The rationale seems to be since the planet is warming anyway, what's the dif.

There's no rationale, there's only rationalizing.  The folks who got us into this mess want to wring out a few more dollars before people start dying in places we'll notice.

"The dif"  is between a world facing major hardship--which we'll see if we get started *RIGHT NOW* to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and potential extinction.

Overwhelming evidence shows our fossil fuel based CO2 emissions are tipping the balance of the earth's climate towards higher temperatures.   As new evidence pours in, the implications only get worse.  Meanwhile, politics is the only game in Washington.  There was no true debate on the nature of the problem.  Republicans who didn't outright call global warming a hoax resorted to quoting irrelevant scientists who find fault with some small part of the evidence such as those mentioned in the article above.

Sure, the coal industry will be hurt as we revolutionize our energy use towards greater efficiency plus clean and renewable sources.   The San Joaquin Valley will benefit with cleaner air and even plenty of new green jobs if we only get our heads out of the sand. 

Nancy:  there's a whistle-blower in the administration that the administration is trying very hard to shut up.  One of the Republican Senators requested work product of this guy's work, and there's push-back.  FOIA may have to do what it's there for.  In the people's case, that's produce whatever work product he has -- which presumably squashes a lot of the agency's other findings re the global-warming dispute.  In other words, if there's a discrepancy in the study's outcome, the administration will simply take the answer it wants rather than face an inconvenient truth.  They won't even entertain the fact that it may be a truth at all, inconvenient or otherwise. 

there's a whistle-blower in the administration that the administration is trying very hard to shut up. 

The guy you're talking about here is an economist, not a scientist. 

.

One of the Republican Senators

The guy you're talking about *HERE* is a stone idiot.

"He began to organize the few facts he had assembled, putting them in neat columns, or as if on the trays of a lab scale.  But then he stopped himself.  He realized he was making fundamental mistake.  The fundamental mistake was that he was theorizing in advance of the data.  If one fell into that trap, then it was only natural to force all incoming data to fit the theory rather than assembling a theory from the facts."

I read this the other day and it impressed me with it's clarity.

The irony of the whole thing is that the guy whose report they're championing is a firm believer that human activity can and does influence climate change--in fact, that's what he's proposing:  that we *DELIBERATELY* screw with the atmosphere to reduce global warming.

Nancy

I think that climate change is happening and has been going on for 50 years.  I think it's been caused, in large part, by human beings.  However, I'm one of the few people who seem to think that we need to reevaluate our "knee jerk" reaction to the changes that will come.

Climate change will "shift" weather patterns.  Some places will become wetter.  Other places drier.  This shift in weather patterns has gone on for millennium with the result that some parts of the Earth fared better and some parts became worse.

Until scientists have a better understanding of what the changes will mean for the Earth's populations, we need to ratchet down the fear and frenzied need to "do something".   We need to come to some kind of intelligent decision of what the best course of action is  before we head in 50 different direction with no idea of what were trying to accomplish.

Sorry fellow liberals, this is where I depart from the party line (again).

The thing is, Audrey, that human beings have settled in and have large investments in places where the climate is useful and/or pleasant.  (And then there's Bakersfield.)

What the "global" in "global climate change" means is that everywhere is likely to get different.  We can make a significant investment in technology and law and keep the status quo we've learned to love for centuries, or we can wait and give up lots of coastal areas, lots of farming areas, and possibly Great Britain as a whole.  Sure, there may be compensations--but do *YOU* want to pack up London and move it somewhere else?

Human-based climate change is CO2-based.  Not only is that clear, it points us in the right direction (since we passed Peak Oil a few years back anyway.) 

Transitioning from oil to Something Else is basically the only thing we need to do.  That it will ultimately help our economy is a bonus.

After looking at the new data coming out of MIT the prognosis is not encouraging. Wealthier nations may have an easier time of it ( sorry Manhattan,New York, and other coastal cities) but will still suffer. Mass migration to denser populated areas..food..jobs...homes.. why worry.

The nations with much less wealth will have it much worse with massive groups on foot to someplace better~ hopefully before they hit ocean.

The good news? If we move to correct this situation we can develop new ways of doing things,jobs and a cleaner planet.

Perhaps the scenarios will turn out better...perhaps it will be the end of man.

I'd rather err on the side of caution,than risk your grandchild's world.

Random

We're the dummies who decided to settle in Bakersfield;  what can we add to an intelligent discussion?

I like your opening statement.  I lose sight of these  (human beings have settled in and have large investments in places)  consequence sometimes even though I've seen the "LIFE AFTER PEOPLE" series at least 3 times.

There's no guarantee that taking the measures you suggested will make a dimes worth of difference to climate change.  It's TOO LATE.  And even if it isn't,  people (and their governments) aren't going to change their behavior in time.

We need to fingure out exactly what is going to change and prepare ourselves for it.   I'm heading for the hills above Springville.

We're the dummies who decided to settle in Bakersfield;  what can we add to an intelligent discussion?

Actually, we're in a unique position.  We can say to folks:  you want to know what your city will be like for your children's children?  Come to Bakersfield in July.

,

It's TOO LATE.

It may be too late.  But it may also not be, and we may mitigate some of the damage if we start now.  And we're going to have to transition away from oil sometime--it's to valuable to keep burning.

I'm all for finding new sources of energy but not because of the climate change thing.  It's because I'd like to take a deep, clean breath of air again before I die.  I haven't had one in 50 years.

Scientists have been jumping off the "Man-made Global Warming" bandwagon like it is the Titanic. The "evidence" is not nearly "overwelming." All data is up to interpretation, which is the best and worst thing about the Scientific Method. Bring in politicians (and ex-politicians), add in some healthy grants for supporting the right cause, stir in a new way to make bags of money(carbon offsets) and you have a recipe for a great disaster movie. And you've got a ready-made "booger man" in the oil companies.

Climates change whether we are here or not. Whether we have impacted global temperatures is very debateable.

Now, the harmful effects of local air quality and other types of pollution is not debateable and that should be the focus of our studies. I think the "global" aspect of the movenment is what hurts the movement the most.

Witbee should be upset with the plans by the Mt Poso cogeneration plant to switch from coal to incineration of demolition wood and used pallets.  This plant is nine miles north of Bakersfield (upwind) and will pollute our air worse than the coal with particulates, VOC's and toxic emissions from treated wood.  San Diego Gas and Electric gets renewable energy credits from this plant for the next 20 years while we get the pollution.  This is a prime example of doing more harm than good in trying to solve CO2 emissions.   Classifying waste incineration in the same category as renewable energy is a clear mistake.  Recycling this material provides more jobs, saves more fossil fuel plus eliminates more CO2 emissions than incineration.

Scientists have been jumping off the "Man-made Global Warming" bandwagon like it is the Titanic.

There never was a man-made bandwagon to jump onto.

However, the consensus is that global warming is real.

The latest finding is that warming is causing rainfall patterns to move northward, away from the world's prime agricultural growing regions. It's causing deserts to grow and dust in the atmosphere to increase. The dust is settling on snowpack people rely on for water and is melting the snowpack before the lower elevations warm up enough to use it for natural growth, which further causes erosion and the growing of deserts.

The captain of the Titanic denied that his actions would cause any danger with regard to environmental conditions, too.

Those "scientists" you speak of are medical doctors...and economists...not climate specialists.

The "global" aspect of the coming catastrophe is what makes it most urgent.  Nobody's going to get off without harm.