Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

[l82start]

i was trying to help, but we ended up with  dueling image fixes.... 
 

[doodle]

I don't understand this strawman argument that CO2 is pollution. Find me one climatologist who doesn't understand the role CO2 plays in our ecosystem. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is responsible for regulating the climate of our planet.

It's amazing how humans think we are such invincible creatures. We live on this little sliver of the earths crust with about three miles of habitable atmosphere above us and we think that it isn't any problem to spew 30 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

I absolutely agree with Moda. Who decided which side has to carry the burden of proof regarding this situation?

Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

[moda0306]

doodle,

Thinking about pollution as an uncertain risk rather than a certain loss really forces one to a different spot of thinking about things. Kind of like what one goes through after hearing Nasim Taleb speak (though I don't think he always gets "risk" right)...

But think about what risk means in term of morality, even if we could prove NAP, Christianity, or some utilitarian moral system were correct... Risk is such an interesting topic on so many levels. 

[doodle]

doodle,

Thinking about pollution as an uncertain risk rather than a certain loss really forces one to a different spot of thinking about things. Kind of like what one goes through after hearing Nasim Taleb speak (though I don't think he always gets "risk" right)...

But think about what risk means in term of morality, even if we could prove NAP, Christianity, or some utilitarian moral system were correct... Risk is such an interesting topic on so many levels. 

I agree. At the end of the day we aren't really sure about the effects of global warming and we don't really know what remedies will work best. What I'm frustrated with is the number of people who don't know shit about climatology saying that they are 100% certain that climatologists are complete idiots. We can argue about risks and cost / benefit and have a good discussion....but to argue about the science still is moronic. I really think we need to accept the scientific consensus that we are changing the climate, and move on to the next step in this discussion.

[Mountaineer]

doodle,

Thinking about pollution as an uncertain risk rather than a certain loss really forces one to a different spot of thinking about things. Kind of like what one goes through after hearing Nasim Taleb speak (though I don't think he always gets "risk" right)...

But think about what risk means in term of morality, even if we could prove NAP, Christianity, or some utilitarian moral system were correct... Risk is such an interesting topic on so many levels.

Usually where we run into trouble in thinking about risk and benefit is when it is perceived as:

1. My risk, your benefit (usually by those not understanding the big picture), or

2. My benefit, your risk (usually by selfish narcissistic people who don't care about a greater good).

For example, that is why some tend to think of "big capitalistic companies" as evil (my risk, their benefit).  We think of the company as reaping all the profits when in reality, there is no such thing as a big company gaining much of anything.  It is just a collection of people working for pay, and stockholders willing to invest their money in hopes of a good return.  Companies are not evil, it is the people who buy their products or services that are the evil ones, if indeed one wants to paint an evil label somewhere.

Ditto all those evil people who like to drive on freeways, consume oil, heat their homes, etc.  If there were no demand, there would be no need for those "evil" plundering companies.  We are the cause of our own mess.  Fess up, do what YOU can influence, forget about "those other people":  strive to become a martyr, refuse to buy gasoline, electricity, and the llke and start a program to return the earth to its "before humans" condition, or whatever else strikes your personal contribution to saving the whales   

I completely agree that we must assess the risks, benefits and consequences of our environmental actions, it is the only responsible way to live life.  I just get torqued when some run wild with emotion and don't think things through or refuse to see a big picture but act like they know everything there is to know on a subject and close their minds to other perspectives that are really only trying to do what is best overall.  In engineering language, that means I do not respect those who push sub-optimal solutions.  Engineers are trained to look for optimum solutions, not perfect solutions, and never sub-optimal solutions.  I do respect those who have a well thought out position (like TennGaPa), even if I don't agree with everything they advocate  but maybe it is because he and I are both chemical engineers.  And, to avoid any confusion, I am definitely not saying only engineers know what they are doing and everyone else is stupid.  Most people have the capability to see a "big picture" if they take time to build understanding of the various viewpoints and facts and are not blinded by emotion.  It is the post-modern generation that I believe has the most trouble with seeing a "big picture" because their philosophy, if I understand it correctly, assumes there are countless "big pictures" when in many cases there really are only a very few, maybe even one.

