Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

Thoroughly brainwashed absolute madness.

are you talking about yourself?

 

[bit_pattern]

are you talking about yourself?

That was what I assumed. was going to ask but thought it easier to just move on. I'm glad I'm not alone.

 

[Francesca R]

So you think this level of mass hysteria is largely just a USA phenomena?

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.

Projected ideas of certainty are exaggerated. The claim that 10 out of 19 in a sample of 1970s articles predicting warming means "the consensus of academia knew that climate change was coming in 1972" is excessive (I have admitted I don't have evidence for the counter-claim). Attacking my comments as "demagoguing shamelessly" and "unseemly bordering on disgusting" are way over the top. Retorts of "chicken little hysteria" and (your) "true believers of the warmer faith" and strident assertions that "[the debate] has been made [political] [only] by the ecology nuts, the UN, and the academics and NGO's who profit from making it so" are also excessively certain at what they purport to rubbish.

 

[Francesca R]

I notice that Francesca R has subsequently posted in this thread but still has not defined what exactly is meant by "excessive certainty".

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

 

[Francesca R]

This is why nothing will get done. Sad to say, these clowns won't be around to be given a pitch cap by those who will have to live (and die) with it.

Maybe that is because even assuming (for the sake of argument) that you have the best science in the world on your side, you can still fumble the policy debate, or fail to have it take place at all if everyone is so polarised (particularly if it's always the other side's fault that nobody is at the table)

 

[bit_pattern]

Projected ideas of certainty are exaggerated. The claim that 10 out of 19 in a sample of 1970s articles predicting warming means "the consensus of academia knew that climate change was coming in 1972"

As far as I understand it we're still waiting for you to define "academia" and why we need a consensus of "academia" and not the consensus of evidence which was abundantly apparent long before 1972.

 

[Francesca R]

Then your understanding is not mine. Wait harder though, see if it works. Alternatively, feel free to imagine I am a denier of science or whatever you would like. It would be interesting to see which folks agree with you about that.

 

[mhaze]

Putting faith in scientific expert opinion is entirely different to putting faith in religion. I happen to trust that the people who have spent their entire life studying the subject and are intelligent enough to be recognised and cited by the rest of the scientific community are the ones who are most likely to be correct about the subject. I fail to see why that is irrational in any way.

Of course it isn't irrational necessarily.

Let me give you a couple examples. The Catholic or Baptist faiths are not considered "cults". Yet there are certainly members who exhibit every facet of belonging to a cult. Similarly, the Muslim religion in and of itself isn't so terribly horrible (with the exception of backward cultures where it does sort of propagate human rights issues). But then we have that nasty little couple of a % of Muslims who are a little problem,don't we? And they seem to sort of be tolerated by Muslims in general, right?

If I go and talk to people on the street about climate change, and yes, they may vote Democratic, they don't have any aspect of the rabid self righteousness or beliefs that people on this forum do. In fact, they mostly oppose government policies that would ... say .... increase their utility bills.

So when I comment that it is irrational I'm only stating the obvious.

If, for example, you seriously believe that spending $5T on some carbon scheme is "good", and the calculated net result of that scheme is -0.0001 degree C, the very NICEST thing that can be said about you is that on that matter, you are irrational.

 

[leftysergeant]

It usually is the right wingers who do not come to the table.

 

[stokes234]

Of course it isn't irrational necessarily.

Let me give you a couple examples. The Catholic or Baptist faiths are not considered "cults". Yet there are certainly members who exhibit every facet of belonging to a cult. Similarly, the Muslim religion in and of itself isn't so terribly horrible (with the exception of backward cultures where it does sort of propagate human rights issues). But then we have that nasty little couple of a % of Muslims who are a little problem,don't we? And they seem to sort of be tolerated by Muslims in general, right?

I don't really see how this is relevant.

If I go and talk to people on the street about climate change, and yes, they may vote Democratic, they don't have any aspect of the rabid self righteousness or beliefs that people on this forum do. In fact, they mostly oppose government policies that would ... say .... increase their utility bills.

Some people are selfish and prefer short-term gain to long-term gain. Others don't believe that the scientific community is better at science than political hacks. None of this is news.

If, for example, you seriously believe that spending $5T on some carbon scheme is "good", and the calculated net result of that scheme is -0.0001 degree C, the very NICEST thing that can be said about you is that on that matter, you are irrational.

Why would I seriously believe that? Do you have any examples of such proposed carbon schemes?

 

[bit_pattern]

If I go and talk to people on the street about climate change, and yes, they may vote Democratic, they don't have any aspect of the rabid self righteousness or beliefs that people on this forum do. In fact, they mostly oppose government policies that would ... say .... increase their utility bills.

