Most people are lay people about most things. Also, I would wager 95% if not more of the people who take the scientific consensus about global warming have not actually delved into the source material in any depth. ( I am among them, I am a lay person here )
I have to say though, I think it is dishonest to suggest there is scientific consensus on the results of global warming.
Simple question. What will happen if we continue on our course for the next 50 years before stabilizing carbon emissions? There seems to be in a crude sense a sliding scale to a complete non issue to civilization threatening catastrophe. So tell me, in terms of the effects of global warming where is the scientific consensus? And what is the point of scientific consensus anyway? Such a flaky term for scientific claims, take a listen to Crighton on this very issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AA5aIdOqlw#t=47m30s
the point about it only taking one person to prove someone wrong in science is true. A thousand declarations of the truth of an idea will fall away like ash against a single display to the contrary in science, or so it is

Quoting JonIrenicus: I have to say though, I think it is dishonest to suggest there is scientific consensus on the results of global warming.

Simple question. What will happen if we continue on our course for the next 50 years before stabilizing carbon emissions?

There seems to be in a crude sense a sliding scale to a complete non issue to civilization threatening catastrophe.

So tell me, in terms of the effects of global warming where is the scientific consensus?

And what is the point of scientific consensus anyway? Such a flaky term for scientific claims, take a listen to Crighton on this very issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AA5aIdOqlw#t=47m30s

the point about it only taking one person to prove someone wrong in science is true. A thousand declarations of the truth of an idea will fall away like ash against a single display to the contrary in science, or so it is supposed to be.

The scientific consensus in terms of the effects of global warming can be found here. You seem to be confusing a lack of consensus with a consensus that there are different possibilities. The consensus on climate change is like forecasting

The battle between the "accomodationists" and the hard core has been reignited by Mooney and Kirshenbaum's book - Jerry Coyne
Mooney and Kirshenbaum: Atheists turn Americans from science, strangle puppies
Referring to some comments by Ophelia Benson What am I supposed to do with Unscientific America? PZ Myers
Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future
Unscientific America and those awful atheists Mooney asked PZ to suspend judgement until he read the book -

We hope that like Dr. Coyne, you will suspend judgment until reading the book, at which point we’ll be interested to hear what you think.

PZ did asked they asked and then said the book was "utterly useless." Whereupon, Mooney trashed him -

If you want a take that throughly trashes the book, well then this is it. But of course, that’s not surprising, given that the book not only criticizes Myers but, indeed, identifies him as part of the problem. . .

So Coyne asks if they really want his honest opinion -

Does this mean that Mooney and Kirshenbaum won’t consider my review as a serious intellectual appraisal? Or will they dismiss it only if it’s negative? I really don’t want to waste time on this if the authors of

Wow. Mooney is one smug dude considering his ignorance and lack of background. I only have a physics degree, but... Mooney is a journalist. And his smarminess is explaining why the masses don't get global warming??
Sad. It is a complex issue, but some of us who actually studied science understand the power that is coming to mitigate the problems that our journalist and political friends with no science background like to
exaggerate.

And all along I always thought the reason why kids were learning less and less was because they were being taught what to think instead of how to plan, research, absorb, decide and prove/defend. Instead of giving them a classical education they have been given indoctrination. I was talking to a Cal State humanities grad the other day who had never used a blue book but had been given multiple speeches on the need for open borders, gay marriage and public health care in a science class. And for anyone who hasn't read it, Michael Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming is as relevant today as it was in 2003. The AGW crowd will hoot and bellow but Chrichton's concerns over what he calls the 'increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy' is completely valid.

Ignorance is vast, and "science" is even vaster. The problem, of course, is that there are many sciences and many subdivisions within the sciences. So how do you decide, out of this vast expanse of knowledge, what the vast numbers of ignoranti should know? That they should know the basic facts about electrons and protons and evolution etc. is obvious, but it is equally obvious that knowledge of these facts, without knowledge of the methods and the purpose of science, is pointless. You might as well tell people to read the Encyclopedia Britannica....well, perhaps not a bad idea? How about courses in philosophy? France forces its highschool students to take a course in philosophy before graduation, and I hear there are many unemployed PH.Ds in philosophy in the US.

One point that I tended to agree with Mooney on is the Global Warming Isn't Happening Hoax, perpetuated by the Right Wing. I will always support expanded teaching of science at all levels. But the main GW deniers don't take the positions they take because of of lack of science, they do so because it firs into their politics. My dad is a perfect example. He was a metallurgist for 30+ years and went to Cornell for grad school. He is well aware of the scientific method and statistics, and used them daily in his work. But when it comes to GW, he would rather take his cues from his heroes: George Will and William F Buckley and the WSJ op-ed page. I think a vast swath of the population IS ignorant on many of the issues of GW and science in general, but I'm not sure that the easy answer to that particular problem is through science education. I think calling out the George Will's and making fools of their erroneous and misleading claims, in a public forum is about the best you can do. And that still probably won't make a huge difference.

Quoting thprop: The battle between the "accomodationists" and the hard core has been reignited by Mooney and Kirshenbaum's book - [...]

Thanks for posting those links. To add to your list, I recommend a few more by Ophelia Benson that follow up on the one you linked to, here, here and here. I don't know if you noticed, but I linked to one of PZ's posts reviewing M&K's book in the "Evolution of God" thread a couple of days ago. I say this not to claim "first!" but because I think it's worth remarking again on the close resemblance of M&K's attitude toward the New Atheists to the one that Bob has been harping on since his book came out. It's probably just as well that aspect of the book wasn't discussed in this diavlog, since Carl already seemed to be so aghast at other claims made. (Also, if memory serves, I think Carl generally tries to stay away from the general religion/science thing.) Chris's negative view of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, etc., seem to me to be just another instance of a view Bob has been pushing, in his own statements and the choice of diavloggers, combined with the weekly Templeton-sponsored stuff. It

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: [...] I think a vast swath of the population IS ignorant on many of the issues of GW and science in general, but I'm not sure that the easy answer to that particular problem is through science education. I think calling out the George Will's and making fools of their erroneous and misleading claims, in a public forum is about the best you can do. And that still probably won't make a huge difference.

I think it's best not to try to think in terms of a single approach, but instead to think about bringing as many different tools to bear as we can dream up. Loudly rebutting guys like George Will is a good thing. Having some people remain uncompromising about scientific principles while guys like Chris try the accommodationist route is a good thing. So is better education, even as it risks, as you note, that some people will use a smattering of scientific literacy only to sustain a political point of view. Nothing is perfect, there are no magic bullets. We just have to try lots of things all at once.

