Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

If you're relying on him for your information, no wonder you have a strange view of what's scientific consensus and what isn't.

Is there anything incorrect on the page I linked? Or, are you attacking the person, rather than the content?

Thanks for those other links. I will study them.

[Jester]

Is there anything incorrect on the page I linked? Or, are you attacking the person, rather than the content?

Thanks for those other links. I will study them.

Please do. I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. The scientific subtleties of the climatological argument are obviously beyond us, something which could easily be used to mislead people on either side. Jargon-filled smokescreens have been well-used in the past to confuse otherwise clear issues for political gain.

But Steven Milloy is equally not a climatologist. And yet he seems rather sure of all his criticisms. Perhaps this is because he is insightful and wise, despite his lack of expertise. Or maybe it's because his conclusions are foreordained, and he just spews confusing crap to cloud the issue.

Given his track record, it doesn't take me very long to figure out which is overwhelmingly likley. But maybe you feel differently. All I can do is rely on the experts, and they disagree sharply with Milloy's "interpretation", if we are to extend a lying propagandist that much charity.

Answers to many of Milloy's points can be found here, which harnesses far more expertise than I have on the topic.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think we have also reached near the saturation point where additional CO2 condenses from the atmosphere more rapidly.

Given that CO2 is a *gas* at ambient temperature and pressure, there is no way it can 'condense'. The only way in which CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere in any quantity is to break the carbon-oxygen connections, release the oxygen and tie the carbon into some solid phase (organic compound, graphite, diamond, whatever).

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. The scientific subtleties of the climatological argument are obviously beyond us, something which could easily be used to mislead people on either side.

I am not a climatologist, either. However, my field was the modeling of physical phenomena which would include the thermodynamics of atmosphere. As such, though I am not qualified to generate climate models, I am more than qualified to critique and judge them. Around twenty years ago, through the good graces of some of my colleagues at national labs, I was able to obtain the source code of two climate models. Without divulging details, I can honestly say that the models were designed to predict global warming rather than to predict climate change and see if global warming was the expected result. In spite of the built in biases in the programs, the adjustable parameters still had to be very carefully selected to give the 'correct' result. Weather is almost the ultimate in chaotic systems (thus, 'the butterfly effect) and long term weather is almost totally unpredictable. I'm sure that in the two decades since I've looked at the problem, some progress has been made. I'm not sure just how much more valid the present models are.

That being said, the actual data from the past five decades leave little doubt that global warming is a very real and present phenomenon. Predicting may be difficult, postdicting is much easier. So, although the prognosis may be unclear, the diagnosis is beyond doubt. And, to further mix metaphors, we don't know if the climatic Russian roulette we're playing is with all the chambers loaded or all empty or something in between.

--Pete

[Jester]

That being said, the actual data from the past five decades leave little doubt that global warming is a very real and present phenomenon. Predicting may be difficult, postdicting is much easier. So, although the prognosis may be unclear, the diagnosis is beyond doubt. And, to further mix metaphors, we don't know if the climatic Russian roulette we're playing is with all the chambers loaded or all empty or something in between.

In the world of computer modelling, I can only imagine that the last two decades loom rather large, given what we can do now that we couldn't in 1989. I don't think there is anything like a 'grand climate change model' that you can simply plug current data into, and reveal the past and future with accuracy. I think the general approach has been to break the problem into chunks and model each individually with more reliability, then put the pieces together to obtain a more realistic whole. Perhaps there are papers available which offer more helpful details for someone like yourself who might actually understand them. Realclimate.com seems to offer quite a lot for the interested specialist, although I'm not sure source code is one of those things.

My understanding is also that nobody has successfully constructed a plausible competing theory. Attributing past climate change without including a significant role for carbon dioxide forcing is (apparently) not feasible with current data and theory. Once you've given CO2 a major role when attributing past warming, it's pretty tough to come up with any prediction except that adding lots more to the atmosphere will lead to warming.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In the world of computer modelling, I can only imagine that the last two decades loom rather large, given what we can do now that we couldn't in 1989. I don't think there is anything like a 'grand climate change model' that you can simply plug current data into, and reveal the past and future with accuracy. I think the general approach has been to break the problem into chunks and model each individually with more reliability, then put the pieces together to obtain a more realistic whole. Perhaps there are papers available which offer more helpful details for someone like yourself who might actually understand them. Realclimate.com seems to offer quite a lot for the interested specialist, although I'm not sure source code is one of those things.

