Why is climate science political?

[bobgnote]

Just thought I'd go back to the source post and check the actual first statement which, it turns out, is based on statements with equivocal and uncertain words and is filled with hedging and non-specifics.

Saigon's OP: "I don't see science as being political." I don't see commenting wingnuts putting up links, but I see a lot of wingnut fart-and-giggle, all through this thread.

Seems almost reasonable except that when an AGW Proponent says that SOME PORTION of climate change MAY be the results of Man's activities, he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.

You are a blocker, in an extreme state of denial-ecstasy, arguing, when you need to discuss what will be done. Politics and forums for you are opportunities, to argue against facts, which are consensus, and against logical progression to solutions to global warming and acidification, no matter who is really responsible, for stewardship of the Earth. You argue against an AGW progression, toward disaster, since you do not want to solve warming and acidification, for any reason, whether or not human participation since the industrial revolution has become critical, to either damage or reconciliations.

Petroleum, nuclear, prison, and war industries are lining their pockets, asshole 1211! They issue carbon, and they prevent re-greening, while CO2 has moved from 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age, to 400 ppm, in recent Arctic measurements.

When the statement is that Warming and Climate Change ARE incontrovertibly the result of Man's Activities and that no other cause could even tangently be responsible for the effects cited, then we will have something to work with.

You are an asshole, who does not want to acknowledge humans steward the Earth, toward hell, since the start of the industrial age. Your simplistic view of AGW as a proportion of current emissions is the result of your head being up your ass. We have to fix the planet, no matter what the stupid proportion of human CO2 is, relative to natural.

Saigon's OP: "But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?"

Until then, the argument's hot air is sourced to man, but that's it.

Until your head comes out of your ass, you cannot post links or reason, how a problem must be solved, and re-greening the Earth is the only solution. I see you are on stupid-denial-duty, this morning. Who is your wingnut wingman, this shift?

 

[Big Fitz]

Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind. Not really surprising.

It's a good thing there is no greed and power associated with the oil and coal industries.

You just prefer a new evil.

Ah yes...

"If given a choice of two evils, I'll take the one I haven't tried before."

tee shirt slogan

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics. It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles. As for lighting, they're darn near right. It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way. If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.

But the point remains this is not about doing what's bigger better faster cheaper. It's about power of men over other men and profiting at the expense of others. The very issue you've denied since post 1.

Right - because profit motive is never an issue in the coal, oil or nuclear industries. And neither have ever received ubsidies.

I have to say man - I just cringe when you post things like that. It's just so ridiculously one sided that it amazes me that you don't see it yourself.

Popularity is a valid point to make here, because we live in democracies. Governments should work to provide energy from sources people largely respect and prefer - providing to do so almost makes good use of tax payer dollars.

I do look forward to seeing your overview on coal.

btw - In the last 4 elections I voted for 4 different parties. I'm not left wing, so don't portray me as such.

When you desire to use government to play social engineer and interfere with free market, you lean to the left.

Government should be there to protect the rights of it's citizens from threats from without (The military) and threats from within (The Courts). After that, it needs to get out of it's people's way.

I have never said that there isn't all sorts of unethical problems in those industries. I am saying we can end those too without just replacing them with NEW corruption in industries that cannot compete and will turn out to be more expensive, less reliable and damage society by their inferiority.

You cringe at my POV? I wince at your naivete on the nature of man, power and money. Also, if you don't want fleas, don't lie down with the dogs.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be. Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer.

I have never understood the obsession the US far right have with the mythical 'free market' - especially as the US right also champions protectionism and subsidies when it suits them, for instance with cotton farming.

The government (be it federal or state) even if usually via some SOE's is the customer which buys the electricity and supervises its supply to end users. So it is up to the government to decide which form of energy they will invest in and purchase.

That isn't leftist, it isn't social engineering and it certainly isn't interference. It's a given, an inate aspect of enery production as much as it is with the provision of water, roads or sewerage treatment.

As is so often the case, this need to reduce every debate to left/right is a shackle; it's a set of blinkers that allows only two possible outcomes or viewpoints.

Personally, I couldn't give a shit if tidal power is left wing or right wing - if it makes sense, let's use it. If not, let's dump it.

 

[saveliberty]

Try the next size up in underwear bob. Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.

 

[saveliberty]

Saigon, you're welcome to go out and buy solar or wind power generation sources. The government is bending over backward to help you. There are many fuel oil companies available. Power lines are deregulated. Why the lack of action?

 

[Saigon]

Saigon, you're welcome to go out and buy solar or wind power generation sources. The government is bending over backward to help you. There are many fuel oil companies available. Power lines are deregulated. Why the lack of action?