Quoting pampl: The scientific consensus in terms of the effects of global warming can be found here. You seem to be confusing a lack of consensus with a consensus that there are different possibilities. The consensus on climate change is like forecasting how a flipped coin will land- I don't claim for sure that a coin will land heads or tails, but I can claim that I know the odds it will land heads or tails.

Your claim about "a thousand declarations of the truth of an idea" is absurd. First, because scientific tests aren't conducted with infinite precision, there's always going to be up to 5% which are simply flukes that don't represent reality. Second, because interpretation isn't some plain empirical matter. If someone can watch a tape of a suspect murdering someone, is shown the murder weapon with the suspect's fingerprints on it, is shown motive for why the suspect would want to murder the victim, and still says there's not enough evidence, it does nothing to refute the consensus among 99.9% of people that that's enough evidence to convict. Science isn't held hostage by the .1% who refuse to acknowledge what's clear

On the issue of learning science and education, lets face it, science is harder than non science majors. Give people two paths with similar financial gains, but with one path far more difficult to tread, and people will choose the easier path most of the time. Zimmer mentioned something about post docs not having many prospects in research? Could this be elaborated on or a link given on the topic? Are there just too few research positions available?
edit: came across this article http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i41/41b02001.htm I wonder if there is a listing of what fields are having oversupply issues vs the fields with undersupply issues. Be nice to know for people looking into a field with good prospects down the line.

Here is a story that my father forwarded to yesterday that seems relevant. (@FA, BN, JJ, etc.: this is not intended to be a slap at philosophers.)

Stumbled upon this- for all those who refuse to believe the data about the USA falling behind other countries in basic science...

Heavy Boots

About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes.

He was trying to show how things don't always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon. My jaw dropped a little. I blurted "What?!" Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA's statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like "What's your problem?" "But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly." I protested.

"No it wouldn't." the TA explained calmly, "because you're too far away from the Earth's gravity." Think. Think. Aha! "You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn't you?"

I countered, "why

Quoting JonIrenicus: The biggest point of contention is not whether global warming/wierding is happening at all, but what are the consequences of it.

I see MANY claims and consequences in the link listed above, how many do you think will be an actual issue when the clock strikes y2k?

The degree to which one thinks the calamities listed there will occur is the biggest factor in determining how much of a problem global warming is.

Personally, I think many of the problems listed there will be either a non issue, or have far less a destructive impact than others expect will occur.

And Crichtons basic point, phrased more bluntly by me is the following concerning disastrous predictions.

Put up or shut up. If you have a climate model that predicts a trend over the course of a century, run it out a decade and see how well it fares.

People like Zimmer and Mooney are right to criticize those who demand no fluctuation in a warming trend over time. But that does not mean that climate predictions have NO bar to measure up to. A stray year or two is fine, but what

As someone with PhD, I find it rather absurd for two professional journalists to be shocked by the state of scientific knowledge. At least the great unwashed are pretty aware of their ignorance. Journalists, meanwhile, hype improbable risks, and apply analogies or intuitive theories that are often wrong. Their knowledge of statistics is almost worse than total ignorance. For instance, the famous geneticist Richard Lewontin argued that races do not exist because explains only 15% (a small amount) of genetic variation between two people! Ergo, race does not exist! But while the point about 85% within group vs. 15% between group variance, that is true, at one locus, but it ignores the correlation structure across loci. The reason we can, with 100% accuracy, distinguish someone of Swedish vs. Pygmie descent is because of the correlation of those different genes. But that point is way too subtle for 98% of journalists. Such are the consistent mistakes made by journalists, even scientific journalists, all the time. I'd take the ignorance of joe-sixpack over all the things a 'science journalist' knows that aren't true. If the world doesn't buy your arguments, lamenting the ignorance or bias of the world is just lame.

Agreed. I think what Mooney (and myself) are both saying is that education alone is not gonna solve the problem, because as you noted, the problem requires fighting on several fronts. I have heard many people point to education and suggest that it would be almost the magic bullet if only we put enough into that front. I think Mooney was largely reacting to that sentiment. As far as other scientist/atheists I renew my request for Kenneth Miller to be invited to bhTv. Totally agree on the Templeton thing. Sorry to combine posts/responses, (about to run out the door.)

Quoting eric: As someone with PhD, I find it rather absurd for two professional journalists to be shocked by the state of scientific knowledge. At least the great unwashed are pretty aware of their ignorance. Journalists, meanwhile, hype improbable risks, and apply analogies or intuitive theories that are often wrong. Their knowledge of statistics is almost worse than total ignorance.

For instance, the famous geneticist Richard Lewontin argued that races do not exist because explains only 15% (a small amount) of genetic variation between two people! Ergo, race does not exist! But while the point about 85% within group vs. 15% between group variance, that is true, at one locus, but it ignores the correlation structure across loci. The reason we can, with 100% accuracy, distinguish someone of Swedish vs. Pygmie descent is because of the correlation of those different genes. But that point is way too subtle for 98% of journalists.

Such are the consistent mistakes made by journalists, even scientific journalists, all the time. I'd take the ignorance of joe-sixpack over all the things a 'science journalist' knows that aren't true.

If the world doesn't buy your arguments, lamenting the ignorance or bias of the world is just lame.

Have you ever read one of Zimmer's

Quoting AemJeff: So, to summarize - the opinions held by the majority of professionals working in this field are "religious," and they should read Michael Crichton and come around to your point of view. Do I have that right?

No. Tell me where the opinions of the majority of professionals Are on the results of global warming. Agreement it is happening is the easy one, good job on that one, want a cookie? My point of view is simple, you make a claim about a consequence of global warming show some predictive power in your claims, that is all. I would be willing to bet there are many areas I would be completely on board, but to expect the default position about the results of global warming to be nearly 100% in line with predictions IS a religious notion. Many of the predictions are longer term, and there is a virtual certainty that many will be off. The conceit is that all the predictions have equal weight and likelihood, that is not my default take. I doubt scientists have that take, so why expect me to have it?

Quoting JonIrenicus: No.

Tell me where the opinions of the majority of professionals Are on the results of global warming.

Agreement it is happening is the easy one, good job on that one, want a cookie?

