Conservatives and climate change

[W.D.Clinger]

balrog666 quoting Jim Manzi (plain text) and adding his own question in highlighted italics:

That game is up, and they suddenly find themselves walking unprepared into the middle of a sophisticated scientific and economic conversation about how to deal with the problem. Gee, where is that discussion taking place?

Good question. Maybe it's happening here. Let's check:

Those with true knowledge -the path to salvation - who can point out the infidels - the urgent need for redemption - the apocalypse soon to come, only the faithful and repentant may save us from. We may be beset by the famines, droughts, hurricanes, epidemics, the seas rising, the floods, wildfires out of control, exploding cat populations, naked women everywhere....

Okay, so not much in the way of sophisticated scientific and economic conversation is happening here.

Francesca R offered a more positive answer to balrog666's question:

My impression is that the degree of polarisation of political position, and the resulting increased stridency of the sets of views that are supposedly attached to each position (left = AGW must be met with a growing list of policies, right = AGW is a mendacious myth) is more evident in the US than elsewhere.

In the UK, all three main political parties (two of which are in coalition government) agree that climate change is real and have policies/pledges to limit CO2 emissions. Typically the centre-right wants to do less than the centre-left but the "deniers versus warmers" mudfest is not nearly so apparent.

IMO the UK also benefits from the thinking of policy wonks such as Anthony Giddens (not a scientist), who was an advisor to and infuential to the philosophy of former prime minister Tony Blair. The attached is a precis version of his book "The Politics of Climate Change" which I referenced in this thread and which is one of the most balanced and sensible treatments of this subject in a policy context (costs vs benefits; risks vs consequences of action).

The discussion on forums like this (including your participation) is very far from (below) that level. Not from everyone, but particularly, IMO, from members in the US.

As has already been noted, some US conservatives such as Peter Wehner and Jim Manzi have been trying to push their fellow conservatives toward a more reality-based conversation. (Good luck with that, guys.)

Exactly what do you see in your wiki quote that you feel contradicts or disagrees with what Clinger stated?

Since mhaze hasn't responded to that question, I'll answer for him.

Had mhaze simply denied the facts I stated (in the quotation below), without offering anything in the way of evidence, it would have been a little too obvious that he was simply denying the facts. By quoting a couple of Wikipedia paragraphs that are entirely consistent with the facts I cited, he may have hoped to fool those readers who wouldn't bother to compare the paragraphs he quoted against what I had written.

Wrong. The last glacial maximum occurred 20-25 thousand years ago, and the most recent glacial period ended only 10,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been living in Europe for the past 35,000 years.

Then NOVA lies. I will call PBS.

But first, tell me this. Where did you get your information?

Among the scientifically literate, it's common knowledge that the most recent glacial period ("ice age") ended about 10,000 years ago, and that Homo sapiens sapiens remains and artifacts dated up to 45,000 years ago have been found in Europe.

My personal library contains eight books on human prehistory, so it wasn't hard to confirm those dates. I also checked with Wikipedia. To avoid unnecessary discussion of radiocarbon dating, I used the ¹⁴C age instead of the corrected age.

Wikipedia has a timeline of prehistoric European cultures that extends through the most recent glacial period. Within that timeline, the Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, Magdalenian, and Azilian cultures are associated with modern humans who lived through the most recent glacial period in Europe.

 

[mhaze]

And you haven't actually done anything to refute my interpretation of pricing emissions, rather you've simply dismissed it out of hand, scoffingly, as though you can't believe that somebody thinks something different to you, without actually giving consideration to anything I've said.

Well, I'm happy with the evidence as per the Stern and Garnaut reviews that emissions trading is by far the cheapest way for developed economies to make initial cuts in their emissions....

But it's not evidence. Not at all. Go back and look at what I said. I wasn't talking about "forecasts or predictions", but the historical failure of your type schemes. I asked for the exact opposite of what (of course) reinforces belief - an examination of facts.