I have some good friends who worked on super computers to build cloud and climate models. They are very complex, but still reality is even more complex.

My understanding is also that nobody has successfully constructed a plausible competing theory. Attributing past climate change without including a significant role for carbon dioxide forcing is (apparently) not feasible with current data and theory. Once you've given CO2 a major role when attributing past warming, it's pretty tough to come up with any prediction except that adding lots more to the atmosphere will lead to warming.

It might be also that no one wants to hear alternative theories, since they wouldn't support their personal or political agenda.

Do you understand who helped found the private firm named "Chicago Climate Exchange"? Do you know who are the largest investors in CCX? Have you ever heard of Generation Investment Management? Some names you might know in and around the Obama administration, like David W. Blood (see Goldman Sachs), L. John Doerr and his wife Ann(see Environmental Defense Fund).

There is a group of people here who maybe don't give a rats patooti about the environment, but who hope to cash in on the fear mongering in promoting an uncertain future. It's only slightly better than a military industrial complex that cash's in on keeping the world in a state of perpetual war. Could I interest you in an environmentally safe bunker?

[Jester]

I have some good friends who worked on super computers to build cloud and climate models. They are very complex, but still reality is even more complex.

It might be also that no one wants to hear alternative theories, since they wouldn't support their personal or political agenda.

Do you understand who helped found the private firm named "Chicago Climate Exchange"? Do you know who are the largest investors in CCX? Have you ever heard of Generation Investment Management? Some names you might know in and around the Obama administration, like David W. Blood (see Goldman Sachs), L. John Doerr and his wife Ann(see Environmental Defense Fund).

There is a group of people here who maybe don't give a rats patooti about the environment, but who hope to cash in on the fear mongering in promoting an uncertain future. It's only slightly better than a military industrial complex that cash's in on keeping the world in a state of perpetual war. Could I interest you in an environmentally safe bunker?

One moment you're accusing me of attacking the sources, the next, you're dismissing the entirety of climate science as an elaborate plot engineered by a cabal of fake "environmentalists" with a decades-long scheme to drum up fear about global warming, then profit from it by setting up carbon trading schemes? This all seems rather Dr. Evil; all they're missing is sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads.

Wouldn't it be a whole lot more reasonable to just postulate the obvious: that people concerned about the environment invest in environmentally progressive businesses? That people who want to see carbon trading adopted would be among the first to establish a carbon trading exchange? This really isn't very surprising, or ominous.

Rep. Blackburn once confronted Gore about his involvement with Generation Investment Management. He pointed out that not only does he reinvest everything he makes from the enterprise into educational non-profits, but that it's simply absurd to claim that he has spend thirty years of his life investigating and campaigning for environmental causes as some obscure plot to make himself money. Gore may be right about the environment, or he may be wrong, but it's simply ridiculous to state, on nothing but connect-the-dots evidence, to suggest that this is some kind of decades-long plot. Scientists all over the world have been warning for decades that this is urgent business; are they all in it together with these (supposedly) carbon-corrupt politicos? This would be one hell of a conspiracy.

The very first thing on the Realclimate page is a basic rundown of the draft of the "suppressed" EPA report. It contains nothing new, almost zero peer-reviewed science, and is little more than a grab-bag of well-known, mutually contradictory, denialist tropes.

-Jester

Edit: memory failing, Michele Bachmann, while completely looney tunes on the issue of climate change, was not the on to confront Gore on that particular occasion.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Scientists all over the world have been warning for decades that this is urgent business; are they all in it together with these (supposedly) carbon-corrupt politicos?

In the movie The Right Stuff there is an exchange, used twice, that goes more or less:
First person, speaking of aircraft/spacecraft: "Do you know what makes these go up?"
Second person: "Why, just the aerodynamics alone . . . "
First person, interrupting: "Funding makes these go up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Anyone who has not played the research game cannot know just how evilly true that exchange is. Much like a politician who isn't elected, a program that is not funded is useless. And just like most politicians will do anything to get elected, most researchers will do anything to be funded. From many years of experience, I can tell you that if you were to go to a funding agency and say, "Global warming *might* be a problem, and I'd like funding to examine it.", the last thing you'd hear as the door hit your but would be gales of laughter. But if you walk in saying, "Global warming is the biggest threat there is and will kill us all, soon.", the odds are that you'll walk out with a check.

