Bernie

"Sorry if my original post wasn't clear enough to explain that I'm not focused on any one side of the energy equation which I think you were referring to.'

You're still not understanding.

Firstly it is simply not true that the "science" shows that "anthropogenic CO2 is causing most of the changes we're seeing to our climate". Not even the warmists claim that.

All the warmists central claims have been contradicted by the data - no rise in average global temperatures for the last 18 years. It is now common ground - even among the most senior warmists - that the question is why the theories have failed to predict reality. That's why they're speculating on the "missing heat" supposedly being "in the oceans" - in other words, the warmists theory now is, 'the dog swallowed my homework'.

Secondly, even if all the issues of climatology were conceded - which they're not - it still would not provide any reason whatsoever for your *assumptions*
1. that the net result would be worse rather than better, and
2. that government action could make the net situation better rather than worse.

All you've done is assume both problem and solution, which is not rational and therefore not valid.

In order to come up to the minimum standard of mere rationality, let alone a compelling argument, you need to answer these questions:

1.
What would you accept as disproving your beliefs in support of global warming policy?

Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour:

2. how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.

3. how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with. Show your workings.

Thanks for the reply, JKJ, now I understand where you're coming from. No one I've met disputes that life on earth exists because of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere trapping solar heat because of its water vapour and CO2 content. So the first question is whether the increases in CO2 over the last 200 years or so is causing further heat to be trapped. My view is that between 40% and 70% of the increased heat that has been trapped since the start of the industrial revolution is due to humans - burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, etc. So the next question I asked myself when trying to come to grips with this issue is should the world take action to prevent CO2 levels from rising. Considering that to decarbonise the world will cost some $50 trillion, I've concluded that spending this amount of money isn't justified, when 2 billion people are living in poverty and a warming world may bring them more good on average than harm.
So the next question is should Australia go it alone and decarbonise its economy at a cost of about $1 trillion. The answer is the same: no, for a large number of reasons.
My final question then is should Australia do anything at all in response to climate change caused 40 to 70% by human activities. Here, my answer is yes, provided the actions we take make social, environmental and economic sense. On this basis, energy efficiency is highly profitable and should reduce the energy usage of most households and industries by between 10 and 30%. Next, there are some renewable energy systems that make economic sense, such as solar hot water systems which generally have a 3 or 4 year pay back life. Then there is the use of modern technological advances such as turbo-charged diesel cars which can give incredible fuel efficiencies but cost little extra to install, so consumers will benefit by paying $1000 extra for a fuel efficient diesel engine in their car and saving $500 or more a year in fuel costs.

Looking at the big picture, if the world wants to move forward on this climate change issue (and you may choose not to if you doubt the science behind it), then my original post was in support of the theme of the article which suggested we need to make the goals more human friendly, i.e, give up on saying we want to keep the temperature rise to 2 degrees C and aim for something people can understand, hence my suggestion to push for a number of specific, readily understandable actions to be implemented by government and industry and individuals.
I understand the point you make about where has the warming been for the last 18 years but there is absolutely no doubt or argument about the warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution. If you believe that this warming may start up again, or even if you believe we should be conserving our limited supplies of fossil fuels, then hopefully I've provided some useful actions that people around the world can take.

Bernie Masters,

>"So the next question I asked myself when trying to come to grips with this issue is should the world take action to prevent CO2 levels from rising. Considering that to decarbonise the world will cost some $50 trillion, I've concluded that spending this amount of money isn't justified, when 2 billion people are living in poverty and a warming world may bring them more good on average than harm.
So the next question is should Australia go it alone and decarbonise its economy at a cost of about $1 trillion. The answer is the same: no, for a large number of reasons."

Good questions and I agree with these answers (But the cost to Australia is much much more than $1 trillion) - See submission No. 2 here (and note that it would deliver no measurable benefits): http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions .

>"My final question then is should Australia do anything at all in response to climate change caused 40 to 70% by human activities. Here, my answer is yes, provided the actions we take make social, environmental and economic sense. On this basis, energy efficiency is highly profitable ..."

You added in your (unsupported/incorrect) belief that 40% to 70% of climate change is caused by humans. It is not. So the premise of your questions is false.

If you leave out the false premise and we consider instead your advocacy of government mandated energy efficiency programs, they generally do not work. Government directed energy efficiency is not highly profitable. What is profitable will be done, at the rate it makes economic sense to do it.

There are economically rational ways to decarbonise the global economy, but they are not by government intervention, fiat, mandating or subsidies. They are the opposite of these. They involve removing the impediments governments have imposed, over the past 50 to 100 years, that are preventing low emissions energy from being cheaper than fossil fuels.

Congratulations Bernie,

you've dug just enough below the surface to evoke, "You added in your (unsupported/incorrect) belief that 40% to 70% of climate change is caused by humans. It is not. So the premise of your questions is false."

This is where the rubber hits the road with Lang and JKJ. The rest is pseudo-rational huff'n'puff.

Neither concedes the fact of AGW, let alone CAGW. Don't waste further keystrokes.

Lucerface, you've already demonstrated you don't understand the most basic concepts in the science, such as ECS, let alone have a clue about the damage function or what makes policy achievable. Your comments display repeatedly the traits of the classic denial. You deny the relevant facts. Your belief is cultist and religious. You can't support it with facts, so you resort to repetitious statements of your beliefs. You've demonstrated you are the sort of person who has been retarding progress for decades. There is no point in discussing anything with people who are deniers of the relevant facts. They and you demonstrate most if not all the signs of intellectual dishonesty. If you don't know what they are, read them here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/