Conservatives and climate change

[johnny karate]

Wind farms, Solyndra, carbon credits.

I was speaking in terms of how mhaze thinks it should be. On one hand, he opposes Big Government's involvement in developing green technologies. On the other hand, he wants them to assume a totalitarian position in support of nuclear energy. Just trying to work out the kinks in that cognitive dissonance.

But to your point, to call out the subsidizing of green technologies while ignoring the subsidizing of the Oil and Gas industry is silly and disingenuous.

 

[AlBell]

But the issue at hand isn't energy independence, it is reducing and eliminating carbon emissions. Remember the agreed to goal here was to come up with policy measures that deal with climate change not trying to come up with schemes to exasperate those issues.

You are looking to close to events that may -- or may not -- drastically effect the US. I suspect energy independence (and deficit) problems will be with us long before AGW effects get as bad as currently predicted for the US. That, and US at zero carbon emissions while China & India increase theirs is not going to solve the AGW problems.

Carry on.

 

[johnny karate]

If you want to advertise "Greeniness" and use that attribute to capture market share, go to it. Just don't come whining when things don't go your way, and start claiming that "government should FORCE...."

Right, because the only thing the government should be forcing on us is nuclear energy:

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order.

 

[mhaze]

It's an extreme view even for people who believe completely in the free market. To quote Friedrich Hayek, a staunch advocate of the free market and strong influence on Milton Friedman, talking about the role of governments in The Road to Serfdom:

"...nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question, or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation."

There's no way to reconcile the above view with the idea that the government shouldn't interfere to prevent the damage caused by emitting CO2, unless you think you know more about the climate than the global community of climate scientists do, and have used this phenominal brainpower to deduce that they are wrong.

Why...YOU ARE RIGHT!!! You CAN quote Hayek out of context to support your radical big government freak view!

Cool!

Of course you extend by assertion...Hayek's comments to support your CO2-crazy argument (he didn't talk about Co2), and then you leave out the next two sentences. Any single thought of Hayek's is 6-9 sentences long.

I invite you to prove that you are not simply parroting some liberal talking point you found somewhere, and to provide yourself, the next two sentences of which I talk, therefore gaining respect from me and others here. Otherwise I will do so and show their relevance.

Similarly and for dramatic effect, why not quote Ayn Rand out of context to support your view? That could also be easily done as she recognized the importance of regulation and law.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[Trakar]

And if you stick to discussion of politics and public policy issues related to climate, and not derail this thread into the sciency stuff, you'll be able to discuss the issues of the OP here just fine.

So you were just trying to derail the discussion when you stated:

And if you stick to discussion of politics and public policy issues related to climate, and not derail this thread into the sciency stuff, you'll be able to discuss the issues of the OP here just fine.

Is that what you are now saying?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

The only money mentioned is research grants. Virtually all university professors get or at least try to get research grants and the ones who routinely get published in tier 1 peer reviewed journals like Science, Nature and PNAS nearly always do.

At best, your “criticism” amounts to you complaining that there is funding available for research in the US. This of course ties into the nonsensical anti-science conservative view that universities shouldn’t be doing any research at all, so even at its best it’s damming that you think this is a criticism. The reality, however, is that what you provided was an excerpt from one of the official reports on “climategate” that was highly complementary and supportive of Mann and seems to think it was evidence of malfeasance on his part.

That quote was not criticism of Mann. It was support for my comment about the role of money in generating the consensus view of AGW.
btw, who says "universities shouldn't be doing any research at all"? That's different from saying that society at large does not benefit from State (government, generally) subsidization of scientific research or K-PhD schooling. I can see a "public goods" case for subsidized study of Earth-crossing asteroids, sunlike stars (would be good to know if we're about to get clobbered, about to enter another Maunder minimum), and other global threats. Climate change qualifies, but the danger that subsidies pose is that people will exaggerate the threat to justify increased funding.

 

[johnny karate]

Why...YOU ARE RIGHT!!! You CAN quote Hayek out of context to support your radical big government freak view!

The only "radical big government freak view" put forth in this thread is this one:

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order.

 

[mhaze]

You are looking to close to events that may -- or may not -- drastically effect the US. I suspect energy independence (and deficit) problems will be with us long before AGW effects get as bad as currently predicted for the US. That, and US at zero carbon emissions while China & India increase theirs is not going to solve the AGW problems.

