The value of all the proven reserves will plummet if the market for oil and coal decreases. That is the source of the disinformation campaign.

We cannot do without coal/oil in 2014, but with the correct incentives, we can change our infrastructure to do with a *lot* less, and emerging markets can skip the coal trap all-together.

According the IPCC AR5 WG3, sustained movements away from carbon over 90 years will do the trick. You can still drive your car, and so can your children.

There is a lot of detail to get into for why we should be introducing economic incentives now -- you can read all about it in the 1700 page report, and 10k references.

The solution *has* been proposed, and big oil is fighting it with a misinformation campaign as to whether AGW is happening at all.

We could fix this problem easily with barely any significant change to our style of life. Sure there will be winners and loser, and the losers will be big oil/coal companies -- some of the most powerful institutions in the world -- and that's why nothing is being done. It is really easy to throw mud and claim there is "confusion" on whether AGW is happening. Meanwhile, they tell themselves a story about how CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doing anything would be communism, and therefore morally wrong.

AGW is easy to solve compared to the little lies we tell ourselves about what is moral, in order to protect our little empires.

I'm pretty sure that most people agree on most things, and even policy wonks can find a huge amount of common ground to move forward on. Alas that politics is all about fighting. I heard one GOP insider saying that they push some of the conspiratorial nonsense to distract the base from making up nonsense about the GOP leadership.

If you are a conservative, you may enjoy this 20thC history of economics. The analysis leaves out a few important details (like the role of the OPEC crisis, and Nixon's price and wage controls, as causal factors in stagflation), but I think the general idea is pretty accurate. But no one theory of economics can claim to describe the economy, so it's important to realize that you are looking at a point of view that has blind spots, even if it is mostly true.

Even that is overstating the case. Global cooling was *investigated* by a small number of scientists, including Steve Scheider (!). Time magazine and the media pushed it as a good story. Must have sold newspapers.

Cheaper things may or may not be better for the environment though. There can be a paradox, where you end up using more resources because there is more collective demand.

Also, you're ignoring externalities, which is kind-of the whole point.

Most Nobel Prizes for physics go to scientists who demonstrate an existing idea is wrong. There are some problems with Kuhn's analysis, in that at any point of time, you'll find multiple paradigms active in large fields, and you'll also see rather incremental changes in and out of dominate paradigms, for the most part. This is a pretty big flaw in his argument.

This is a rather sad point of view, because it is simply wrong. The strongest incentives are for the status quo. The largest industry in world (the energy sector) is staring down regulation, and they have the most to lose. If you care whether or not your beliefs are true or not, then do yourself a favour, and read "Merchants of Doubt" which chronicles in excruciating detail, the very real history of how companies manipulate the media to protect their interests.

Most scientists could make far more working in industry. (I sure could.) So they aren't chasing money. They are trying to understand cool new things, and leave a footnote in the lineage of human consciousness. You don't get that by being wrong. You get that by being new, innovative, and mostly: demonstrating the status quo is wrong. In fact, you've got the incentive structures completely ass backwards.

The reason for this is because the issue is now politically polarized. That means, roughly 50% of people will tend towards trusting different sources of information on the issue. We're talking tribalism, not argumentation.

Many GOP congress-critters and senators know that global warming is a real and present danger, but cannot hope to speak up in public, because of the super-polarized political dynamics, and the fact that the GOP depends on a rather paranoid and conspiratorial base. (In contrast, the Dems distance themselves from liberal crazies.)

It should be modded "sad". There are ways to green the energy system without raising the out-of-pocket costs to consumers, or having the government take on debt. If you knew something about the economics of the issue, then you'd already know that. Google is your friend. And an open mind.

Maybe. Coal emits a ridiculous amount of radiation... Also, according to the Torch report, 60k people died from Chernobyl, which is a tragedy, but a drop in the bucket compared to coal.

Oh Richy_T, in practice most people don't care if their beliefs are wrong or right -- because examining dis-confirming evidence is confronting. If you actually care if your beliefs are right or wrong, then I recommend reading "Merchants of Doubt" which analyzes (sometimes in laborious depth) the ozone whole, acid rain, and star wars, and the disinformation campaigns around them.

This is such a vapid statement. Obviously the rate of change is what is concerning. I assume you know that from the rest of your post, right?

Richy_T, this seems like nitpicking to me. Obviously a cost-benefit analysis of pollution is at the heart of assessing what to do. That means, we first have to identify problems (or potential problems) with compounds, and then see what the cheapest/most effective options (or research/demonstrate there is not problem).

The only real problem with this is corruption. But surprise, it's an imperfect world, and even corruption (esp. corruption) responds to incentive structures.

Right, but how could you tell for yourself if you are in denial? The cognitive mechanisms of denial make it nigh-on-invisible to the afflicted person. As such, deniers really believe science is on their side, and that they are being scientific. Crazy, eh?