Sorry for rambling, there are likely many flaws in what I said ... that was off the top of my head and I did not take time to review every thought.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Since consuming fossil fuels and rampantly reforming our earths surface is obviously a sub-optimal solution to the problem of needing food, water and shelter and desiring abundance beyond that, I must assume, then, that you don't respect a heck of a lot of people.

Your standard is a good one to have, but make sure it is evenly applied... And keep in mind, sometimes, a desire for optimal solutions is simply a waste of time and delivers false precision. If a car is about to hit someone, you don't google what the reaction time for someone would be if you were to simply yell their name vs pull them out of the way, you JUST PULL THEM OUT OF THE WAY! 

A perfect solution for a problem that could have been solved a long time ago but can't anymore is no solution at all.  And especially when politics is involved, imperfect but pragmatic solutions are usually your only options.


And let's not forget, even if liberals came up with the perfect tax or cap & trade system, when presented to conservatives, they would just say "we aren't affecting the climate," and end the conversation there. It's a fool's errand. We can't even get conservatives to admit we are affecting the climate, so any discussion of pragmatic solutions is met with outrage at suggesting there's a problem.  Because it's all a hoax cooked up by liberals. We aren't debating in anything resembling good faith.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Since consuming fossil fuels and rampantly reforming our earths surface is obviously a sub-optimal solution [I disagree; it is was very optimal based on economics and technology available at the time the decisions were made] to the problem of needing food, water and shelter and desiring abundance beyond that, I must assume, then, that you don't respect a heck of a lot of people. [I disagree, I even try to get people to understand salvation comes only via Jesus  ]

Your standard is a good one to have, but make sure it is evenly applied... And keep in mind, sometimes, a desire for optimal solutions is simply a waste of time and delivers false precision. If a car is about to hit someone, you don't google what the reaction time for someone would be if you were to simply yell their name vs pull them out of the way, you JUST PULL THEM OUT OF THE WAY! [It appears you did not read the fine print about optimal not being perfect?  Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are driving at.  Pulling the person out of the way is entirely optimal.]

A perfect solution for a problem that could have been solved a long time ago but can't anymore is no solution at all.  And especially when politics is involved, imperfect but pragmatic solutions are usually your only options. [same comment as above re. optimal]


And let's not forget, even if liberals came up with the perfect tax or cap & trade system, [Probably correct as your solution to most everything is tax - I personally prefer Pointedstick's economic or value based solutions] when presented to conservatives, they would just say "we aren't affecting the climate," and end the conversation there. It's a fool's errand. We can't even get conservatives to admit we are affecting the climate [You are prsenting your case very non-specifically; perhaps that is the issue for "engineers".  Of course we affect the climate, every time a creature expells breath or fluid or solid matter; the issue is significance and ability to mitigate it without ruining something else - Pointedstick had a great post about that.]  , so any discussion of pragmatic solutions is met with outrage at suggesting there's a problem.  Because it's all a hoax cooked up by liberals. We aren't debating in anything resembling good faith [that would be my view too - but likely with the shoe on the other foot.]

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Google this:  graph of global temperature change 10000 years

I think you can find a graph that will prove your point ... regardless of which side of the discussion you choose to take.  What a crap shoot.  My training says in cases like this, the best solution is "do nothing" because there is a 50-50 chance that what ever you do, it will turn out worse than doing nothing.  That is not a risk I'm willing to take for my kids, grandkids, etc.  I am unwilling to bet their future on a coin toss.

Thus:  Are your really ready to put the well-being of your children and grandchildren at stake?  That is what I think will happen if your choice of using valuable limited resources on a "not unusual and non-fixable problem" comes to pass.  Even if we do find out significant adverse climate change is caused by man, I have enough faith in science that a solution will become obvious and doable in the future, even if we are not yet able to think of one or identify one now.  And, yes, I may be wrong, just as the other perspectives may be wrong.  I'm for the "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" view.

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

TennPA,


I am stupid.  OF course you work in science, that is why you trust it.  But note that as complicated as the stuff you do is, the system you work with is simpler/on much smaller scale than either the human body or the planet.

I have am MD and a BSE.  I am a physician who sits behind a computer screen all day and interprets x-rays, CTs, MRIs, PET scans, etc. though I did an internship where I took care of patients in the traditional sense.  In college I was Bioengineer with minor in EE.  I took various engineering courses including fluid dynamics. Anyway I am well acquainted with models.