.... I'm still waiting for you to outline the methodology of your straw poll that apparently assures you that Americans are not willing to pay a higher cost for energy to help reduce emissions

Don't waste your time, that was an expression simply of my opinions. I live in Texas, and that's pretty much how people think here. You might well find that opinions were different say, in San Francisco. Try to remember....you ARE TALKING about taking money out of peoples' pocketbooks, and they tend not to like that (Except in District of Criminals).

As I recall, the Bamster's cap and trade scheme failed pretty much bipartisian. That was the scheme that would have effectively resulted in a 15% increase in how much money people paid the federal government each year. Here is your Golden Rule:

We tax you and promise the climate will be healthy.

The ridiculousness of the hysterical claims by your climatobotomized friends are too obvious for people to stomach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLDy_BYum1o

 

[stokes234]

But it's not evidence. Not at all. Go back and look at what I said. I wasn't talking about "forecasts or predictions", but the historical failure of your type schemes. I asked for the exact opposite of what (of course) reinforces belief - an examination of facts.

I'm still waiting on that list of $5T schemes that have prevented 0.0001 degree of warming. For all your rhetoric about examining facts, you've provided pretty much nothing.

 

[DC]

But it's not evidence. Not at all. Go back and look at what I said. I wasn't talking about "forecasts or predictions", but the historical failure of your type schemes. I asked for the exact opposite of what (of course) reinforces belief - an examination of facts.

Don't waste your time, that was an expression simply of my opinions. I live in Texas, and that's pretty much how people think here. You might well find that opinions were different say, in San Francisco. Try to remember....you ARE TALKING about taking money out of peoples' pocketbooks, and they tend not to like that (Except in District of Criminals).

As I recall, the Bamster's cap and trade scheme failed pretty much bipartisian. That was the scheme that would have effectively resulted in a 15% increase in how much money people paid the federal government each year. Here is your Golden Rule:

We tax you and promise the climate will be healthy.

The ridiculousness of the hysterical claims by your climatobotomized friends are too obvious for people to stomach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLDy_BYum1o

and your evidence is?

 

[BenBurch]

and your evidence is?

The day he shows real evidence...

 

[stokes234]

As an aside, it is interesting to note the goalpost shifts over time by climate change deniers. Initially, it started out as "It isn't happening." When it was proven, the deniers retreated to "It's happening, but it's not us." In the face of an overwhelming scientific consensus, many of those deniers are now retreating to either "It's happening, it's our fault, but it's not a problem" or "It's happening, it's our fault, but there's nothing we can do to stop it."

I'd like to see someone write a book, as a warning for future generations, detailing exactly who were the main forces preventing any action on climate change.

 

[Trakar]

As an aside, it is interesting to note the goalpost shifts over time by climate change deniers. Initially, it started out as "It isn't happening." When it was proven, the deniers retreated to "It's happening, but it's not us." In the face of an overwhelming scientific consensus, many of those deniers are now retreating to either "It's happening, it's our fault, but it's not a problem" or "It's happening, it's our fault, but there's nothing we can do to stop it."

I'd like to see someone write a book, as a warning for future generations, detailing exactly who were the main forces preventing any action on climate change.

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

 

[Trakar]

And you haven't actually done anything to refute my interpretation of pricing emissions, rather you've simply dismissed it out of hand, scoffingly, as though you can't believe that somebody thinks something different to you, without actually giving consideration to anything I've said.

Well, I'm happy with the evidence as per the Stern and Garnaut reviews that emissions trading is by far the cheapest way for developed economies to make initial cuts in their emissions. You can dismiss that, which would reinforce my general view of you as a dishonest denier, or you can come back with some evidence that actually undermines Stern and Garnaut.

Speaking of fail (not to mention BELIEFS based on CONFIRMATION BIAS, funnily enough), I'm still waiting for you to outline the methodology of your straw poll that apparently assures you that Americans are not willing to pay a higher cost for energy to help reduce emissions

I disagree with cap and trade schemes for many reasons, two of the most prominent being that they are unlikely to prove effective, over time at more than minimally reducing carbon emissions, and they are far too easy to scam and scheme, resulting in a strong potential for collapse and backlash against further action or alternative. A direct, escalating, revenue-neutral carbon tax is the route preferred by most economists.

