very things in their own lives that hardly help the environment, so until those people start practicing what they preach, they can't be taken seriously and have no right to tell others what to do.

The funny thing is people worried about too much government do the very things in their own lives that hardly help make it smaller, so until those people start practicing what they preach, they can't be taken seriously and have no right to tell others what to do.

You know, the 'baggers who get more out of the system than they put in. The ones who carry signs that say "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare", that sort of thing.

What do you do, barry, to reduce your impact on the environment? Anything?

W*GS

04-27-2012, 08:32 AM

Thanks for verifying my point by bring up another thread I schooled you in. In truth, I not only explained the differences between the two, but whet on to explain how their measurements relate to the climate and what can be extrapolated from those measurements - but that was all completely over your head as you were hoping for the wikidictionary explanation that could be cross-referenced against your spam stockpile.
And yes, I've questioned you directly about the pseudoscience behind CO2-hysteria, though not the measurements taken, but as you've repeatedly proven ignorant of the science, your responses were interwebz reposts of bad science you consider proof.

W*GS = epic poser deserving of a bat****crazy thread for all his 'science'

That's exactly opposite of what always happens.

You're the one who gets schooled.

You're the one terminally confused about the basics.

You're the one using pseudoscience, the interwebz, and bogus sources.

You're the one who's bat**** crazy.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 08:59 AM

This is retarded hyperbole. This would be the equivalent of asking if you want to save planet earth, what you're doing consuming fossil fuels on a computer when you could be living in a tree somewhere living a truly carbon-neutral life.

Going carbon-free does not entail returning to the savannah and living in caves.

We'll have to eventually anyway, as fossil fuels are quite finite. We should start to transition off them now, before we must and we do stupid things because we're forced to hurry.

The funny thing is there's a lot of economics backing the fact that people will often find the most (overall) energy-efficient solutions because they're also usually the most economical. All the poking and prodding in the world won't change this fact.

Markets only work when prices are correct. Given that the negative externalities of the use of fossil fuels are set far too low, or even to zero, we aren't using the most "economical" energy sources. That market failure needs to be corrected, IMHO, a straightup carbon tax. Once carbon-based energy is priced correctly, the market will work properly.

The problem is that some of the central-solutionists aren't interested in finding more energy efficient ways to do the things people want to do. They want to change the things people want to do... enforce lifestyle change. Which is where they really start to meet opposition.

Again, that has nothing to do with the science. Rail against the politicians and others, not the scientists.

Nobody wants to go back to the environmental policies of the 60's. Things in this country have improved significantly since then. But that isn't licence for perpetual change for change's sake. It's also not an excuse to unilaterally disarm our industry while others across the Pacific pick up all the slack (with virtually no environmental standards to boot)

More complaints about policy. Nothing about the science being wrong or flawed.

Hint: Part of the reason there's been improvement is because in the 60s, we realized we couldn't keep treating the planet as giant toilet and not expect to suffer the consequences. It certainly wasn't industry or markets who made that realization - in fact, they fought regulation as hard as they could, because their incentives are narrow and focused on monetary profit. That thinking doesn't really work.

The doomsdayers had their day. Their predictions have already been shown to be laughably off-base. Now it's time for some common sense and deliberation to take over.

Lovelock was wrong, very wrong, quite true. He's not the exemplar of climate science - he's always been a bit of a kook.

The question is - will you and your beliefs have a seat at the negotiating table, or will you deny that there's anything to be concerned about and refuse to take part, and thus have your worries and beliefs completely ignored when policies are put into place? Your choice. Get in the game.

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 10:00 AM

Going carbon-free does not entail returning to the savannah and living in caves.

It does if you need employment in a business or industry that produces anything substantial. The most carbon-neutral economies in the world are third world economies. There's a reason for that.

We'll have to eventually anyway, as fossil fuels are quite finite. We should start to transition off them now, before we must and we do stupid things because we're forced to hurry.

The only thing that will lead the world to transition off them is an economic reason to do so. So long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form, someone will use them. Even if we don't, someone else will. The more we artificially increase our own costs, the more advantage we give our competitors.

