Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

[doodle]

TennPaGa,

You bring up an interesting point that I have never considered before.....if global warming turned out to be scientifically true, then the remedies necessary to tackle such a problem would require political action that would be anathema to most libertarians. I understand a bit better now where the objections to the science come from.

[moda0306]

TennPaGa,

You bring up an interesting point that I have never considered before.....if global warming turned out to be scientifically true, then the remedies necessary to tackle such a problem would require political action that would be anathema to most libertarians. I understand a bit better now where the objections to the science come from.

doodle,

I hate to not-pick, but I think you're wrong in a way. Libertarians tend to advocate for a "sue thy neighbor" approach to pollution.

1) privatize everything

2) allow people to sue each other for pollution


I love my libertarian friends, and wish I was straw-manning here. But I'm not. They actually advocate for this.


However, I do have other libertarian-minded friends that see pollution as one of the few legitimate roles of government, and advocate land use regulations and taxes to mitigate pollution.



One accurate thing libertarians will point out (sometimes) is that governments make economies grow faster and in more unnatural ways than they otherwise would, thereby contributing greatly to pollution.

Technically, they're quite correct.

(See how easy that was, kids!?  When an opposing political ideology is uniquely correct on a matter, ACKNOWLEDGE IT.)

[doodle]

As far as the scientific consensus regarding the synthesis IPCC reports, Wikipedia said this:

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][12]

Literally every single scientific body around the world agrees that man made global warming is a fact.

Does that make it a fact? No

Should we however take this into consideration when thinking about investment in energy infrastructure and pollution regulations?.....I think so

[doodle]

TennPaGa,

You bring up an interesting point that I have never considered before.....if global warming turned out to be scientifically true, then the remedies necessary to tackle such a problem would require political action that would be anathema to most libertarians. I understand a bit better now where the objections to the science come from.

doodle,

I hate to not-pick, but I think you're ring. Libertarians tend to advocate for a "sue thy neighbor" approach to pollution.

1) privatize everything

2) allow people to sue each other for pollution


I love my libertarian friends, and wish I was straw-manning here. But I'm not. They actually advocate for this.


However, I do have other libertarian-minded friends that see pollution as one of the few legitimate roles of government, and advocate land use regulations and taxes to mitigate pollution.

How do the citizens of some small low lying island sue the PRC though? In theory this sounds great, but could it really work?

[Benko]

Moda,

I trust few and certainly not gov't but am willing to and wish they would help to decrease pollution.  As i said last time you brought this up, the question is to what extent and at  what cost.  What is the cost/benefit?

HOW CERTAIN ARE YOU?  WHAT IS THE COST BENEFIT?  Those questions need to be asked and HONESTlY answered before any intervention. 

TO be clear, I am not saying I am sure "climate change" whatever that means is not happeneing, I am saying we do not understand climate well enough to make any major intervention given the magnitude of the potential unintended consequnces. 

[Pointedstick]

How do the citizens of some small low lying island sue the PRC though? In theory this sounds great, but could it really work?

How do they meaningfully and effectively object to PRC-originated pollution in the status quo world of today, though? They can't. Might makes right. This is not a problem unique to nonexistent libertarian fantasylandia.

[Benko]

2.  "there is  consensus among people who have researched the issue that increasing atmospheric CO2 has led to warming"
No there is not.  You need to broaden your reading to include people without the progressive agenda.  And I've provided a link with a coupla basic questions that no one can answer.

I'm not going to put stock in Hannity-esque wannabes, sorry.
ies.
[/quote]

The are credentialed people who  do not believe as you do but you will not read them.  You have proved my point.

[doodle]

Regarding cost/benefit

One problem exacerbated by pollution is asthma.

Asthma costs in the US grew from about $53 billion in 2002 to about $56 billion in 2007, about a 6% increase. More than half (59%) of children and one-third (33%) of adults who had an asthma attack missed school or work because of asthma in 2008.

The total taxpayer loss in solyndra I think was around 300 million.

So what is that? About .5 percent of the cost of what we spend on asthma every year......just one of many problems that pollution causes.

[moda0306]

Benko,

I think we understand unintended consequences enough to know tha burning less fossil fuels isn't going to throw us off an axis tumbling towards the sun.

The unintended consequence that miiiiiight just be a bigger mystery is that of burning fuels in ways that the earth hasn't seen for a few thousand to a few hundred million years*.



* Depending on what book you believe in terms of the age of the earth.

[doodle]

Benko,

I think we understand unintended consequences enough to know tha burning less fossil fuels isn't going to throw us off an axis tumbling towards the sun.