A. Models don't work very well if there is a variable which is not part of the model with effects which can be more severe than any of the ones in the model.  For example although there is research which (I gather) documents the effects of people's emotions on physical health, this is not taken into account in the day to day practice of medicine. This is one of the reasons that western medicine does pretty well in cases of trauma or infectious disease, but is less effective (to varying degrees) in other areas.  A large percentage of people with issues of their stomach/intestines is due to "emotional stuff".  One example: a woman on a forum asked for my help with her gut issues (forget details).  After talking to her, I told her that I could only help her minimally and that until she changed jobs (job was huge part of her problem) I didn't know that much could be done for her gut issues.  SHe contacted me down the road to tell me that she had found a new job and her gut problems went away.  N=1 means nothing in terms of proof, but I've seen this in lots of other people, personally experienced it more times than I'd wish, and know lots of people who know this for reality.  POint of this paragraph being the bolded part.

B.  Our knowledge of everything is incomplete and in many cases rudimentary (SEE A ABOVE).  The systems you do are complex but the tools you work with are sufficient (I presume) so that your models work i.e. .the systems behave as the models predict and this is reproducible and validated.  And I know no one risks a $100 million chemical plant on processes that have not be tested and validated.  Specifically you know that when you start with certain input materials what is going to come out the other end (within limits). 
  Whatever model you use work for this.

Unless I am missing something, there is no climate model that can take the input conditions e.g. 1900 and predict the climate of today.  So while you work with successful validated models i.e. successful science,  the climate people are not there yet.

C.  Look at the history of medicine.  There have been numbers of times that despite using the best knowledge available, it harmed patients. 

D. "I don't know how you can do your job in good conscience, based on your disdain for science and your innate distrust of the work of other people."

There is a quote around here, perhaps someone's signature which is something like:
People tend not to understand things when their job/livelihood depends on their not understanding it. 
I'll add political worldview to job/livelihood.  Most areas of science do not intersect with politics (thank god). 

[doodle]

Skepticalscience.com does a good job of asking apart most of arguments against global warming.

[Benko]

Tenn PA,

I am not making myself understood--my fault. 

1.  I do not believe it reasonable to assume that we understand anything significantly more complex than one of your reactors well enough that in e.g. 20 years there may not be major changes to our understanding requiring major changes to any utilization of such knowledge.  Perhaps our current understanding is correct, but I would not bet the farm on it.  In medicine one factor not being taken into account is emotion.  In climate, a field of such complexity, I doubt we even know what we don't know.  And again risk/benefit or cost/benefit.  If the remedies could do no harm/nor cost significantly it would not matter, but that is not the case.

2.  "And thus, when climate science says that AGW is real"

And you really believe there is no more bias in this topic than any other topic in science? I don't, but even if that is true:

Even forgetting any politics, If people believe strongly in anything (left, right or in alien visitors to the planet), human brains are hardwired to actively ignore data that does not agree their beliefs (read Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me). This is a basic feature/bug of human psychology. 

"It works when there are lots of people engaged in it, critiquing each other."
YOu really think scientists, are open minded looking at new ideas with an open mind even when new ideas contradict their ideas?  That would be nice in theory, but that is not in often how people work.  Read the story of how the cause of gastric ulcers was found and finally accepted.  This is the point of the Plank quote i.e. many times you can never never convince scientists of new info no matter how good the data.  The autism example is nice, but science does not always work that way. 

"In theory, theory and practice are not different, in practice they are"

[moda0306]

Benko,

Scientists are probably likely to be resistant to looking at new ideas with an open mind that contradict their beliefs scientific conclusions.  Human nature definitely plays a role.  Especially when a political solution to a problem is going to be the next debate once a conclusion is reached.  However, if there is any area of study that has actively tried to weed out irrelevant human bias, it is "science."  You'll still have egos.  You'll still have disagreements.  But I trust "science" to stay objective much more than politics, religion, or even "business."  It's entire premise is to lay facts on the table and hold itself accountable.  It is imperfect at this, of course, but it's about all we have got to come to conclusions.

Human nature also plays a role in people who enjoy their lifestyle, don't like government, and don't want to acknowledge that they might have been wrong for polluting this whole time.

So all-in-all, you're essentially calling into question the political biases of 97% of the scientific community.  That's a pretty harsh accusation.  If we can assume that 75% of scientists are liberal (just for the sake of argument... I don't think it's that high), how did that number get to 97%?  Are they so corrupt that they ALL let their political biases guide them, AND were somehow able to convince the next 90% of conservative climate scientists with their web of lies.

