Yes. My selflessly doing it would be no be good for anyone.

I see. So you want them to either do as you advise, or if not, do their own thinking?

People ask lawyers for free advice, but they are very good at saying things like "state bar guidelines protect consumers against fact-dependent advice without a legal services agreement" or something like that.

My peeve is not with giving the advice/analysis. If I give it to a friend, though, I want a tacit agreement that they will either try to understand my reasoning or simply follow my suggestion.

I trade expertise, but get ripped off. Lawyers and doctor acquaintances have you come to their office and get paid. Me, the engineer, give car and computer advice for free. Not very equitable. I may need to institute your process.

This continuum is an interesting thought that maybe merits its own book or article. My wife talks about medical vs engineer clients. Doctors will tell her what they want and completely turn it over to her. Engineers dig in and need more explanation. The doctors are more likely to be frustrated in the future if something goes wrong. The engineers ask an hour or two of questions, but then when they decide they have buy-in and feel responsible for the outcome.

I also think about in terms of medical treatment. My family has many times dug in and realized the first approach recommended wasn't the best. Relatives outside my nuclear family ask me to do this for them, but I generally don't do it because getting my mind around it it doesn't help them. They need to understand it they way they see the world. Otherwise I'm just another person, along side their doctors, saying technical words and making a recommendation. If I had questions about treatment, I would dig into the science. My wife might dig in by going to experts and checking their track record of successes and any complains filed with the medical board. Everyone has to dig in in their own way that makes sense to them.

I sort of have a rule that I won't dig into the science or finance issues on something for another person unless they're paying me or will do what I say. I don't like it if a friend or family member has me dig into something they can't dig into, and then they go and ask a few other eggheads as if to find the consensus among their egghead acquaintances or just to get a feeling that I care because I wrote down calculations on a piece of paper. This is a personal peeve of mine.

Yes, I think there is a sort of continuum. I suspect it is more like strong groupings:
1) experts,
2) informed, inquisitive people digging in,
3) the largest group, who accept experts (I am in this group for a majority of things (but not this one), as I expect we all are). However, I suspect the Gulchers often find them selves in group #2.
4) people who work on faith/belief/party lines.
The middle group is the largest by far. You could call it a continuum, but a Prado would be very lumpy.
I was also asserting that people in categories 1 and 4 typically take the limiting positions, and that the people in 3 have some diversity, which "damps" out the limiting (all/nothing) action.

I agree with your point. I would only push for nuclear funding, because everything else is subsidized, and it should be taken on an equal cost basis. If we could get rid of other subsidies, then get rid of them all.
The C02 tax is a fine method to deal with it, as long as it falls into the involuntary servitude pool, but the science has not shown this yet. Cap and trade is a good approach too.

Sorry about my weird analogy. With "herd" I was describing group #3 above, people that just don't know, but believe the experts. These people "damp" extreme opinions. However, I was also suggesting that people in category #3 should not be asserting influence to affect the rights of others (irresponsible). They are inadequately informed. The people in category #4 are uncontrollable, zealots.
With the "hell" comment, I was equating this argument to religion, which I think it is, for many people. They know nothing really, but believe the leaders of the faith.
BTW I am not lumping you in this category, with other stronger zealots with bumper stickers like "Jesus would drive a Prius" are, but I am pointing out that religious faith which we agree on, is not too far from this same zealotry.

Regarding your appeal to the expert argument, do you think there's a continuum between people who believe an authority makes something true and people who won't use something like an authoritative table of molecular weights without proof that they can personally digest in detail?

" Where is the funding and pressure for widespread nuclear power"
I know you're talking about environmentalists and not me. My thought is no gov't funding for nuclear but rather to ease regulations on it so that it's profitable. I want to put revenue-neutral taxes on carbon emissions commensurate with their costs, which would make nuclear even more desirable. I think we must go to nuclear, but I don't want to force it. I want all the minds out there thinking of creative ways to get energy to figure it out.

I do not understand your last paragraph about middle-of-the-road herd animals damping the extremes and going to hell. I think there's something interesting there, but I don't get it.

I'm with you on vaccinations, although I didn't have to deal with the insanity in CA now. Why? The mainstream argument against them for autism, is statistically invalid. I think most of the naysayers are people who don't believe we landed on the moon.

You know well an Argument from Authority (AKS Appeal to the Expert) is a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen.... You are using a better version: an appeal to a large statistical body of experts, but this is no different than the position Copernicus was in.