I'm not sure how it is in the US right now, but here in Finland there are a very limited number of options available to consumers. There are options available in terms of supplier, but there is no way to track 1 unit of electricity from production to consumer, so what you are buying is more a % of total supply than anything else.

Finland produces 0 solar, geo-thermal, osmotic or tidal energy, and very little wind.

I'd love a system where comsumers got a menu with electricity supply options on, but I doubt it will happen soon.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh, I get it now. Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.

 

[Saigon]

Oh, I get it now. Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.

Umm...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why would one of the wealthiest countries on earth require funds from the current with the highest foreign debt on earth?

 

[koshergrl]

It's a good thing there is no greed and power associated with the oil and coal industries.

You just prefer a new evil.

Ah yes...

"If given a choice of two evils, I'll take the one I haven't tried before."

tee shirt slogan

It's important to have variety.

It's always a plus if the new choice is proven to be inefficient.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be.

Not a student of history I see.

Oil was not regulated very much or very well till the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and civil ordinances concerning gas stations came about in the early 1900's and late 1800's. Coal was also not very regulated till TR busted the coal miner's union around 1903 to save the lives of millions of people from freezing to death that winter. Before that? Whale Oil was very free market. Before that, Wood. Who the hell regulated wood? Lumber companies and the timber industry.


No free market and never was?

Monkey bollocks.

Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer.

They can and do. Just too many think they're getting screwed on the price by going to Solar or Wind. Or their neighbors get pissed that they're making a neighborhood eyesore. Ever study on how to get off the grid? There you go. Choose away. Nobody says you MUST be hooked up to a grid, save city ordinances... unless you live in some pseudo fascist state. I dunno. Does Finland force you to use a particular type of energy?

I have never understood the obsession the US far right have with the mythical 'free market'

Do not confuse free market with lassaiez faire capitalism. All successful economies have a certain level of government involvement. The more government though, the more it's like driving a car while riding the brakes. The more government the harder the brake is being pushed. Sooner or later, one or the other will be ruined.

Government, should be involved ONLY with ensuring 'fair play' in as much that labor is not exploited, truth in advertising and delivering on promised results, fair competition to prevent monopolization, unfair foreign economic warfare is blocked and accurate weights and measures. After that, for the most part government should stay the fuck out of it.

especially as the US right also champions protectionism and subsidies when it suits them, for instance with cotton farming.

Protectionism? Is this a bad thing against other countries using economic warfare against their opposition? SHit, look at China and how it's come to dominate. Currency manipulation, state funded industry, child labor, slave labor, environmental disasters, non-existant labor protection and of course low societal costs all create an environment wherein they can siphon off labor and break another nation's industry if they are not protected from what is essentially an illegal and unfair advantage in another nation. Every nation in the world does protectionism. SO fucking what?

The government (be it federal or state) even if usually via some SOE's is the customer which buys the electricity and supervises its supply to end users. So it is up to the government to decide which form of energy they will invest in and purchase.

Thanks for providing proof that publically owned utilities must be privatized. They form artifical monopolies that then are protected from market forces driving the prices down, offering variety and locking people in to a higher price structure than should be available if free market forces were at play. Again, government picking winners and losers and deciding for people what is best is a bad thing.

That isn't leftist, it isn't social engineering and it certainly isn't interference

Bullshit. It is exactly that for the reasons I posted above. It's just as evil as smart growth. Over here, in some states it's illegal to have only one cable company in a geographic area. Those areas MUST provide 2-3 choices in an area for competition. Those areas have the lowest cable prices possible. If they are found to be colluding on prices, that's called a trust and is punishable by law. Areas with geographical monopolies preventing competition have the worst service and highest prices with poorest quality because the consumer cannot choose to go elsewhere. This is economics 101, and yes, I've taken that course.

It's a given, an inate aspect of enery production as much as it is with the provision of water, roads or sewerage treatment.

You can privatize every one of these as well. The most difficult would be roads because there IS a constitutional mandate for it to be done by the government. Sewage? Easily privatized just like garbage was/is in the US. Most landfills and recycling centers here are privately owned. In Minneapolis/St. Paul there are like 14 garbage companies and even more recycling companies. Now that would drop if they got rid of government subsidies, but there would still be many to choose from if government did not mandate any one particular hauler. Your argument does not pass the objective reality test of what currently is happening.

As is so often the case, this need to reduce every debate to left/right is a shackle; it's a set of blinkers that allows only two possible outcomes or viewpoints.

How do you balance mutually exclusive worldviews like Government control versus individual freedom?

The left is almost always for government control, the right is almost always for individual freedom. hmmmmm.... I wonder why?

Personally, I couldn't give a shit if tidal power is left wing or right wing - if it makes sense, let's use it. If not, let's dump it.

