...and who has the highest birth rates in those European countries that are getting back over 2 children per family??? my guess is your first and second generation immigrant families are carrying the load.

and the liberals from the newly submerged Boston, New York, Philly, etc.
No they will not move inland, they will no doubt move to the now tropical land known as Canada.

Back to the op-ed that RJ posted to bring this thread back to life....

Ray Jay wrote:An interesting article from a smart guy on the expected effects of global warming ... in his view, much less than is being reported. He says there is evidence that the IPCC is overstating effects for political reasons -- namely they don't want to reverse earlier predictions and look bad.

I'm sure no-one wants to look bad. However, Mr Ridley would look less bad had he not misrepresented the facts.

For example, he mentions that Michael Ring and Michael Slesinger estimate a 1.6 deg Celcius warming from a doubling of CO2. However Slesinger has responded with a letter to the WSJ:

In “Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change” (WJS, 19 December 2012), Matt Ridley mentions the findings of my Climate Research Group’s paper “Causes of the Warming Observed Since the 19th Century” (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... erID=24283).

In his article, Mr. Ridley is just plain wrong about future global warming.

In our paper “A Fair Plan to Safeguard Earth’s Climate” (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... erID=20038), we show that by the middle of this century the warming will exceed the 2°C (3.6°F) maximum allowed by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.

In that paper and its sequel, “A Revised Fair Plan to Safeguard Earth’s Climate” (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInfor ... erID=23864), we phase out the emission of greenhouse gases this century such that the cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions by the Developing and Developed Countries are equal. Both Plans keep global warming below the UNFCCC allowable maximum of 2°C.

The problem is that what the science is saying - apparently - is that a doubling of CO2, to 560ppm, is the best case itself, and would likely only be so if we take action to reduce emissions under the very plans that Ridley and others oppose. Otherwise, it's not a doubling, but more. And the real threat is not CO2, but methane - there are locked up reserves of methane in alongside the CO2 in permafrost. Release of that methane would contribute a far more effective greenhouse gas than.

GMTom wrote:...and who has the highest birth rates in those European countries that are getting back over 2 children per family??? my guess is your first and second generation immigrant families are carrying the load.

Maybe so. Twas ever thus - the same applied to the German, Irish and Italian families that swarmed over to the USA.

No doubt and we here in the US get Mexicans, Haitians, etc now. But it doesn't change what I said, a decrease in population growth is seldom good for a society while increased immigration does lead to societal problems as we had with the damned Irish (tongue in cheek...I am mostly Irish mind you) and Italians back when as well as the Mexicans etc now . Same in say France with the sudden growth of the Muslim nation immigration numbers. Saying small families is a good thing while ignoring the bad is not presenting the complete picture now is it?

fate, that was an interesting piece on Japan that you linked.
There are serious challenges for nations with declining birth rates. Mostly however, in dealing with "retired". One way, is to not retire people at 65. Something already being considered in many nations. Including the US...
And as the demographic curve changes as the elderly die out, the "baby boom" elderly, society will manage and adapt. The fact is that the demographic shape of the population in the West since 1945 is highly unusual. The Boom, Bust Echo was caused by a baby boom from 45 through 65, that wasn't in evidence at any other point in history.So many of the phenomenon of that strange population bubble, have never been experienced before... (The book Boom Bust Echo, was the definitive read on the age trend)
But the point you were attempting to riposte was that "countries with smaller average family size are generally more prosperous." Japan is prosperous. Its had some economic stagnation but its comparable standard of living is still very high. And its had a trend to small families for a very long time. Your link doesn't really refute that in any way. You should also note the first comment below the editorial you linked...

tom

But it doesn't change what I said, a decrease in population growth is seldom good for a society

Do you know of any instances where population regressed naturally through smaller family size?
Because that's what happens when economies start to raise the standard of living amongst working and middle classes..
Population decreases by any other means, occurs probably as a result of something horrible like famine or plague.
Although, even then something good could result. The Black Plague brought an end to serfdom in England...
The point that I made earlier, is that over population is a problem for the planet. Too many resources that are not renewable are used up. (By the way Fate, wind and solar are referred to by everyone, except you apparently, as renewable resources.) Too much stress is placed upon limited resources, especially water...
Bleeding heart groups like the CIA have called water scarcity a leading threat to peace.
By limiting family size, and bending the population back to where resources are adequate to the planets needs, its likely that the global standard of living will improve, not just the lucky first world...or the Asian tigers..