My point of view is simple, you make a claim about a consequence of global warming show some predictive power in your claims, that is all. I would be willing to bet there are many areas I would be completely on board, but to expect anyone to have their default position on the matter of the results of global warming to be nearly 100% reasonable and accurate in the predictions IS a religious notion.

Can't help you Jon, except to say that the outcomes do seem to have been quantified as probabilities. And the news seems to be getting consistently worse. And all of the contra arguments seem to originate at energy industry funded think tanks. And there's proof of corruption from those think tanks. Pick a side - but remember to follow the money.

Quoting Francoamerican: Ignorance is vast, and "science" is even vaster. The problem, of course, is that there are many sciences and many subdivisions within the sciences. So how do you decide, out of this vast expanse of knowledge, what the vast numbers of ignoranti should know? That they should know the basic facts about electrons and protons and evolution etc. is obvious, but it is equally obvious that knowledge of these facts, without knowledge of the methods and the purpose of science, is pointless. You might as well tell people to read the Encyclopedia Britannica....well, perhaps not a bad idea?

Factiods are overrated. Far more important is having a healthy measure of critical thinking, sadly, both things are hard to measure objectively, and still harder to cultivate in others.

Quoting Francoamerican: How about courses in philosophy? France forces its highschool students to take a course in philosophy before graduation, and I hear there are many unemployed PH.Ds in philosophy in the US.

I don't really see how that is relevant to the discusiion at hand. How useful some attribute is in the general population, is in many cases independent, from how useful a proffesional specilizing in said attribute is.

Quoting AemJeff: Have you ever read one of Zimmer's books?

You might also have asked, "Eric, have you watched the rest of Carl's diavlogs?" It ought to be obvious from those alone how clear Carl makes it, when he is interviewing someone, what degree of knowledge he has about a given topic, and how careful he is to get things right and/or acknowledge where he does not know something.

Who exactly is going to be the one to break the news to Freeman Dyson that his High School education failed him?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Agreed. I think what Mooney (and myself) are both saying is that education alone is not gonna solve the problem, because as you noted, the problem requires fighting on several fronts. I have heard many people point to education and suggest that it would be almost the magic bullet if only we put enough into that front. I think Mooney was largely reacting to that sentiment.

Depending on how narrowly you define "education," I more or less agree. "Education" could be broad enough to include virtually every effort imaginable to get people more interested in science. If you just mean book-larnin', in school, of a particular rote form, sure -- this won't get it done. However, on that latter, I am strongly in Carl's camp where he marvels (and not in a happy way) that it is possible to graduate from a four-year college without having taken a single math or science course. Generally speaking, I also believe the requirements at the high school level are way too low, too. Or, to put it more positively, when thinking about education policy, I believe that a comparatively small investment of time and effort would pay large dividends. Given where we are now, there's almost no place

The Climatologists can either, have a healthy skepticism about their work, and admit that many predictions they make are barely outside the error bars, Or they can asert there will be catastrophic changes if no changes are made. The problem with being conservative in their esimates, is those with an interest to see no change have no problems with vastly understimating the problem. The mean of what people hear will be shifted towards understating the problems, and lead to inadequate responses. The catostropiohic predictions pathway, will lead to better policy changes, but will also lead to bad science.

Stretching the predictive capabilities of climate models, researchers last week released an unprecedentedly detailedportrait of the impacts of long-term climatechange on the United Kingdom.The projections, produced by scientistsat the Met Office and the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs,run to 2080. They map climate effects to
a resolution of 25 square kilometres, andresolve some weather patterns down to ascale of 5 square kilometres.“Current climate science might support
projections on a scale of a couple ofthousand kilometres, but anything smaller
than that is uncharted territory,” saysUniversity of Oxford climatologist Myles
Allen, who was part of a review committeecommissioned

JonI: I think your challenge of running the models for a decade to see how well the predictions match up with reality is a reasonable-sounding one. To push back a little, I will ask these thought-experiment-type questions: 1. What if the models are not finely-tuned enough to say, e.g., "It is predicted with 99% certainty that in 2015, the average temperature increase will be X."? What if, instead, the current state of the art is such that such precise predictions are not (yet) possible, but the models are thought trustworthy enough by those who analyze them to think trends are indicated and well-enough supported, so that all we can do right now is make a best guess? 2. What if it's the case that the consequences of AGW are not linear, but, say, parabolic in shape? In other words, maybe ten years from now, the predictions call for changes that are small enough that they will be hard to separate out from the noise, and it won't be the case that the signal is unambiguous until things are far worse, and perhaps irrevocably so. 3. Who will judge how well the predictions match with observations, ten years from now? It seems to

Quoting Starwatcher162536: [...] The catostropiohic predictions pathway, will lead to better policy changes, but will also lead to bad science.

Did you see the link to James Hansen's recent post I put up last night? I imagine this would count as another example of what you're talking about, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on what he has to say. [Added] Also note, if you like, the follow-up.

If so few high school science teachers have a background in science and so many with graduate degrees have no prospects of a career in science, isn't the answer pretty obvious? BTW, my nephew, who didn't quite complete his Ph.D. in physics (all but the thesis) asked me if I knew how his physics friends who did finish made their cars go faster? Answer: They take the pizza delivery signs off the roof.

I've always wanted to be different and have unique ideas about things. It's a hard thing to do with all great brains out there but I think on the climate change issue I have achieved that goal. The climate of the earth is changing. The climate is changing as we speak. It was changing ten years ago and ten thousand years ago. It always changes. The reason we have not noted it is that the climate of the earth has been relatively stable for the last ten thousand years, which is roughly coincident with the growth of civilization. Now we have the ability to make measurements and models and we see that climate is changing and that it must be because of us. What bothers me is the assumption that if you question the predictions about and the causes of climate change you are called a denier. Everyone should know that the earth is always changing but apparently that idea has escaped many. These guys certainly didn't mention it. Maybe it's because it happens ever so slowly.

Quoting badhatharry: I've always wanted to be different and have unique ideas about things. It's a hard thing to do with all great brains out there but I think on the climate change issue I have achieved that goal.

The climate of the earth is changing. The climate is changing as we speak. It was changing ten years ago and ten thousand years ago. It always changes. The reason we have not noted it is that the climate of the earth has been relatively stable for the last ten thousand years, which is roughly coincident with the growth of civilization. Now we have the ability to make measurements and models and we see that climate is changing and that it must be because of us.

What bothers me is the assumption that if you question the predictions about and the causes of climate change you are called a denier. Everyone should know that the earth is always changing but apparently that idea has escaped many. These guys certainly didn't mention it. Maybe it's because it happens ever so slowly.