You are obviously welcome to you opinion, and should act in accordance with your opinions (e.g. vaccinating your kids), but it is irresponsible for you to vote to take rights from others at gun point based on such a position. You can, and many do (e.g. abortion activists) Without real study, would you force ably require others to have vaccinations?

Then I go back to my hypocrite argument (not you necessarily, but the mainstream greenies). Where is the funding and pressure for widespread nuclear power to offset the catastrophe they predict? Where are the real solutions? Just tied-eye, druid festival imanineering of solutions, and a scratchy grasping at the steering wheel of power to disrupt the status quo.
The middle of the road people supporting this are a quandary to me. On one hand, dire consequences are predicted (e.g. you will go to hell); therefore, drastic action is required. On the other hand, maybe it is overstated or simply wrong science, chasing correlation over physics-based causation. Saying "do nothing" (At least for AGW. Security is another matter). The middle is just a large group of herd animals providing damping to the extremes. There is some value in the damping, but I don't get that community engaging in the big argument.

"you have already decided what the answer is. "
On the contrary, I said I love it when new evidence overturns existing theory.

" you have offered no argument at all, no logic and no physics."
This is true. I do not try to get into too much detail outside my area. It is an appeal to experts, which I don't think is a logical fallacy. I do not think I can come into a field, read the literature with my general scientific knowledge, and then make some discovery like disproving dark matter or something. It looks silly to make a hand-waving argument way outside my field. I can only offer superficial explanations on these politicized questions like why vaccines works, why GMOs are safe, and why greenhouse gasses change the environment in costly ways.

I'm glad you found a good medical treatment. There have been times when I dug in a went against the first medical recommendations I heard after doing my own research. When it came time to vaccinate my two kids, we followed the recommended schedule. The anti-vax people can show me some facts about T-cells and the properties of the preservatives. I can't tell them how T-cells works. I did some research and found scientific evidence supports the current vaccination schedule. By the time I'm a grandparent, we'll know more. Maybe it will turn out to have been a mistake to give them all those vaccines. But I have to go with what we know now. That's infinitely better than starting with an answer and then looking for any anomalies that lead to the desired answer.

The only response to Naomi Klein goes as follows:
I read your book. It is quite revolutionary. Are you worried that others will plagiarize the ideas presented there? Have you obtained a copyright? If so, do you believe it is your right to keep that which you have produced? If so, how can you claim to be a proponent of socialism? PS Charity and taxation are not equal.

"bothered me about the "warmers" "
Who are the warmers? It sounds like a political thing. Maybe Naomi Klein is a "warmer". I read a first few chapters of This Changes Everything and I could not finish it. It's the only time I can think of where I could not finish a book because it's offensive. She starts saying how global warming used to scare her. But then she had this revelation where she learned to like it because she realized it was key to selling socialism. Not only is that annoying because I socialism is a big a problem as global warming, but I can't stand intentional politicization of science.

I stopped reading her book, and I should probably should avoid any discussion of science that has political hints. That goes for evolution, GMOs, global warming, vaccination, ESP, and all the issues that inspire motivated reasoning by people outside their fields. I'm glad I don't work in a field that gets the attention of the media and politically-motivated dilettantes.

I think the case for AWG is so strong we should working out how to mitigate the effects. The claim that the net cost might be negative is more of the same wishful thinking, not backed by science. It's like grasping at straws for anything that says we don't have to deal with this. I find this wrong because it's denying reality but it also opens the door for politically motivated parties: people who want to get away with pushing the costs on people in the future and people waiting for the problem to get bad for their chance to sell socialism or whatever other bad ideas they couldn't sell without a crisis.

Keep in mind that many of the repercussions of AGW (if they actually happen) will be positive. Little is said about that. One of things that bothered me about the "warmers" was that they focus on negative change -- historically warmer times have been much better for humans.

See what Matt Ridley has to say:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/ca...

No, I was asserting (in a cheeky way), you have already decided what the answer is.

WRT your first paragraph, the effect of concentrations is non-linear, and it diminishes significantly. Higher contributions retain little additional energy.

I disagree that I have engaged in a fallacy of logical argument. I was asserting the need for scrutiny when the stakes are high. It is quite impossible to get to F=ma on everything, as you pointed out WRT the mitochondria. However, I would point out that you have offered no argument at all, no logic and no physics. Your entire case is an appeal to the expert. Do think you want to take issue with fallacies here.