Carry on.

One curious thing about Warmers is that their incorrect and wacko ideas about economics. They think that if one country "does something now", it's "Good". They ignore contrary evidence, like the movement of an industry from one country to another as a consequence of "doing something now", and the corresponding shifts in net and aggregate pollution.

It's an error of mistaking a closed system of cause and effects with rubber band causes, and leaky sieve effects.

Given the FACT that US energy consumption is forecast to increase by 2% per year for the next several decades, you would think these clowns would come to grips with the reality of the ways that demand will or could be met. Namely (A) Nuclear (B) coal. You would think they would think it out....

Uhhh...Let's see. to get (A) you...uhh...need to ...build....nuclear plants....?
If you don't....uh....(B)?

See it's hard, isn't it? Even though we try to help.

So you were just trying to derail the discussion when you stated:

Is that what you are now saying?

If you have a point, it is not clear what it may be.

Right, because the only thing the government should be forcing on us is nuclear energy:

Hmm....I guess yes, anti-nuclear power zealots would see my plan in that light. In fact, I proposed expansion not just of nuclear, but of conventional drilling, soil shale development, particularly Utah and Colorado, large scale methanol use for vehicles, and throttling down of unprofitable "green" energy sources.

So there's a lot in my plan for a lot of various people to not like. I'm okay with that, because my plan yields a US free of foreign oil dependence, with millions of new jobs, and a sound economy. In short, it yields (once again) a strong and wealthy nation. That's actually the sort of environment that socialist greenies thrive in, because there's lots of excess money they can scheme to get for their little projects - including the ridiculous ones. Think of the many creative ways to loot other peoples' money without...you know...actually working and earning it!

It's an extreme view even for people who believe completely in the free market. To quote Friedrich Hayek, a staunch advocate of the free market and strong influence on Milton Friedman, talking about the role of governments in The Road to Serfdom:
.....

Again:

I invite you to prove that you are not simply parroting some liberal talking point you found somewhere, and to provide yourself, the next two sentences of which I talk, therefore gaining respect from me and others here. Otherwise I will do so and show their relevance.

 

[Trakar]

You are looking to close to events that may -- or may not -- drastically effect the US.

Please clarify this statement, I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

I suspect energy independence (and deficit) problems will be with us long before AGW effects get as bad as currently predicted for the US.

seperate issues that probably do need to be discussed in conjunction with climate policy considerations, but not necessarily as a precondition to such policy discussions. Likewise, while energy independence and deficit problems are issues of much political hay, they are largely minor real economic concerns and issues that are relatively easy to address when stripped of the political rhetoric surrounding them. Climate Change however, is a problem that requires substantial capital investment and effort over the time frame of centuries to address, and the longer we wait, the more capital and effort will be required. Additionally, if we "do nothing" for more than a couple of decades, we effectively eliminate our ability to blunt and thwart, yet alone eliminate the threats climate change poses to our economy, civilization and species.

That, and US at zero carbon emissions while China & India increase theirs is not going to solve the AGW problems.

Carry on.

First things first, if we can't demonstrate that is possible to invest and grow our way to a sustainable carbon free economy, then we will never get anyone else to join in correcting this issue. More than half of the previously sequestered carbon currently in the atmosphere came from US factories, China is currently producing slightly more CO2 than the US, but they have only been a major emitter for the last few decades. Until we demonstrate that it is possible to address these transition issues and grow the economy at the same time, we won't be able to successfully negotiate meaningful reductions and transitions for others.

 

[Trakar]

...If you have a point, it is not clear what it may be.

merely evidencing that you seemingly shift goalposts based upon the arguments you face, and that despite what you claim, you apparently have no serious intent to adhere to your own prior statements and agreements and seriously engage in legitimate policy discussions "related to climate."

 

[lomiller]

That quote was not criticism of Mann.

Correct

It was support for my comment about the role of money in generating the consensus view of AGW.

You may have intended it as such, but saying that a professor has received research grants is somehow evidence that professor’s work should not be trusted is just bizarre.

 

[AlBell]

@Trakar
Yeah, some of us prefer a bigger picture, looking first a true threats that will happen sooner rather than later; including peak oil and the US deficit.

 

[Trakar]

@Trakar
Yeah, some of us prefer a bigger picture, looking first a true threats that will happen sooner rather than later; including peak oil and the US deficit.