Markets only work when prices are correct. Given that the negative externalities of the use of fossil fuels are set far too low, or even to zero, we aren't using the most "economical" energy sources. That market failure needs to be corrected, IMHO, a straightup carbon tax. Once carbon-based energy is priced correctly, the market will work properly.

See above.

Again, that has nothing to do with the science. Rail against the politicians and others, not the scientists.

You're the one who started talking about one guy and what he does with his used motor oil.

Hint: Part of the reason there's been improvement is because in the 60s, we realized we couldn't keep treating the planet as giant toilet and not expect to suffer the consequences. It certainly wasn't industry or markets who made that realization - in fact, they fought regulation as hard as they could, because their incentives are narrow and focused on monetary profit. That thinking doesn't really work.

Balance, balance, balance. Just because markets have to be tempered by regulation (and by extension Politics) at some point doesn't mean markets no longer matter, or that there's no limit to what you can do with regulation. Just because you wish you could run a 7-passenger vehicle on solar power doesn't make it possible.

And the perverse part is that often the regulations designed to address these things make it even worse. Read more about how the first CAFE standards that came out killed the family station wagon and created the SUV and Minivan markets. And it looks like our government's now trying to double down on that mistake.

Or about ethanol's carbon footprint.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 10:20 AM

The only thing that will lead the world to transition off them is an economic reason to do so. So long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form, someone will use them. Even if we don't, someone else will. The more we artificially increase our own costs, the more advantage we give our competitors.

Putting the costs of carbon-based fuels into the price isn't "artificial"; it's correcting a market error.

There would be no incentive to conserve water, for example, if the price were set to zero. Likewise, there's no incentive to quit trashing the planet if the costs of the filth we spew into the air are artificially set to zero, even though they are very real.

Next time you're in Idaho Springs, take a tour of the Argo Mill. Right next to it is the outflow from the Argo Tunnel. The water is heavily contaminated - but when those mines were in full production, the very real environmental damage they did was completely ignored - the costs were set to zero. However, now we know better, and understand that just because it serves the interests of short-term profit to ignore pollution, that doesn't make it go away.

We've had to spend millions to decontaminate that water that those 19th century miners left us. Would they have made so much profit if they had taken their pollution into consideration of the price of the minerals and metals they sold? Of course not - but those costs didn't just disappear because they didn't.

Balance, balance, balance. Just because markets have to be tempered by regulation (and by extension Politics) at some point doesn't mean markets no longer matter, or that there's no limit to what you can do with regulation. Just because you wish you could run a 7-passenger vehicle on solar power doesn't make it possible.

Did I ever say anything about regulations can be made perfect and markets are near-worthless? No.

Rather than regulating all possible sources of GHG emissions, let's just set the price of carbon-based fuels to reflect the negative externalities that their use creates, and let markets figure it out from there. I'm a big fan of proper markets - they're by far the most efficient and fair means to engage in economic activity. But that doesn't mean they're perfect, and in the case of intergenerational and international environment-related issues, markets are pretty poor. That's where the governments have to step in and correct them.

Besides, as we move away from fossil fuels, we can give "friends" like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela a big fat finger. That alone is a really really good idea.

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 10:49 AM

Putting the costs of carbon-based fuels into the price isn't "artificial"; it's correcting a market error.

To the extent that's the case (which goes to the heart of the scientific debate) there's largely nothing you can do about it. You're only exposing the new 'adjusted' cost to those under your jurisdiction. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdr5f1Tu8Alxy1gmESZzlKSLNene6_z Y9SKjwEUnq0APFEXcUw

There would be no incentive to conserve water, for example, if the price were set to zero. Likewise, there's no incentive to quit trashing the planet if the costs of the filth we spew into the air are artificially set to zero, even though they are very real.

Conversely there would be no incentive for a guy shopping at the world market to buy water from you because you inflated your price and he can go next door to China Emporium and not worry about it.