I respectfully suggest that you are making a judgment

Quoting JonIrenicus:

Instead of repeatedly insisting on people reading the work of a hack author who portrays his critics as baby-rapists how about you read about the state of the research? IMO it's more productive for one person to spend time learning what he's writing about then for many people to waste time reading the useless blather of a one-trick pony. He can make a million dollars mixing Frankenstein with Popular Mechanics over and over but that clearly hasn't given him any special insight.

Hansen is the posterboy for a scientist turned activist that can no longer be considered an ideal source. As for the Cap and Trade bill, I do not know enough of the specifics of the bill to have much to say. Ultimately, this is going to come down to how long it takes us to find alternative energy sources that are economically competitive with current practices. Until we do so, we will not get China or India aboard, and anything we do will probably have negligible effects. Note:Until the powers that be start talking about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations, instead of stabilizing emissions, they are just throwing a largely meaningless symbolic bone.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Hansen is the posterboy for a scientist turned activist that can no longer be considered an ideal source.

Agreed, somewhat, although I wonder if you think he's effective in light of what you said earlier about keeping the boundaries of the debate from shifting toward the "not a problem, do nothing" side.

As for the Cap and Trade bill, I do know enough of the specifics of the bill to have much to say.

Ultimately, this is going to come down to how long it takes us to find alternative energy sources that are economically competitive with current practices. Until we do so, we will not get China or India aboard, and anything we do will probably have negligible effects.

Note:Until the powers that be start talking about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations, instead of stabilizing emissions, they are just throwing a largely meaningless symbolic bone.

Not much to disagree with there, although I maintain that the US taking steps to address the problem, even if largely symbolic at the start, is not worthless. This does provide a little extra cred in trying to get China and India on board and makes getting to the next

I'm glad that you have decided to respectfully disagree :-) OK, I do cede that climate change may be in part due to human activity. But my main point continues to be the use of the term climate change to mean human influence on climate. I don't think the term is being used correctly. If we are concerned about science and truth it seems to me that any discussion of climate change should be prefaced by a reference to the fact that climate always changes. What is being put out there is that we have changed a system which is complex and little understood. I know that we know a lot more about climate than we did a hundred years ago, but I think science in many ways is in its infancy. What I believe about climate change doesn't matter. I think we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels largely because we're going to run out of oil one day, it creates pollution and we shouldn't have to rely on the Middle East for our well being. But as far as some group of advisers (all

Until the public at large, increases its overall appetite for science related news, and can therefore support more science journalists which will lead to more specialized journalists, the current state of the profession is unavoidable (Not that I share your level of disdain). It is unreasonable to expect one person to be able to write a good piece (by expert standards) on say, Biomechanical forces promoting embryonic
haematopoiesis one day, and then next week do the same for something that requires a good understanding of The Kondo Effect and Thermistors, and then follow that with an article about Quantum Dots. I am surprised they even get the gist if things right as often as they do (at least the better ones :>) As an aside, I am kind of uncomfortable trying to describe the likeness of different peoples phenotypes by giving some sort of percentage of genotype differences. I mean, even proteins of the exact same chemical identity but different conformations can have different functionality. Perhaps I should stop now, before I put my foot in my mouth, as this isnt my field, and I have no PhD :/

Quoting badhatharry: I know you scoff at my analogies, but here are two...
a)The rating agencies who were to analyze the risks of the banks used models which they admitted before Congress were inadequate and inaccurate.
b)There are people who are against the use of nuclear power because they say the models which predict outcomes are inadequate and inaccurate.

But we are supposed to believe in the models which predict how the planet is going to behave. We can't even get banks or nuclear power right.

The two examples you give are people wanting safeguards in case of something unforeseen. You want to AVOID safeguards in case something unforeseen comes and makes the climate alright. It's like driving everywhere at 150 mph because hey, we can't even model collisions that accurately, so you might be just as safe as the guy going 30.

Quoting badhatharry: [...]
OK, I do cede that climate change may be in part due to human activity. But my main point continues to be the use of the term climate change to mean human influence on climate. I don't think the term is being used correctly. If we are concerned about science and truth it seems to me that any discussion of climate change should be prefaced by a reference to the fact that climate always changes.
[...]

Typically, human induced climate change is refered to as anthropic climate change, which logically implies that the climate does naturally change.

[...]
b)There are people who are against the use of nuclear power because they say the models which predict outcomes are inadequate and inaccurate.

But we are supposed to believe in the models which predict how the planet is going to behave. We can't even get banks or nuclear power right.
[...]

Thats kind of surprising, because we {humans collectively, sadly, I have only a cursory knowledge} understand the nuclear forces, at least the strong nuclear force, pretty damn well.

I am not sure I believe that, sounds like a bad urban myth to me.

Quoting badhatharry: I'm glad that you have decided to respectfully disagree :-)

OK, I do cede that climate change may be in part due to human activity. But my main point continues to be the use of the term climate change to mean human influence on climate. I don't think the term is being used correctly. If we are concerned about science and truth it seems to me that any discussion of climate change should be prefaced by a reference to the fact that climate always changes.

This seems a little nitpicky. In the serious literature, you see terms like "human effects on climate change," "human-induced climate changes," "anthropogenic global warming," and so on. When people say just "climate change," I think you should hear that as verbal shorthand. I grant there are some people who are uninformed enough to think the climate never changed until evil humanity came along and messed it all up, so I guess your protest is not entirely without merit. Here in a setting like this forum, though, we can be fairly certain what's meant by the conventional terms.

What is being put out there is that we have changed a

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am not sure I believe that, sounds like a bad urban myth to me.

WHO CARES IF IT'S TRUE? IT'S A GOOD STORY. ;^) Yeah, I don't know anything about the provenance, but it does jibe with the data, so it is at least illustrative. BTW, Googling "heavy boots" returns this same story as its first hit: an apparent reprint of something that looks like it was first posted on a pre-WWW bulletin board or Usenet, dated "Sat, 22 Feb 92 4:30:5 EST." Reprints appear widely posted elsewhere, too. And, fwiw, Snopes does not have a top-level entry, but it does have lots of relevant discussion in its forums, it appears.