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:

Several studies investigated willingness to pay (ANUpoll, ARCCANSI, Survey of Social Attitudes, Lowy Institute Poll). The ANUpoll and the Survey of Social Attitudes found a third to a half of respondents were willing to pay more for electricity, fuel, and taxes or to decrease their standard of living; 65% reported that they were willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment, but only a third were willing to pay more tax. The ARCCANSI survey asked people what percentage increases would be acceptable to them to ensure the continuity of services such as water, sewage and electricity. They found that respondents' willingness to pay for all daily essential services (e.g. water, electricity, sewage, public transport, and so on) decreased substantially when the prices increased by more than 10%. ?The Lowy Institute Poll reported that willingness to pay for climate change through increased electricity prices declined from 71% in 2008 to 59% in 2010.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/australians-view-of-climate-change.htm

 

[mhaze]

Thoroughly brainwashed absolute madness.

Yeah, but they actually believe this crap. Note how blithely Trakar slide from advocating carbon tax schemes (which don't work, and which take money from everyone) to what, planetary engineering, coupled with several and totalitarian world wide population control. And with the utmost in confidence in the (wanna be...) progressive overlords.

 

[mhaze]

....Why would I seriously believe that? Do you have any examples of such proposed carbon schemes?

"Believe"? There you go again.

Don't we have historical evidence on carbon schemes, their cost and net effect on say....Europe?

 

[BenBurch]

are you talking about yourself?

Recognition is the first step to recovery.

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah, but they actually believe this crap. Note how blithely Trakar slide from advocating carbon tax schemes (which don't work, and which take money from everyone) to what, planetary engineering, coupled with several and totalitarian world wide population control. And with the utmost in confidence in the (wanna be...) progressive overlords.

We have been waiting for years now to have you present your argument, complete with maths, that says that AGW cannot not happen and IS not happening.

I think we will still be waiting when the heat death of the universe happens, something you also no doubt have some jaded ideological reason to disbelieve.

 

[stokes234]

"Believe"? There you go again.

Er. I was responding to your suggestion that I might actually believe the following:

If, for example, you seriously believe that spending $5T on some carbon scheme is "good"...

Do try to keep up, especially regarding things you said yourself.

Don't we have historical evidence on carbon schemes, their cost and net effect on say....Europe?

Go on, start listing the $5T carbon schemes that have done as little as you suggest.

 

[mhaze]

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?

That will Save the Planet.

hmm....

The potential for carbon finance to hit a final limit to its credibility, and implode in 2012 is high and rising. As we know, global warming theorists would be short of talkshow material without "tipping points" and climate forcing, drawing on everything from heavily overworked CO2 to more exciting, seemingly higher tech specialty themes like the possible role of adipic acid, freons and halocarbons, 'black carbon' and heavy metals, even cosmic ray breakdown particles in the atmosphere - - to explain why they believe global average temperatures have to rise. As we also know or are invited to believe, carbon traders huddled over their playstation consoles doing the Fibonaccis and losing other peoples' money are preventing this happening.


The menace facing the Carbon Trader species - threatened with extinction - is the likely tipping point reached through oversupply of alphabet soup "climate change paper", meaning unit prices will first crash to nothing, before the game is abandoned. The US "voluntary basis" CCX emissions market, in Chicago, closed at end 2010 with final trades valuing the right to emit 1 ton of CO2 at 5 US cents. At those prices, there is no problem feeling voluntary about Saving the Planet, we can add !

 

[bit_pattern]

Carbon trading is the answer, RIGHT?

That will Save the Planet.

No, it is merely a market mechanism for sending the price signal that will be the first step in restructuring a clean energy economy. It is a convenient means of making the initial early stage cuts to emissions for the lowest possible cost to the economy. deeper cuts, of the sort that will actually have an effect on global emissions, will require a lot more effort but while come at less of a cost than they would if we didn't bother putting a price on GHG emissions.

 

[mhaze]

No, it is merely a market mechanism for sending the price signal that will be the first step in restructuring a clean energy economy. It is a convenient means of making the initial early stage cuts to emissions for the lowest possible cost to the economy. deeper cuts, of the sort that will actually have an effect on global emissions, will require a lot more effort but while come at less of a cost than they would if we didn't bother putting a price on GHG emissions.

That's what I'm talking about - a bunch of double talk disguising a total FAIL of an attempted True Believer scheme.

Thanks.

You've simply parroted the talking points, without examining the actual historical failure of the scheme. That's exactly the inability to learn from facts and experience which is an attribute of a True Believer. In fact, let me guess....the failure of the scheme just makes you believe even more firmly, right?

 

[bit_pattern]

That's what I'm talking about - a bunch of double talk disguising a total FAIL of an attempted True Believer scheme.

Thanks.

You've simply parroted the talking points, without examining the actual historical failure of the scheme. That's exactly the inability to learn from facts and experience which is an attribute of a True Believer. In fact, let me guess....the failure of the scheme just makes you believe even more firmly, right?

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