Ainwood: I think that sometimes an Ad-Hom is appropriate. If a person associates with the an immoral crowd known for their agenda, then you can ignore their arguments. It's just as likely that they're trying to trick you as inform you.
Maybe it is, but in this case, I don't think it is. Simple Simon made a reference to a "massive temperature rise". I pointed him to a satellite record put out by University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH). Simple Simon attacks the source of the data because of Roy Spencer's association with the data source, and completely ignores the data. He then admits that it is "possible, but unlikely" that the data is wrong.
Suggests to me that it was an ad-hominem for the purpose of distracting from addressing the data and the point made.
more polite? Aye-aye, Sir - if you tell me how (PM?), I will - but I will not lie, I will not mollycoddle people who get paid by Big Tobacco and Big Oil to lie, and I will not lie about my own, personal opinion.
BTW - referring to people as 'paid liars' is far removed from 'not mollycoddle'. It is in fact closer to defamation.
@Ainwood: please let me clarify.
I do not, in any way, want to suggest that you intentionally, knowingly, post things you know or suspect not to be true. Nor do I think you deliberately attempt to blow smoke and obfuscate the issue. I do not doubt your intellectual honesty. However, I do doubt your sub-consciousness, as much as I doubt mine. I know that it is sometimes very hard to come out of denials. I know of two important issues where it took me years to do so. No idea how many more there are on topics I feel strongly about. I think - believe, if you prefer that term - that you are indeed in denial. You are very smart, and educated, and you (I assume) work in the field we discuss. Thus it is quite easy for you to make rationalizations, find excuses, etc, without ever consciously noticing that you do. Maybe I am wrong, maybe it is me doing that. Or maybe we both are - or none of us. So please take my posts along the line 'be kind with colleagues, ruthless with theories'. I am not here to 'win' this discussion. I am here to convince people of what I perceive to be the truth, for the benefit of mankind. Thus, crooks and liars will be addressed as such by me. Unless you work for e.g. the Cato Institute, though, I am not addressing you personally
Fair enough. Indulge me if you will, for I would like to address two points. You may refer to me with the (loaded) term 'denier', but the other term you previously used was 'agnostic', and this is probably closer to the truth. I first recall mention of global climate issues with concerns about global
cooling. Then it was global warming. I got interested, and started reading-up. What my reading suggested to me was that the science is
not settled. It may be 'settled' that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is
not settled (at least in my view) is the potential consequences of elevated CO2.
What I find of interest is that the science behind things like temperature reconstructions seems to be full of holes. There is obfuscation, deliberate attempts to prevent access to data, or details of methods. The scientific method is failing. Perhaps using your subconscious example above, those doing the temperature reconstructions (for example), are subconsciously selecting data that supports the conclusion that they are trying to reach?
---------------------------------------------------
I would also like to address your comments relating to 'big oil' paying people to lie. I'm going to give my perspective on this issue, and where I make assumptions as to your perspective, please correct me if I am wrong.
Presumably, you believe that 'big oil' is funding anti-global-warming 'lies', because they see that global warming, as a Very Real Problem, means that they lose profits. Ie: Its all about the money.
Lets examine this: The world is highly dependent on fossil fuels for energy, particularly oil and natural gas (which is what 'big oil' primarily trades in). Big oil has a near-monopoly on energy supply for transport, and enjoys
60% of the total energy market. They are obviously incentivised to protect market share.
Along come the threat of 'global warming'. The finger is pointed at the fossil fuel industry as being the 'cause'. This means that society collectively wants to reduce fossil fuel dependence and use, to reduce harm to the planet. On the face of it, I agree that this creates a strng incentive for big oil to obfuscate and try to prove that global warming is not real. But stay with me, and lets look a bit deeper:
Because the world is hooked-on fossil fuels, it is simply not practical to do away with fossil fuels overnight. The much more likely scenario is that polluters are required to pay to clean-up their emissions. The added cost is likely to make other forms of energy more viable. So, faced with this, what is the rational thing for big oil to do? To maximise profits, and protect (or even grow) market share, I would suggest that the rational thing for them to do is to
jump on the global warming bandwagon and whole-heartedly lobby for cap and trade. Let me explain why:
Firstly, costs of cleaning-up CO2 emissions will simply be passed-on to the consumers, provided that:
1.) the energy is fairly demand-inelastic (it is) to a degree,
2.) oil (or gas) + CO2 clean-up cost is still cheaper than alternative energy streams.
