WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[vz71]

My friend lives up in Nunavut Territory – the tundra area on the map above – I think on Ellesmere Island or some place close to that (I’ve lost contact with him). I believe what he said about the arctic area in which he lives, but he could be wrong, I suppose.

I know another poster here also disagrees with me as well, and says even if the soil is not good for agriculture, we can make it good for such when the time comes. Though I imagine would be a lot of work and (name removed by moderator)ut. By that time (in a few centuries if the warming continues and is increased by the “methane shotgun”) it could be that hydrogen sulfide will be outgassing and killing off life and making survival difficult.

See this is the issue here.
Sweeping generalizations made about a topic in which you really do not know.

Canada, and the ability to farm there is just the latest in a long series of errors.

You go so far as to claim those that do not follow your example concerning the environment are sinning. Even though all you have is a blind faith in a theory that has failed to line up with its own predictions for the past couple of decades.

Your evidence is lacking.

 

[lynnvinc]

This is a LIE.
The ‘skeptics’ haven’t proposed a model that predicts, they argue the evidence supports natural variation and more research is required for us to correctly forecast climate change. The best predictive model I’ve seen is a harmonics model using expertise from modeling planetary systems.

I told no lie. Someone here asked what would convince ME that AGW is not happening, and I said temps going back down to pre-70s levels for 30 years.

Because I’m NOT a climate scientist, but a person concerned about life on earth, I strive to avoid the false negative of failing to address a true and very dangerous problem. We also have insurance policies. Just consider me prudent and conservative on this. Also, even if AGW were to be disproven conclusively to my satisfaction, I would still mitigate it, since doing so saves me lots of money and mitigates a host of other problems – it’s just the right thing to do.

I don’t really know what would convince climate scientists that AGW is not happening, but I do know it took them decades to say it was happening.

Hansen committed scientific fraud with his data manipulation.
Blue - raw data
Red - Hansen’s manipulation
http://84rules.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/tempgraph01.jpg?w=468&h=250

I can’t even make out the years on that chart or where it came from or what it is about.

However, do note that weather data is always “manipulated,” often in a way that gives lower (not higher) temps…such as when they figure the urban heat island effect may make the temps look higher than they would be without that. And they go back and revise past data, using the same new and better techniques that they are using on newer data for the sake of consistency. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with doing that.

You slander Hansen viciously and maliciously without knowing what you’re talking about.

He also did not predict the ocean’s were cycling between heat absorption and release, as several Pause excuses now postulate.

I didn’t claim that Hansen made that claim back in 1981 re ocean heat absorption cycling (they probably didn’t know much about that at the time), only that he understood, as most people here do not, that the ocean, even deeper levels, can absorb heat and that the total earth energy imbalance can play out in various spheres, not just the atmosphere or sea surface temps. And with that understanding he made various high-end and low-end projections, with even his middle projection lower than the reality that has happened, stating there were uncertainties re the ocean’s role re mixing and thermocline. For 1981, that is pretty good science and caution with the data.

I guess you want blood.

 

[vz71]

Also, even if AGW were to be disproven conclusively to my satisfaction, I would still mitigate it, since doing so saves me lots of money and mitigates a host of other problems – it’s just the right thing to do.

This makes no sense.

You can only mitigate something that is happening or will happen.

 

[lynnvinc]

See this is the issue here.
Sweeping generalizations made about a topic in which you really do not know.

Canada, and the ability to farm there is just the latest in a long series of errors.

You go so far as to claim those that do not follow your example concerning the environment are sinning. Even though all you have is a blind faith in a theory that has failed to line up with its own predictions for the past couple of decades.

Your evidence is lacking.

They are not yet even farming in the place where my friend lives, aside from in greenhouses. The area is not even on the map Weller provided, but north of that.

The issue was if AGW persists and reduces food production in the US, then we could look to Canada. And perhaps that might apply to many parts of Canada, but not necessarily to where the soil is now frozen hard and organic matter has not been able to decompose well over the centuries and millennia, as it has in other areas – tundra areas, where as the warming continues will be releasing out lots of methane into the atmosphere, causing more warming, more carbon release, more warming and so on.