No conspiracy, just the funding equivalent of natural selection. And any movement generates the opportunists ready to take advantage. Again, no conspiracy, just your basic parasitism.

Don't expect the scientific community to research unpopular (and thus, unfunded) positions much. There are few scientists that are willing to sacrifice a career for principle. That's why even pacifists work at national laboratories.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think we scientists are any worse than anyone else -- just no better. And I don't doubt global warming, but I'd love to see more unbiased evidence from people whose livelihood does not depend on generating scare models.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

And I don't doubt global warming, but I'd love to see more unbiased evidence from people whose livelihood does not depend on generating scare models.

--Pete

Where would MIT sit on your scale of 'those whose livelihood depends on generating scare models'?

Because this report looks a tad grim...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where would MIT sit on your scale of 'those whose livelihood depends on generating scare models'?

Right there with all the rest. Believe me, the competition for funding drives a lot more than the political hot button questions. Politically non-controversial questions are also effected. Look at the history of cosmological theories, plate tectonics (go back to 'continental drift'), virology and cancer, bacteria and stomach ulcers, etc., etc. If it's not popular, it's not funded. And if it's not 'spectacular', it's often not popular.

As to the article you link, there are two very important points:

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s.

Check out their mission. Note that it is *not* their mission to determine the truth. It is their mission to support, as much as possible, the threat of climatic change. In their mission statement, they assume the conclusions that they claim their model supports. Do you think that, at any time, a model that didn't support their claims would have been considered 'wrong' and replaced with one that did? Do you think that, had their computer model predicted no effect or minimal effect, they would have gone back to their backers and said, "We were wrong. The money you gave us was wasted. We won't bother you for additional funding in the future." Believe me, the graduate students would not have gotten their degrees, the nontenured professors would not have gotten tenure, and the research career of the tenured professors would have slowed to a crawl, if not ended completely (not to mention their reserved parking spaces would be on the far side of town and their offices would be a broom closet in the basement).

This work was supported in part by grants from the Office of Science of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and by the industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The position of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change was discussed above. That of the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy can be seen from this request for proposals. DoE competes for its funding in Congress against all other government agencies. Do you really think that a good going-in position for them is "we've got a minor problem, but give us billions anyway"? In light of that, do you think a response to the linked RFP that says, "We've got a model that shows you're over-stating the problem and we'd like you to fund us to further develop that model.", would be warmly embraced and richly funded?

Again, I'm *not* saying that their results are wrong. I'm saying that their research is *not* unbiased. Unfortunately, nowadays research follows the golden rule; them that have the gold make the rule. And there are no large unbiased sources for research funds. Everywhere you look are axes that someone wants ground, and the only way to get the money is to promise to grind the axe.

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

It might be also that no one wants to hear alternative theories, since they wouldn't support their personal or political agenda.

Just to link to a more evenhanded discussion of the global warming thing - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ld_p.php?ref=m1 and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...2009/06/bubkes/

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just to link to a more evenhanded discussion of the global warming thing

Those links are "evenhanded"?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

One moment you're accusing me of attacking the sources, the next, you're dismissing the entirety of climate science as an elaborate plot engineered by a cabal of fake "environmentalists" with a decades-long scheme to drum up fear about global warming, then profit from it by setting up carbon trading schemes? This all seems rather Dr. Evil; all they're missing is sharks with frickin' laser beams on their foreheads.

I'm not dismissing those scientists who've raised issues about climate change, and the human contribution. What I'm saying is that "models" may or may not accurately portray our future, and so, really, we'll just have to see how it plays out. We should do *reasonable* things to reduce unnecessary human disruption of the environment. For me, this means everything from excessive green house gases, to dumping refuse from NYC into the ocean, and leaking oil wells off the coast of California just to name a few. However, unlike Al Gore, I believe that humanity should try to also design a solution that doesn't take us back to the caves. I believe we have the intellect to retain our standard of living, and be ecologically sensitive. The CO2 horse is out of the barn, so we are stuck with some level of damage. We have inaccurate models that may give us some range of possible futures. I'm suggesting that instead of "trading carbon credits" at CCX, that it may be more useful to directly use "carbon tax" money to build ecologically sound infrastructure in the USA. Screw GIM, and CCX, and let's figure out what has the biggest MW output for our eco-dollars and build it now.

