Conservatives and climate change

[lomiller]

No, actually the free market does work.

Indeed it does, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether you favor government directly controlling the value of carbon emissions or allowing market mechanisms to set the value of carbon emissions.

Given you have repeatedly opposed the market mechanism for setting those price, once can only conclude you favor direct government control.

 

[mhaze]

Indeed it does, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether you favor government directly controlling the value of carbon emissions or allowing market mechanisms to set the value of carbon emissions.

Given you have repeatedly opposed the market mechanism for setting those price, once can only conclude you favor direct government control.

Twisted, sick innuendo won't work.

The closing price for the Chicago scam was a nickel a ton of CO2. The exchange failed. That's the free market at work. That's the rate it values Co2 emissions at....basically, at nothing.

You don't like it, tough.

Next you'll be trying to sell hamburger at $10,000 a pound, and if you get no buyers, you'll have the governmenet forcing people to buy hamburger at $10,000 per pound.

And you wonder why people would laugh at this moronic crap.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Picking the lessor of two evils still results in an evil leadership.

What would have happened, in your opinion, if we had narrowly elected McCain/Palin and compellingly elected a much stronger progressive Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate?

Other than Pelosi and Reed being dumped and a major restructuring of both parties and most likely an even stronger progressive majority being elected in the mid-terms.

 

[lomiller]

The closing price for the Chicago scam was a nickel a ton of CO2. The exchange failed.

Well that is a pretty solid argument in favor of direct government control, though I expect the market mechanism would indeed do a good job in setting the price for CO2 emissions if business were not simply allowed to emit as much CO2 at they want free of charge.

The original questions, once again, was whether you will admit to favoring Government directly setting the price of CO2 emissions in the form of a carbon tax.

 

[mike3]

Setting up including boundary conditions and solving (most often numerically) complicated systems of partial differential equations is 'simple and basic' for tens of millions of high school students?

For US students I doubt that very much; in fact most who do not major in math couldn't do so after 4 years of college. Masters level in math/science for most, and if one actually understands the math, a PhD and post-doc efforts.

Does this mean that if one wants to learn that kind of math at a college should go outside the US?

 

[mike3]

What's sad is that some people are letting their ideology choose what they want reality to be.

I mean I would really, really love for AGW to not be real. It would so vindicate my hatred of many environmental groups like Greenpeace. But, as happy as that would make me, I have to accept reality.

Why don't you like environmental groups? At least those ones (Are there any you think are good?). Do you think a "good" environmental group is even possible?

 

[citizenzen]

The closing price for the Chicago scam was a nickel a ton of CO2. The exchange failed.

I was unfamiliar with the Chicago Climate Exchange before your posts. Could you explain why you consider it a "scam" and "failed"?

 

[bit_pattern]

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.

Or you could like, you know, answer the question and stop dancing around the subject?

 

[Corsair 115]

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.

So you're in favour of gibberish being accepted as meaningful? Well, to each their own I guess. But the phrase "excessive certainty" has no more real meaning than saying, "this victory will bring the war within measurable distance of its end". Oh, sure, it may seem at first like it's saying something, but when you stop and actually think about it and parse the words you realize it isn't saying anything at all.

Seeing as this debate is being conducted in written form, the words and phrases chosen, their actual and implied meanings, the way they're used, strike me as a rather important element. Definitions matter. Words matter. Or so I would have thought anyway.

 

[Travis]

Thoroughly brainwashed absolute madness.

Care to explain why? I never did get an answer from you about whether you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Why don't you like environmental groups? At least those ones (Are there any you think are good?). Do you think a "good" environmental group is even possible?

I got chased out of a group in college because I brought up the fact that the only way to go carbon free was to embrace nuclear power. Also I refused to go vegan and they were not cool with that as well.

 

[BenBurch]

Travis, JB thinks it is a Conspiracy.

 

[DC]

well the point that many that know AGW to be true are indeed opposed to nuclear power is atleast in my country pretty correct.
i was also pretty much against Nuclear, but coming more and more towards nuclear, because its the best technilogy we have especially considering its pretty low CO² footprint. I even stopped my finacial support to a group i supported for years because they started to push their anti nuclear agenda more and more, while i still would like to support some of their other projects. This anti nuclear position might pose a huge problem in my country. here even the greens talk about going gasturbines instead of nuclear for baseload. effectively this means, we rather would increase CO² again instead of going more nuclear.

 

[mhaze]

Well that is a pretty solid argument in favor of direct government control, though I expect the market mechanism would indeed do a good job in setting the price for CO2 emissions if business were not simply allowed to emit as much CO2 at they want free of charge.

The original questions, once again, was whether you will admit to favoring Government directly setting the price of CO2 emissions in the form of a carbon tax.

