Sorry TrueKaiser - it was late, and I was in a rush.

And your analogy with the Bomb tech and "just hurry and cut the wires" is spot on.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

In my opinion, the decrease in use of fossil fuels can occur along two broad pathways: either controlled or uncontrolled. Neither pathway will be clear cut. And either one is going to result in the deaths of many many people.

In a (semi) controlled reduction in the use of fossil fuels we may find the political support for the development of alternatives, which may be the only major difference between the two. A controlled reduction also implies a controlled time-line. This way the shortages can be planned for in some way, buying time to implement those alternatives.

However, I don't think it is possible to do this - it requires too much political will, and the reduction of too many expectations. People will be inconvenienced, be impoverished, be uncomfortable, and will die. I believe this will happen whether we control the rate of decrease of fossil fuel or not. My opinion is that perhaps (just perhaps) controlling the decrease according to some fair/purposeful/farsighted plan may decrease the numbers.

I also believe that it is not solely the governments responsibility to devise this plan. While I can only control to some extent the amount of fossil fuel and it's derivative that I use, I CAN control it. I don't spend a lot of time agitating for others to do the same - I model the behavior. I tell folks that I expect prices and access to be a severe issue in the near future and I want that to have as little impact on me as possible. That message has sparked interest, and some conversions. In this way I hope to be part of a "sort of" controlled reduction scenario.

Ultimately though, I believe that we are in for a major die off. All of us who live in extreme climates, who depend upon imports and intense agricultural practice for our nutrition, who are economically tied to our current system - we are all at risk. No food, no climate control, no money = death. Ultimately.

So...a lot of us will die, and that includes the community here. I believe we have to make the changes, or the changes will be made for us as we hit the limits. I think that a considered approach may mitigate the number of deaths and (selfishly) where those deaths occur. But I don't think anything we can do will alter the facts that deaths, in huge numbers, will occur.

Label me a doomer.

Regards

Al

Anyhow, don't call me a troll. I only asked for your risk assessment of AGW, you didn't answer.

If you want a clear conversation provide a clear starting point. And don't bother asking questions that need not be answered. I tire of going back a decade to arguments that are no longer valid. Asking whether we should do something, with all that is known, is a waste of time. But that is not why I did not answer you. First, I have posted links on these threads several times to an extensive, and I DO mean extensive, set of videos on this subject. Go watch them if you have any doubts about the risk assessment issue. However, even that is not why I did not answer you. I did not answer you because you are posting like a troll. The following are not your words?

Let's take for the position of arguement that you are correct. What, in your eyes is the magnitude of the crisis facing us? Do you agree with the "Intergovernmental" expert (that's not a respected institution of higher learning that I've heard of, and they evidently believe absence of shaving would solve the problem, correct?) that we have seven years to avoid "catastrophe"? Therefore, logically, in such a situation we should stop all import of foreign oil, correct? We should stop coal burning and natural gas as otherwise we will be destroyed. If we only have 7 years to the "tipping point" is this the sort of change you advocate? Millions, possibly billions will die from the distruption, ... but we have weather forcasting models. I am 110% for non-carbon based energy and conservation, but looking at the situation as it exists now, I choose burning carbon over someone starving to death on the other side of the world if not closer to home.

Forgive me for thinking text not in quotes of any kind is not the poster's! My response was to THAT text, not the short overview linked to. The text above is trolling. It is a gross, and intentional (revealed in the sarcastic comment about the IPCC), misrepresentation of the short book description in the link.

Anyone who has read the news articles and such regarding the 7 year claim knows that it does not state ANY of what you claimed. You said:

that we have seven years to avoid "catastrophe"? Therefore, logically, in such a situation we should stop all import of foreign oil, correct?

but the text actually said:

world carbon emissions will have to start falling dramatically after 2015

which is vastly different. Your interpretation says we must change everything by 2015. The position of the 7 years people is that we have that long to begin a program of massive reductions stretching over decades. Please note the emphasis (mine).

Now, if you are claiming you are not a troll, the above says otherwise.If you are not a troll, then you were very, very loose with the information, which makes clear communication impossible. Supporting that you are trolling is that you repeat the... error, according to you:

"Why are there only seven years to save "the planet"? and goes on to state that there will be catastrophe if CO2 emissions are not decreased in this time frame.

Your assertion is again false. You continue above:

If you highly value the IPCC, then why would you dismiss their lead off contention that there are only seven years to save the planet.

I dismissed nothing. I took you to task for misrepresenting the text. I presented no opinion on the validity of the seven year time frame to BEGIN large reductions.

As for me I heartily disparge them

Which means you are a troll. Only a partisan or a fool dismisses the science of thousands for some lame excuse. I don't know what you are referring to about the financing. I've heard nothing but your statement on that supposed issue. But you still don't throw out the baby with the bathwater without reason. Virtually all of the anti-AGW "science" is bought and paid for, and this is well-chronicled, so we can easily dismiss anti-propagandists. That said, show me some science and I'll take a look at it. But deniers never have any.

Then we get more trolling.

or perhaps it relates to the clearly reported expostion of the postion (it's there to read), which as you highly respect them I can only suspect you concur - that not shaving will solve AGW.

You again misrepresent. Here is the truth:

I loved the reported back-of-an-envelope calculation apparently done by one scientist

1. It's not the IPCC (you use the pronoun "them".)
2. It's not presented as a scientific paper.
3. It obviously is a bit of an odd aside in the book. Without context it is impossible to know for sure,but what it clearly is not is a heartily endorsed scientific finding of the IPCC.

BTW, The "article" is not an article. (You don't even get that right.) It's a book review.

Third. I stand by my position that in the present situation to restrict use of fosil fuels for the purposes of mitigating AGW would lead to the death of millions if not billions

Bully for you, but you are railing against something not stated in the book review.

Strange, you are railing against a book you have not read. You are misrepresenting every point you are trying to make. And, finally, you prove you are a troll by disparaging the IPCC.

I stand by my claim: you are revealed as an anti-AGW troll by your own statements/misstatements. You have taken the tack of many such trolls: pretend open-mindedness and to be inquiring honestly. Every time trolls of that sort, when challenged, make the same revealing mistakes you made: you reveal your bias with your opinion, and more so, your distortions of the truth.

Consider yourself debunked.

Jeers

P.S.: Here's your risk assessment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Here is a website of factual data that I have been monitoring for the past four years.

Perhaps someone can provide a disernable increasing trend here.

http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/tides.shtml

Go to the monthly data reports. PDF

To re-iterate: I have found standing on the doorstep arguing theology with sales reps from the local church futile. Any questions on climate science should be addressed to a site such as www.realclimate.org, not here.

I will only discuss the topic now with people who at least accept the science in the IPCC reports, if not the IPCC projections, which I believe don't take a realistic account of remaining FF reserves.

My "nuance" is that I try to be an observer and don't wish to cast AGW as "good" or "bad", or determine the difference between "normal" or "unnatural", or contemplate the moral aspects of whether humans have a duty of care over the planet.

I do note that if James Hansen is correct, humans have ended the present Ice Age. That would be a remarkable event, not many species have put such a planet changing imprint on the geological timescale.

I sincerely hope your thin ice breaks soon.

Try thermohaline.

Frick's sake...

Jeers