Next time you're in Idaho Springs, take a tour of the Argo Mill. Right next to it is the outflow from the Argo Tunnel. The water is heavily contaminated - but when those mines were in full production, the very real environmental damage they did was completely ignored - the costs were set to zero. However, now we know better, and understand that just because it serves the interests of short-term profit to ignore pollution, that doesn't make it go away.

Yes, standards are important, especially when it's something you have jurisdiction over. Unfortunately there's no relationship between what happened there and unilateral economic disarmament.

Rather than regulating all possible sources of GHG emissions, let's just set the price of carbon-based fuels to reflect the negative externalities that their use creates, and let markets figure it out from there. I'm a big fan of proper markets - they're by far the most efficient and fair means to engage in economic activity. But that doesn't mean they're perfect, and in the case of intergenerational and international environment-related issues, markets are pretty poor. That's where the governments have to step in and correct them..

ROR

W*GS

04-27-2012, 11:33 AM

Why are you in favor of letting China's totalitarians dictate to us, Beavis?

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 12:05 PM

Why are you in favor of letting China's totalitarians dictate to us, Beavis?

Why are you waiting? I'll give you my paypal account. Calculate your monthly energy expenses, then start sending me 5%. I promise to plant some trees or something. :)

W*GS

04-27-2012, 12:19 PM

Why are you waiting? I'll give you my paypal account. Calculate your monthly energy expenses, then start sending me 5%. I promise to plant some trees or something. :)

Why are you so terrified of China?

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 12:37 PM

Why are you so terrified of China?

It's not about being terrified. It's about reality. You won't significantly cut world carbon emissions so long as countries like China and India are unrestrained.

Every ton of carbon you tax into submission, China will replace and then some. By some estimates, China will produce more CO2 in 20 years than the entire world does today. Whether our footprint shrinks (marginally if we're being honest) in the face of that is pretty much irrelevant.

The only thing you've accomplished by taxing your own production is hurt yourself, helped your competition, and maybe created a slush fund for a few politicians to pretend like they're fixing something they can't fix.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 12:57 PM

The only thing you've accomplished by taxing your own production is hurt yourself, helped your competition, and maybe created a slush fund for a few politicians to pretend like they're fixing something they can't fix.

And when it's no longer economical or practical to use fossil fuels, we're sitting pretty and China and India are ****ed.

Quit thinking about this quarter. Think longer-term.

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 02:10 PM

And when it's no longer economical or practical to use fossil fuels, we're sitting pretty and China and India are ****ed.

Quit thinking about this quarter. Think longer-term.

I've always loved this particular contradiction.

You're saying we've got to stop burning fossil fuels to keep all that carbon from ending up in the atmosphere. Then you say all those fossil fuels are inevitably going to get burned up and end up in the atmosphere, so we need to plan for something else.

Peak Oil and AGW scares do not mix. Because if we're going to run out of fossil fuels soon, AGW is what it is at that point.

So if you want to argue as a peak oil'er, go ahead. But let's not muddy the water on side-issues.

W*GS

04-27-2012, 03:09 PM

I've always loved this particular contradiction.

You're saying we've got to stop burning fossil fuels to keep all that carbon from ending up in the atmosphere. Then you say all those fossil fuels are inevitably going to get burned up and end up in the atmosphere, so we need to plan for something else.

We will not consume every molecule of hydrocarbons. They will become far too expensive/difficult/technologically impossible to retrieve long before they cease to exist.

Since that's guaranteed (barring some magical mysterical technological *deus ex machina*), we might as well start moving off carbon-based fuels and conserve the practical amount we have left for truly critical needs - like fertilizers, rather than wasting it hauling our butts around.

BroncoBeavis

04-27-2012, 03:16 PM

We will not consume every molecule of hydrocarbons. They will become far too expensive/difficult/technologically impossible to retrieve long before they cease to exist.

Since that's guaranteed (barring some magical mysterical technological *deus ex machina*), we might as well start moving off carbon-based fuels and conserve the practical amount we have left for truly critical needs - like fertilizers, rather than wasting it hauling our butts around.