No, it is not an argument .... in favor of anything. It's simply a comment about a historical reality. And it doesn't matter what you want or think, a "carbon market" does not kneel to your wishes any more than a stock market does.

The question is what you can (if anything) LEARN from the past reality of the carbon market regarding trying to impose government controls on people.

 

[mhaze]

So you're in favour of gibberish being accepted as meaningful? Well, to each their own I guess. But the phrase "excessive certainty" has no more real meaning than saying, "this victory will bring the war within measurable distance of its end". Oh, sure, it may seem at first like it's saying something, but when you stop and actually think about it and parse the words you realize it isn't saying anything at all.

Seeing as this debate is being conducted in written form, the words and phrases chosen, their actual and implied meanings, the way they're used, strike me as a rather important element. Definitions matter. Words matter. Or so I would have thought anyway.

You know what? I don't care if you don't comprehend the argument. Not trying to be offensive here at all, but the problem is in your head.

Next you'll be picking at Greenspan's comment about "Irrational exuberance". Or FDR's "All we have to fear is fear itself".

 

[DC]

You know what? I don't care if you don't comprehend the argument. Not trying to be offensive here at all, but the problem is in your head.

Next you'll be picking at Greenspan's comment about "Irrational exuberance". Or FDR's "All we have to fear is fear itself".

could it be that you are also "excessive certain" of your position?

 

[BenBurch]

Thing is, mhaze, that you actually don't care about facts or science if you think they somehow might cost you a few dollars.

 

[mhaze]

well the point that many that know AGW to be true are indeed opposed to nuclear power is atleast in my country pretty correct.
i was also pretty much against Nuclear, but coming more and more towards nuclear, because its the best technilogy we have especially considering its pretty low CO² footprint. I even stopped my finacial support to a group i supported for years because they started to push their anti nuclear agenda more and more, while i still would like to support some of their other projects. This anti nuclear position might pose a huge problem in my country. here even the greens talk about going gasturbines instead of nuclear for baseload. effectively this means, we rather would increase CO² again instead of going more nuclear.

In the USA, in a pretty straightforward manner, Republicans are for energy, and Democrats are against energy. I'm not saying this makes total sense, but that's pretty much the way it is. Democrats - anti nuclear, anti oil pipeline, anti drilling in Alaska, anti coal.

Republicans - pro fossil fuel, coal, nuclear, on and on.

Take your pick.

But don't think you are smarter or more righteous by saying you are a pro nuclear liberal. If you side with the Democrats on energy, you are anti-nuclear.

Like I said, it may be quite illogical. As such, the cause of many of our problems is likely this cultural divide and grouping into "sides" which in many cases, there isn't anything you can do about it.

Just don't babble on about you are "pro nuclear", if you are siding with and voting for a bunch of anti-nuclear clowns.

That's what I was trying to say to Trakker earlier.

 

[leftysergeant]

In the USA, in a pretty straightforward manner, Republicans are for energy, and Democrats are against energy. I'm not saying this makes total sense, but that's pretty much the way it is. Democrats - anti nuclear, anti oil pipeline, anti drilling in Alaska, anti coal.

Cow cookies. We just want to be sure that what we do to pwoer people's excessively large vehicles does not poison our food supply or drive the wheat-growing area into too narrow a band to support human life.

As for the pro-nuke people FUKUSHIMA.

 

[DC]

In the USA, in a pretty straightforward manner, Republicans are for energy, and Democrats are against energy. I'm not saying this makes total sense, but that's pretty much the way it is. Democrats - anti nuclear, anti oil pipeline, anti drilling in Alaska, anti coal.

Republicans - pro fossil fuel, coal, nuclear, on and on.

Take your pick.

But don't think you are smarter or more righteous by saying you are a pro nuclear liberal. If you side with the Democrats on energy, you are anti-nuclear.

Like I said, it may be quite illogical. As such, the cause of many of our problems is likely this cultural divide and grouping into "sides" which in many cases, there isn't anything you can do about it.

Just don't babble on about you are "pro nuclear", if you are siding with and voting for a bunch of anti-nuclear clowns.

That's what I was trying to say to Trakker earlier.

im no Obama fan at all or Democrats, but afaik Obama supportet nuclear as part of the energy mix. and funny enough the US citizens voted for the guy among the democrats that supported Nuclear energy. and not one of those that are against it, like hillarious clinton for example.

and i never voted for a democrat. and never will.

 

[DC]

Cow cookies. We just want to be sure that what we do to pwoer people's excessively large vehicles does not poison our food supply or drive the wheat-growing area into too narrow a band to support human life.

As for the pro-nuke people FUKUSHIMA.

yes Fukushima is a great example how save nuclear energy has become.
even in catastrophes like erthquake and tsunami only a tiny number of all reactors got into troubles.