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/professorwilliamnordhaus-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/

 

[Trakar]

What streets? How big is the sample? How do you randomise the sample? What methodology do you use for analysing the data? What was the threshold burden people were prepared to accept?

I haven't seen any data for Amercia but I have for Australia, which essentially mirrors the American debate anyway:

http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/res...publicans-independents-and-the-tea-party/view

 

[lomiller]

Hehehehehe....

One of the most striking aspects of a True Believer is an inability to learn from experience and alter the True Beliefs accordingly.

Carbon trading is the answer, RIGHT?

It was the answer preferred by right wing libertarians, as it lets the free market decide who gets to emit carbon and how much the right to emit that carbon is worth. Are you now suggesting the free market approach is not going to work and we should use the direct government approach of a straight up carbon tax?

 

[Francesca R]

Are you now suggesting the free market approach is not going to work and we should use the direct government approach of a straight up carbon tax?

That much is not controversial in economics debates (see above), if the goal is indeed to price emissions.

Emmissions trading may have a market mechanism, but it is not exactly a "free" market. Both an ETS and a carbon tax are essentially non-market interventions to correct for the failure to price externalities in the open market.

ETS is sometimes seen as more desirable because it may be easier to implement, but that idea is not so strong.

 

[Corsair 115]

That is called "Argument from Authority" and is a logical fallacy.

So you don't listen to what your doctor or your dentist or your flying instructor has to say about their relevant areas of expertise? Okay then.

True, but so what?

Agreeing with a statement that contained a phrase that really doesn't mean anything when one actually thinks about it isn't something worth examining more closely? Okay then.

You'll have to make do with the above. Sorry, it's not very exact.

So you make a statement, writing out your position on the matter, one presumes, taking the time to think clearly about what you want to say. Only you elect to use a phrase which you subsequently cannot define or even explain what it really means? Okay then.

 

[mhaze]

So you don't listen to what your doctor or your dentist or your flying instructor has to say about their relevant areas of expertise? Okay then.....

Darn right, sometimes. Not always, but it's happened with all three.

..Agreeing with a statement that contained a phrase that really doesn't mean anything when one actually thinks about it isn't something worth examining more closely? Okay then......

Let's simplify your 4 clause convolution.

Okay then....

Much better!

Originally Posted by Francesca R
You'll have to make do with the above. Sorry, it's not very exact.

So you make a statement, writing out your position on the matter, one presumes, taking the time to think clearly about what you want to say. Only you elect to use a phrase which you subsequently cannot define or even explain what it really means? Okay then.

I agree with Francesca. It's not her job to help people interpret or understand things - either simple or complicated. I didn't have any difficulty with her comment. Looks to me like an attempt at derail into minutae.

 

[mhaze]

I disagree with cap and trade schemes for many reasons, two of the most prominent being that they are unlikely to prove effective, over time at more than minimally reducing carbon emissions, and they are far too easy to scam and scheme, resulting in a strong potential for collapse and backlash against further action or alternative. A direct, escalating, revenue-neutral carbon tax is the route preferred by most economists.

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/speakers/professorwilliamnordhaus-plenaryspeaker-11march2009.pdf/

No, actually you don't disagree with cap and trade schemes. Just like with nuclear, no, you don't support nuclear. You support political agendas which are for cap and trade, and which are anti-nuclear in substance, while talking pro nuclear and anti cap and trade. Sort of like a soldier who mutters how he's against war.

By the way, Nordhaus always seemed to me to just plain be way smarter than Stein. Or more capable of analyzing a situation, which is basically the same thing. Or maybe the Stein analysis was bought and paid for by the green influences, and Nordhaus was unbiased and objective.

 

[mhaze]

It was the answer preferred by right wing libertarians, as it lets the free market decide who gets to emit carbon and how much the right to emit that carbon is worth. Are you now suggesting the free market approach is not going to work and we should use the direct government approach of a straight up carbon tax?

No, actually the free market does work. You just don't like the way it works. As I noted, at the time of the collapse of the Chicago climate exchange scam carbon was market priced at 5 cents per ton.

You just don't like the resulting prices. But the market certainly did work.

