Global warming and politics

Non-car discussion, now for everyone
Post Reply
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

I came across this well-written answer to a question recently posed to Quora: Why do the Republicans (US) ignore the global warming theory?

There's a good one. Here was the answer I liked, which was also top voted:
Anderson Moorer, Political independent, leans towards libertarian
Votes by Chris Bast, Michael Lee, Charlie Fortin, David Rowe, and 15 more.

Good science is meant to be met with skepticism, so it's hardly reasonable to make incredible claims and then not expect or even welcome debate.

Nor is it reasonable to insist that the conclusions drawn not be debated, particularly when they jump from "temperatures have risen" to things as sweeping as "we must now enact a myriad of broad policies on a massive scale."

Much of the controversy today comes from a false equivalence being made between the science and political policy, which allows a game where any disagreement with political conclusions is directed into a debate on the science. Who are YOU to question these learned and able scientists? Now, shut up and let us enact a carbon tax. You BELIEVE, don't you? Then tithe, or be excommunicated.

Accepting obviously correct data does not mean one must or should accept conclusions which go far beyond what is indicated by that data.

It is possible to believe that human emissions have an impact on the environment without believing polar bears are soon going to drown as pack ice recedes, or that New Yorkers are soon going to have go to work in rowboats, or that we will all be swallowed up by planetary superstorms, or that we must all subsidize alternative energy investment etc NOW RIGHT NOW OR WE ARE DOOMED.

Somehow the premise always seems, in the end, to point to policy changes which can make certain people a lot of money. And that we must act now, and that to question is unacceptable.

Is there science which should be considered? Yes. Is there overwhelming effort to use that science to advocate sweeping conclusions for the purpose of pushing special interest legislation and investments? You bet.

Plenty of people may not follow the science yet are quite capable of spotting cons and pressure sales tactics.

To further complicate matters, at present the science and the political agendas have become intertwined and are feeding on each other. This is not good science nor good public policy.

In this light, it becomes easy for one side to deny the very existence of a problem, and the other to ridiculously inflate that problem and make wild claims.
So in the comments, someone challenged him to come up with his own recommended solution and he had some good things to say:
As you say, reasonable policies can be enacted without hysteria or catastrophism, massive expansion of governmental agencies, or campaigns urging individuals to personally "combat global warning" and the like.

Since you ask, I favor a reasoned degree of governmental support for industry emissions regulation as well as establishing international targets for reduction of greenhouse gasses but consider this a 100+ year project in which more modest, incremental change is acceptable.

I am fine with a degree of federal support for research and pilot programs exploring emerging energy technologies, recycling technologies etc.

I also believe that climate emissions can be reduced by expanding domestic nuclear power generation, and that this is worth federal assistance and encouragement.

I believe the US should relax its self-imposed opposition to fossil fuels and greatly expand its domestic production and export of fossil fuels, encourage pipeline transport, fracking, offshore drilling, and examine potential for widespread, low-impact drilling on federal land.

I reject the climate of hysteria, pressure tactics, and contempt-towards debate which has been built up around climate change, and the idea that global crisis requires all "green" policy be fast tracked with debate unacceptable.

I reject the denial that there is such a phenomenon as "global warming" but also reject the mindset that it is an immediate planetary crisis which should become the central focus of all government, at all levels.

Of course, this is all my personal opinion, given on request. I don't claim to have a lock on the cure for all societal ills. But I call bullshit on both climate-based hysteria and the castigation and stereotyping of any skeptical voices seeking debate. The debate is NOT over, and needs to shift from hyperbole and public rhetoric on both sides to compromise-driven, bipartisan negotiation which arrives at reasonable and balanced public policy.
Emphasis mine. Of course this comes at the PERFECT time. This is a perfect example of what we see in the media today:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/31/55657 ... e-un-warns

This is EXACTLY what Anderson was talking about:
"Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy," US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement following the report's release. "Denial of the science is malpractice," he added.
Here are some more headlines that I found:
Secretary Kerry warns climate change is a 'weapon of mass destruction'
Google Street View captures Canada's polar bears in conservation effort
Richard Branson sides with Apple CEO against climate change deniers

If I seem angry about this, this is why.
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Another good one (same guy):
Perhaps the simplest example of climate-change driven policy being big business is the greater than 550 billion euros being spent on Germany's "Enegriewende".

Another simple and obvious example is the manipulation of the market to favor electric vehicles in the terms of US automobile fuel efficiency standards.

This quite obviously results in more profitable conditions for electric vehicles, in fact that's the openly stated purpose: to manipulate conditions to make the production of electric vehicles profitable, in order to reduce co2 emissions which play a role in climate change.

Of course, the game we can now play would be to start quibbling over each and every example, arguing what is "real" and what isn't, while ignoring the simple and obvious truth that there are special interests who can profit from things other than eeeevil oil.

There are many "green" businesses and just like oil companies their core purpose is to make a profit. Patet Vero.
Emphasis mine, again. Hmm, now that's interesting. Some perspective.