I mean really... who do you see more of out there... liberals driving Toyota Priuses, or soccer moms and hockey dads driving their SUV's out to the burbs and commuting a long way to work every day?  If the number were more like 60% or 70%, that would be one thing (but still a risk worth seriously talking about taking action on), but it is 97%.  You're talking about fraud and bias on a massive scale.  We can't have reasonable conversations about solutions if you reject the science to begin with.


So yeah.  Human bias is present.  That's why I don't trust my Republican friends who drive trucks, live in the burbs a long ways from work, and enjoy their motorized toys every weekend, when they come out with arguments against the 97% of climate scientists by saying "we're getting colder," or "if we are getting warmer, it can't be caused by our puny CO2 output," or "the earth getting warmer will create longer growing seasons, so it will be good," or "even if it is catastrophic, there is nothing we can do about it."  I know who they're inclined to listen to. I understand how solid the echochamber is against incoming facts or anything resembling a good faith debate.



And as doodle and I have both said, when we're talking about turning an ecosystem into a series of oil drills or a coal mine or urban sprawl or a city-scape, who REALLY has the burden of proof that their might or might not be local, national, and global affects on our ecosystems and climate in unexpected ways?  The climate-change-skeptics assume the premise that the scientists need to PROVE within a shadow of a doubt that pollution is occurring, AND come up with a super efficient system of recognizing it and forming some sort of economic response to it by the government.

Perhaps the burden of proof is on the people radically changing the surface of the earth, and burning fossil fuels, not those concluding that (gasp) it might change how our ecosystems and climate work in dangerous ways...

[Xan]

So all-in-all, you're essentially calling into question the political biases of 97% of the scientific community.  That's a pretty harsh accusation.  If we can assume that 75% of scientists are liberal (just for the sake of argument... I don't think it's that high), how did that number get to 97%?  Are they so corrupt that they ALL let their political biases guide them, AND were somehow able to convince the next 90% of conservative climate scientists with their web of lies.

Well we're really talking about 97% of climate scientists, aren't we?  These are the people who care so deeply about Mother Earth that they've gone into the field of climate science in order to save the environment.  Not exactly unbiased.

[Mountaineer]

So all-in-all, you're essentially calling into question the political biases of 97% of the scientific community.  That's a pretty harsh accusation.  If we can assume that 75% of scientists are liberal (just for the sake of argument... I don't think it's that high), how did that number get to 97%?  Are they so corrupt that they ALL let their political biases guide them, AND were somehow able to convince the next 90% of conservative climate scientists with their web of lies.

Well we're really talking about 97% of climate scientists, aren't we?  These are the people who care so deeply about Mother Earth that they've gone into the field of climate science in order to save the environment.  Not exactly unbiased.

Xan, that is a great point.  It made me laugh when I thought about a potential poll result we could see on NPR:  97% of English Lit majors say high school students should study Shakespeare instead of calculus. 

But back on point:  Why don't we start saying 3% of formerly convinced climate scientists say man caused global warming is bunk! 

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

Moda,

I really appreciate the time for the long note, but I don't think you really get what goes on.  Suppose 100% of economists agreed that minimum wage hurts people and increased unemployment.  How many hollywood actors/liberal activists would be convinced?  Zero.  But wait you say, scientists are objective people who are trained etc., etc.  Sorry, I"ve been around too many and know too much history of medicien and science and many even scientists cling to wrong idea (hopefully in smaller numbers than the activists).

NB:  Max Plank was a Nobel prize winning physicist who wrote:

“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.”?

So you have a nobel prize winning physicist telling you that good luck changing the mind of scientists.

I should add that engineers tend to be practical people, (they have to be or else things blow up or don't produce what they are supposed to) so I would suspect that engineers are better at accepting new data since they get real world feedback within a short time frame.  Plus they tend to get  fired if what they do doesn't work. 

Oh and the 97% figure is not accurate.

[moda0306]

"who REALLY has the burden of proof that their might or might not be local, national, and global affects on our ecosystems "

There is a great George Carlin routine which points out that on the scale of the planet, humans are nats, with about as much effect.

There's got to be a logical fallacy here:

Appeal to Authority?  Nah, that's too generous.

