Conservatives and climate change

[BenBurch]

Now, how to reduce CO2;

1. Fund a new generation of nuclear reactors, breeder reactors with fuel reprocessing to back them up. Lease them to power utilities for cost recovery.

2. Fund a series of experimental thorium energy amplifier reactors, with a goal to make this the dominant energy technology in 20 years.

3. Continue to fund ITER.

4. Fund cutting-edge new fusion technology such as the Buzzard Polywell device.

5. Mandate full electrification of class-1 railroads by 2032. Provide tax credits to defray this cost.

6. Fund all of the above entirely on a new tax on all coal extracted from the ground, and all oil that gets imported.

(BTW, the effect of 6 will be to make China pay for much of this, as they NEED our coal.)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The scientific understandings of CO2 and the greenhouse gas effect, are not merely speculated musings as you seem to be implying, they are well documented, carefully measured and routinely demonstrated facts. To state otherwise is to deny large sections of basic physics, chemistry and planetary science.

This is simply wrong. Some of these scientific understandings are well-established (e.g., absorption and emission spectra by gasses in the lab), while others are not well-established (e.g., strength of feedback processes in the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans, and the contribution of variations in the solar flux to variations in Earth's mean surface temperature). To state otherwise is to deny large sections of basic physics, chemistry and planetary science.

 

[BenBurch]

This is simply wrong. Some of these scientific understandings are well-established (e.g., absorption and emission spectra by gasses in the lab), while others are not well-established (e.g., strength of feedback processes in the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans, and the contribution of variations in the solar flux to variations in Earth's mean surface temperature). To state otherwise is to deny large sections of basic physics, chemistry and planetary science.

I think you may be a few dozen years out of date. The things we do not know exactly we DO know exactly enough to know that they are not going to change the picture.

 

[mhaze]

Doesn't make it an honest argument when you re-frame the intention of then OP to lawyer what is being discussed so that your denial of science has no bearing.

Since we are re-framing, I'm sure you will allow me to re-frame the OP;

Why do you conservatives feel the need to lie about science and evidence?

Is it ;

A. Just money because you love nothing more than money?
B. Your "garden of pure ideology" that need defense?

A or B; choose.

Since we are re-framing and all.

Actually I'm precisely in line with the paragraph quoted in the OP.

You DO NEED reminding. Really I don't mind.

In Manzi’s words, “Climate models generate useful projections for us to consider, but the reality is that nobody knows with meaningful precision how much warming we will experience under any emissions scenario. Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”

Conservatives should be part of that conversation. There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties based on incomplete knowledge of how the climate system will respond in the middle part of the 22nd century. It’s reasonable to argue that a meaningful deal to cut carbon emissions among the worst emitting nations (China, the United States, the EU, India, and Russia among them) is almost surely beyond reach and that our focus should be on adaptation (see here) and relatively low-cost investments in technologies rather than drastic carbon cuts. And it’s fair to ask whether the best data suggests that Earth’s temperature has not risen in more than a decade; and if so, why that’s the case.​

 

[mhaze]

The scientific determination of how much CO2 emissions need to be reduced and within what time frame is essential to establishing viable and non-viable policy options.....

Not necessarily true. We've seen a lot of exaggeration and pure alarmism on various views on this subject. "Urgent action now", blah blah blah, and Al Gore's famous "Sliding ten year forecast of doom".

But not necessarily true regardless of those realities. You're a fool if you think you are going to contribute anything to that "scientific determination" by posting on an internet forum. Particularly one in which the thread is policy options.

What I think is that various warmers posting here are just relapsing into posting dogma, things that their belief structures tell them are true. They, including you, are uncomfortable going into a straight out discussion about adaptation vs mitigation, doing nothing as a viable option, and are loath to have the premises questioned. Those premises include Big Government is Good and will Save the Planet.

Along with other circus acts.

 

[mhaze]

Are you saying that politics and public policy should be made without concern or consideration to the relevent science facts that those policies are being designed to deal with? If you are willing to stipulate that the mainstream science of climate and the current climate change event is substantially accurate and sound, I'm perfectly willing to assist you in limiting the discussion to the policy addressments of the issues that science indicates needs to be addressed.

Two parts of this are objectionable.

A). A holier than thou, condescending attitude.
B). A request for a recitation of belief before a discussion as to how you want to spend my (and others) money.

Both are ridiculous. (A) is consistent with faith driven behavior. (B) is also consistent with faith driven behavior.