Maybe those poor soil areas can be enriched, but right now, acc to what my friend told me, they would be too poor for agriculture even if AGW were to make the climate hospitable for agriculture sometime in the future.

But – here’s an idea – people could use pyrolysis to make bio-char, drawing down CO2, then use it as a soil amendment in areas of poor soil.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wheat production has to be moved to Canada… oh wat, it can’t, because the Canadian land has been irreleversibly polluted by strip mining for tar sands.

Huh?

Canada has 43 million hectares of arable land (approximately one-quarter that of the U.S.) Arable land makes up about 7.9% of Canada’s total land mass. To date only 0.7% of Canada’s total land area is productive farmland. Essentially, that means Canada could bring into production over time the remaining 7.2% of its land mass.

The surface mineable area of the tar sands region is 475,000 hectares. That is just over 1% of Canada’s total arable land. I am not clear how “irreversibly polluting” 1% of its arable land will effectively destroy productivity on the remaining 98.9% of the potentially productive land mass. Perhaps you could explain that to me. Thanks.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wheat production has to be moved to Canada… oh wat, it can’t, because the Canadian land has been irreleversibly polluted by strip mining for tar sands.

Note: You do realize that Canada’s wheat production (27.9 million metric tons) is currently 7th in the world (U.S. is 3rd) and almost half of that of the U.S. 61.3 million metric tons?

Recall that Canada currently uses only about 10% of its arable land.

 

[A_Augustinus]

This thread and others like it on this board can easily look like that. The participants who are most passionate are also more vocal. What I try to do is parse out the non-repeating arguments to reveal more points of view. I am fortunate that I have a lot of contacts in the science and technical community, a lot of which are of the pro AGW persuasion and in a climate science field (large lab east of San Francisco) , but not all. We manage to agree to disagree in most cases, and in all cases we admit that there is a huge amount of uncertainty still swirling around the attribution discussion. It is only in these public forums that I encounter the strange phenomena of “uncontested certainty.”

The proxy battle ground is difficult to deal with. To unfold the science from the “social justice” or “environmental stewardship” discussions is difficult due to this being a Catholic board. Never the less, they probably should have their own board entries. The problem of the “ideological battle ground” was set fast by the decision of professional researchers to engage in political activism, supported by their employers.

AGW receives more attention via the media, government and communities than abortion, poverty, or civil rights, perhaps combined. I think that the pro AGW movement is hampered by multiple competing ideologies and interest groups. The only way they can “win” is by the largest and strongest ideology effectively silencing competing ideologies. But this may result in the directed technocracy I mentioned earlier. My question today is, do any of the players want to win by “the ends justify the means” method? This represents a threat to open research, as well as a moral hazard. The debate needs to look less like a George Pal movie, and more like a civil discussion.

I completely agree with everything you said. I do think that climate scientists who have decided to engage in activism bear a good deal of blame for the science becoming an ideological battleground. In most cases, they sincerely believe that the scientific results are serious and warrant an immediate government response to regulate CO2. But as a result, they use the science to argue for their policy objectives. Those who disagree with their policy objectives begin disputing the science. In doing so, the opponents implicitly accept the premise that the science necessitates immediate government action. Otherwise, why not argue against the policy on other grounds? In my view, the economic argument is far more tenable than trying to argue that CO2 will not cause any warming (or any significant warming).

 

[A_Augustinus]

Short term being the operative word here. Because the climatic response to CO2 forcing is delayed, the adaptiation will actually have to be done by your grandchildren. Yes, short term, you are getting all the profit from burning carbon, and long term your grandchildren are getting all the cost. Wonderful deal, isn’t it?