Appeal to comedy, maybe?

[Benko]

The george carlin was going to preceed a rant on an only vaguely related so I skipped the rant, and I've deleted the post as well.

[moda0306]

So all-in-all, you're essentially calling into question the political biases of 97% of the scientific community.  That's a pretty harsh accusation.  If we can assume that 75% of scientists are liberal (just for the sake of argument... I don't think it's that high), how did that number get to 97%?  Are they so corrupt that they ALL let their political biases guide them, AND were somehow able to convince the next 90% of conservative climate scientists with their web of lies.

Well we're really talking about 97% of climate scientists, aren't we?  These are the people who care so deeply about Mother Earth that they've gone into the field of climate science in order to save the environment.  Not exactly unbiased.

Xan, that is a great point.  It made me laugh when I thought about a potential poll result we could see on NPR:  97% of English Lit majors say high school students should study Shakespeare instead of calculus. 

But back on point:  Why don't we start saying 3% of formerly convinced climate scientists say man caused global warming is bunk! 

... Mountaineer

1)  It would be an ok point... if it wasn't easily countered by doing some research on what scientific organizations have to say about climate change:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Just scroll, read, repeat.

Neil Degrasse Tyson believes in AGW.  Have you ever heard this guy talk about science?  He's one bubbly SOB, but it's all giddy excitement at knowledge, not arrogance, IMO.  Not true bias.  He's as humble about being wrong as he is dedicated to discovering truth.

Stephen Hawking has referred to AGW as "one of the greatest threats facing human-kind."

So the "only the hippies are voting" argument doesn't really hold. 


2) The 3% are probably interpreting the data differently.  That is fine.  I've tried to read counter-points to global warming, but the site earlier reference (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) does a great job of debunking them AND having an active commentary section.  I'm not entirely sure if all the arguments conservatives & skeptics make are the same that these 3% are making.  I haven't actually been able to dig in to the raw data of these 3%.

It seems a lot of conservatives have not very well perused the data of the 97%, either, if they keep up trying to convince us that we aren't getting warmer because 1998 and 2005 were especially hot.  Not that I hold myself to their standards, but I certainly think the pro-AGW folks, considering the difficulty in doing controlled experiments on THE ENTIRE EARTH'S CLIMATE, have done plenty of digging.

[Pointedstick]

The scientist vs engineers dichotomy is an interesting one to me.

Scientist: Human activities burning fossil fuels is warming the planet!
Engineer: Crap. What are our options?
Scientist: None. We've passed the point of no return. Even if we stop burning fossil fuels entirely, there's a certain amount of warming we're simply going to have to live with.
Engineer: Darn. Okay, well what are our options for slowing the warming?
Scientist: Unknown. We don't have a model that can predict temperatures given a certain quantity of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. There are simply too many variables.
Engineer: Hmm, okay. Well, even if the amount of reduction is currently unquantifiable, do we at least know that burning less fossil fuels will slow the warming?
Scientist: Unknown, but probably true.
Engineer: Okay, so the benefit is that if we stop reduce the amount of fossil fuels we're burning, there's a chance we may slow global warming.
Scientist: Sounds about right.
Politician: Sorry, I took 5 billion dollars in bribes from the coal and gas industries. Fuck you both.

Am I wrong?

[moda0306]

Moda,

I really appreciate the time for the long note, but I don't think you really get what goes on.  Suppose 100% of economists agreed that minimum wage hurts people and increased unemployment.  How many hollywood actors/liberal activists would be convinced?  Zero.  But wait you say, scientists are objective people who are trained etc., etc.  Sorry, I"ve been around too many and know too much history of medicien and science and many even scientists cling to wrong idea (hopefully in smaller numbers than the activists).

NB:  Max Plank was a Nobel prize winning physicist who wrote:

“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.”?

So you have a nobel prize winning physicist telling you that good luck changing the mind of scientists.

I should add that engineers tend to be practical people, (they have to be or else things blow up or don't produce what they are supposed to) so I would suspect that engineers are better at accepting new data since they get real world feedback within a short time frame.  Plus they tend to get  fired if what they do doesn't work. 

Oh and the 97% figure is not accurate.

Who do we have to convince?  Do I have to convince a thief that he's wrong in stealing from me and to pay me back, or do I just carry a gun in my home and defend myself if necessary.