However, people do all the time discuss public policy with others of radically differing opinions and beliefs.

 

[mhaze]

This is simply wrong. Some of these scientific understandings are well-established (e.g., absorption and emission spectra by gasses in the lab), while others are not well-established (e.g., strength of feedback processes in the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans, and the contribution of variations in the solar flux to variations in Earth's mean surface temperature). To state otherwise is to deny large sections of basic physics, chemistry and planetary science.

The "excessive certainty" of which Francisca mentioned, extends beyond science to politics, and public policy.

I can't see how it could result in rational policy being implemented based on any sort of cost benefit analysis. Evidence this could be true might be distilled from the current environment. Are there irrational green policies in effect now which are failures? Are a sizable percentage of "green projects" not making it in the free market? Are claims being made of the benefits of projects which are not valid?

 

[DC]

The "excessive certainty" of which Francisca mentioned, extends beyond science to politics, and public policy.

I can't see how it could result in rational policy being implemented based on any sort of cost benefit analysis. Evidence this could be true might be distilled from the current environment. Are there irrational green policies in effect now which are failures? Are a sizable percentage of "green projects" not making it in the free market? Are claims being made of the benefits of projects which are not valid?

why do you think a sizeable percentage of green projects are not making it in the free market?
is there a free market? or have those green projects to compete with highly subsidised fossil fuels? Is that free market to you?

i assume you are also very opposed to fossil fuel sibsidies, as the so called uncertainties of scientific predictions also mean that the impact of global warming could be much bigger than current models predict.
or are you so certain that this cannot happen? excessive certain?

 

[stokes234]

Two parts of this are objectionable.

A). A holier than thou, condescending attitude.
B). A request for a recitation of belief before a discussion as to how you want to spend my (and others) money.

Both are ridiculous. (A) is consistent with faith driven behavior. (B) is also consistent with faith driven behavior.

However, people do all the time discuss public policy with others of radically differing opinions and beliefs.

Equating acceptance of the scientific consensus with faith is just making you look less credible. All that's being asked of you is that you show that you are at least rational enough to agree that the people who spend their lives studying AGW are the best placed to determine whether or not it is happening. If you can't do that, you're unlikely to be rational enough to be worth engaging in a debate on public policy.

 

[Kestrel]

The "excessive certainty" of which Francisca mentioned, extends beyond science to politics, and public policy.

I can't see how it could result in rational policy being implemented based on any sort of cost benefit analysis. Evidence this could be true might be distilled from the current environment. Are there irrational green policies in effect now which are failures? Are a sizable percentage of "green projects" not making it in the free market? Are claims being made of the benefits of projects which are not valid?

When I was young, it was common for factories to dump waste directly into rivers. There was a cost to the rest of society, but not to the factory owners. When polluting the commons imposes no cost on the polluters, market forces will never fix the problem. It took government action to make our rivers clean again.

Burning coal to make electricity is cheap because there ar no costs imposed for changing the composition of the entire plant's atmosphere. It's like the water pollution problems of my youth, but on a global scale. Fixing the problem will require governments to act.

 

[mhaze]

Equating acceptance of the scientific consensus with faith is just making you look less credible. All that's being asked of you is that you show that you are at least rational enough to agree that the people who spend their lives studying AGW are the best placed to determine whether or not it is happening. If you can't do that, you're unlikely to be rational enough to be worth engaging in a debate on public policy.

Fascinating comment you have there.

However, I can't think of any university or public discussion where your view would be allowed. You'd be butt kicked out on the street with that attitude.

I'm sure there are circles where you could get away with it. Like earlier, Travis mentioned being shunned from a group because he had pro nuclear attitudes.

Gee, I wonder....Maybe you could ask the moderators for rules requiring a profession of belief on JREF prior to any discussion about consequences of possible climate change?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

When I was young, it was common for factories to dump waste directly into rivers. There was a cost to the rest of society, but not to the factory owners. When polluting the commons imposes no cost on the polluters, market forces will never fix the problem. It took government action to make our rivers clean again.

Burning coal to make electricity is cheap because there ar no costs imposed for changing the composition of the entire plant's atmosphere. It's like the water pollution problems of my youth, but on a global scale. Fixing the problem will require governments to act.

Many people would agree with the analogy, but that doesn't have much to do with a cost benefit analysis. One viable option, as noted in the OP, is to simply do nothing. Arguing against that can't be done except on a cost benefit basis. Neither is it necessarily true that governments must act, nor is it true that "the problem must be fixed".

