Weird Science: Huntsman comes out for science

[Major]

Huntsman would do better in other countries, apparently.

[pgabriel]

positioning himself as electable is good for him, romney should pay attention

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by durvasa Translation: 95% of scientists say that if we continue on our path we are making a grave mistake that will put our species in danger in the not too distant future, but because its not 100% we shouldn't worry about it.

Durvasa, you're a smart guy. What would it take to reverse the temperature of the Earth? What would the cost be? Is it worth it for the poor if their electricity rates skyrocket?

Are there any benefits to the Earth getting warmer (fewer cold deaths, rising frost lines)? What about the temperature at this point in time makes it preferable?

Are there better ways to spend our limited time/labor/money to improve the human condition?

AGW is a central planner's wet dream, it can be used to justify any intrusion into the private behavior of citizens. Plus, most of the people pushing this agenda have an above average carbon footprint.

[Batman Jones]

Originally Posted by Commodore Are there better ways to spend our limited time/labor/money to improve the human condition?

If we don't "spend our limited time/labor/money" on this, before too long there probably won't be a human condition because there won't probably won't be any more humans.

[Batman Jones]

Also, Huntsman was pretty rad today. And he has the strongest experience argument of anyone in the race, as a governor and ambassador to China. He is the only person in the race with any foreign policy experience except for Newt Gingrich. And he hasn't broken 3% in any poll. Are there 5 or 10 or 20 percent of Republican voters that would pull the lever for the only moderate in the race, the only one that unambiguously believes in science, evolution and global warming? In other words, the only sane one? Time will tell.

[rocketsjudoka]

Originally Posted by Commodore Are there any benefits to the Earth getting warmer (fewer cold deaths, rising frost lines)? What about the temperature at this point in time makes it preferable?

This shows how little you know of the theory or its implications. Global warming doesn't mean a uniform warming of the planet. Some parts will get much warmer, some parts will actually get colder. What will happen though is the global weather pattern that we have been used to most of our history will be disrupted. That means some places will experience greater drought some greater weather. Its very possible that we already are experiencing that.

To put this in terms that you might understand is that our civilization has developed under a fairly narrow global climate range. When that changes that means major disruptions economically. Just consider the economic impacts of the record hot Texas summer and drought y'all have had. Now what will things be like if that becomes the new norm?

Are there better ways to spend our limited time/labor/money to improve the human condition?

Consider that many of the means to combat global warming though also have huge economic and other benefits. Just consider the cost benefit to using renewable energy available locally to using fossil fuels that are expensive to extract and concentrated in only a few areas. For that matter consider the savings on increased efficiency and conservation.

AGW is a central planner's wet dream, it can be used to justify any intrusion into the private behavior of citizens. Plus, most of the people pushing this agenda have an above average carbon footprint.

Actually national security is the central planner's wet dream. As far as the most people pushing this agenda have an above average carbon footprint do you have anything to back that up?

[percicles]

Do creationists update their software? Seriously?

[Kojirou]

Actually national security is the central planner's wet dream. As far as the most people pushing this agenda have an above average carbon footprint do you have anything to back that up?

It's pretty logical. Most of the people who are attempting to do something about global warming are fairly wealthy, as they have the time and resources to make a difference. This means that they leave a bigger carbon footprint or whatever - from having a bigger house, having their own jet, whatever.

But it's a ridiculous view. Obama himself pointed it best during his election - you're not going to save the Earth by changing your stinking lightbulbs. It will require significant policy changes.

Durvasa, you're a smart guy. What would it take to reverse the temperature of the Earth? What would the cost be? Is it worth it for the poor if their electricity rates skyrocket?

Well, no crap, moving away from oil is going to be difficult. It is however, completely and totally necessary.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by rocketsjudoka This shows how little you know of the theory or its implications. Global warming doesn't mean a uniform warming of the planet. Some parts will get much warmer, some parts will actually get colder. What will happen though is the global weather pattern that we have been used to most of our history will be disrupted. That means some places will experience greater drought some greater weather. Its very possible that we already are experiencing that.

This is the beauty of climate change theory. It's a catch all, any deviation can be attributed to humans. There's a reason the alarmists stopped calling it global warming. After crying chicken little in the 70s over the coming ice age, they got out in front this time and started calling it climate change to cover their asses.

To put this in terms that you might understand is that our civilization has developed under a fairly narrow global climate range. When that changes that means major disruptions economically. Just consider the economic impacts of the record hot Texas summer and drought y'all have had. Now what will things be like if that becomes the new norm?