Before you paint me with the brush of a Bush republican that has his money in oil. I began this quest with a very open mind, and even argued for some time that the reduction in CO2 is good, even if it is wrong, because the result will be reducing dependence on foreign oil, which is an excellent means of defending against terrorism.
I'll give you a specific medical example. I had a bicuspid aortic valve in my heart, diagnosed at age 33/34. I was given the option of a pig valve (good for 15-20 years) or a mechanical valve (coumadin for life). I didn't like either, I did research and found a procedure called the Ross Procedure, which my cardiologist was unfamiliar with. I looked over all options, picked the Ross, and have a surgery that should be good for life with no drugs at all. Back to playing soccer after 8 weeks, and I have a picture of my heart to show people that I'm not a heartless bastard.

I think you may have replied to me by accident.

"That still doesn't help the person who needs the energy pay the higher prices."
If the taxes are shifted from work and investment to carbon, it certainly does him to the extent he does work and invests. But it does increase energy costs. It makes it unprofitable to burn energy for reasons that would not be profitable if you had to pay the people in the future who will bear the costs.

"And evaluating the cost of the pollution is impossibly difficult."
That's the whole key that makes this problem so tricky. It's very hard to calculate the costs. Even if you can, you have to do a time-value of money calculation to convert them to present value, which is easy, but knowing what rate to use is very hard. It's not as simple saying something will cost $1 in cleanup in 50 years, so we'll charge a $1 today. Maybe the economy will return a 5% real rate of return on that $1, resulting in $11 of wealth in 50 years. So an activity that produces $1 of wealth today but will cost $5 (in today's dollars) to clean up the mess 50 years from now might still be profitable.
(Note: Cleanup could mean the costs of efforts to mold the climate to human needs or the costs of people moving themselves and their stuff due to climate change.)
I agree this is extraordinarily difficult to calculate. There are billions of us wanting an affluent life, though, which with our current technology means burning lots of fuel, so we need to figure this out.

"It becomes a matter of how much cash you can get away with"
If I understand this argument, you're saying efforts to price in the effects of human activities on the climate will invariably become corrupt. That corruption will be above and beyond the corruption that would exist if we ignored global warming. When you add in the costs of that corruption, it becomes worse than simply ignoring the problem and fixing the repercussions of AGW as they present.

I hope you are right.

Think we found your version of religion.

Malthus was wrong! Population is not growing out of control. As early as Rome it was observed that an affluent, educated, population, particularly when women are educated, reproduces at a lower than replacement rate. "Barbarians" had to be enlisted in the legions to keep the numbers up.

Virtually all advanced nations have lowered fertility rate, some nations rather strikingly. It is generally considered you need 2.1 children per woman to have a stable population. The U.S. is at 1.7, Japan at 1.4 Singpore at .81. Such low rates, without immigration, can result in severe demographic shifts as significantly larger portions of the population become aged.

Now there are still some nations with more than 2.1 and with the number of young people, we will continue to grow. Most people think the world's population will max out at 9.5 - 10 billion. I think the trend is changing faster than expected and we may max at 9.4 or lower. After that we will begin decreasing in population.

Many countries are implementing programs to encourage birth rates to slow the drop in population among natives. High immigration has a risk of cultural dislocation (as we are discussing in our elections).

I'm assuming by revenue-neutral you are implying that when you raise the cost of energy by taxing it's production you lower taxes elsewhere to match (good luck getting that done!)

That still doesn't help the person who needs the energy pay the higher prices. And evaluating the cost of the pollution is impossibly difficult. It becomes a matter of how much cash you can get away with -- pretty much the same calculation any robber makes.

I keep saying revenue-neutral, and you keep addressing revenue-increasing taxes.

Taxing pollution (in a revenue-neutral way) does not get rid of the costs of pollution, but it does cause people to factor in the cost to others. This is much better than setting hard limits. Market participants can make their own decisions. Maybe they're working on something that will create more value than will be lost due to the climate change they will cause. We don't want taxes that discourage that activity. By the way, we currently tax work and investment, which would have to be decreased if we had a revenue neutral tax on carbon. The point is to avoid rewarding activities that seem profitable but are actually just theft from others.