Nuclear power really shows how you can't have your science without dealing with politics. The fact that there are people both (a) against nuclear power and (b) radical AGW believers suggests that it isn't the science that is convincing them. They irrationally think nuclear is dangerous so one can assume that they irrationally believe AGW is dangerous (just because the belief isn't irrational doesn't mean the believers aren't). This ties in with CMs point about politics: liberal fools go to chiropractors and conservative fools go to faith healers. It also supports something that is instinctive anathema to me: you win with good PR rather than good science.

You'd think that this would suggest that we really don't have as big a problem with science as people claim. If science really mattered as much as the scientists want us the believe, the market would take note.

Quoting bjkeefe: Agreed, somewhat, although I wonder if you think he's effective in light of what you said earlier about keeping the boundaries of the debate from shifting toward the "not a problem, do nothing" side.

I am not really sure where I stand, on one hand, yes he does help keep the debate from shifting in that direction, but on the other hand, he makes climatologists, which on the whole are fairly conservative I think, look like alarmists, which makes it easier to for people who for whatever cultural reasons distrust the highly educated, dismiss them.
I would probably have to have a sit down with a sociologist and have him/her explain to me how these various signals propagate through our culture before I could definitively answer your question. P.S.
Is there a limit to how many commas you can have? cause that first sentence is all tied together as one thought in my head.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am not really sure where I stand, on one hand, yes he does help keep the debate from shifting in that direction, but on the other hand, he makes climatologists, which on the whole are fairly conservative I think, look like alarmists, which makes it easier to for people who for whatever cultural reasons distrust the highly educated, dismiss them.

I agree that both possibilities exist. I guess I think that his boundary-maintaining contribution outweighs the possible "eggheads are crazy" drawbacks, for two reasons. First, there is no shortage of people on the denialist side who are more than happy to push their boundary farther out. Many have the best short-term motivation: money. Second, to the degree that distrust of academics exists in someone's mind, it's already there, and I don't see how Hansen makes the problem measurably worse. For such people, just hearing "scientist" or the name of an elite university all by itself flips the switch. Maybe there are a few who are teetering for whom Hansen provides the final push, but my guess is, as I said, that this damage is outweighed by the good he does as a polemicist. But who knows.

I would probably have to have a sit down with a

themightypuck wrote: You'd think that this would suggest that we really don't have as big a problem with science as people claim. If science really mattered as much as the scientists want us the believe, the market would take note. Some people are willing to let the market lead them around by the nose and tell them what is worth thinking about, but not everyone.

Good point but then how do we decide how many scientists we need. It seems like a lot of education for not that much money and then you have the whole h1b thing going on where companies claim they need to bring in cheap labor from overseas because we can't provide it domestically.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... Or, if you have read the IPCC reports and the latest from the US government,...

The question is will we see the latest effort done by our Government Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie

Two episodes highlight the establishment's alarm at the growing influence of this ''counter consensus''. In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy.

And all this from the Administration that was going to remove politics from our science!

Quoting piscivorous: The question is will we see the latest effort done by our Government Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie And all this from the Administration that was going to remove politics from our science!

You can see the report here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mmentsv7b1.pdf
It's not actually science, though, so I'm not sure how it's a response to bjkeefe. It's a political paper arguing that the EPA should do its own research instead of trusting the IPCC. It does try to justify that argument with claims about the data, but those claims aren't based on any new data. I do think it's disturbing that his paper was dropped with so little explanation, especially if evidence comes out that the decision to dump it came from higher up the chain than just his boss. edit: "not actually science" is a little harsh. It's closer to being science than e.g. the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. It's farther than the IPCC reports, which in turn (IIRC how they're made) fall short of a real metastudy

I think eric has a point as far as Mooney is concerned, though. (But I agree, AemJeff, that Zimmer is absolutely top-notch.) The problem is, Mooney is not even really a science writer; he's a political journalist who has happened to write some things about science policy. I think that's why he takes such a reductive, simplitic view of science: he tends to see a manichean struggle between Science, on the one hand, and Stupid anti-Science Conservatives, on the other. He totally ignores the way 'science' is, to a large extent, a culturally defined phenomenon, contingent on a number of historical and social contexts. If anything, I think our public schools have put too much emphasis on math and science, at the expense of (my preferred fields!) of literature & the arts.

Quoting pampl: You can see the report here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...mmentsv7b1.pdf
It's not actually science, though, so I'm not sure how it's a response to bjkeefe. It's a political paper arguing that the EPA should do its own research instead of trusting the IPCC. It does try to justify that argument with claims about the data, but those claims aren't based on any new data. I do think it's disturbing that his paper was dropped with so little explanation, especially if evidence comes out that the decision to dump it came from higher up the chain than just his boss.

I had seen the pdf before and would essentially agree that it, like the IPCC summary report, is essentially a political document. Alan Carlin, a policy analysts, was tasked with reporting on the state of the science upon which policy was being formulated. He saw enough problems with that science to recommend a review and reassessment before projecting trillions of real and secondary costs upon our society. The reason being that the stated "consensus" was having trouble aligning with current data. Ten + years, not one or two, of flat to cooling temperatures may have something to do with the

Quoting piscivorous: The question is will we see the latest effort done by our Government Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie

[...]

And all this from the Administration that was going to remove politics from our science!

Oh, good lord, pisc. This latest shiny object has been thoroughly debunked for weeks now. That guy referred to in your blockquote, Alan Carlin, isn't a climate scientist, he's an economist, who's got a history of being an amateur global warming ... skeptic, shall we say. This habit of his has been going on for years, if not decades, and his submissions have never been accepted by his bosses at work. The writer of the op-ed you link to has his facts wrong: Carlin wasn't asked to write the report as part of his official duties; he did it on his own. And (this'll come as a shock) his report was published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank with a record of AGW denialism, along with selected emails to boost the "suppression" myth. Here's a good report, published July 1st, by Zachary Roth, for which Carlin was interviewed. Excerpts:

Conservatives are jumping up and down over a report by an

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh, good lord, pisc. This latest shiny object has been thoroughly debunked for weeks now.

That guy referred to in your blockquote, Alan Carlin, isn't a climate scientist, he's an economist, who's got a history of being an amateur global warming ... skeptic, shall we say. This habit of his has been going on for years, if not decades, and his submissions have never been accepted by his bosses at work.

The writer of the op-ed you link to has his facts wrong: Carlin wasn't asked to write the report as part of his official duties; he did it on his own.

And (this'll come as a shock) his report was published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank with a record of AGW denialism, along with selected emails to boost the "suppression" myth.