Same thing with the European carbon prices, spot price is now about $10 usd.

My opinion is ....

What you want is a rigged market. You want a scam.

 

[Trakar]

No, actually you don't disagree with cap and trade schemes. Just like with nuclear, no, you don't support nuclear. You support political agendas which are for cap and trade, and which are anti-nuclear in substance, while talking pro nuclear and anti cap and trade. Sort of like a soldier who mutters how he's against war.

By the way, Nordhaus always seemed to me to just plain be way smarter than Stein. Or more capable of analyzing a situation, which is basically the same thing. Or maybe the Stein analysis was bought and paid for by the green influences, and Nordhaus was unbiased and objective.

Please present any evidence supporting that I do or have supported cap and trade. I have always argued against this as a means of addressing the market failure represented by CO2 emissions and pollution in general. You even acknowledged earlier on this page that I am constantly pushing the idea of a Carbon Tax. The least that you could do is be consistent and true to your own statements.

The same with nuclear power, I have since the '60s pushed for a robust and greatly expanded role for modern, well regulated, nuclear power. I have always embraced nuclear power as a vital and important element of our nation's energy future.

Stein? I am unfamiliar with that name in regards to this discussion. I don't see eye-to-eye with nordhaus on everything, but I do feel his statements in the document I linked earlier are in accord with my own thoughts regarding a carbon tax vs cap-and-trade though I am more concerned about the deliberate gaming of the cap and trade system than he appears to be.

 

[mhaze]

Please present any evidence supporting that I do or have supported cap and trade. I have always argued against this as a means of addressing the market failure represented by CO2 emissions and pollution in general. You even acknowledged earlier on this page that I am constantly pushing the idea of a Carbon Tax. The least that you could do is be consistent and true to your own statements.

The same with nuclear power, I have since the '60s pushed for a robust and greatly expanded role for modern, well regulated, nuclear power. I have always embraced nuclear power as a vital and important element of our nation's energy future.

Stein? I am unfamiliar with that name in regards to this discussion. I don't see eye-to-eye with nordhaus on everything, but I do feel his statements in the document I linked earlier are in accord with my own thoughts regarding a carbon tax vs cap-and-trade though I am more concerned about the deliberate gaming of the cap and trade system than he appears to be.

Stern, not Stein. Excuse me.

Maybe I wasnt' clear - what I'm saying is that if you vote and support party XYZ, and they are for cap and trade, and they are anti nuclear, then that is what you actually are for.

 

[Trakar]

Stern, not Stein. Excuse me.

Maybe I wasnt' clear - what I'm saying is that if you vote and support party XYZ, and they are for cap and trade, and they are anti nuclear, then that is what you actually are for.

My voting record is pretty evenly split between the major parties and increasingly non-major party candidates, especially in local and state elections. I did not vote for, and do not support Obama, Reed, Pelosi, nor many of the current Democratic party leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support any of the major Republican candidates nor top current Republican congressional leaders either. I vote for candidates that reflect my views and interests and do not campaign on or support issues that I object to, without much regard for party.

 

[jj]

Maybe I wasnt' clear - what I'm saying is that if you vote and support party XYZ, and they are for cap and trade, and they are anti nuclear, then that is what you actually are for.

Now this is stuff and nonsense.

Let's take the last election, either we had "President Palin" and something right out of Evita elected, or we had Obama.

Taking the lesser of two evils is NOT the same as supporting a policy, it's trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

No more.

In any case, "cap and trade" is stupid, but not as stupid as the global warming deniers who really are starting to get a place next to the holocaust deniers in terms of the fraud they engage in.

 

[mhaze]

My voting record is pretty evenly split between the major parties and increasingly non-major party candidates, especially in local and state elections. I did not vote for, and do not support Obama, Reed, Pelosi, nor many of the current Democratic party leadership. Unfortunately, I cannot in good conscience support any of the major Republican candidates nor top current Republican congressional leaders either. I vote for candidates that reflect my views and interests and do not campaign on or support issues that I object to, without much regard for party.

Then I stand corrected on my comment.

Thank you for the clarification.