The unintended consequence that miiiiiight just be a bigger mystery is that of burning fuels in ways that the earth hasn't seen for a few thousand to a few hundred million years*.



* Depending on what book you believe in terms of the age of the earth.

I have no doubt that humans will survive and adapt to a changing climate. My concern is what the adaptive process will look like on an earth with 9 billion people and what sort of an effect will this have on our quality of life? It would suck if we had to have massive worldwide Katrina like migrations, starvation, and chaos for 100 years as the human population adapted to the changing earth.

[Benko]

Benko,

I think we understand unintended consequences enough to know tha burning less fossil fuels isn't going to throw us off an axis tumbling towards the sun.

Economic consequences.  Both locally e.g. the folks in West virginia e.g. will probably not be very happy if coal is less used and more globally (within the US) if gas/energy costs more this will hurt all businesses.  But I thought I'd said this already. 

[Mountaineer]

Curtain opens.  Saturday Night Live is in progress.  Sixth grade child prodigy is questioning (Q below) the world renown “global warming”? advocate (GWA below) and a geologist (G below).

Q. Where does the sun’s energy that falls on the earth go?

G. Much of it warms the planet and replaces the energy that is lost from the part of the earth that is not facing the sun.  Much of it is converted into plant and animal life.  Some of that plant and animal life is consumed by animals and burned slowly with oxygen (digestion, metabolism) evolving carbon dioxide which becomes food for more plant life.  When plant and animal life die, some of it becomes covered with dirt and water.  Over a period of time, that plant and animal life becomes fossil fuel.  Some fossil fuel is utilized by people to release its energy for quality of life purposes (improved comfort via warmth, cooling, and materials manufacturing).  Potentially, all of the fossil fuel that is not used by man will be burned with massive amounts of combustion products released to the atmosphere as the tectonic plates and associated fault lines move over the fossil fuel beds.

Q. Since I’m very concerned about the life of my fellow man and generations that may come into existence thousands of years in the future, what can we do to stop the earth’s plates from moving over the fossil fuel beds and thus releasing massive quantities of carbon dioxide and other noxious gasses?

GWA. I am not certain.  Why don’t we come up with a political solution now and spend huge quantities of money on research so we can avert potential disaster; surely you agree it is worth saving your progeny that may exist a million years from now.

Q. Hasn’t the process you describe above been going on for millions of years?

G. Yes.

Q. Why are we still alive?

GWA. blank stares and face palms ……...

Curtain closes.


... Mountaineer

[Benko]

Mountaineer

You are scary good (and accurate).

You should run for local office.  Seriously.

[Mountaineer]

Here are some very interesting quotes from some very respected "experts".  I'm sure this time it will be different and the climate change "experts" know of what they speak (sarcasm alert).

A couple of examples:

There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
- Albert Einstein, 1932.

That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.
- Admiral William Leahy. [Advice to President Truman, when asked his opinion of the atomic bomb project.]


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Potentially, all of the fossil fuel that is not used by man will be burned with massive amounts of combustion products released to the atmosphere as the tectonic plates and associated fault lines move over the fossil fuel beds.

If this process were to take place entirely over the next 50 to 100 years then yes, I would hope that we would investigate it.

This isn't an issue of money, this is an issue of where society chooses to allocate its resources. Unfortunately, we know people tend to be heavily biased towards the present and they highly discount the future. Right now, people would rather have all of the worlds brains dedicated to creating fancy iphone apps and new ways to whiten our teeth or enlarge our penises. The marketplace wants these products right now whereas the market really isn't concerned with the potential that the entire eastern seaboard could be underwater in 100 years. To waste any resources on such potential problems is so stupid....and besides, how do you turn a profit by averting a problem? It's much more profitable to let shit hit the fan and then go in and try to fix things. The best time to begin studying and thinking about solutions to problems is when they are right on top of us. Planning ahead and studying things is folly. Anyways, God will solve all our problems.

[Pointedstick]

I am very interested in this idea that all of the fossil fuels are going to be burned eventually anyway. That seems like a very interesting perspective and opens up a lot of questions. e.g. if humans stop burning fossil fuels entirely, does that diminish the total quantity that get naturally burned in a given year? Bu what percentage? Is that percentage projected to be statistically significant in reducing total warming? Etc.

[Mountaineer]

This is how my mind works when faced with a decision about some potential scenario.  Your mind may work differently.  Obviously, my thought processes have not been followed on this “global warming”? issue in a manner that enables my buy-in.  I am in the “I don’t know" camp. 