Irrelevant. If shortage is going to force us off it, what's the point in carbon taxing it to prevent us from using it? Why take extra (and self-punitive) countermeasures to prevent us from using what you say isn't going to be usable anyway?

W*GS

04-27-2012, 03:55 PM

Irrelevant. If shortage is going to force us off it, what's the point in carbon taxing it to prevent us from using it? Why take extra (and self-punitive) countermeasures to prevent us from using what you say isn't going to be usable anyway?

Because what we've already burned, are burning, and will burn, while it remains heavily subsidized, will likely damage the climate system too much.

A carbon tax will not make fossil fuels go away - it will place them in an economically proper relationship to other energy sources. Fossil fuels are too cheap, which is why we use them extravagantly and wastefully.

We have a classic market failure when it comes to the use of fossil fuels. Do you agree?

PS - You've given up on dismissing the science. Why?

Boomhauer

04-28-2012, 01:38 AM

That's exactly opposite of what always happens. You're the one... You're the one... You're the one... You're the one who's bat**** crazy.
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/cry-baby.jpg

I'd also like to thank you for the Hydrino response that, again, proved my point. That entire thread is a rebuttal of fundamental theories of the Universe, space and subatomics in which I describe the current theories and better alternative to them.

As it's all completely over your head, your recourse was to spam search and regurgitate a rebuttal to the only one you could find - linking comments I'd already made an addressed. What you are obviously incapable of doing is addressing the science or use your own words.

This is exactly the same as discussing CO2-hysteria with you as it's all completely over your head and when specific arguments are brought up, your only recourse is regurgitating pseudoscientific spam instead of addressing what's at hand. Even the simplest questions are beyond your reach and the simplest explanations over your head, proving that despite your claims, your an ignorant fraud - or to use a word of your own, a spambot.

W*GS

04-28-2012, 05:51 AM

Boomhauer, you're a crackpot. That's all there is to it.

Bob

04-28-2012, 08:14 AM

The funny thing is people worried about too much government do the very things in their own lives that hardly help make it smaller, so until those people start practicing what they preach, they can't be taken seriously and have no right to tell others what to do.

You know, the 'baggers who get more out of the system than they put in. The ones who carry signs that say "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare", that sort of thing.

What do you do, barry, to reduce your impact on the environment? Anything?

You are correct with this assertion, it is hard, but important to be consistent. Many on both sides are not.

I have some questions. Based on what you have read on this topic, its clear you know more about the science behind this debate than I do. I have not heard you talk much about the implications of trying to fix what you feel is the problem. Lets say global warming, for the sake of conversation, is happening, and that it has some very bad long-term consequences. I wonder about the difficulties in what it would take to control the behaviors of so many people (and nations for that matter) in order to make a dent in it. For me liberty is at the top of my priority list. Governments in the past have used problems of all sorts (real or imagined) to take liberties from individuals.

Lets say one could wave a magical wand and America suddenly produced 0 global warming emissions -- would it really matter? As China and India are just beginning to ramp up their economies unless everyone is on-board I wonder how much personal sacrifice people here would be willing to make. I have not read up on India's energy infrastructure -- but I know that coal is central to China's plan, and was shocked to read how quickly they are developing plants. The other thing that bothers me is that if we hurt our economy attempting to reduce emissions we become weaker on the world stage, and the less likely we could have any influence with China and other nations.

America does use a ton of energy, granted, but that is one central reason we are relatively strong, and have a high standard of living, + we are better stewards on pollution side than China and India. Whenever we stop drilling off shore -- guess who gets the contracts -- companies that are much worse than ours -- and if there is a spill -- we live with the consequences and don't have much leverage, as the companies are not American owned. Lastly, in your opinion is it possible to increase natural gas use for vehicles without trampling over the free market?

barryr

04-28-2012, 03:31 PM

W*GS

04-28-2012, 03:47 PM

More than you I'm sure hypocrite. Your part is simply telling others what to do and grow some weeds. I know I haven't flown on 20 vacations in 4 years like the WH occupiers have done, which I'm sure has helped our environment tremendously.