Besides, there are limits to adaptation. Here, have a map:

[snip]

Assume that the climate warms by 5C, which is roughly 10F. The climate in Texas is now like in today’s Death Valley (a.k.a. desert, so no more ranching). Climate in the US bread basket around the Kansas City is now like today’s southern states, so Kansas City becomes a major hub of cotton production. Wheat production has to be moved to Canada… oh wat, it can’t, because the Canadian land has been irreleversibly polluted by strip mining for tar sands.

I agree that the climate response to CO2 forcing is slow, and our choices now will affect people for a long time to come. But the cost/benefit analysis is not as simple as us vs. the later generations. I’ve often heard the statement “Climate change will cause disastrous impacts, and the poor will bear the brunt of them.” But the fact is that the kinds of actions required to stabilize CO2 concentrations will have massive economic impacts, and the brunt of those impacts will also affect the poorest people.

Developing countries are producing an increasing percentage of worldwide CO2 emissions because carbon-intensive energy is relatively cheap and easy to implement. If we want to stabilize CO2 concentrations, developing countries will need to close most of their coal power plants, stop driving cars, and close carbon-intensive industries. They can’t afford cleaner alternatives like we can. As a result people in developing countries will have fewer opportunities to raise their quality of life. Then, as the climate continues to warm (which will continue to happen for a while, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately due to the slow response time of the climate system), developing countries will be ill-equipped to deal with any impacts.

In all honesty, I think it’s a better idea to allow people to make use of cheap energy and develop their economies and their quality of life. Then they will be better equipped to face the future.

I don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of the economic research on climate change, but I’ve read a few things over the years that suggest that economic studies generally do not support drastic actions to curtail CO2 emissions. For example, I read a summary of an economic modelling study which indicated that the Kyoto protocol was probably too aggressive from a cost/benefit perspective (even including the possibility of more frequent extreme weather events in a warmer climate). In general, my understanding is that in order to justify the kinds of actions that will stabilize CO2, you need to inflate the normal discount rate to a historically untenable level. Various people have justified a high discount rate on social justice grounds, but that’s certainly open for debate.

 

[lynnvinc]

I completely agree with everything you said. I do think that climate scientists who have decided to engage in activism bear a good deal of blame for the science becoming an ideological battleground. In most cases, they sincerely believe that the scientific results are serious and warrant an immediate government response to regulate CO2. But as a result, they use the science to argue for their policy objectives. Those who disagree with their policy objectives begin disputing the science. In doing so, the opponents implicitly accept the premise that the science necessitates immediate government action. Otherwise, why not argue against the policy on other grounds? In my view, the economic argument is far more tenable than trying to argue that CO2 will not cause any warming (or any significant warming).

Climate scientists have children and grandchildren. They are human, and they are becoming more and more willing to take any flack, harassment, and death threats contrarians lob at them. I’m willing to take it for the sake of the life of the world.

It’s way beyond economics and politics. It’s about life.

However, if people were to sincerely strive to reduce their GHG emissions, they’d find it also an economic boon to them and to the economy. That’s just icing on the cake, not the main life issue.

There was a huge contingent of the 400,000 people strong Climate March in NYC today from labor unions. They are now beginning to understand that mitigating AGW is good for jobs and good for the economy.

I just wish others would take 1 or 2 baby steps in that direction and come to that same realization. (It’s only the fossil fuel companies that might lose, and that is only if they refuse to diversify their portfolio, while the general economy and other sectors gain.)

Why not give life on into the future a chance by mitigating AGW…just on a trial basis. If I’m wrong, sue me

 

[Tony_Micelli]

There is expected an encyclical from the Holy Father on Ecology which concerns him very much. I expect no small part to focus on the ethics of responding to AGW but also deforestation. But like the social encyclicals, right-wing pundits will say this is up to prudential judgement and will be largely ignored, just like the left-wing when it ignores the church’s teaching on abortion and marriage. In both cases, there is an attempt to make certain subjects autonomous from church teaching.

 

[lynnvinc]

This makes no sense.

You can only mitigate something that is happening or will happen.