So far, 97% of climate scientists (could you point me to your alternative number?  Try reading this as well: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm) and dozens of prominent scientific organizations believe in AGW.

Most liberals are convinced, due to the consensus.

Most conservatives aren't.  So you're telling me I have to "convince" them to stop polluting?  What more do they need? 

When dealing with the subject of risk, very smart people can be EXTREEEEEEMLY stupid.  Same with politics.  Same with present-valuing long-term consequences.  AGW combines all three.  I'm absolutely convinced that there will be no "convincing" of conservatives to the point of gaining their majority approval until it is too late.

So move the ball forward without them.  Like ANY solution that involves government or arbitrary property claims, obviously, force and taxes will be involved.  I know that sounds mean.  I don't mean it like that.  We went to war without my being convinced.  Sprawl ensues without my being convinced it's not inducing harm to the environment.  I am not convinced that the way most farm animals are being treated in this country is not causing an absolutely massive amount of pain and misery.

Things happen whether or not everyone is "convinced."  Sometimes they're good. Sometimes not.  I'm not much for judging things on the popularity of the masses.  I'd prefer a technocratic dictatorship .  Benevolent of course  .

[moda0306]

The scientist vs engineers dichotomy is an interesting one to me.

Scientist: Human activities burning fossil fuels is warming the planet!
Engineer: Crap. What are our options?
Scientist: None. We've passed the point of no return. Even if we stop burning fossil fuels entirely, there's a certain amount of warming we're simply going to have to live with.
Engineer: Darn. Okay, well what are our options for slowing the warming?
Scientist: Unknown. We don't have a model that can predict temperatures given a certain quantity of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. There are simply too many variables.
Engineer: Hmm, okay. Well, even if the amount of reduction is currently unquantifiable, do we at least know that burning less fossil fuels will slow the warming?
Scientist: Unknown, but probably true.
Engineer: Okay, so the benefit is that if we stop reduce the amount of fossil fuels we're burning, there's a chance we may slow global warming.
Scientist: Sounds about right.
Politician: Sorry, I took 5 billion dollars in bribes from the coal and gas industries. Fuck you both.

Am I wrong?

If big problems are going to occur anyway, then taxing the gas/oil industry is the least of our worries.  I don't know if these scientists truly believe we are past the point of no return.  From what I've heard, they do think there are things that we can do to mitigate it, but for (sigh) the political opposition to even ACKNOWLEDGING that a problem exists.


Further, I'm arguing from the standpoint of "king for a day."  My personal, individual solution to AGW is to save a lot and maintain flexibility, liquidity, robust portfolio, etc.

It doesn't mean go by a brand-new Prius.
It doesn't mean install a super-expensive high-efficiency unit on your house for energy (unless the IRR is worth it).

It means acting as an individual, not as a member of a hive.  It may, at times, having you making a very DIFFERENT decision than the one you would make if you were trying to "do your part" to reduce carbon emissions.

So you have a point.  Part of me wants to say to all the environmentalist libs (including myself, if I technically count as one), what are YOU doing for you and YOUR family, because you gotta make sure, at the end of the day, that you're taking care of you and your own, otherwise you can't point too many fingers.  That is where our first point of obligation is... for two reasons:  1) we actually have a moral responsibility to ourselves and those we've promised to care for, and 2) we can actually affect outcomes.

[Pointedstick]

Things happen whether or not everyone is "convinced."  Sometimes they're good. Sometimes not.  I'm not much for judging things on the popularity of the masses.  I'd prefer a technocratic dictatorship .  Benevolent of course  .

In theory, so would I. It's never going to happen though. The personality traits that make somebody a good technocrat are precisely the same personality traits that prevent that technocrat from being personable enough to be elected in a representative government, or ruthless enough to be able to violently seize and retain power in a more fluid society or dictatorial government. Only an extremely rare individual could break this mold.

[Pointedstick]

I mean, if we are talking "king for a day" material. I would put on my technocrat hat and do the following:

1. ban all new fossil-fuel powered electrical generating plants.
2. systematically incentivize nuclear electricity instead.
3. massively subsidize alternative electricity generation technologies like China did, with the subsidies gradually tapering off after a period of decades so as not to shock the market once it has become well-developed and prices are nice and low.
4. set up government innovation contests with huge cash prizes for those who can innovate in technologies such that electrical versions become more efficient and cheaper than their fossil fuel powered alternatives. e.g. in fields like automobiles and heating.
5. incentivize personal resilience behaviors and home electricity generation.
6. The point of all of this is to make cleanly-generated electricity cheaper per unit of output than fossil fuels. At that point, the market will naturally shift away from them, using them only as components of products where it still makes sense to use them.