Thanks for the incoherent rambling and the irrelevant dig at Obama.

When you righties gonna realize that "the White House" is a reference to its paint color, not the required race of the occupant?

W*GS

04-28-2012, 03:56 PM

You are correct with this assertion, it is hard, but important to be consistent. Many on both sides are not.

I have some questions. Based on what you have read on this topic, its clear you know more about the science behind this debate than I do. I have not heard you talk much about the implications of trying to fix what you feel is the problem. Lets say global warming, for the sake of conversation, is happening, and that it has some very bad long-term consequences. I wonder about the difficulties in what it would take to control the behaviors of so many people (and nations for that matter) in order to make a dent in it. For me liberty is at the top of my priority list. Governments in the past have used problems of all sorts (real or imagined) to take liberties from individuals.

True. But it's not intrinsic to the problem of mitigating global warming that your liberty will be sacrificed. That's a myth spread by those who deny that global warming even exists.

As I've said before, I prefer a straightup tax on carbon-based energy sources. We'll see how that works before trying other ideas. Do you consider a carbon tax an infringement on your liberty? Why or why not?

Lets say one could wave a magical wand and America suddenly produced 0 global warming emissions -- would it really matter?

Well, yes. The world total would drop by nearly 20%.

America does use a ton of energy, granted, but that is one central reason we are relatively strong, and have a high standard of living, + we are better stewards on pollution side than China and India.

We're tremendously wasteful - our carbon emissions per capita are quite high. Other countries, some economically stronger than we are today, manage to emit much less CO2 per capita than we do.

Whenever we stop drilling off shore -- guess who gets the contracts -- companies that are much worse than ours -- and if there is a spill -- we live with the consequences and don't have much leverage, as the companies are not American owned.

All the drilling we can possibly do will not solve the problem of meeting our energy needs. There simply isn't enough reasonably recoverable oil.

Lastly, in your opinion is it possible to increase natural gas use for vehicles without trampling over the free market?

There's currently no free market in energy, so there's nothing to "trample".

I don't claim that the transition away from fossil fuels will be easy or painless. However, starting now will make it easier and less painful than waiting and waiting until we're forced to. That's when the danger to liberty and markets will be highest.

BroncoBeavis

04-28-2012, 05:24 PM

A carbon tax will not make fossil fuels go away - it will place them in an economically proper relationship to other energy sources. Fossil fuels are too cheap, which is why we use them extravagantly and wastefully.

Which is why you said we were going to run out. In which case your Carbon tax accomplishes nothing but revenue.

PS - You've given up on dismissing the science. Why?

Because in your model it's just a recreational science project. The carbon's all going up in smoke. Why break the bank studying the environmental impact of a ship that's already sailed? In that case if "science" wants to help it should focus more on solutions and less on sounding alarms for water under the bridge.

W*GS

04-28-2012, 05:42 PM

Which is why you said we were going to run out. In which case your Carbon tax accomplishes nothing but revenue.

Well, no. Since fossil fuels are quite finite, we should use them much more wisely than we currently do. However, since they're kept artificially cheap, via direct and indirect subsidy, and the damages their uses causes are not part of their price, we waste them.

Do you disagree?

Because in your model it's just a recreational science project. The carbon's all going up in smoke. Why break the bank studying the environmental impact of a ship that's already sailed? In that case if "science" wants to help it should focus more on solutions and less on sounding alarms for water under the bridge.

We have to make a commitment to take the science seriously and act accordingly first. We still have influencers claiming that the science is a fraud, or a hoax, or the like. Do you disagree?

BroncoBeavis

04-28-2012, 06:06 PM

Well, no. Since fossil fuels are quite finite, we should use them much more wisely than we currently do. However, since they're kept artificially cheap, via direct and indirect subsidy, and the damages their uses causes are not part of their price, we waste them.

Do you disagree?

It's awesome to hear someone tell me that oil is artificially cheap right now. You should take that on the road.