The only point in which I agree with you this post. BUT, we need an accurate and truthful discussion on the cost/benefits between it and other forms of energy creation SANS subsidization for either party. That's how you know what's better once you compare the two.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh, I get it now. Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.

Umm...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why would one of the wealthiest countries on earth require funds from the current with the highest foreign debt on earth?

Why do rich people hire accountants to dodge taxes or move their money to tax shelters or banks who won't report?

Efficiency and ability to keep what is theirs.

 

[saveliberty]

Even some of the rich shoplift.

 

[code1211]

he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.

To me, this is such a pointless line of reasoning; it just makes no sense whatsoever.

Firstly, the coal, oil and nulear industries have profited massively for years from government contracts, and I don't the most näive person in the world thinks a lot of that happened without corruption, graft and shortcuts.

Secondly, the great majority of scientific research and researchers will never benefit financially from any power project of any kind. Lecturers in physics do not, by and large, rely on handouts from solar power or coal companies to conduct research. They conduct research based on solid scientific principles and practices.

Lastly, if climate change science were based on corruption or politics, we would not see conservative parties around the world - including those who have previously invested in nuclear - line up on what might seem to be the left side of the fence.

As I have said here before - the fact that climate change is a left/right issue in the US doesn't mean it is in other countries. Look at their conservative parties, and see what they are saying.

As far as man's role goes; I think most people agree that human acitivity plays some role in climate change. But I defy anyone to say accurately to what extent. I think we are 10 years away from coming up with a single, concrete line of data on that. I'd rather work on tackling climate change while that research is being done that just ignore it.

Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause. Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.

Is this the scientific method that you propose we all follow? Perhaps burning a witch now and then might also help.

To the first point, there will always be some slush in government spending which is a great argument to not use government money. If some snot nosed kid is directing other people's money to his pet project that he elects because it's stylish, waste and pay backs are garenteed. if a private citizen is running a private business and trying to make ends meet, waste will be less extravagant and won't cost the rest of us due to his own stupidity.

You cling to the idea that this is not political. This is simply not based in reality. James Hansen works for NASA and makes more than his salary pontificating on Climate Driven Doom. He's wrong and he is revered. Is this science?

Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. For what? Peace? Hardly! He won it because he opposed the conservatives of the world and recommended a wealth transfer system to take from the haves and give to the have nots. This is clearly political.

Obama won the same prize for doing even less. The Nobel Committee is equally as misguided and bereft of integrity as is the UN.

By any rational measure, Climate science is politically motivated, based on corrupted science and aimed at justifying a transfer of wealth from the haves to the have nots.

To disprove this, all you need to do is prove that CO2, the most powerful driver of climate, has not risen consistently over the last 12 years and this is why the climate has cooled during that period. Of course we know that CO2 has risen constantly over the last 12 years and that climate has cooled and that either the theory behind AGW is wrong or that CO2 is a gang of unionized Greeks and refusing to work.

Any rational review would conclude that CO2 is NOT the most powerful driver of climate and that those who assert that it is have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate at all.

You are free to produce proof to convince me otherwise.

http://reasonabledoubtclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/hadleyv_co2trends.png

 

[saveliberty]

You're more than welcome to stop using electricity and modes of transportation requiring carbon products Saigon.

 

[saveliberty]

Water vapor is a stronger factor.

 

[Saigon]

You're more than welcome to stop using electricity and modes of transportation requiring carbon products Saigon.

I don't get it...why would I want to do that?

 

[Saigon]

Oh, I get it now. Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.

Umm...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why would one of the wealthiest countries on earth require funds from the current with the highest foreign debt on earth?

Why do rich people hire accountants to dodge taxes or move their money to tax shelters or banks who won't report?

Efficiency and ability to keep what is theirs.

Right - so there is some kind of evil Scandinavian conspiracy to get aid money....yes...that makes sense.

 

[code1211]

Fitz -

There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be. Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer.

I have never understood the obsession the US far right have with the mythical 'free market' - especially as the US right also champions protectionism and subsidies when it suits them, for instance with cotton farming.

The government (be it federal or state) even if usually via some SOE's is the customer which buys the electricity and supervises its supply to end users. So it is up to the government to decide which form of energy they will invest in and purchase.

That isn't leftist, it isn't social engineering and it certainly isn't interference. It's a given, an inate aspect of enery production as much as it is with the provision of water, roads or sewerage treatment.

As is so often the case, this need to reduce every debate to left/right is a shackle; it's a set of blinkers that allows only two possible outcomes or viewpoints.

Personally, I couldn't give a shit if tidal power is left wing or right wing - if it makes sense, let's use it. If not, let's dump it.

To the extent that government direst it or pays for it, it's Liberal.

To the extent that it's privately financed and free of government direction, It's conservative.

 

[saveliberty]

You have heard of carbon credits I presume?