Conservatives and climate change

[BenBurch]

The strongest greenhouse gas is ignorance. Get rid of that and we can deal with what's left.

 

[Trakar]

...Actually learning things on this subject would result in a realization that money doesn't grow on trees. That would destroy the premise that endless amounts of government money can buy the wind and solar farms that the fantasies of the greenies think will save the world...

And yet, the only one here promoting the idea that the government should fork over 100 billion dollars a year for 20 years to pump money into the coffers of private industrialists while removing public discussion, oversight and regulation of those industrialists and when they feel that there is no serious climate problem to address seems to be:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7921527&postcount=602

Meanwhile, many of us who recognize and have significant understanding of mainstream climate science are trying to open a discussion of public policy options and plans based upon addressing the problems indicated by that science.

 

[mhaze]

And yet, the only one here promoting the idea that the government should fork over 100 billion dollars a year for 20 years to pump money into the coffers of private industrialists while removing public discussion, oversight and regulation of those industrialists and when they feel that there is no serious climate problem to address seems to be:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7921527&postcount=602
...

Well, maybe I didn't word that well. Read it as 2 separate and unrelated clauses

A) governrment funds new reactor designs
b) private industry builds 20 per year with private bond issues

 

[citizenzen]

Well, maybe I didn't word that well. Read it as 2 separate and unrelated clauses

A) governrment funds new reactor designs
b) private industry builds 20 per year with private bond issues

Why should the government fund new reactor designs?

Why wouldn't that also be a responsibility of private industry?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(bit_pattern): "Denier = Truther. Same mentality, same logic."

And there is a lot of crossover¹. Do you ever wish that these guys were smart enough to make an argument that really was difficult²?

1. Really? I remember some statistic that found more truther Democrats than truther Republicans (maybe it was self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives".
2. Tell you what, find the least integer t such that 205^t gives a remainder of 12 when divided by 43 and a remainder of 27 when divided by 53 and get back to me. Or prove that p|(p-1)!+1 <=> p is prime (Wilson's theorem). No fair looking it up. Then we can talk, okay, genius?

And this actually goes back to the OP. As more and more conservatives come out admitting Climate Change is a real¹, it will further marginalize the remaining deniers until the only ones left are the Orly-Taitz-certifiable-nutcases.
But in the meantime, there are still some rational, though misled people in the denier camp. What I'd ask them is "What evidence could convince you to change sides?"²It will be (admittedly sadistic) fun to see the denier ranks shrink and the remaining hold-outs squirm and rationalize their increasingly fringe position.

1. Opponents of the AGW theory are hardly "climate change deniers". One problem with the evidence for the AGW theory is precisely the abundant evidence for dramatic changes in climate before widespread burning of fossil fuels. Pulling a CO₂ signal out of very noisy data is trickey.
2. For starters, stop applying pejorative labels like "denier" to the opposition. It reinforces the impression that advocates for the AGW hypothesis must rely on intimidation rather than evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, maybe I didn't word that well. Read it as 2 separate and unrelated clauses

A) governrment funds new reactor designs
b) private industry builds 20 per year with private bond issues

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.

That entire passage is about actions the U.S government should take, and doesn't make one mention of "private industry". Your attempt at a walkback fails.

And it's quite telling that the position you weren't interested in walking back was the one calling for an oppressive government intrusion on First Amendment rights.

 

[mhaze]

That entire passage is about actions the U.S government should take, and doesn't make one mention of "private industry". Your attempt at a walkback fails.

Call it whatever you like. I've just tried to clarify what I meant to say. I've replied to you on this several times but you don't seem to listen.

Why should the government fund new reactor designs?

Why wouldn't that also be a responsibility of private industry?

In reality it's like a coalition of private industry, universities and government. But the basic reason in the US is that things that could go boom are controlled under Dept. of Energy. Some small government people argue DOE could be abolished, and nuclear could go back under the Armed Forces jurisdication.

But right now it's DOE. We need newer, better designs. And somewhere down the road we hope to have fusion reactors. Etc.

 

[citizenzen]

For starters, stop applying pejorative labels like "denier" to the opposition. It reinforces the impression that advocates for the AGW hypothesis must rely on intimidation rather than evidence.