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:It's no wonder conservatives favor global warming: NYC, Boston, and much of the west coast will be submerged in water. That will change the electoral dynamics and make the US far more "red."

I think it likely they'd migrate inland, making those 'red' states less red. Unless you are wishing for millions to drown, the big hearted guy you are.

Not necessarily. If we really get busy burning carbon, maybe we can expedite the whole thing a la Al Gore.

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ ... s2-5b-bet/

This guy has a track record of being wrong so often too.....

rickyp wrote:http://business.financialpost.com/2013/01/02/buffett-utility-buys-sunpower-projects-in-us2-5b-bet/

This guy has a track record of being wrong so often too.....

I'm sorry, but yours is an ignorant post.

California has legislated that x% of its energy MUST be from these sources. So, this is shooting fish in a barrel.

California has promised, by law, to overpay for energy. Buffett is willing to take advantage of California's stupidity.

How does that prove anything other than California is a State full of lunatics?

You don't know much about Buffett do you? He is the classic buy and hold investor, and his long term bets have generally paid off handsomely for him.....
Most of the US subsidies for wind and solar are being phased out, and yet Buffet is being joined by many other large long term investors.
What do they know that you don't?
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/manishbapna ... fett-lead/

The recent furor over the industry’s future has been fanned by those who dismiss renewables as a “failed experiment.” This attitude willfully ignores the history of energy innovation and the progress in price and performance these technologies have already made. Many of these voices also support subsidies for fossil fuels, which have benefited from a century of government assistance.

rickyp wrote:You don't know much about Buffett do you? He is the classic buy and hold investor, and his long term bets have generally paid off handsomely for him.....
Most of the US subsidies for wind and solar are being phased out, and yet Buffet is being joined by many other large long term investors.
What do they know that you don't?
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/manishbapna ... fett-lead/

The recent furor over the industry’s future has been fanned by those who dismiss renewables as a “failed experiment.” This attitude willfully ignores the history of energy innovation and the progress in price and performance these technologies have already made. Many of these voices also support subsidies for fossil fuels, which have benefited from a century of government assistance.

Great.

Now, a few questions:

1. If it is now profitable, as you claim/imply, can we stop all subsidies for green energy?

2. If it is now such a sweet deal, why is California mandating it? Don't they know that the market will find the cheapest solution anyway?

3. If Buffett is so smart, does he ever make bad bets? Randomly: silver? Airlines?

4. If he has made mistakes, how do you know this is not one of them? Also, is there ANY government underwriting or subsidy in this project?

I'll eagerly await your "informed" answers.

Wind power (to date) is not very viable, it costs more to build and maintain the windmills than the power created. It's yet another government directive much like ethanol. They may make more sense as energy prices climb and with bans on clean coal and restrictions on nuclear and oil, wind power may very well turn into a winner yet but it's based on winning by default, we can have less expensive power if allowed. That and who really thinks subsidies will end any time soon on such a "green and self sufficient" energy source? (Buffet doesn't think so)

Mr. Ridley offers some more persepctive

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-foss ... ed-planet/

The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world’s vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change. ...

The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.

In other words, the warmer the planet, and the more carbon in the air, the faster and thicker the plant growth. I still believe in antropogenic global warming and I am concerned about artic ice melt, but greening represents a negative feedback loop. (Negative loops are positive in that they slow global warming.)