If these conditions are satisfied, then profit margins will be maintained.
So, does the cost of cleaning-up CO2 emissions make oil or gas uneconomic? Lets look at it.
1 bbl of oil costs (very roughly) $US 60.
Now: how much CO2 does this emit when combusted? Unfortunately, I couldn't find an easy answer, but I can get a very rough number by assuming the oil is Octane (C8H18).
Octane has a standard density of 703 kg/m³. When combusted, 1 mole of Octane (mol weight = 114.2285) releases 8 moles of CO2 (mol weight = 44). Ie: on a kg per kg basis, burning 1 kg of octane will release (8*44 / 114.2285) = 3.09 kg of CO2. So, burning 1 m³ (703 kg) of Octane will release 703 * 3.09 = 2170 kg of CO2. As a barrel is 0.159 m³, I therefore estimate that burning a barrel of oil will release 2107 * 0.159 = 0.345 Tonnes of CO2. (Hope I've got my maths correct).
Now: What is the 'cost' of these emissions? That is a very good question.... One price suggested is
$US 30 / tonne, whereas the
futures market has the cost at around 14 - 17 Euros / tonne. To be conservative, I'll assume the higher price of $US 30 / tonne.
So, 1 bbl of oil, costing $60, results in emissions of 0.345 tonnes of CO2, with a 'cost' of 0.345 * 30 = $US 10.35, bringing the total price to $70.35 / bbl. Now: to put this into context, 1 bbl = 159 litres. The additional cost for gasoline at the pump is therefore 10.35 / 159 = $US 0.065 / Litre, or less than 5 eurocents / litre at the pump.
An increase in petrol cost of < 5% at the pump is hardly going to have people rushing for alternatives, especially given that the oil price was significantly higher than this 6 months ago, and even then wind and hydro people weren't exactly rushing to the alternatives.
The other benefit that oil and gas enjoys is the sunk cost of the infrastructure. A small incremental cost in having to clean-up CO2 can be absorbed, because the alternatives require new energy infrastructure, which makes the alternatives uneconomic! The oil companies can rely on this to allow them to pass-through any increased costs to the consumer, and protect their market position.
This argument doesn't necessarily apply to
new generation, but I still think that the oil companies positions are fairly robust, even with additional costs.
But you could argue that the threat of issing out on any future growth in the energy market could reduce profitability for oil companies (note: most of them are also heavily into researching renewables, which is another reasonable risk mitigation strategy).
For my second point, I would actually argue that not only will oil companies maintain their positions in a cap-and-trade world, they will actually
make more money. The reason is coal. Coal
is the dirty fuel, but the sunk capital argument doesn't work so well, because coal can be converted over to natural gas
relatively easily. The oil companies might expand here.
Secondly, sequestration of carbon dioxide could be the natural progression from cap + trade, especially given the worlds' dependence on fossil fuels, the difficulty complying with emissions, and land-use meaning that forestry isn't a viable sequestration option long-term. The best sequestration option is probably geo-sequestration, and guess what? The oil companies have the depleted reservoirs to put the CO2 in. The oil companies have the technology / expertise in drilling and sub-surface geology. Oil companies are also the ones that have the technology for CO2 removal from gas streams (many natural gas streams have natural CO2 that must be stripped-out as part of natural gas processing). In short: Oil companies stand to make a LOT of money out of sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Of couse, my thoughts above might be a bit of a flight of fancy and some wishful thinking. Where is the evidence to support my assertions?
The most recent info I have is on submissions to New Zealand's government on the proposed emissions trading scheme (effectively cap & trade).
Exxon Mobil: Argue for a carbon tax (instead of cap & trade)
Shell: Advocate for emissions trading scheme.
British Petroleum: Supports the emissions trading.
So, "big oil", the people who apparently pay others to lie, are fully supportive of some form of emissions trading, or cap & trade. Maybe because they'll make money out of it?
That's what some people tell us - they are the same people who tell us that the majority of scientists rejects evolution, too. 