Here's a good report, published July 1st, by Zachary Roth, for which Carlin was interviewed. Excerpts:

More, for example, here and here, and before you start typing about smears and ad hominem and what-not, see here.

It is not "politics" that's keeping the EPA from accepting this clown's "report," it's science.

Another example of the one-way function at work. It takes much longer to refute nonsense than to emit it.

Quoting piscivorous: Alan Carlin, a policy analysts, was tasked with reporting ...

Untrue. See my other response to you.

P.S. there is no arguing the science with BJ because all the science that disagrees with the "consensus" is done by nefarious scientists in the employ of big oil and coal.

You haven't ever shown me any science. You are forever linking to op-eds that serve up rehashed nonsense. They are not written by scientists, and they tend not even to refer to the work of scientists (at least not ones with relevant expertise). Or where they do, they tend to quote out of context, cherry-pick, or find the one guy on the planet who doesn't agree with the established work. Every time AGW comes up in a thread, it's the same routine. You link to something useless, make a smarmy remark or two, especially if it lets you get in a dig about Obama, I show why what you've linked to is not credible, you whine about ad hominem attacks and then try to make it about me. You're a complete crank on this subject.

Quoting claymisher: Another example of the one-way function at work. It takes much longer to refute nonsense than to emit it.

Yep. But I'm hoping the practice will increase efficiency.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Factiods are overrated. Far more important is having a healthy measure of critical thinking, sadly, both things are hard to measure objectively, and still harder to cultivate in others.

I don't really see how that is relevant to the discusiion at hand. How useful some attribute is in the general population, is in many cases independent, from how useful a proffesional specilizing in said attribute is.

Do you have a sense of humor? Philosophers are completely useless....as are many scientists, whose research is of no interest to anyone. In any case, I don't see unemployed PH.Ds in philosophy rushing to teach in American high schools, any more than I see hordes of unemployed Ph.Ds in the sciences rushing to teach 10th grade physics. Which is really too bad because "critical thinking" would be measurably improved if American secondary school teachers were better qualified. Maybe it can't be measured, as you say, but what can be measured---factoids---isn't worth measuring.

Quoting Francoamerican: Do you have a sense of humor? Philosophers are completely useless....as are many scientists, whose research is of no interest to anyone.

That's an awfully functional, direct view of the world. I think I prefer the view that the invention of empiricism (among other things) justifies the existence of a million paper-writing drones whose views never see the light of day. And the idea that scientific research ought to be directly interesting, to someone other than the investigator, before it has any value is related to the analogous view of mathematics. The threads are followed regardless of utility, because you don't know when, for existence Riemann's tensors (who needed that?) lead to a framework for general relativity; or, some biologist playing with phosphorescence who stumbles onto some entirely new medical diagnostic technique, as examples. I admit to lacking a fine enough sense of humor to see the joke you allude to here.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here's a good report, published July 1st, by Zachary Roth, for which Carlin was interviewed. Excerpts:

Oh, that makes it sound much less disturbing. Now I feel dumb for not keeping up on this before shooting my mouth (fingers?) off :/

Quoting AemJeff: That's an awfully functional, direct view of the world. I think I prefer the view that the invention of empiricism (among other things) justifies the existence of a million paper-writing drones whose views never see the light of day. And the idea that scientific research ought to be directly interesting, to someone other than the investigator, before it has any value is related to the analogous view of mathematics. The threads are followed regardless of utility, because you don't know when, for existence Riemann's tensors (who needed that?) lead to a framework for general relativity; or, some biologist playing with phosphorescence who stumbles onto some entirely new medical diagnostic technique, as examples.

I admit to lacking a fine enough sense of humor to see the joke you allude to here.

I don't know much about philosophy. It seems to me it's best at knocking down older philosophies and replacing them with less. Maybe the end point for philosophy is no philosophy. As for science, did you know that for a long-time mathematicians thought negative numbers were a pointless toy? Today's crank could be tomorrow's genius. Which makes today's cranks all the more maddening. The genius of

Quoting AemJeff: That's an awfully functional, direct view of the world. I think I prefer the view that the invention of empiricism (among other things) justifies the existence of a million paper-writing drones whose views never see the light of day. And the idea that scientific research ought to be directly interesting, to someone other than the investigator, before it has any value is related to the analogous view of mathematics. The threads are followed regardless of utility, because you don't know when, for existence Riemann's tensors (who needed that?) lead to a framework for general relativity; or, some biologist playing with phosphorescence who stumbles onto some entirely new medical diagnostic technique, as examples.

I admit to lacking a fine enough sense of humor to see the joke you allude to here.

I didn't intend to belittle scientific research. I do think, though, that a sense of proportion is in order here: there is an awful lot of humdrum, boring research in the natural sciences that interests no one but a few kindred souls in the same small field (ditto for the humanities where the word research is probably a joke anyway). The number of researchers has grown

The "Big Bucks" are in the Defense (Military-Industrial Complex?) or the Pharmaceutical (Medico-Insurance-Industrial Complex?) industries, not in Education.

Quoting pampl: Oh, that makes it sound much less disturbing. Now I feel dumb for not keeping up on this before shooting my mouth (fingers?) off :/

No prob. The accusation of suppression of a dissenting view is one that has great resonance, especially given the previous Administration. Thanks for reading the rebuttal and for acknowledging.

Thanks Starwatcher for this: Typically, human induced climate change is referred to as anthropic climate change, which logically implies that the climate does naturally change. I agree that this term, which I will heretofore use, implicitly states that climate change exists without human influence. I just think that this implication is rarely expressed. Do you think that the models being used are able to incorporate non-human induced climate change? Everyone talks about the industrial age as being the beginning of said change but do the models accurately describe what would have occurred had the industrial revolution never happened? Is it possible that the climate would have changed nevertheless? Perhaps someone could point me to some article which addresses this question directly because this really interests me. Pampl wrote: The two examples you give are people wanting safeguards in case of something unforeseen. You want to AVOID safeguards in case something unforeseen comes and makes the climate alright. It's like driving everywhere at 150 mph because hey, we can't even model collisions that accurately, so you might be just as safe as the guy going 30. I don't understand this criticism of my examples. In the

Quoting claymisher: ... did you know that for a long-time mathematicians thought negative numbers were a pointless toy?

As an aside, I've always enjoyed how new number fields have been given somewhat pejorative names: negative, irrational, imaginary.