Sorry to say, but nothing you or others here have to say will dissuade me from Reducing, Reusing, Recycling, buying Recycled, going on Alt Energy, becoming resource & energy efficient and conservative – a path I got on because of my desire to reduce my contributions to harmful AGW impacts on people around the world, esp in poor countries. Even if somehow AGW were to now end (or they were to find it had never been happening), I’d still stick to that path.

I’m just saving too much money doing so, and I have my retirement within a year to consider. I absolutely refuse to get onto a profligate, wasteful, polluting path, no matter what y’all say.

Y’all do whatever you think best, and I’ll do what I think best

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Also I think this “warming going into the deeper oceans” is mainly in the Atlantic (not sure), which may also be why Atlantic hurricanes are not so prominent this year, as high sea-surface temps are a necessary condition for them to form.

The recent study about the “missing” heat going into the North Atlantic or whatever may be overstated because there are other papers that show this heat had been going into the Western Pacific from increased trade winds. Basically, La Niña/negative PDO is taking heat from the atmosphere and moving it deeper into the oceans. I’m no expert on climate science but I know an expert on methane hydrates at the USGS and a very knowledgable geophysicist at work who has done hydrate research.

 

[Theo520]

I told no lie. Someone here asked what would convince ME that AGW is not happening, and I said temps going back down to pre-70s levels for 30 years.

It’s not logical to deny what everyone can see you posted. You said "I (Lynn) think that’s actually what the skeptics had predicted and they are WAY WRONG compared to climate scientists",

I then called you out but you denied what is clearly posted. I’ll repeat, SKEPTICS deny the IPCC models have been validated by measurement, but they don’t deny basic physics, nor do they claim the ability to predict nature at this time.

Because I’m NOT a climate scientist, but a person concerned about life on earth, I strive to avoid the false negative of failing to address a true and very dangerous problem. We also have insurance policies. Just consider me prudent and conservative on this. Also, even if AGW were to be disproven conclusively to my satisfaction, I would still mitigate it, since doing so saves me lots of money and mitigates a host of other problems – it’s just the right thing to do.

To be clear, you are aware a False Negative is proof the scientific model or the medical test is faulty and has failed the scientific method. With the IPCC, I expect in the future they will have new models with drastically different feedback modifiers and multipliers. The role of CO2 will be marginalized as other factors are better understood.

I don’t really know what would convince climate scientists that AGW is not happening, but I do know it took them decades to say it was happening.

Please don’t postulate a strawman. Nobody is denying man impacts the environment. It’s the degree of impact vs natural variation that is in dispute. The climate scientists are hardly in agreement here with the CO2 multiplier pegged somewhere between 1.5 and 9.

I can’t even make out the years on that chart or where it came from or what it is about.

The measured USHCN daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. But before they released it to the public, they put it thorough a series of adjustments which changed it from a cooling trend to a warming trend.

However, do note that weather data is always “manipulated,” often in a way that gives lower (not higher) temps…such as when they figure the urban heat island effect may make the temps look higher than they would be without that. And they go back and revise past data, using the same new and better techniques that they are using on newer data for the sake of consistency. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with doing that.

You slander Hansen viciously and maliciously without knowing what you’re talking about.

Please back up your statement that most manipulation has been to lower recent temperature measurements.

The way Hansen/GISS ‘homogenized’ data to create the hockey stick* IS SCIENTIFIC FRAUD*. It’s fairly clear they will also lose his lawsuit as well.

I didn’t claim that Hansen made that claim back in 1981 re ocean heat absorption cycling (they probably didn’t know much about that at the time), only that he understood, as most people here do not, that the ocean, even deeper levels, can absorb heat and that the total earth energy imbalance can play out in various spheres, not just the atmosphere or sea surface temps. And with that understanding he made various high-end and low-end projections, with even his middle projection lower than the reality that has happened, stating there were uncertainties re the ocean’s role re mixing and thermocline. For 1981, that is pretty good science and caution with the data.