Both side of the political spectrum try to "intimidate" through their use of words. If you feel intimidated, that's your problem. The term denier will only become more commonplace as the evidence for climate change continues to grow. If I were you, I'd consider growing a thicker skin, because the label is going to be used.

 

[citizenzen]

In reality it's like a coalition of private industry, universities and government. But the basic reason in the US is that things that could go boom are controlled under Dept. of Energy. Some small government people argue DOE could be abolished, and nuclear could go back under the Armed Forces jurisdication.

But right now it's DOE. We need newer, better designs. And somewhere down the road we hope to have fusion reactors. Etc.

The DOE can regulate without actually having to pay for it. I still need to know why the government needs to pay for it.

How about this ...

The government can help pay for these designs provided it receive some type of royalty payment above and beyond the usual taxes and fees. I could go for that.

 

[mhaze]

Both side of the political spectrum try to "intimidate" through their use of words. If you feel intimidated, that's your problem. The term denier will only become more commonplace as the evidence for climate change continues to grow. If I were you, I'd consider growing a thicker skin, because the label is going to be used.

Okay, I'm a denier. An infidel, who denies the Truey Faithy.

And you are a wacko alarmist, hysterical Warmer.

NOW we are really getting somewhere in this discussion!

<<no just kidding>>

 

[mhaze]

The DOE can regulate without actually having to pay for it. I still need to know why the government needs to pay for it.

How about this ...

The government can help pay for these designs provided it receive some type of royalty payment above and beyond the usual taxes and fees. I could go for that.

No problem with that. I think it's a great idea.

 

[citizenzen]

No problem with that. I think it's a great idea.

At least we can agree on something!

 

[johnny karate]

That entire passage is about actions the U.S government should take, and doesn't make one mention of "private industry". Your attempt at a walkback fails.

Call it whatever you like. I've just tried to clarify what I meant to say. I've replied to you on this several times but you don't seem to listen.

Of course I've listened. Listened to pretend you didn't say the things you clearly said. And no matter how much you try to "clarify" it now, you're still calling for Big Government funding - and not to mention oppressive intervention - something to which you purport to be ideologically opposed.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Both side of the political spectrum try to "intimidate" through their use of words. If you feel intimidated, that's your problem. The term denier will only become more commonplace as the evidence for climate change continues to grow. If I were you, I'd consider growing a thicker skin, because the label is going to be used.

If you want to discredit your side of this discussion, go for it.

 

[citizenzen]

If you want to discredit your side of this discussion, go for it.

So if I link to a study that corroborates the evidence for climate change, you think the fact that I include the word denier in my post discredits the science that I refer to?

If you want to discredit your side of this discussion in such a way, go for it.

I think that's why we call you a denier in the first place.

 

[Peephole]

It's silly that these deniers still think there's a discussion to be had with "sides".

Do the creationist people in the US also still think this?

 

[AlBell]

If AGW was a firmly grounded in facts as is the Theory of Evolution no skeptics of AGW alarmism would exist.

Physics? Check. Chemistry? Check. Models? Who knows how well partial differential equations and boundary conditions are implemented, why H2O & clouds aren't modelled, and what grid sizes are appropriate versus what is implemented, and what 'magic parameters' are toyed with.

 

[uke2se]

If AGW was a firmly grounded in facts as is the Theory of Evolution no skeptics of AGW alarmism would exist.

Is that why there are no creationists?

Oh wai...

 

[uke2se]

Opponents of the AGW theory are hardly "climate change deniers".

There's no better word for them. They deny hard evidenced science. The are deniers.

One problem with the evidence for the AGW theory is precisely the abundant evidence for dramatic changes in climate before widespread burning of fossil fuels.

No, that's not a problem for the AGW theory. If you'd know anything about the science you are trying to deny you would know this.

2. For starters, stop applying pejorative labels like "denier" to the opposition. It reinforces the impression that advocates for the AGW hypothesis must rely on intimidation rather than evidence.

No, that's not going to stop because that's the only way to describe the people thus labeled.

 

[lomiller]

Why should the government fund new reactor designs?

Why wouldn't that also be a responsibility of private industry?

Because in mhaze's world it's evil for renewables to receive any sort of subsidy, but it's also evil for other energy sources NOT to receive subsidies.


Of course what it really comes down to is his belief government should funnel from those he perceives as his political enemies and towards those he perceives as his political comrades, but he won't admit that openly