The fact is that most forms of energy (or any action for that matter) have some form of external and unquantifiable cost. In effect you could call most any kind of production of anything 'subsidized' because activities always have peripheral effects. By your definition, the world subsidizes your breath. Although I think all of that's kind of an abuse of the word "subsidy"

We have to make a commitment to take the science seriously and act accordingly first. We still have influencers claiming that the science is a fraud, or a hoax, or the like. Do you disagree?

I wouldn't call the science itself a fraud. I think it has been exaggerated in some cases. And used inappropriately in others. But mostly I just don't think the case has been made that the difference between .04% CO2 in the air vs say .06 or .07% would be all that significant. Especially when Earth has had far higher concentrations in the past, and when over 90% of CO2 emissions occur naturally. Plus nature's reaction to any slight increase in CO2 concentration will be anything but static.

And all of that's setting aside the fact that there's largely nothing we can do to stop what's already in motion. Our footprint is largely flat at this point. Others' are exploding. If, as you predicted, heavy enough shortages occur to bring energy economies (whether ours or China and India's) to a screeching halt, the final scene of the play will have played itself out. Screaming from the rooftops about the inevitable has no value.

W*GS

04-28-2012, 06:24 PM

It's awesome to hear someone tell me that oil is artificially cheap right now. You should take that on the road.

Being truthful and being popular are two different things.

How much less would we have spent over the last few decades on the military if we didn't depend on imported oil? Were those costs reflected in the price of that oil?

I wouldn't call the science itself a fraud. I think it has been exaggerated in some cases. And used inappropriately in others. But mostly I just don't think the case has been made that the difference between .04% CO2 in the air vs say .06 or .07% would be all that significant.

If there's 0% CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans freeze solid and the Earth is virtually lifeless. Likewise, when CO2 is at 600ppm or 1000ppm, there's not much in the way of permanent land ice, which makes sea level ~450 feet higher. Consider how many people live less than 450 feet elevation worldwide.

Especially when Earth has had far higher concentrations in the past, and when over 90% of CO2 emissions occur naturally. Plus nature's reaction to any slight increase in CO2 concentration will be anything but static.

The "far higher in the past" was long before there were humans. We, as a species, have never experienced CO2 concentrations as high as they are now.

Consider this - imbalance your diet by +100 kcal/day. Tell me how much weight you'll gain in 30 years.

And all of that's setting aside the fact that there's largely nothing we can do to stop what's already in motion. Our footprint is largely flat at this point. Others' are exploding. If, as you predicted, heavy enough shortages occur to bring energy economies (whether ours or China and India's) to a screeching halt, the final scene of the play will have played itself out. Screaming from the rooftops about the inevitable has no value.

We can mitigate what will come, and adapt as best we can to what's already in the pipeline.

Sorry, but I'm not a fatalist.

That One Guy

04-28-2012, 08:32 PM

Consider this - imbalance your diet by +100 kcal/day. Tell me how much weight you'll gain in 30 years.

Well, as your body gets larger, it'll take more energy to do the tasks you used to do with fewer calories. I'd venture to say it'd only take a fraction of the 30 years and your body would settle and you'd feel just like you never embarked upon this little adventure at all.

Bad metaphor.

That One Guy

04-28-2012, 08:46 PM

Every ton of carbon you tax into submission, China will replace and then some. By some estimates, China will produce more CO2 in 20 years than the entire world does today. Whether our footprint shrinks (marginally if we're being honest) in the face of that is pretty much irrelevant.

I want to know more about this. Is this an accurate statement? What are we prepared to do if we're stagnant in our CO2 production but China is going to dwarf us to such a degree? This is like fighting the government over budget issues because they pay for name brand coffee instead of Wal-Mart brand in terms of magnitude. It just wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

W*GS

04-29-2012, 06:16 AM

Well, as your body gets larger, it'll take more energy to do the tasks you used to do with fewer calories. I'd venture to say it'd only take a fraction of the 30 years and your body would settle and you'd feel just like you never embarked upon this little adventure at all.

So how do we end up with people that weigh 500 lbs, 600 lbs, 900 lbs and more?