I am of the opinion that an ethical "green" morality as you have espoused will not work. It has advantages of simplicity and understand ability and could be used in propaganda messages to the public. That might help you rake in cash for supposed "green taxes".

What you (and stokes234) are requesting is not just a profession of faith, but of a "green altruism". Altruism is typically giving without critical examination or discrimination. Here, you'd like to see the public "giving to the government" without comprehensive review of practicality, engineering feasibility, or utility. Or (quite likely) the monies just go into the general coffers and some lame excuses are offered as to what it was spent on.

Using tactics of fear and intimidation against the opposition and pulling the guilt and fear knobs might work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM

Why not just crank it up a bit? After all, it's for a Good Cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTknP8t7JU

Wouldn't want those people speaking out with independent views. No, we couldn't have that, could we....

 

[lomiller]

When I was young, it was common for factories to dump waste directly into rivers. There was a cost to the rest of society, but not to the factory owners. When polluting the commons imposes no cost on the polluters, market forces will never fix the problem. It took government action to make our rivers clean again.

Correct. It's called an externality. Essentially it means society as a whole pays the for part of the cost of the business transaction. In some ways it's closely related to a subsidy, which also involve society as a whole paying for part of a business transaction.

The funny thing is that when it involves renewables Mhaze is rabidly opposed to society paying any part of the cost, while for fossil fuels he's rabidly opposed to business having to pay this cost themselves "because it would raise energy costs"

IOW he insists society subsidize fossil fuels, and then insists renawables must compete with those subsidized prices on a straight up basis.

 

[stokes234]

Fascinating comment you have there.

However, I can't think of any university or public discussion where your view would be allowed. You'd be butt kicked out on the street with that attitude.

No, the request is standard. If you don't believe the science, you're being irrational, and there's no point engaging you in debate because there's no reason to expect you to be rational on other topics.

Gee, I wonder....Maybe you could ask the moderators for rules requiring a profession of belief on JREF prior to any discussion about consequences of possible climate change?

No.

 

[mhaze]

No, the request is standard. If you don't believe the science, you're being irrational, and there's no point engaging you in debate because there's no reason to expect you to be rational on other topics.

No.

Why not? The "request is standard".

Go ahead, ask the moderators.

Postscript: There are precedents. For example, I think possibly at the Oral Roberts University, professions of beliefs might be required for employment and might be required premises for discussion. I guess, then I'm agreeing with you in part. In some places, the request is standard.

 

[mhaze]

....
The funny thing is that when it involves renewables Mhaze is rabidly opposed to society paying any part of the cost, while for fossil fuels he's rabidly opposed to business having to pay this cost themselves "because it would raise energy costs"

IOW he insists society subsidize fossil fuels, and then insists renawables must compete with those subsidized prices on a straight up basis.

Liar. No...wait. I'm sure you can prove you are not a liar. That would only involve showing where I've said the bolded part above.

But let me say this. Given that you are lying for a Good Cause, that makes it okay, right?

Saving the Planet...ya gotta pull out all the stops for that righteous crusade.

 

[TheSapient]

Liar. No...wait. I'm sure you can prove you are not a liar. That would only involve showing where I've said the bolded part above.

Is this supposed to be irony?

 

[lomiller]

That would only involve showing where I've said the bolded part above.

That would involve you reading the lines above the one you bolded...

 

[mhaze]

2x

 

[mhaze]

That would involve you reading the lines above the one you bolded...

Answer the question, please.[SNIP]

Is this supposed to be irony?

I find continually having to correct things people say a bit tiring. There's no reason, if you have a firm position, to have to mis represent other peoples' position. Several people on this forum do this routinely. That's simply the level of their debating skills or lack of.

Another possibility is that he's just goofed.

Whatever. Generally is is yet another type of derail into personality, a way to not address the topic at hand.

What I don't get is what is the actual harm in switching to alternatives? Who does it pain besides the wealthy who benefit from non-renewables? This alone should send up red flags that both ends of the spectrum are about profit.

Profit? Or cost? Any large scale switch to renewables would impact the electric costs to the poor in accordance directly with the fraction of renewables.

I'm excluding hydro and geothermal.

The truth is that the rich could, in many cases, afford to pay 10x for power from wind or solar, but the poor could not.

That's the exact REVERSE of your claim, isn't it...

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment.

 

[lomiller]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated material and response to same