Rep. Blackburn once confronted Gore about his involvement with Generation Investment Management. He pointed out that not only does he reinvest everything he makes from the enterprise into educational non-profits, but that it's simply absurd to claim that he has spend thirty years of his life investigating and campaigning for environmental causes as some obscure plot to make himself money. Gore may be right about the environment, or he may be wrong, but it's simply ridiculous to state, on nothing but connect-the-dots evidence, to suggest that this is some kind of decades-long plot. Scientists all over the world have been warning for decades that this is urgent business; are they all in it together with these (supposedly) carbon-corrupt politicos? This would be one hell of a conspiracy.

Since he failed to win the presidency, Al Gore has made his living off environmental fear mongering. Environmental fear mongering is nothing new.

The very first thing on the Realclimate page is a basic rundown of the draft of the "suppressed" EPA report. It contains nothing new, almost zero peer-reviewed science, and is little more than a grab-bag of well-known, mutually contradictory, denialist tropes.

So, yes, there are alternative view points that are suppressed then. Carlin seems like a credible guy, and not really a crack-pot. He is a guy, who has a PhD in economics, and a B.S. in physics and a long distinguished career. Here is the report, and you can check it out for yourself.

Edit: memory failing, Michele Bachmann, while completely looney tunes on the issue of climate change, was not the on to confront Gore on that particular occasion.

Not really "looney tunes", but against your position. I think if we are going to have a reasonable debate on the environment, it is helpful to omit the labels like "looney tunes" and "tree hugging eco-Nazi".

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
Those links are "evenhanded"?

--Pete

Well the first one is. The second one I edited in afterwards, although I guess I should have changed the phrasing at that point. I thought about it, but I considered the presentation of a second side evenhanded in some way. If I back up any faster I'm going to bang the back of my head on a wall so I'll stop here.

Fact is the second link actually deals with what the author says (well after the opening ad hominem attack anyway) which is, I believe, what needs to be considered. And it does a pretty good job ripping it apart. Of course if the first link is to be believed then Carlin himself acknowledges that the report wasn't really printable.

Basically, the argument that since someone published something then it must have some merit is always tenuous (though admittedly it is often the case in science that that has to suffice), but especially when the 'someone' is not an expert in the field and the 'published' is not in a peer reviewed journal. At that point I feel it is incumbent on anyone who quotes the guy to look at the data.

[kandrathe]

Basically, the argument that since someone published something then it must have some merit is always tenuous (though admittedly it is often the case in science that that has to suffice), but especially when the 'someone' is not an expert in the field and the 'published' is not in a peer reviewed journal. At that point I feel it is incumbent on anyone who quotes the guy to look at the data.

I read Carlin's brief. He is not so much trying to debunk "Global Warming", as he is asking the EPA to consider that the IPCC, and other reports may be based on one sided thinking. His point is that the EPA is the environmental action arm of the US government. He lists a number of valid omissions and possible omissions to the peer reviewed work that has been published. Really, he is asking that before the EPA jumps on the popular band wagon enforcing environmental legislation (which will harm people economically) that they protect the EPA's reputation by insuring the science is unbiased. The alternative would be litigation by those people harmed, who will bring lawsuits against the US government where the government has no defense. When it comes to impartiality, justice (usually) is blind, politics chooses the winning side, and scientists are supporters of their own theories.

[weakwarrior]

I read Carlin's brief. He is not so much trying to debunk "Global Warming", as he is asking the EPA to consider that the IPCC, and other reports may be based on one sided thinking. His point is that the EPA is the environmental action arm of the US government. He lists a number of valid omissions and possible omissions to the peer reviewed work that has been published. Really, he is asking that before the EPA jumps on the popular band wagon enforcing environmental legislation (which will harm people economically) that they protect the EPA's reputation by insuring the science is unbiased. The alternative would be litigation by those people harmed, who will bring lawsuits against the US government where the government has no defense. When it comes to impartiality, justice (usually) is blind, politics chooses the winning side, and scientists are supporters of their own theories.

I´m sorry but the argument that since we don´t know everything we don´t know anything (or at least we can´t do anything based on the knowledge we have) - which is pretty much the synopsis of his work as best I can tell - is a faulty one very popular among people who don´t want to accept scientific concensuses (is that the plural?). I ask that you show where the second link I posted is wrong in tearing him to shreds. Every time I try and continue this post it turns into a rant so I´ll stop here.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I´m sorry but the argument that since we don´t know everything we don´t know anything (or at least we can´t do anything based on the knowledge we have) . . . is a faulty one . . .