That One Guy

04-29-2012, 08:44 AM

So how do we end up with people that weigh 500 lbs, 600 lbs, 900 lbs and more?

They progressively add more or add more and as the weight packs on, alter their lifestyle. Either way, if you don't continue to create an imbalance, an equilibrium will be found. Seeing as that's one of the principle theories since the beginning of the global changes movement took off (the theory that the earth will adapt), it's just not a good example to use. Note, even those 500, 600, or 900 lb people find a weight equilibrium.

Bob

04-29-2012, 11:39 AM

Being truthful and being popular are two different things.

How much less would we have spent over the last few decades on the military if we didn't depend on imported oil? Were those costs reflected in the price of that oil?

If we were serious about it...but we are not for some reason. I don't have a problem with using oil, but I do have a problem with being dependent, which we are. Why should we give hundreds of billions of dollars to those countries that despise us? I would love to see more efforts made on the natural gas conversion -- how many years do we have of natural gas? I heard it was about 100...by then we will have developed additional technologies.

Bob

04-29-2012, 11:46 AM

I want to know more about this. Is this an accurate statement? What are we prepared to do if we're stagnant in our CO2 production but China is going to dwarf us to such a degree? This is like fighting the government over budget issues because they pay for name brand coffee instead of Wal-Mart brand in terms of magnitude. It just wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

That's one reality I keep going back to. These other countries don't care about the environment -- those who live in their big cities have all kinds of respiratory problems. When they drill off our shores, it helps them get stronger, we pay more for fuel and become weaker, when there is a spill by some country from China, what kind of leverage do we have over them? So if we become economically weaker because of a perceived future problem -- how does that help us or the "planet"?

That One Guy

04-29-2012, 12:12 PM

That's one reality I keep going back to. These other countries don't care about the environment -- those who live in their big cities have all kinds of respiratory problems. When they drill off our shores, it helps them get stronger, we pay more for fuel and become weaker, when there is a spill by some country from China, what kind of leverage do we have over them? So if we become economically weaker because of a perceived future problem -- how does that help us or the "planet"?

Blart had a really good thread on this the other day. He really seems interested in the topic and knows what he's talking about. W*gs, likewise, seems to know what he's talking about but is more interested in owning people on a message board and proving his superior scienceness than discussing the matter.

I'd recommend discussing it with Blart if you want discussion. If you want an internet forum fight, W*gs is your man.

myMind

04-29-2012, 05:47 PM

BroncoBeavis

04-30-2012, 07:57 AM

I dont get how people can get confused on this issue.

The strongest most abundent greenhouse gas is watervapor, the amount of watervapor in our atmospere is directly connected to the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. The more carbon dioxide we pump into the air, the more watervapor will accumulate in the atmoshpere and the warmer the planet will gradually get.

Its not that complicated.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/15/nasa-carbon-dioxide-not-water-vapor-causes-global-warming/

Actually it is pretty complicated. In many cases they struggle to separate cause from effect, especially before this latest warming (the heart of the controversy)

As has been said, the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler, probably even in the recent past. And atmospheric CO2 has been shown to vary at the same time. What no honest (and knowledgeable) scientist studying these periods can tell you though, is whether CO2 fluctuations were caused by temperature changes or temperature changes were caused by CO2, or were even both results of some other factor.

One of the criticisms of many climate alarmists is that they place too much faith in their own models which are built around their own preconceptions on these relationships. Yet these models, so far, have fallen far short from being able to accurately predict the future. And as you'd expect they often model much more alarming conditions than actually turn out to be the case. Which to a skeptic suggests that the models could be based on an overly-simplistic or misguided view of the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere.

There are thousands of factors involved, CO2 concentration being only one of them. My belief is that predicting what will happen based on slightly changing that one factor is orders of magnitude beyond science's current ability.