I completely agree, though, that it's better to do some kind of tort where the money goes directly to those harmed. I don't know how to do it with global warming. This is an unpleasant reality that's easy to want to ignore. You can only ignore reality for so long though, maybe a lifetime in this case; maybe that's long enough for some people.

"order of magnitude or more too weak in even concentrations many times higher than we have now"
Does this mean water vapor at its average current concentrations absorbs at least 10 times the heat as CO2? If true, that does not mean doubling CO2 concentrations won't move the needle. We'd have to know the "gain", i.e. how steep the increased heat retention vs CO2 concentration curve is. Once we know that we'd have to know how a change in this component that's 10% of the effect of CO2 would affects the climate. With no atmosphere, we'd be like the moon, with extremes of hot and cold. With a thick atmosphere we'd be Venus. A small change in surface albedo or atmosphere could have large consequences. I'm really hand-waving here without knowledge of the science, along the lines of your typical global warming denier. So, as you say, I have to listen to people who actually work in the field. I won't figure it out by hand-waving analogies to electronics.

"When someone reaches for the steering wheel and wants to take power and your rights, be very skeptical."
This is appeal to consequences and poisoning the well. It's poisoning the well because Naomi Klein using global warming to promote socialism has zero impact on the reality to of the science. It's appeal to consequences because even if we know the truth will be successfully abused by people to take away peoples rights (hypothetically, I say we don't know that), it doesn't affect the truth.

Even if we accept special interests widely manipulate how the science is reported, there's trillions of dollars (10^13 magnitude) of economic activity that in some way increases CO2 and every few people who stand to benefit from the problem.

I say when someone tells you exactly what you want to hear, be very skeptical. It reminds me of these cases where 95% of doctors say you need a painful treatment that likely will only slow the disease, but a minority say there is an easy cure that big pharma has suppressed; it's easy to get sucked into accepting the desired claim. You certainly don't want to start the painful medicine without researching it, but you also have to be mindful of how motivated you are to believe what you wish were true.

"where you have black lines in the spectrum"
I see what you're saying. If most of the energy is absorbed nearly 100% at discrete wavelengths and nearly 0% across the rest of the spectrum, then once you reach a level where black line absorption is near 100%, further increases in the amt of material (or concentration of gas) will have no further effect.

I do not know how it works with black-line spectra for IR and light, but it does not work this way for RF communications. Instead of discrete black lines, we see the attenuation coming in various poorly-defined peaks. We don't see any deep nulls due to attenuation. When those crop up, they're due to multipath, i.e. nodes/antinodes of an interference pattern.

Your idea of black-line spectra, though, makes me suspect the function that relates CO2 concentration to greenhouse effect is not linear. I'm really guessing, though-- way outside my area.

Think about the absorption spectra from stars where you have black lines in the spectrum indicating that the gases absorbed all the radiation at that point.

"There is a large gap between saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs a significant amount of heat and saying it is going to change the overall climate in specific ways"
Yes. There are not the same claims.

"So any increase in CO2 will not change the AMOUNT of heat absorbed, just where in the atmosphere this will happen."
I'm on the edge of my area of expertise, but I believe this claim is false. Radio waves are similarly affected by the absorption spectra of water in the clouds and tree leaves. This does not mean that none of the energy finds its way to the antenna on a satellite, just less than the free-space path loss equation would predict. The more objects in the way, the more absorption, and therefore the less signal received at the antenna.

No, I did not say CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I said it is an order of magnitude or more too weak in even concentrations many times higher than we have now, to have affected the changes we've seen in recorded history.
Any well-informed climatologist would tell you this, after rolling his/her eyes, if you pin them down directly. It is true, and it is simple. The same well-informed climatologist could be pinned down to say water vapor is the only greenhouse gas a simulation has demonstrated strong enough to cause what we have seen.

The question is "Is the water vapor linked to the CO2?"

Surprise! It is true. You didn't know, and 99% of people don't know this. I believe (don't know) it is not discussed to the lay people, because it doesn't play with the simple strength of: CO2 is the greenhouse gas = AWG. The people who want power and provide funding do not want this known, until the water vapor can be inextricably linked to water vapor in a manner irrelevant to the layperson.

Go dig for yourself. You are a smart guy, and were convinced of this incorrect fact too. I knew nothing about this detail a year ago, when we argued last, but then dug in. If I can find where I put the basic calculation on this Mac, I'll send it to you as a starting point. When someone reaches for the steering wheel and wants to take power and your rights, be very skeptical.