And, for full disclosure, I am fully on board with conserving resources, exercising environmental stewardship, and enabling a successful future for my progeny and yours.  I also think whatever we do needs to be done in a manner that the new is of more value (cost, quality, effect in use, service) than whatever the predecessor is.  The second sentence is where my “rub”? is with the global warming alarmist crowd.

My thought processes:

Is it possible for that scenario to happen?

What is the probability for that scenario to happen?

What are the consequences, desirable and undesirable, if that scenario happens?

If that scenario happens, do we know how to influence it before hand to a more desirable outcome?

What is the cost in terms of capital and effort to influence that desirable outcome?

Where will that capital and effort come from?

What is the lost opportunity cost for other desirable endeavors if we divert resources to pursue better understanding of this scenario?

Considering all the above, state a cost-benefit analysis, develop a plan, develop the best communication strategy practical, and communicate that analysis and plan to all those who will be impacted by the decision including those who will have to fund it.  Gain consensus that the proposed plan of action, if any, is worth it.  If the answer is proceed with the plan, do it in the most  cost effective and efficient way.  If the answer is no or not yet, spend your time and energy on something more productive.

… Mountaineer

[moda0306]

This is how my mind works when faced with a decision about some potential scenario.  Your mind may work differently.  Obviously, my thought processes have not been followed on this “global warming”? issue in a manner that enables my buy-in.  I am in the “I don’t know" camp. 

And, for full disclosure, I am fully on board with conserving resources, exercising environmental stewardship, and enabling a successful future for my progeny and yours.  I also think whatever we do needs to be done in a manner that the new is of more value (cost, quality, effect in use, service) than whatever the predecessor is.  The second sentence is where my “rub”? is with the global warming alarmist crowd.

My thought processes:

Is it possible for that scenario to happen?

What is the probability for that scenario to happen?

What are the consequences, desirable and undesirable, if that scenario happens?

If that scenario happens, do we know how to influence it before hand to a more desirable outcome?

What is the cost in terms of capital and effort to influence that desirable outcome?

Where will that capital and effort come from?

What is the lost opportunity cost for other desirable endeavors if we divert resources to pursue better understanding of this scenario?

Considering all the above, state a cost-benefit analysis, develop a plan, develop the best communication strategy practical, and communicate that analysis and plan to all those who will be impacted by the decision including those who will have to fund it.  Gain consensus that the proposed plan of action, if any, is worth it.  If the answer is proceed with the plan, do it in the most  cost effective and efficient way.  If the answer is no or not yet, spend your time and energy on something more productive.

… Mountaineer

Sounds real pragmatic, but when push comes to shove "skeptics" deny the world is even warming. This is all just a stall tactic to properly accounting for the externality of carbon in our atmosphere.


Further, I wished governments were that thoughtful before implementing infrastructure that supports a massive amount of fossil fuel be necessary to operate in the economy.  They did not. So we are left with a bit of a dilemma.

Maybe we should just shut down all the power plants and roads union liberals and conservatives come together and implement this plan.

[Benko]

Tenn PA

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”?
? Max Planck

Obviously this applies to both sides, but it applies to the people deciding which articles to accept in their peer review journals.

[Benko]

My guess is that you envision this scenario unfolding over time. 

You are not correct.  I have no clue what the climate is going to do (aside from changing i.e. not staying the same).  I don't think anyone else does either--that is the point. It would not shock me if in 50 years it was warmer, or cooler. 

I would contend that for data-intensive, computational/modeling endeavors, it won't take a lifetime for a paradigm to change (assuming that new insight has actually been gained).  The rate of increase in the sheer quantity of data available, as well as the rate of increase computing power can change a prevailing consensus far more quickly than ever before.

What do you do for a living? Seriously.  You have far too much faith in such things.  Not that lots of high quality data is not important but there is a saying you must have heard, garbage in, garbage out.  Point being the human body is a very complex system and we re far from understanding how it works in many areas, the planet is very much more complex.  One needs to have the correct data*, ask the correct questions, etc etc.  Otherwise you are feeding in garbage to wonderful computers/software.

*In 1960 it was difficult to measure the temp of an astronaut in a space suit to 1 degree accurately (see Pournelle link previously posted).  What does that say about measurements of the planet before than and their accuracy?  This points toward the issue I'm trying to raise, and gives you the idea of what I am talking about.  There are certainly other examples.