It is indeed a faulty argument. However, it is not his argument (nor mine). It is the Republicat's misrepresentation of his argument. So, go fault them.

. . . - which is pretty much the synopsis of his work as best I can tell - . . .

Then you need to rethink his work, maybe reread it (or read it rather than reading someone's commentary on it).

. . . very popular among people who don´t want to accept scientific concensuses (is that the plural?).

But he does accept global warming, what he does not agree with is the best way to control it. Unlike the scientists who *never* consider the economic aspect ("Why use lead if gold will do?"), he wants to at least consider more reasonable options.

Oh, and it probably should be 'consensi', pronounced 'con-sense-eye'. Then again, since it is *not* a Latin word (though it is derived from one), 'concensuses' can work. Best way to avoid the problem is to avoid the plural.;)

I ask that you show where the second link I posted is wrong in tearing him to shreds.

It is correct in tearing to shreds the strawman set up. Since that was not his argument, it doesn't tear *him* to shreds.

Every time I try and continue this post it turns into a rant so I´ll stop here.

Ah, come on. Do it for the fun of it.;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Given that CO2 is a *gas* at ambient temperature and pressure, there is no way it can 'condense'. The only way in which CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere in any quantity is to break the carbon-oxygen connections, release the oxygen and tie the carbon into some solid phase (organic compound, graphite, diamond, whatever).

Yes. I should have clarified that better. I meant that there are efficient natural processes which sequester carbon readily as the levels available in the atmosphere increase (photosynthesis is more productive). What is an issue is that the dual process of burning carbon and also engaging in destruction (e.g. pollution, deforestation, etc.) of the natural systems for carbon sequestration is a death sentence for life on the planet.

Speaking about CO2; I'm wondering if the correlation of atmospheric CO2 to temperature (ice core analysis) is somewhat corollary than cause. The measured rise of CO2 has gone from 280 ppm (0.028%) to 390 ppm (0.039 %) over the last 250 years. It just seems to be a less important factor (~10% to 20%) in global climate change, although it might certainly be one of those "butterfly effect" things where the natural balance gets nudged because of people burning forests and fossils. There is a thermal inertia, which may take decades for todays climate to express itself in global temperature. I think also we should be concerned about fine particulate emissions (smoke, etc.) into the atmosphere that might also capture and radiate heat.

My personal opinion is that we can reverse much of this damage through solar desalinization, using natural processes (plants) for sewage treatment and reclaiming more arid land for plants. I believe in the "no footprints" approach to nature, so this would mean we need to build up carbon sequestration to a level equal to human output. "The terrestrial biosphere stores ~2060 GigaTons of carbon and transfers approximately 120 GigaTons of carbon per year between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface, whereas the current global annual emissions are about 6 GigaTons." (source) The US currently produces about 6,000 million metric tons of CO2 a year.

Back in the 1990's Rowntree & Nowak calculated that cities in the US have about 28% tree cover and that urban forestry would be able to sequester 12 tons of carbon per acre. A 25% increase (28% to 53%) in tree cover in US cities would sequester 750 million tons of carbon over the next 50 years. It seems like a pleasant partial solution, but it would mean a total of 1.5 billion trees need to be planted and is still less than our carbon output for a year.

The point being that one approach may be onerous, while thinking about land use for conservation, food, timber, and other persistent product uses (fibers, etc) will encapsulate sequestration while also enhancing our standard of living. The problem is that we burn more carbon bearing material than we use resulting in excess CO2, so we just need to find more ways to lock up carbon in our environment or in our products.

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
It is indeed a faulty argument. However, it is not his argument (nor mine). It is the Republicat's misrepresentation of his argument. So, go fault them.

Done. However, he does say "There is a strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account for the 1998 temperature peak..." (god I wish this weren't a pdf so I could just copy and paste). He proceeds, if I read correctly to summarize his general complaints so the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. It is part of the same paragraph so maybe the next part is somehow correlated but then I have no idea what he's saying.

Then you need to rethink his work, maybe reread it (or read it rather than reading someone's commentary on it).
But he does accept global warming, what he does not agree with is the best way to control it.