The idea that people believe that, say, Exxon-Mobile's profits are somehow more noble, or moral, than, oh I don't know, Tesla's profits is utterly ridiculous.
Bob
Posts: 2440
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:36 am

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by Bob »

.
Last edited by Bob on Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

I don't disagree! I've been open about the fact that there are definitely some known pollutants that can cause intense, near-term negative public health effects. We discovered this in the late 60s and 70s and did something about it. We're talking SMOG-forming pollutants here, like NOx. Before that, when wood-burning stoves were the primary source of heat and cooking, cities' air quality was even worse!

None of that stuff has anything to do with CO2. But the EPA has now lumped CO2 in the same "pollutant" category as all the other nasty by-products of industrialization. Thanks to the efforts of Al Gore, this administration, the media and whoever else buys this 100%, we see city-scapes depicted with gross, black emissions and there is a clear linkage drawn to CO2. Highly misleading, and no, not because CO2 is invisible and odorless.

All of this leads to untold long term economic damage due to pet-policy being shoved through, by turning it into a religion.

And the idea that Democrats care about the environment but Republicans don't makes me irate. NEITHER care.
Adam
Posts: 2240
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by Adam »

They only care to the extent it serves their agenda.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by bill25 »

Here are a few things that I think. I do not have a full global warming/climate change model in my head because I am not a scientist that understands biomes at a global scale.

Some fun facts:
There were no cars when the earth left the ice age behind and temps rose and the ice bridge melted.
There is a very good chance that humans can impact the environment.
Weather does seem to be more extreme lately. I don't know if that means anything. It could just be the news exaggerating everything.
Global satellite pictures show ice melting over time.

Instead of the left and right arguing about why there is climate change (left: burning carbon based fuels, right not from humans/ burning carbon based fuels)
Let scientists engineers and weathermen/meteorologists study what has been happening and determine if they think there is a trend. Then, if there is, we have them look to why and how to solve the problem.

Another fun fact: Politicians and myself are unqualified when it comes to determining if there is a real problem. I do like to watch others who clearly have no clue believe they know everything about this though.

One last fun fact:
There is a book called Super Freakanomics where they discuss a way to cool the earth an average of 2 degrees per year of doing one simple thing:
Send smoke through a stovepipe into the stratosphere near the north pole.

I bet this is not the answer you thought that would be possible to combat global warming due to pollution. They realized this from studying how the earth's temperature changed after a massive volcanic event happened, blowing smoke into the stratosphere.

The people involved are brilliant minds that helped start Microsoft and other groundbreaking companies.
Pretty interesting what happens when people without political ties actually want to study and understand a potential problem.
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

billgiacheri wrote:Let scientists engineers and weathermen/meteorologists study what has been happening and determine if they think there is a trend. Then, if there is, we have them look to why and how to solve the problem.
The fact is, the gov't will hand you a pile of money for climate change research, and I think you can guess what would be the result if your conclusion was "not as bad as we thought" or "nothing's happening." The money stops. That's over simplified but I think along the right lines. There's a lot of grant money if you are on the right side of this religion. And there are some folks that aren't in the club, but they get stomped on by everyone else.
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

This bleeding heart shit..

More baby deer are dying in France because of climate change

http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/4/1/557 ... ate-change
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Well, what would really shock me is if I learned that deer in other locations are doing better because winters are shorter and more food is available. I don’t think I could believe that, though. I’m pretty sure climate change is only supposed to be negative. Not just different, mind you, negative.
Nice. So where's the funding and study on this?
kevm14
Posts: 15201
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: Global warming and politics

Post by kevm14 »

Reviving this because this hysteria makes me mad.

This video sums it up pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

Until we have grants and funding for BOTH anthropogenic climate change* believers as well as skeptics, no one can ever assert that "the science is settled." I would bet you could fund lots of studies, also, that figure out what GOOD things you could do with a changing climate (or at least benefits), which BY THE WAY, would be 100% worth funding whether humans are effecting climate change, or not!!!

This religion now spouts incorrect statistics like "98% of the world's climate scientists believe this" that are meant to belittle someone into going along with it. Here's the thing people: science is not a democracy. Science truth is not swayed by this idea of consensus. Lots of people used to believe the world was flat. That didn't make it true. We were taught the greenhouse effect as kids in the 80s, but that phenomenon simply existing does not, at all, prove the degree to which human generated CO2 is causing more climate change than would naturally be occurring. There are simply orders of magnitude more factors than that and not looking at them is intellectually dishonest.

* The only legitimate way to refer to this supposed phenomenon. Why? Because the climate is always changing. It always has and it always will. The trick, as the scientists in the video above explain, is just how hard it is to ascribe a delta from that existing change to human activity. And the fact is, ALL climate models that we have seem to be astoundingly bad.

I say follow the money and be skeptical until this is not a one sided political farce.
Post Reply