Then it’s dishonest to make allusions that Hansen got something right, when he wasn’t even in the ballpark. His heatsink assumptions are useless based on current model postulations. It’s about like looking at a broken clock twice a day (at the time it broke), and then commend how it’s still reasonable accurate

 

[A_Augustinus]

The climate scientists are hardly in agreement here with the CO2 multiplier pegged somewhere between 1.5 and 9.

There is a range of uncertainty, but I get the impression that the probability distribution centers around 3-4 C. The extreme values in the tails of the distribution are far less likely. That prediction may turn out to be wrong, but it seems inaccurate to imply that anything between 1.5 and 9 C is equally likely.

 

[A_Augustinus]

Climate scientists have children and grandchildren. They are human, and they are becoming more and more willing to take any flack, harassment, and death threats contrarians lob at them. I’m willing to take it for the sake of the life of the world.

It’s way beyond economics and politics. It’s about life.

However, if people were to sincerely strive to reduce their GHG emissions, they’d find it also an economic boon to them and to the economy. That’s just icing on the cake, not the main life issue.

There was a huge contingent of the 400,000 people strong Climate March in NYC today from labor unions. They are now beginning to understand that mitigating AGW is good for jobs and good for the economy.

I just wish others would take 1 or 2 baby steps in that direction and come to that same realization. (It’s only the fossil fuel companies that might lose, and that is only if they refuse to diversify their portfolio, while the general economy and other sectors gain.)

Why not give life on into the future a chance by mitigating AGW…just on a trial basis. If I’m wrong, sue me

I really appreciate your sincerity. You’re right. Many scientists are genuinely worried about what will happen if CO2 continues to increase. It’s a valid worry, in my opinion. But the challenges of stabilizing CO2 near current levels are staggering. We can take steps to reduce CO2 emissions, and as you say, some of those steps are actually cost-saving measures. Using compact fluorescent lights (CFL) as opposed to incandescent bulbs is cheaper, and it uses less CO2. Riding the bus instead of driving a car can be cheaper too. But even if you got everyone to make those changes, they would be a drop in the bucket. They would have very little impact on future warming.

The changes that would be required to stabilize CO2 would be far more drastic. About 67% of electricity in the US comes from fossil fuels (source: Energy Information Administration) We would have to convert 67% of our power generation over to renewable technologies in very short order. That would be unbelievably costly, and perhaps not possible with current technologies. Other countries, who are far less wealthy than the US, would need to do the same. According to the EIA, about 91% of Chinese electricity is generated by fossil fuels. China would nearly need to start from scratch and build an entirely new power generation infrastructure. The cost of doing that would be staggering. If China simply shut down its fossil fuel generating plants, a lot of its people would be plunged back into poverty.

There are massive human impacts to stabilizing CO2 near current levels. There is no way to get around it. This is not a question of changing a few habits and cutting energy use at the margins. This is a question of rebuilding electricity infrastructure from scratch.

 

[vz71]

Also, even if AGW were to be disproven conclusively to my satisfaction, I would still mitigate it, since doing so saves me lots of money and mitigates a host of other problems – it’s just the right thing to do.

This makes no sense.

You can only mitigate something that is happening or will happen.

Sorry to say, but nothing you or others here have to say will dissuade me from Reducing, Reusing, Recycling, buying Recycled, going on Alt Energy, becoming resource & energy efficient and conservative – a path I got on because of my desire to reduce my contributions to harmful AGW impacts on people around the world, esp in poor countries. Even if somehow AGW were to now end (or they were to find it had never been happening), I’d still stick to that path.

Are you even reading your own posts?

How exactly do you mitigate something that is not happening?

 

[Ender]

There is expected an encyclical from the Holy Father on Ecology which concerns him very much. I expect no small part to focus on the ethics of responding to AGW but also deforestation. But like the social encyclicals, right-wing pundits will say this is up to prudential judgement and will be largely ignored, just like the left-wing when it ignores the church’s teaching on abortion and marriage. In both cases, there is an attempt to make certain subjects autonomous from church teaching.