Quoting themightypuck: They irrationally think nuclear is dangerous so one can assume that they irrationally believe AGW is dangerous

Ask any nuclear engineer: nuclear is dangerous. If done well (seems like France has it down) it's worth the risk tradeoff. But it ain't wind power.

Quoting bjkeefe: JonI:

I think your challenge of running the models for a decade to see how well the predictions match up with reality is a reasonable-sounding one. To push back a little, I will ask these thought-experiment-type questions:

1. What if the models are not finely-tuned enough to say, e.g., "It is predicted with 99% certainty that in 2015, the average temperature increase will be X."? What if, instead, the current state of the art is such that such precise predictions are not (yet) possible, but the models are thought trustworthy enough by those who analyze them to think trends are indicated and well-enough supported, so that all we can do right now is make a best guess?

I would not be a stickler when it came to lining up to computer models to reality perfectly, and I am not sure exactly what a fair test and fair error margin would be, but if something reasonable was presented (whatever reasonable is) then I would go along with it.

2. What if it's the case that the consequences of AGW are not linear, but, say, parabolic in shape? In other words, maybe ten years from now, the predictions call for changes that are small enough

Even though I'm in the full-blown panic camp on the AGW issue, I don't have a lot of faith in climate models. It's just too damn hard! I'm happy they're working at it and I'm sure they'll better and better at it all the time. But I don't think the case for AGW depends too much on the models. For me the issue is just the incredible scale of what we're doing to the climate: I'm pretty sure this is what's freaking out the climate scientists too. And where's this going to stop? 400ppm? 800ppm? What? The burden of proof ought to be on the climate deniers to explain the science of how we could fundamentally change the atmosphere this much without screwing it up.

I'm working on a thesis involving "douchebag" numbers, as we speak ;-)

Quoting JonIrenicus: [...]

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. We are not really that far apart, when all is said and done. Of course I do not advocate panicked and/or wasteful spending on mitigation attempts. My view is that we could do a lot, starting now, that wouldn't cost much when viewed as an investment for the medium and long term, and that the things that I favor doing now have other benefits, even if the most dire predictions about AGW turn out not to be correct. We differ somewhat in how we evaluate the strength of consensus about the possible consequences. There's nothing more that I can think of to say about that. I suppose we also differ somewhat on how seriously we ought to take the scarier predictions, even if they aren't perfectly well proven. As I have said elsewhere, I view a program of mitigating steps as an ongoing process that we can and should start now, while research continues. I do not see embarking on this program as a once-and-for-all irrevocable commitment to spending a bajillion dollars. We can stop or ramp down spending at any time, if that's what further research turns out

Bjkeefe said:
"We can stop or ramp down spending at any time, if that's what further research turns out to recommend." If only that were possible. However, government programs don't respond as easily as you are intimating. That's, I think, at the core of a lot of people's trepidation about a world-wide program. We're talking a bajillion dollars on the first day. Also, and I hate to sound cynical (really I do!), folks who have based their education and job security and investments on this project aren't going to be so keen on experiencing down-ramping of any kind. Hell, they might even be tempted to say the models are wrong!!

I should have said "they have an irrational idea of the extent of the danger." Everything involves tradeoffs. Just look at cars. You have the direct impact of accidents and then you have the indirect impact on people with respiratory problems. Then you have carbon. I don't think very many people would argue against wind and solar as the way to go in the future, thus, if we wait long enough, we will forget the irrationality of the anti-nuclear crowd.

Quoting badhatharry: Bjkeefe said:
"We can stop or ramp down spending at any time, if that's what further research turns out to recommend."

If only that were possible. However, government programs don't respond as easily as you are intimating. That's, I think, at the core of a lot of people's trepidation about a world-wide program. We're talking a bajillion dollars on the first day. Also, and I hate to sound cynical (really I do!), folks who have based their education and job security and investments on this project aren't going to be so keen on experiencing down-ramping of any kind.

Hell, they might even be tempted to say the models are wrong!!

All somewhat legitimate worries, but we do have budget processes at both government and academic levels, typically annually, and though they may not respond instantaneously, they eventually will. Hell, as far as the government one goes, the Republicans could run on this issue alone, if it turns out to be that obvious, and once they got control of the White House or either house of Congress back, that'd be the end of it. To worry about it much beyond that -- e.g., a cover-up by academics -- seems close to believing in

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I'm working on a thesis involving "douchebag" numbers, as we speak ;-)

Do tell! Is 3.2 one of them?

Quoting bjkeefe: All somewhat legitimate worries, but we do have budget processes at both government and academic levels, typically annually, and though they may not respond instantaneously, they eventually will. Hell, as far as the government one goes, the Republicans could run on this issue alone, if it turns out to be that obvious, and once they got control of the White House or either house of Congress back, that'd be the end of it. To worry about it much beyond that -- e.g., a cover-up by academics -- seems close to believing in a conspiracy theory, it seems to me.

I don't agree that we're planning to spend a "bajillion dollars on the first day," and, as I've said before, I don't view all dollars spent on AGW mitigation as wasteful (if it turns out the models are wrong). I'll grant cap and trade seems like a bit of a mess at first glance, but I've heard good arguments in favor of it, too (e.g.), and I'm happy that we're at least trying to get started.

I agree. Just setting the precedent of establishing a clear policy of doing something actively is a necessary step. The worry that having done "something," politicians

Quoting AemJeff: I agree. Just setting the precedent of establishing a clear policy of doing something actively is a necessary step. The worry that having done "something," politicians will feel as if they're now off the hook, as a consequence, is legitimate; but I'm happy to finally see concrete proposals set into legislation.

Yes, the "Problem solved! We're done!" aspect worries me, too. But it seems like an understandable trade-off, in light of the political impossibility of passing the bill I would have liked to see.

Listening to the first part of the diavlog, I was wondering whether the real problem isn't that people aren't educated enough about specific things like evolutionary biology or climate science, but that their bullshit detectors aren't strong enough. Maybe that's what folks who want to encourage scientific literacy should focus on. I'm imagining a series of PSAs: Scene: A coffee shop in an upscale urban neighborhood. Three chic, professional women are sitting at a table outside, chatting.
Woman 1: I can't believe you let Jack get that vaccine! Didn't you know?
Woman 2: Know what?
Woman 3: Yeah...don't they say the MMR vaccine causes mental problems or something?
Woman 1: It's full of mercury and antifreeze and things like that. It overloads the child's immune system! You know, our grandparents never got those vaccines back in the day, and THEY were just fine.
(Camera zooms in on Woman 2's face. She looks startled. Then screen goes black. Title: IS YOUR BRAIN ON?)
Woman 2: (dubious) Oh, come on. Babies used to die of things like measles and mumps back in the day all the time! And so many kids at Jack's preschool have parents who believe in this stuff so they're not vaccinated. It happened in California last year -- one kid brought

You can't use the "keep your brain on" thing but otherwise I think it is good.