We will adapt like we always have.

What measures would you have imposed and what would be the cost/benefit?

Consider that many of the means to combat global warming though also have huge economic and other benefits. Just consider the cost benefit to using renewable energy available locally to using fossil fuels that are expensive to extract and concentrated in only a few areas. For that matter consider the savings on increased efficiency and conservation.

The reason such measures must be mandated is because they aren't economically beneficial. Otherwise people would do it voluntarily. Even Obama said electricity rates would skyrocket.

Actually national security is the central planner's wet dream.

Not really, what aspect of national security involves planning of the private economy? At worst it burns a whole in my wallet. But the Pentagon isn't telling me what car to drive or light bulb to buy.

As far as the most people pushing this agenda have an above average carbon footprint do you have anything to back that up?

Gore, DiCaprio, James Cameron, IPCC officials. They all travel around in limousines and private jets. It's only the relatively wealthy that are able to concern themselves with indulgent causes like AGW. People living in the third world are just trying to survive, and we want to curtail their productivity to fulfill our self aggrandizing desire to save the planet. China and India are right to tell the West to pound sand.

[Kojirou]

Not really, what aspect of national security involves planning of the private economy? At worst it burns a whole in my wallet. But the Pentagon isn't telling me what car to drive or light bulb to buy.

....................I won't bother dealing with the rest, as environmental issues are not my strong suit, but I cannot believe this is a serious question. I really can't.

I mean, yes, the US is so advanced NOW that we don't need to go into a full war economy, but we sure as heck would in the face of a real threat. Not to mention that there is a full-scale industry that exists to deal with national security. I'm not into the whole "military-industrial complex is the EVIL" thing, but it does obviously exist.

[rocketsjudoka]

Originally Posted by Kojirou It's pretty logical. Most of the people who are attempting to do something about global warming are fairly wealthy, as they have the time and resources to make a difference. This means that they leave a bigger carbon footprint or whatever - from having a bigger house, having their own jet, whatever.

I would like to see some facts supporting that. Wealth doesn't necessarily mean where you side on the issue. While yes Al Gore is rich I am not and I doubt most people who agree with me on this issue are.

[rocketsjudoka]

Originally Posted by Commodore This is the beauty of climate change theory. It's a catch all, any deviation can be attributed to humans. There's a reason the alarmists stopped calling it global warming. After crying chicken little in the 70s over the coming ice age, they got out in front this time and started calling it climate change to cover their asses.

Again this shows how little you understand of the issue. The fact that global cooling was disproved shows that this is a scientific issue in that new evidence disproved the old.

Now do you have any science to back up your argument?

We will adapt like we always have.

At what cost?

What measures would you have imposed and what would be the cost/benefit?

I myself would rely on cap and trade in regards to letting the market figure out how to reach the goals. I would also push CAFE standards and better building codes. We have seen things like that work successfully in regard to reducing sulfur emissions without skyrocketing energy cost.

If you are talking about a cost benefit analysis of reducing our dependency on energy sources that emit greenhouse gases (fossil fuels) versus not consider how much it will cost to in your words adapt. Our agriculture is dependent upon fairly regular climate patterns a disruption to those will be very expensive to adapt to even if new regions become more fertile. Global water supplies are very dependent on regular climate patterns but we even now we already see a crisis in the availability of fresh water in many parts of the world. There are tons of examples of disruptions that will occur from changes in our current climate pattern that will far outweigh the cost of moving away from fossil fuels.

The reason such measures must be mandated is because they aren't economically beneficial. Otherwise people would do it voluntarily. Even Obama said electricity rates would skyrocket.

Actually we have seen a massive improvement in the last 10 years to energy efficiency among things like appliances. In my own field the energy efficiency of building materials as increased massively also. We have a lot of the technology now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to a certain extent those are being implemented. Much of this was done due to government regulation but a lot was not mandated. That said it shows that such improvements are very possible and have been implemented.

The problem we have is one of short term thinking. While yes I agree you will see high energy prices in the short term, heck we see price spikes all the time already. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will pay off in the long term.

Anyway even leaving aside new technology it cost you nothing to turn down your thermostat a few degrees in winter and turn up a few in the summer and doing so translates into immediate savings in each month's power bill.

Not really, what aspect of national security involves planning of the private economy? At worst it burns a whole in my wallet. But the Pentagon isn't telling me what car to drive or light bulb to buy.

Have you flown recently? Have you ever tried to buy a large amount of fertilizer?