You want to be careful with this argument inasmuch as there is a significant difference between prudential judgments and doctrines. If in fact something is a prudential judgment then, while we are obligated to give it serious consideration, unlike doctrines we are not obligated to accept it. If someone says we must feed the poor he is raising church doctrine, but if he says we must feed the poor by raising the minimum wage he is offering a prudential judgment, and no matter who “he” is we are not obliged to agree.Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

I really appreciate your sincerity. You’re right. Many scientists are genuinely worried about what will happen if CO2 continues to increase. It’s a valid worry, in my opinion. But the challenges of stabilizing CO2 near current levels are staggering. We can take steps to reduce CO2 emissions, and as you say, some of those steps are actually cost-saving measures. Using compact fluorescent lights (CFL) as opposed to incandescent bulbs is cheaper, and it uses less CO2. Riding the bus instead of driving a car can be cheaper too. But even if you got everyone to make those changes, they would be a drop in the bucket. They would have very little impact on future warming.

The changes that would be required to stabilize CO2 would be far more drastic. About 67% of electricity in the US comes from fossil fuels (source: Energy Information Administration) We would have to convert 67% of our power generation over to renewable technologies in very short order. That would be unbelievably costly, and perhaps not possible with current technologies. Other countries, who are far less wealthy than the US, would need to do the same. According to the EIA, about 91% of Chinese electricity is generated by fossil fuels. China would nearly need to start from scratch and build an entirely new power generation infrastructure. The cost of doing that would be staggering. If China simply shut down its fossil fuel generating plants, a lot of its people would be plunged back into poverty.

There are massive human impacts to stabilizing CO2 near current levels. There is no way to get around it. This is not a question of changing a few habits and cutting energy use at the margins. This is a question of rebuilding electricity infrastructure from scratch.

I disagree. With off-the-shelf tech it is possible to reduce our fossil fuel consumption more than 75%. However, the main issue is logistics. Even if everyone is on board (but I think maybe only about 10% of the pop is on board) it will take several decades to implement all that and make the shift. We really should have started 25 years ago, or at least 15 years ago. We do need gov policy to encourage people to make the shift, but what we really need is a revitalization movement in which people themselves desire to make the shift and become engaged in making that shift.

There is also the issue of new, promising tech coming up that might bring us down to near-zero fossil fuel emissions over the ensuing decades.

We need to take a holistic view, however. Every product has a huge GHG component in resource extraction, shipping, and processing; manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing and shipping; shopping and disposal. That is why Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and buy Recycled are not just kiddie things but a very serious measures that can accomplish a lot.

Re alt energy I was reading about each state’s capacity for wind energy and the conservative figures have most states at around 30 percent of current energy demand. If that demand is reduced greatly thru efficiency and conservation and the “3 Rs,” then perhaps that figure could go up to 60%+. Solar could fill in much of the remaining gap. It often happens that on windless days there is more sun and vice-versa, and Germany has just come up with a utility company scale battery storage system for its high level of alt energy. (Consider that Germany does not have good sun or wind, but is forging ahead marvelously on alt energy.) There is other alt energy - tidal power, micro-hydel, etc.

At least since the 1970s energy crunch we should have been building passive solar homes and buildings with PV panel capacity/orientation. It is a crying shame we have not been doing that all along…at least for the sake of conserving resources for future generations, even tho we didn’t know much about AGW back then.

But it’s not too late to start. There’s a book A Golden Thread about 2500 years of passive solar construction. We can look to the ancients for wisdom and to God for his merciful help and inspiration.

 

[lynnvinc]

There is expected an encyclical from the Holy Father on Ecology which concerns him very much. I expect no small part to focus on the ethics of responding to AGW but also deforestation. But like the social encyclicals, right-wing pundits will say this is up to prudential judgement and will be largely ignored, just like the left-wing when it ignores the church’s teaching on abortion and marriage. In both cases, there is an attempt to make certain subjects autonomous from church teaching.