Ambiguous (to me) actually. It's hard to say what's his point with lines like "Global temperatures have declined-extending the current downtrend to 11 years... At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated". Either he means since CO2 has gone up and temperatures haven't in the last 11 years they can't be correlated or he means temperatures aren't going up. Either way it's an argument assuming that since for 11 years the global temperature has been declining therefore on a broader scale something. If he's not saying that global temperatures aren't generally on the rise I don't see why he wouldn't (I'm not trying to strawman here - either there's something about the last 11 years which isn't generalizable in which case it's not relevant to CO2 causing warming or it is generalizable and global warming is just not happening. The only way out of this that I can see is to assume that the he thinks the people warning about global warming think CO2 is the unique, neccessary, and sufficient cause. Now who's putting words in whose mouth:)).

Unlike the scientists who *never* consider the economic aspect ("Why use lead if gold will do?"), he wants to at least consider more reasonable options.

The other options he's considering are that the recession is minimizing emissions. He mentions that this needs to be considered in discussions of future plans. I really hope this recession isn't your idea of a permanent solution. If it's only temporary I see no reason to involve it in plans for the future and I have no idea what he wants with that.

Ah, come on. Do it for the fun of it.;)

The problem is the rant was/would be more a response to my hippy sister and looney aunt-in-law than to Kandrathe. And if even the ranter can tell he's putting words in other people's mouths you know you have a problem. I think we can come to a concensus or even many concensusususususus on that.

[kandrathe]

Done. However, he does say "There is a strong possibility that there are some other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that we do not yet fully understand and which may account for the 1998 temperature peak..." (god I wish this weren't a pdf so I could just copy and paste). He proceeds, if I read correctly to summarize his general complaints so the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. It is part of the same paragraph so maybe the next part is somehow correlated but then I have no idea what he's saying.

Do you think we know everything there is to know about the Earth's climate? You don't think it is possible that there may be some mechanism in this complex system that we do not understand or misunderstand?

Ambiguous (to me) actually. It's hard to say what's his point with lines like "Global temperatures have declined-extending the current downtrend to 11 years... At the same time atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase and CO2 emissions have accelerated". Either he means since CO2 has gone up and temperatures haven't in the last 11 years they can't be correlated or he means temperatures aren't going up. Either way it's an argument assuming that since for 11 years the global temperature has been declining therefore on a broader scale something. If he's not saying that global temperatures aren't generally on the rise I don't see why he wouldn't (I'm not trying to strawman here - either there's something about the last 11 years which isn't generalizable in which case it's not relevant to CO2 causing warming or it is generalizable and global warming is just not happening.

He may have studied the topic more than you have. One criticism of the models is that they are based on changes in surface temperature, where many of the measuring stations have become over time enveloped within urban heat bubbles due to pavement. Measuring the temperature of the troposphere shows an 11 year decrease in global temperature. Now, it is clear that the CO2 load of the atmosphere continues to increase much higher than it has been for thousands of years. Therefore, he is just asking a question about how strong the correlation of CO2 to global temperature. It may be there, and masked by some other climactic event (like cloud cover, or ice melts cooling ocean temperature) which will only reveal itself in some number of years or decades.

The other options he's considering are that the recession is minimizing emissions. He mentions that this needs to be considered in discussions of future plans. I really hope this recession isn't your idea of a permanent solution. If it's only temporary I see no reason to involve it in plans for the future and I have no idea what he wants with that.

He is reacting to the idea that projections always assume a linear or (usually) exponential rise in production and therefore emissions. He is critiquing a particular EPA paper that was made before the current recession, so it assumed a world GDP (and carbon production) that is false, therefore makes false assumptions for this year, and every subsequent year into the future. The EPA paper, as you can read for yourself, is heavily weighted toward the 2007 conclusions of the IPCC and CCSA. It doesn't invalidate the long term trend, only the financial burdens and the criticality of making changes now. Recognizing that there is a problem and requesting Congress act is one thing, but having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant with the force of the Clean Air Act is quite another. (source)

Personally, I prefer to choose win-win options and move quickly (like having the DOE build many nuclear power plants and implement a waste recycling program as is done in Europe.) So, these projections based on bad reasoning are wrong, just the way that population projections from the 1960's were vastly wrong (see The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich). Ehrlich was a sensationalist of that era, just as Al Gore (and his junk science) is sensationalist now. I would like us all to make reasonable decisions based on *real* information, and not based on hypothetical nonsense (otherwise we'd all end up with a survivalist bunker in Oregon).