Gore, DiCaprio, James Cameron, IPCC officials. They all travel around in limousines and private jets. It's only the relatively wealthy that are able to concern themselves with indulgent causes like AGW. People living in the third world are just trying to survive, and we want to curtail their productivity to fulfill our self aggrandizing desire to save the planet. China and India are right to tell the West to pound sand.

Once again the example of a few doesn't mean most. Also I can tell you as a fact the PRC is doing much to combat Global Warming. They have a much larger population which makes it harder but there is a far greater willingness to do something about it there than here.

[Kojirou]

Originally Posted by rocketsjudoka I would like to see some facts supporting that. Wealth doesn't necessarily mean where you side on the issue. While yes Al Gore is rich I am not and I doubt most people who agree with me on this issue are.

I meant that those who can make the biggest impact on the global warming debate, regardless of which side you're on, are those with more money, which is pretty obvious. I don't mean that rich people are more likely to support doing something on global warming as opposed to us, just that those rich people who do can do than I can. And those people, because they're rich, make a bigger lifestyle. It's hardly anything controversial, and those who deny climate change are just nattering on little details while ignoring the fact that climate change isn't going to be solved on the level of what you do with your own home.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by Kojirou I meant that those who can make the biggest impact on the global warming debate, regardless of which side you're on, are those with more money, which is pretty obvious. I don't mean that rich people are more likely to support doing something on global warming as opposed to us, just that those rich people who do can do than I can. And those people, because they're rich, make a bigger lifestyle. It's hardly anything controversial, and those who deny climate change are just nattering on little details while ignoring the fact that climate change isn't going to be solved on the level of what you do with your own home.

How would you solve it?

[LosPollosHermanos]

sorry to those religous folk out there but anybody who dismisses the theory of evolution is ignorant.

I once heard someone say "Well, that would mean we came from apes." It pretty much summed up how much knowledge most people really had about the matter. Genetic, morphological, and biological evidence since darwin's initial proposition over a century have yet to prove it wrong. A "Scientific theory," much more different than just a theory.

Why do people think antibiotic resistance pops up and new strains of pathogens always pop up?

[LosPollosHermanos]

Originally Posted by Major Huntsman would do better in other countries, apparently.

thats pretty sad if we're an outlier like that

[Kojirou]

Originally Posted by Commodore How would you solve it?

Aside from going all out on nuclear and massively slashing subsidies to oil companies? Don't really know - as I said, environmental issues are not my strong suit, as I have always been terrible with science and don't have much of a personal interest in it ( though unlike the far right, I understand it's really, really important.) But there have to be significant government efforts into getting past oil and into better forms of energy - the market is there for energy efficiency, as judoka showed.

And honestly, the whining of Al Gore owning a private jet isn't a whole lot different from conservatives whom I have heard proclaim that Warren Buffet should donate all his money to the government if he thinks taxes should be raised. It's childish.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Commodore How would you solve it?

Cap-and-trade (you know, the system Reagen developed that solved acid rain---and was a free-market compromise that the modern G.O.P has suddenly run away from?) or hell, get rid of all pretenses and implement a Pigovian tax; internalize the costs of all negative externalities of carbon.

Cut bio-fuel subsides to zero, oil subsidies to zero. Implement a small subsidy for solar energy until it reaches the point where development through private enterprise is exponentially accelerated, and invest in research into wind/solar/geothermal. Fund science and engineering organizations. Cut Pell grants to liberal arts programs, and focus them on engineering.

Pray for a Norman Borlaug that can cobble every one of these techniques together fast enough to save the human race.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by True Beaner thats pretty sad if we're an outlier like that

No.

It's the other countries that are sad.

[NotInMyHouse]

Originally Posted by Commodore Durvasa, you're a smart guy. What would it take to reverse the temperature of the Earth? What would the cost be? Is it worth it for the poor if their electricity rates skyrocket? Are there any benefits to the Earth getting warmer (fewer cold deaths, rising frost lines)? What about the temperature at this point in time makes it preferable? Are there better ways to spend our limited time/labor/money to improve the human condition? AGW is a central planner's wet dream, it can be used to justify any intrusion into the private behavior of citizens. Plus, most of the people pushing this agenda have an above average carbon footprint.

Hmm, this seems to be overlooked quite a bit. I mean, I know its reported on here and there, but come on folks the people espousing new rules and regulations intend for them to only apply to us common folk. Typically none of these jokers abide by the crap the spew forth from their mouths. Let's see politicians, celebrities, and the like do a little dog-fooding, step up to the plate and set an example rather than shouting down to us from atop the mountain.