TO BJKEEFE: Don't worry, this problem will never be solved. So I read the link and it all sounds very rosy. In fact it makes me believe there will be absolutely no problems with cap and trade. Like this sunny statement: "But unlike a lot of public policies in many domains, when they go through this process of the horse trading, of building a political constituency with a cap-and-trade system, it does not degrade the efficacy of the system. It doesn't degrade the impact of the policy, nor does it drive up its cost. And that's a remarkable property." So I guess there will be no cost in oversight and implementation. Please! What this means is another huge campus of buildings in Washington and lots of little campuses of municipal buildings full of clerks with PhDs in English lit or maybe psychics, playing overseer. This worked so well at the OTS while the banks were busy selling toxic loans to investors. We all know this is going to cost....a lot. "they've allocated the allowances to the local distribution companies, who will then pass on these cost savings to consumers." That's what we love to hear...savings

Quoting kezboard: [...]

Nice. YouTube it. @tmp: Why can't kez use "Is your brain on?"

Quoting badhatharry: So I guess there will be no cost in oversight and implementation.

Bound to be some. I don't know how bad they'll need to be, though, and I'm willing to pay some administrative overhead if the program works. (Maybe we could take out of the DoD's budget?)

Quoting badhatharry: I liked the article. Should we discuss the Goldman Sachs-cap and trade connection?

I've already mentioned why the financial services industry and dealing with climate change don't strike me as particularly analogous. It would seem more relevant to discuss other cap and trade programs. As I've mentioned somewhere else, I think, as I remember it, the cap and trade instituted during the Bush 41 and Clinton years, which was designed to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, seemed to work out pretty well. I'm not at all up on the details, but I do know I never hear about the problem of acid rain in the US anymore. (Likely looking links here, if you're interested.)

Because it is bad advertising. You can't tell your customers they are idiots.

Quoting themightypuck: Because it is bad advertising. You can't tell your customers they are idiots.

Eh, I don't buy that. First of all, kez is indicating that the woman is capable of thought. Second, lots of ads have as a conceit someone being clueless at the start and informed at the end.

I'm just sayin'. Try it if you think it will play.

Bjkeefe said: I've already mentioned why the financial services industry and dealing with climate change don't strike me as particularly analogous. . Not analagous with, in bed with.... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...Trade-Not-Us.- But never mind the cost we're saving the planet! Geez!

Quoting badhatharry: Bjkeefe said:

I've already mentioned why the financial services industry and dealing with climate change don't strike me as particularly analogous. .

Not analagous with, in bed with....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...Trade-Not-Us.-

Sorry, but I'm not up to looking into cap-and-trade in enough detail to provide a worthwhile rebuttal. Part of the lack of motivation comes, as I've said before, from my initial instinct that it seems unnecessarily unwieldy and possibly more inefficient, compared to a straight carbon tax plan. As I've also said, sometimes you have to acknowledge that politics is the art of the possible. Here, it is unlikely that a straight carbon tax would pass, due to Republican zealotry and Democratic spinelessness. I can only hope that this bill is a good first step, and that the C&T plan will work in the way that C&T worked to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.

But never mind the cost we're saving the planet! Geez!

That's too simplistic a statement, but to some degree, that is my philosophy. There are no free lunches. We've made a mess and we're going to have to do something about it. So, I say, mind the costs, but I accept that we're going to have some.

In addition to the Spanish study I provided links to be fore here is some anecdotal evidence that green means dollars and I do mean lots of dollars. Austin's clean energy program costing more, selling less

Quoting piscivorous: In addition to the Spanish study I provided links to be fore here is some anecdotal evidence that green means dollars and I do mean lots of dollars. Austin's clean energy program costing more, selling less

Yep. Growing pains and transition pains. No one said it would be smooth and easy. Remember that we did not get (fossil fuel generated) electricity to every house in the country overnight, nor was it as cheap at the outset as it is now. Also, I would not characterize $58/month for a typical household as "and I do mean lots of dollars." It's not nothing, but it's not back-breaking, and it could be driven down by people changing their light bulbs and other habits. Also, it's impossible to say from the article what percentage increase this represents. Is it a doubling? Or is it, say, 20%? Running central air conditioning for a whole house in Texas probably means an electric bill already well into three figures. (Where is our woman in Austin when we need her?) Finally, note that $58/month/house is what it costs to join the optional program. If everyone in the city was kicking in, if I'm reading the article right, that

My average electric bill is around $140/month. So another 58 USD would be fairly signifigant price hike. {Edit:I live in central Texas.} As for Wind Farm construction costs, they are currently about 310 Million for a 200MW (Nameplate, not nominal) windfarm. I am told, with current PPA agreements, an owner can expect to break even in about 12 years (without subsidies).

Quoting Starwatcher162536: My average electric bill is around $140/month. So another 58 USD would be fairly signifigant price hike. {Edit:I live in central Texas.}

As for Wind Farm construction costs, they are currently about 310 Million for a 200MW (Nameplate, not nominal) windfarm.

I am told, with current PPA agreements, an owner can expect to break even in about 12 years (without subsidies).

Thanks for the data.

Here, How Wind Power Works, is an article that places costs for various types of power generation. I see on a fairly consistent basis the cost of 1-2 million dollars per MW of power for the construction of wind farms. There are a few troubles with this straight forward price. First it is generally not inclusive of the transmission infrastructure that it will likely be necessary to build to carry the power to where it is actually consumed. So in many instances you can double, triple even quadruple the cost of installing the wind mills. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that there is often some of these carrying cost for all new power plants. But as coal, gas, or nuclear plants can often be sited closer to the consumers the infrastructure upgrade costs will generally be less. Second this is a quote of the cost per peek MW performance of the installed turbines. In reality you will notice that for base power computations wind power is rated at about 25% of peek. This means that a wind farm can only counted on producing the rated peek about

Market forces ain't right: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=sec-business Boone Pickens is apparently also a thief: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...fM2LwD99EDCT00

Since this seems to turned into an energy thread, here is a study on Biodiesal I have been promising myself to read through. Here is a somewhat extensive report