Ray Jay wrote:Mr. Ridley offers some more persepctive

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-foss ... ed-planet/

The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world’s vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change. ...

The inescapable if unfashionable conclusion is that the human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.

In other words, the warmer the planet, and the more carbon in the air, the faster and thicker the plant growth. I still believe in antropogenic global warming and I am concerned about artic ice melt, but greening represents a negative feedback loop. (Negative loops are positive in that they slow global warming.)

But, more plants are KILLING the EARTH!!!

What part of this don't you understand? We have to use herbicides to stop the greening and save the planet!

Or something.

Ray, I'm going to wait for a peer review of the actual lecture by Professor Myeni...
However, I do remember a few years back it was felt that the Sub-Saharan region had "greened". A very substantial land mass, effectively desert but then showing signs of increasing permanent vegetation. (Some 20% of the Sahara region I remember)
Mind you, it couldn't sustain agriculture, and it wasn't close to being forested, or even permanently green.... But it was greener...

From, what I've read, warming will make the world "greener". Part of this is a huge problem however. Locked into the high Arctic permafrost in Canada, Alaska and Russia is enormous amounts of Methane and Co2. When released into the atmosphere as this area "greens" again it will increase atmospheric temperatures greatly.... Accelerating warming and glacial melt...

We know that most of the earth was vegetated at one time. Including the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The permafrost is the result of frozen vegetation at a period of time when the Earth was much warmer, much greener and where there was a lot less land mass.

And the main long term worry, at least as I read it, is ocean rise... If the gases in the permafrost are released, any mitigating effect by the increased "greening" will be swamped. (I'm almost certain that the mitigating effect of increasing green is allowed for in most climate models anyway, so I don't think Myenis' news is "news". Its expected by many.) And our globe will return to the climactic and geographic appearance of the period when the permafrost was jungle. Goodbye Florida.

So, if Myeni is right, and he probably is, Ridley is wrong to interpret this as good news... Its just news.
If he can figure out if there's any good news in the continued glacier and open ice melts .... that would be something.
Ridley is a typical denialist, clutching at straws that he interprets as significant without a complete understanding of the entire problem.

if a "problem" even exists that is, if you simply assume the worst and manipulate data to support your preconcieved assumptions, you can "prove" any position you like.

GMTom wrote:Wind power (to date) is not very viable, it costs more to build and maintain the windmills than the power created. It's yet another government directive much like ethanol. They may make more sense as energy prices climb and with bans on clean coal and restrictions on nuclear and oil, wind power may very well turn into a winner yet but it's based on winning by default, we can have less expensive power if allowed. That and who really thinks subsidies will end any time soon on such a "green and self sufficient" energy source? (Buffet doesn't think so)

Look at global energy consumption patterns. Who consumes the most? The U.S. & China. What is the trend? U.S. energy consumption growth is slowing, China's is not. That's not likely to change in a significant way anytime soon.

Look at global petrolium production. Production from developed reserves is declining. To maintain the status quo (let alone any growth) we need to identify and put into production vast new reserves. And note, I'm ignoring major growing economies such as India.

The price of traditional energy is far more likely to increase, rather than decrease, making such things as wind a better bet.

You are also being misleading by suggesting that the U.S. is banning clean coal, while this is in fact what is being mandated. It is dirty coal that is being banned.

Wind tax breaks were extended for a year. Even the wind industry admits that they may not be truly necessary, so there is a fair chance that they will be phased out before long. The U.S. is also committed internationally to phase out subsides to oil. While that may be in fact a tougher sell, it is also something that we may well see in the next few years, futher affecting the cost-benefit equation.

If, as is likely, oil prices continue to rise, do you want, thirty years from now, to be in a country that invested in the capacity to supply the wnd power that the rest of the world will be scream ing for, or one that put its faith in business as usual and has to buy it's wind turbines from Denmark or China?

I've oversimplified the argument, of course, but the basic point doesn't change.