But of course, none of that will ever happen.

[Mountaineer]

Moda,

I really appreciate the time for the long note, but I don't think you really get what goes on.  Suppose 100% of economists agreed that minimum wage hurts people and increased unemployment.  How many hollywood actors/liberal activists would be convinced?  Zero.  But wait you say, scientists are objective people who are trained etc., etc.  Sorry, I"ve been around too many and know too much history of medicien and science and many even scientists cling to wrong idea (hopefully in smaller numbers than the activists).

NB:  Max Plank was a Nobel prize winning physicist who wrote:

“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.”?

So you have a nobel prize winning physicist telling you that good luck changing the mind of scientists.

I should add that engineers tend to be practical people, (they have to be or else things blow up or don't produce what they are supposed to) so I would suspect that engineers are better at accepting new data since they get real world feedback within a short time frame.  Plus they tend to get  fired if what they do doesn't work. 

Oh and the 97% figure is not accurate.

Who do we have to convince?  Do I have to convince a thief that he's wrong in stealing from me and to pay me back, or do I just carry a gun in my home and defend myself if necessary.

So far, 97% of climate scientists (could you point me to your alternative number?  Try reading this as well: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm) and dozens of prominent scientific organizations believe in AGW.

Most liberals are convinced, due to the consensus.

Most conservatives aren't.  So you're telling me I have to "convince" them to stop polluting?  What more do they need? 

When dealing with the subject of risk, very smart people can be EXTREEEEEEMLY stupid.  Same with politics.  Same with present-valuing long-term consequences.  AGW combines all three.  I'm absolutely convinced that there will be no "convincing" of conservatives to the point of gaining their majority approval until it is too late.

So move the ball forward without them.  Like ANY solution that involves government or arbitrary property claims, obviously, force and taxes will be involved.  I know that sounds mean.  I don't mean it like that.  We went to war without my being convinced.  Sprawl ensues without my being convinced it's not inducing harm to the environment.  I am not convinced that the way most farm animals are being treated in this country is not causing an absolutely massive amount of pain and misery.

Things happen whether or not everyone is "convinced."  Sometimes they're good. Sometimes not.  I'm not much for judging things on the popularity of the masses.  I'd prefer a technocratic dictatorship .  Benevolent of course  .

moda,

I get a kick out of your reasoning, it is so predictable (as is with many libs I know):

You. Jews are horrible people. 

Me. Why?  I don't agree, Jews are nice people and are a child of God.

You. Get on board or get out of the way or stick your head in the sand while "WE" move on.  After all, 97% of us Nazi fanatics support that Jews are horrible people.

You. Heil Hitler!  Krystal Knacht is a coming whether you like it or not 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

I mean, if we are talking "king for a day" material. I would put on my technocrat hat and do the following:

1. ban all new fossil-fuel powered electrical generating plants.
2. systematically incentivize nuclear electricity instead.
3. massively subsidize alternative electricity generation technologies like China did, with the subsidies gradually tapering off after a period of decades so as not to shock the market once it has become well-developed and prices are nice and low.
4. set up government innovation contests with huge cash prizes for those who can innovate in technologies such that electrical versions become more efficient and cheaper than their fossil fuel powered alternatives. e.g. in fields like automobiles and heating.
5. incentivize personal resilience behaviors and home electricity generation.
6. The point of all of this is to make cleanly-generated electricity cheaper per unit of output than fossil fuels. At that point, the market will naturally shift away from them, using them only as components of products where it still makes sense to use them.

But of course, none of that will ever happen.

Perhaps I should have been more specific... "Pragmatic" king for a day.  What can I propose, within the current structure, that would have a decent chance of actually happening in this universe...

Kind of like my "payroll tax holiday" as a recovery mechanism once the recession hit.  Were there probably good stimulus projects to complete?  Sure, IMO.  But why worry about all that when you have something as appetizing to people as a "payroll tax holiday" that could accomplish a good chunk of balance-sheet repair of the private sector.