W*GS

04-30-2012, 08:36 AM

Actually it is pretty complicated. In many cases they struggle to separate cause from effect, especially before this latest warming (the heart of the controversy)

As has been said, the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler, probably even in the recent past. And atmospheric CO2 has been shown to vary at the same time. What no honest (and knowledgeable) scientist studying these periods can tell you though, is whether CO2 fluctuations were caused by temperature changes or temperature changes were caused by CO2, or were even both results of some other factor.

Not quite true. See my <a href="http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3565106&postcount=29">earlier post</a> which has some sources regarding the interplay between CO2 and temperature.

One of the criticisms of many climate alarmists is that they place too much faith in their own models which are built around their own preconceptions on these relationships.

One of the criticisms of climate change deniers is that they set up a strawman regarding the climate science community's "faith" in climate models.

The climate science community knows that the models are imperfect. That is not news, or something hidden, or kept secret. There are many papers relating to the abilities of climate models - their successes and failures and shortcomings.

There's an entire chapter in the 2007 IPCC AR4 - <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html">Chapter 8: Climate Models and their Evaluation</a>.

Before believing the denier blogosphere regarding climate models, I recommend reading the above chapter and the papers that comprise it. That will give you an honest understanding of climate models.

Yet these models, so far, have fallen far short from being able to accurately predict the future. And as you'd expect they often model much more alarming conditions than actually turn out to be the case. Which to a skeptic suggests that the models could be based on an overly-simplistic or misguided view of the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere.

The above statements are incorrect. They're not based on the facts.

There are thousands of factors involved, CO2 concentration being only one of them. My belief is that predicting what will happen based on slightly changing that one factor is orders of magnitude beyond science's current ability.

That we don't perfectly know everything does not mean we know nothing.

BroncoBeavis

04-30-2012, 09:37 AM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html?page=1

Interesting read.

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

Of course, to be fair minded, the article goes onto say that none of this refutes the theory of AGW, because physics tells us there should be a greenhouse effect in play. I don't doubt that there is. But there are so many other pieces to this puzzle that our pretending to know how one single variable changes an equation we can't define is pretty silly.

And to model something we've never been proven to accurately predict and then insist that others bank the future upon those models... well that's no longer science, if we're being honest.

W*GS

04-30-2012, 09:44 AM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html?page=1

Interesting read.

That's from 2007.

This recent paper:

J.D. Shakun, P.U. Clark, F. He, S.A. Marcott, A.C. Mix, Z. Liu, B. Otto-Bliesner, A. Schmittner, and E. Bard, "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation", Nature, vol. 484, 2012, pp. 49-54. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10915">DOI</a>.

is the current understanding.

Of course, to be fair minded, the article goes onto say that none of this refutes the theory of AGW, because physics tells us there should be a greenhouse effect in play. I don't doubt that there is. But there are so many other pieces to this puzzle that our pretending to know how one single variable changes an equation we can't define is pretty silly.

Again, just because we don't know everything perfectly doesn't mean we know nothing.

And to model something we've never been proven to accurately predict and then insist that others bank the future upon those models... well that's no longer science, if we're being honest.

What's "accurately" mean in the phrase "accurately predict"?

The "bank the future" is up to society to decide, not scientists.

BroncoBeavis

04-30-2012, 12:40 PM

That's from 2007.

This recent paper:

J.D. Shakun, P.U. Clark, F. He, S.A. Marcott, A.C. Mix, Z. Liu, B. Otto-Bliesner, A. Schmittner, and E. Bard, "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation", Nature, vol. 484, 2012, pp. 49-54. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10915">DOI</a>.

is the current understanding.

The critique of "Well that was 5 years ago, now we believe the opposite today" does little to alleviate the concern that there are many open question marks as to how much we really understand. And that study only looks at one example.

Even without that, everyone can do "battle of the studies" where one study is gospel while the other is painted as completely off-base. But we know from history that Earth's temperature fluctuates. CO2 levels fluctuate, and there's no proof that one causes the other, although in theory CO2 should help the process along.

But pretending that CO2 levels don't mesh with a thousand different factors, mitigating how much impact it can have is disingenuous.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis – they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe – more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects – they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently

...

The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2 levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.