"peak oil" is a factor of the value of oil, the more it is valued, the more of it there is that becomes recoverable. give it a negative value and there is much more of it than anyone needs or wants.

The US deficit, at current levels, is a political issue not an economic issue.

 

[mhaze]

"peak oil" is a factor of the value of oil, the more it is valued, the more of it there is that becomes recoverable. give it a negative value and there is much more of it than anyone needs or wants.

The US deficit, at current levels, is a political issue not an economic issue.

Okay.

Now that's brilliant.

A huge problem measured in dollars isn't an economic problem.

 

[Furcifer]

If cloud formation really does act in a way that prevents a radiative imbalance from heating the planet wouldn’t be able to exit a glaciation.

Nonsense. You've incorrectly assumed temperature is the only factor in cloud formation (or maybe your just regurgitating something you've heard but don't understand)

If anything changed to warm the planet up these magic clouds would form and stop that from happening.

No.

To the subject of uncertainly. No, cloud formation is not an example of scientists not knowing the underlying rules of how clouds for, it’s a question of the inherent uncertainly and difficulty in calculating the outcome just as I said in my previous post.

Nonsense. Of course it's not "How" clouds form that's the issue, it's when and where and for how long at what elevation, among numerous other facets of the hydrological cycle.

As has already been pointed out that famous man was famously wrong in that assertion.

So determinism only when it suits you. Gotcha

 

[AlBell]

"peak oil" is a factor of the value of oil, the more it is valued, the more of it there is that becomes recoverable. give it a negative value and there is much more of it than anyone needs or wants.

Try long lines to buy $20/gal gas, blackouts, no heating oil, etc.

The US deficit, at current levels, is a political issue not an economic issue.

Something else we can disagree on: and you want the US to add Trillions more to alleviate a possible AGW scenario. No thanks, this being an economic issue.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You were saying something about word salad?

What lolmiller said was factually incorrect, you don't seem to be disputing that you just seem to object to it having been pointed out. I could care less what motivations you want to ascribe to it, it's wrong as stated and needs to be corrected.

As for the rest, I don't "hate" anyone. I'd suggest you hold a mirror to your posts in the future because you seem to be suffering from projection.

Nopey.

Lomiller said something you didn't understand. You changing words all the time is a very good evidence of that. As for the "hate", just mind your Ps and Qs.

 

[stokes234]

Why...YOU ARE RIGHT!!! You CAN quote Hayek out of context to support your radical big government freak view!

Cool!

Of course you extend by assertion...Hayek's comments to support your CO2-crazy argument (he didn't talk about Co2), and then you leave out the next two sentences. Any single thought of Hayek's is 6-9 sentences long.

I invite you to prove that you are not simply parroting some liberal talking point you found somewhere, and to provide yourself, the next two sentences of which I talk, therefore gaining respect from me and others here. Otherwise I will do so and show their relevance.

I got the book out from the library, years ago. There's another part where he quotes adam smith to make the point that if something is not profitable for individuals or a small group of individuals but is profitable for society at large, it is a place for government to step in. The above quote I took from wikipedia.

He didn't talk about CO2 because it hadn't been recognised as a problem at the time the book was written, but he talks about environmental damage and factory pollution and they amount to the same thing.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

I still find it difficult to imagine what is getting through someones head when they type things like "BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" in a serious discussion on an internet forum.

 

[stokes234]

If you want to advertise "Greeniness" and use that attribute to capture market share, go to it. Just don't come whining when things don't go your way, and start claiming that "government should FORCE...."

If you think "greeniness" is a bad thing, then why did you try to convince everyone to skip the science so that you could discuss the policies of preventing a problem that you don't even believe exists?

Not everyone thinks that the solutions to all our problems can be safely left in the hands of private companies.

 

[lomiller]

You've incorrectly assumed temperature is the only factor in cloud formation (or maybe your just regurgitating something you've heard but don't understand)

You supposition was that when the earth is faced with a warming influence cloud formation will occur in such a way to counteract that warming. In this type of situation it doesn’t matter what the warming influence is.

So determinism only when it suits you. Gotcha

Wat?

Uncertainly and determinism in chaotic systems are unrelated, and Einstein’s famously incorrect statement that “god does not play dice” is referring to something else again.