Most of us are “cafeteria Catholics” at times

The saints among us are total Catholics, total Christians, total saints

 

[lynnvinc]

Are you even reading your own posts?

How exactly do you mitigate something that is not happening?

I think we all agree GW has happened to some extent, and best guess (at 95% confidence) is that has been mainly caused by industrial GHG emissions. They can actually decipher those CO2 emission molecules from other CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

However, even before they reached 95% confidence on AGW back in 1995 I started mitigating it in 1990, and JPII also made his 1st call to mitigate it that same year, unbeknownst to me until a few years later.

I strive to avoid the false negative of failing to address a true problem, esp when it entails harm and death to people. It was the increasing droughts in parts of Africa and famines that got me seriously into mitigating. I didn’t need 95% confidence I was contributing to harm to strive for ways to reduce that harm. Mothers will not give food to their children that they are sort of worried (at, say, 50% confidence or lower) is toxic. We spent big bucks for insurance when the chance of our homes burning to a crisp is remote. It’s just a whole other way of thinking about things and is referred to as “prudence.” So, I’m a prude.

BACK to YOUR ISSUE: Okay, so best-of-all-worlds scenario I come to find out in the future that while some GW was happening in the 20th & early 21st centuries it was not caused by anthropogenic emissions, and come to find out GW has stopped and is reversing course back down to pre-70s levels (even without our reducing our GHG emissions).

However, meanwhile I’ve been doing my best to mitigate this “non-problem” bec I truly thought for decades it was a serious problem, and have reduced our GHG emissions by over 60% cost-effectively, saving us $1000s, without lowering our living standard, even increasing it a bit.

What should I do now (in this hypothetical future situation that is highly unlikely) that AGW is not happening and never had happened?

Well, since I like the idea of saving money AND reducing my pollution harms (local, regional) from extraction, processing, burning, waste disposal (and coal ash spills) AND reducing contributions to ocean acidification AND reducing my using up of finite resources AND reducing the need for a bigger military to ensure supplies of dirty, harmful, and polluting oil, I think I’d just continue all those AGW mitigation measures I’ve already implemented and even look for more, bec I could use more financial savings for retirement, after all, and would like to continue reducing my harms.

So it may sound weird to some, but I’d continue to mitigate a non-problem (AGW) because it IS mitigating many other problems AND saving me money.

The big consideration for me is that I probably would not have gotten onto my AGW mitigation path (also mitigating these many other problems and finding out that saves us money) if I had not been concerned about my AGW GHG contributions to harm and death of other people back in the late 80s. It was like a fire under me at the time that got me on that road.

If I’ve been wrong all along and GHG emissions have not been contributing to those harms and deaths (on into the future for up to 100,000 yrs), I would still continue those “AGW mitigation” measures anyway for the above reasons, but would probably then refer to them as mitigation measures for those other problems (if that makes you happy). However, I would always refer to how it was my concern about AGW and its harms that got me onto them, and thank God for His working in mysterious ways.

Note, we were already living within 1 or 2 miles of work since the early 70s due to our concern to save resources for future generations (and hoping eventually to get on solar energy) – so I’m not counting that as on of my AGW mitigation measures, only the things we’ve done since 1990 (which have lowered our 1990 emissions by 60%+). It should be pointed out that living close to work, too, has saved us lots of money (fuel, car maintenance, car buying, etc), stress, family time, and I imagine health problems (from car pollution), etc. Also the bicycling and walking to work I occasionally did since we were so close, was good for my health and spirits; I also read that walking and cycling around neighborhoods helps reduce crime, and it should also reduce taxes for road maintenance, etc.

Perhaps if you see the old movie, Life with Father, you may understand my calculus and framework are different from most people’s, but mitigating a non-problem (assuming AGW is a non-problem, which would be totally against the science) makes a lot of sense to me at least.

I suggest all the climate change skeptics get on the bandwagon and mitigate this (what they consider) non-problem for the above non-AGW reasons, and just in case, outside chance, AGW is a true problem.