Inadvertently you put your finger on what is probably the greatest problem of saying anything meaningful about human effects on climate – granularity. In this case, temporal granularity. What is an appropriate time step to measure “climate?” A year? A decade? A century? These are all arbitrary quanta that appeal to our need for order, but have no demonstrable relevance to natural processes.

Jeez, we can’t even define “climate” precisely. Like “obscenity,” we think that know it when we see it. But, we cannot confidently say when accumulated weather becomes climate.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is non-controversial What we are groping in the dark about is the sensitivity of a notional “global climate” to changes in CO2 concentration, and the inherited sensitivities of regional climates. That a decade of temperature decrease accompanies CO2 increase does NOT disprove the greenhouse effect. It DOES underscore our ignorance.

It is a tragedy of the first order that climate has become political rather than scientific. (I blame Albert Gore Jr.) Ultimately, climate science will be the foundation for the kind of terraforming expertise that we will need when we leave this planet.

“Inductive versus deductive reasoning. French Cartesian logic versus Anglo-saxon experimental science”

Hmmm, Anglo-saxon empirism doesn’t imply an individualist conciousness ; that’s funny how Burke’s moral could find much of its ways through inductive reasoning though

And though perhaps true that “China is the world leading renewable energy producer” in absolute numbers, as a proportion, only “7% of China’s energy was from renewable sources in 2006.” And of those sources, “The major renewable energy source in China is hydropower.”

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

“On June 19, 2007, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that a preliminary study indicated that China’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2006 had exceeded those of the United States for the first time. The agency calculated that China’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9% in 2006, while those of the United States fell by 1.4%, compared to 2005. ”

” China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power stations.[17] It is progressing with the construction of 562 new coal-fired plants over the next few years.[21] In June 2007 it was reported that an average of two new plants were being opened every week.”

And though perhaps true that “China is the world leading renewable energy producer” Only “7% of China’s energy was from renewable sources in 2006… The major renewable energy source in China is hydropower.”

You can criticize Wikipedia all you want, I’m not going to bother looking for the primary sources of something so obvious. The onus is on those who wish to prove China is going green, not on me.

And I have yet to see that data for India, or Indonesia, or other industrializing nations is any better.

You can say that because you can AFFORD to. Most of the world’s population cannot, because they do not have expendable income to spend on more expensive alternate energy sources. While you may be busy trying to “save the world,” most are simply trying to improve the lives of their families. For them, right now, it’s either fossil fuels, or no fuels at all. That is a true “net benefit” for them.

Renewable sources of energy sound great, until you get the bill. Perhaps the average Californian can cover the expenses of wind/solar energy, but the average Chinese or Indian cannot. The Haitians, for example, burned down nearly every tree in their country, as they’re too poor even to afford gas, and needed the wood to light their stoves. How will they afford solar? And it may be easy for you to say “don’t cut down that tree,” when you have a steak and a beer in your hand. Offer them real alternatives, not pipe dreams.

Fossil fuels are readily available, and they’re cheap. THIS is the formula to beat. If you developed a cheaper form of delivering energy, it would quickly become readily available and perhaps even supersede fossil fuels -at a global level. COST is the real issue. Make alternate fuels cheaper, and people will WANT to use them, not just in some affluent industrialized countries, but everywhere.

Massive federal subsidies don’t count to make alternate fuels cheaper. They’re an artificial way of lowering cost by transferring it from the private to the public sector. It does nothing to improve efficiency, as it artificially increases demand.

If the Left really wants us to shift to alternate fuels, they must take a lesson from the markets: make alternate sources of energy comparable to fossil fuels in cost. You cannot simply mandate people to stop using oil. Even if you tried, only those in wealthy nations would, substantially lessening the impact on global emissions.

If instead of pushing, mandates, or spending billions in subsidizing alternate fuels, the government invested in research into cheaper energy sources (e.g. thin-film solar panels), eventually these sources could compete with fossil fuels. Instead of a few wealthy polluters, EVERYBODY would want to use them. Imagine the impact on global emissions. Simple market forces save the day, again..

Ironically, it was Marx who said the world moves by economics. Now the Left is abandoning that notion, and imposing it’s quasi-religious belief in global warming (note that those who are against it are labeled “deniers,” a term akin to those who deny the Holocaust). The goal shouldn’t be harassing people to use solar energy. It should be making solar energy so cost-effective people will WANT to buy it.

Your assertions above are completely over the top. Either that or you simply worded them stupidly. You pick.

The clear net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels right now is found in the observable and unavoidable fact that – right now – there is no viable alternative. And there won’t be one for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime there’s plenty of research being applied to the development of such alternatives. Notably, however, the federal government seems far more interested in pouring money into research shoring up the Climate Crisis canard in support of their cap-and-tax-and-spend policies and nebulous “green jobs” (hamster wheels?), rather than provide tax incentives and financial assistance for companies to develop and produce viable alternatives to fossil fuels energy.

- The Chinese will soon be leading the world in solar manufacturing capacity and installed generation.
Wow. You’re even more naive than the rest of your posts at this site would indicate. The prediction that the Chinese will be “leading the world” in something the rest of the world takes only half-heartedly (at best) is hardly a point in favor of AGW. This relative prediction – assuming it ever materializes – is meaningless.

But what provides greater insight into your vast reserves of naivete is the fact that, unlike you, the Chinese are not stupid. They know an easy mark when they see one. And right now all the dolts who want to destroy their own economies based on devotion to a bogus, debunked religion of self-hatred, present one of the greatest captive markets the Chinese have ever seen. They’ll be more than happy to produce whatever that market demands, no matter how insane it is. This says nothing about their support for AGW outside of the fact that irrational devotion to it will fuel their economy – while destroying ours – for decades.

- If we want to compete in the global economy and have any kind of strategic security, energy independence is a necessity, and that means ditching fossil fuels now.
Wrong. Again, you can’t ditch fossil fuels until you have a viable alternative. Right now there is no viable alternative. True energy independence – right now – means using our own natural resources AND providing the necessary incentives to stimulate a market for alternative energy. The demand will have to come from the bottom up. Forcing such a change on the market will work about as well as HMOs, CRA and Prohibition did.

- If you understand the stakes here, start considering the ramifications of an oil shortage for our economy and military.
That’s an easy one. The ramifications of an oil shortage will immediately and clearly demonstrate the Democrats’ outright treason and criminal culpability in the form of consistently stonewalling development of our own resources. If we were to fail anywhere militarily due to lack of oil, the very first case to be made would be determining and holding accountable those who prevented us from using our own resources.

Zippy, when you’ve done something useful with your life and have demonstrated a viable alternative to fossil fuels – one that is readily available and can provide the energy needed to run the entire nation plus its Army and Air Force – do let us know. In the meantime, the best alternative is largely used by the Navy: nuclear. Patterning our energy policy after France’s would be the best approach right now.

Rather than spew passive-aggressive nonsense on message boards, you might consider a corrective for the six years you wasted in college. Go back and get a practical degree in something useful and apply your energies to the research you seem to think is so vital. That you persist, rather, in trolling places like PJM demonstrates that you are anything but a serious person.

I would also laugh at it less if these models would predict historical weather if set up with data from prior dates. It can’t. It must keep changing the model each time it finds itself in error. It has had to change a lot.

Ked5, it’s the rovers that are heating up Mars, it has to be, we don’t have anything else going on up there.