--------------------------------------------------------

Back to your other point: forget dislike of progressive remedies.  MY VIEW: Overconfidence that progressives  accurately understand what is happening in the real world with imposition of progressive remedies which not only result in unintended consequences (I'll give you the doubt that they are unintended) but often don't improve the problem they are trying to address.  That is how I view much of what progressives have done. 

And I believe in abortion and equality for all, so don't get diverted in understanding what I'm talking about here. 

[doodle]

Benko,

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect? If for arguments sake we were to hold all variables constant and just increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, would it have an effect on our climate?

[moda0306]

What are all the assumptions/modelling conservatives and capitalists and governments put into being able to draw fossil fuels from the ground and burn them for centuries WITHOUT there being an affect on the environment on both local and global levels?

Why aren't polluters asked to come up with such lock-tight evidence that their economic adventures aren't costing the rest of us our Eco-system. To me, our natural position should be to ASSUME this stuff is harmful in unexpected ways.  Not to jus pollute until we can get 100% of environmental scientists to agree that "Activity X" isn't pollution.

[Mountaineer]

What are all the assumptions/modelling conservatives and capitalists and governments put into being able to draw fossil fuels from the ground and burn them for centuries WITHOUT there being an affect on the environment on both local and global levels?

Why aren't polluters asked to come up with such lock-tight evidence that their economic adventures aren't costing the rest of us our Eco-system. To me, our natural position should be to ASSUME this stuff is harmful in unexpected ways.  Not to jus pollute until we can get 100% of environmental scientists to agree that "Activity X" isn't pollution.

In my opinion, you are beginning with an erroneous presupposition.  Carbon dioxide is not pollution (CO2 being the current target of the greenies).  Other combustion byproducts are, for example carbon monoxide and various nitrous oxides.  Go talk to your favorite lettuce leaf and it will tell you how much it values carbon dioxide. 

It would be interresting to know what your definition of a polluter is: A toilet flusher?  One who runs their garbage disposal?  One who discards any "trash"?  All lifeforms who exhale carbon dioxide?  One who drives a car that is in compliance with all regulations?  One who rides on an airplane?  One who takes a cruise?  One who likes to light their home with electricity or candles?  One who uses ANY manufactured product including food and clothing? 

So, based on your statement:  "Why aren't polluters asked to come up with such lock-tight evidence that their economic adventures aren't costing the rest of us our Eco-system. To me, our natural position should be to ASSUME this stuff is harmful in unexpected ways."
I suggest the next time you take a leak or crap or blow your nose or spit, you need to come up with lock-tight evidence that your actions are not harmful.  You need to ASSUME this stuff is harmful in unexpected ways until you can prove otherwise - preferably with a several thousand page report to the EPA.  Take some personal responsibility here ... don't just cast stones at the infamous "big capitalist company" while you sit on the throne happily crapping away and exhaling noxious CO2 while you are grunting.

P.S.  You never addressed my questions (in bold red) on one of your posts a ways back.  You are not pulling the stereotypical liberal "avoid or divert" strategy are you?  I'm really just kidding, you are under zero obligation to respond to anyone on an internet forum.  I just thought I'd give a good hearted tweak incase you forgot.  We have moved on from that post anyway. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Sorry for not responding to your post. I've intended to. I didn't though for two reasons...


1) your questions sometimes are difficult to answer because of how you phrase them or the assumptions they may contain.

2) I'm doing this on an iPad and trying to scroll around and copy/paste and address each point individually is difficult.



But to your point, carbon dioxide MAY NOT BE pollution. We don't know if it is or isn't yet.  The people who initiated burning fossil fuels didn't do the research (nor could they, obviously).

But we DO know that burning any sort of fossil fuel contains pollution, even if we don't count co2. Why are the environmentalists the only ones that have to come to the table with a complex cost/benefit analysis before action is taken.

Was that done when coal was mined?

Was that done when oil was tapped?

Was it done when the government built a massive freeway system and subsidized people into suburban sprawl and needing a car?

Of course not. Not on an environmental level anyway to any material level... And if there was any analysis done at all, it was done at the behest of loony environmentalist liberals.


Any time we modify "God's green earth" to something materially different than what was there before, perhaps it is us, and not the environmentalists, that should have to put forth a cost/benefit analysis of unintended consequences.  Perhaps the natural burden of proof is on the person trying to turn this...



into this...



To me, this is a perfect example of why risk is such a complicator of morality.  If I know that my action has a 99% chance of killing someone, should I take it?  How about 1%?  How about .000001%? 

What if I see someone else taking those risks?  Do I have a right to stop them?

[moda0306]

Oops.

I didn't think a pic would get that big.




Edit: Fixed.  A bit too much...