Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

1. I'm drawing a sharp distinction between mowing lawns and selling crack. I'm sure AndyMoon can share with you his concers about societal effects stemming from our current drug policies, though.

2. I do believe you have to look at how policy affects REAL PEOPLE.

3. I'm not convinced my yard is gonna be covered up with water because of global warming.

 

You can draw this distinction all you want but the end result is the same - if there are ultimately net gains from decreased fossil fuel consumption - focusing simply on the losses is misleading.

The point is that drug trafficking (whle it creates jobs) is on the whole illegal because we've made a decision that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. it's a similar case (especialy because most of the drawbacks are in the form of negative externalities).

Finally - why do you focus solely on fuel here? I mean your argument about hurting real people could be used to justify lower fuel prices, lower food prices, lower housing costs etc - if one carries significantly more negative externalities than the other then why is it the untouchable one? It seems to me it should the most easily discarded.

As opposed to what, the rest of us fake people who live in fake world, where excess consumption of fossil fuel causes environmental degradation, empowers horrendous dictators and bad actors, embroiled in the morass of Mideast politics..........etc?

Africa is a mess, but nobody really cares because they have no oil in a lot of the most messy places like Rwanda or Zimbabwe (the oil they do have is mostly offshore, IIRC even though it is from sketchy places like Nigeria and Angola). The Mideast is a mess, but the US cares because they have tons of oil. Hence the US acts a lot in the mideast and exposed to a lot of backlash.

You think real people have not been affected by this? There are a lot of families who would beg to differ. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the environmental consequences.

That's just an example as part of a large point that I'm trying to make about environmental degradation. People like to paint the environment and the economy as competing. That's a fallacy, because when the environment collpases the economy is just screwed. I can point to lots of historical examples.

Why do you think those Easter Island heads are there but their civilization collapsed? Because they used all the trees (among other reasons, to make ropes to pull the statues around) and basically turned their island into a desert. Their economy was wholly dependent on trees to build canoes, fishing rods, fishing line, etc...but they used them all (which had the domino effect of erodign the soil and making agriculture impossible) and their society collapsed. The free market didn't come up with a replacement.

Let's turn the clock back - and pretend like you are cutting down the last few trees on easter island. Now back then on the pre-historic internet, you are posting about how this guy needs to be able to cut down this tree to make a canoe to feed his family, and I am posting that if we get rid of all of Easter island's tree population then we are totally screwed. The focus on real people won out and their society collapsed.

 

No, it really isn't. At SC points out it is about what is 'probably' the case, not about objective facts. It is probably true that the planet is warming, it is probably true that our CO2 production has had some effect. I would agree with those because they are probably true, not because they are objective facts. That is about it as far as I would agree with the so-called 'consensus' because there is no 'consensus' itself about any of the rest of it. If you got all the world's climate scientists together a large portion of them would agree with the above statements, but then you'd have to start shearing off huge chunks of that pie when you make claims about increasing hurricanes, or intensity, the amount of sea level rise, the proportionality of made man effects vs other and whether or not we have enough information about the effects of the sun/natural cycles.

If that's your opinion then ignore it. Your 'I'm so right and so those who disagree shouldn't even be posting' routine isn't cute and is pretty annoying. If you confined yourself to the more reasonable portions of your position (much of it mirrors SC's for example) then there wouldn't be a problem. You apparently don't agree but IMO independent thinking is a good thing. Debate and discussion are certainly better off for it.

It isn't the same at all. You could make your statement about any accusation of censorship but that doesn't mean they are actually equivalent. You've made up your mind and that is fine but that doesn't mean there aren't other opinions worth considering. In this thread there are multiple people saying there is a bias against contrary works. Also there are specific challenges to the points you make (like whether or not governments essentially write the Policy summary or scientists do, whether Oreskes's study was flawed, etc) which you've so far ignored except to write off as the same as denying the holocaust. There is an example of an IPCC scientist says the process is politicized so much that he withdrew from the group. These are things we should take into account in our discussions.

 

Sam --

1. you're taking the fuel discussion out of its context. i'm not focusing on it. it was a conversation i already had with sishir in the thread about oil prices. i rehashed it in the context of my reply to him. i saw falling fuel costs as good news..he saw it as bad news. i'm all for removing dependence on oil. i don't need a story about the sky falling to get me there.

2. see, again we're going to extremes with the easter island parable. it's one thing to say global warming is happening with the help of man. quite another to say we're cutting away our last tree on the island. is there consensus that this is it, sam? that we're on our way out? that the sky is truly falling?

3. someone posted some article recently that suggested your interpretation of what happened with easter island may or may not be correct.

 

Why is it not the same? There have been studies by renowned forensic capital punishment experts who claim the Holocaust did not exist or was greatly exaggerated. Their tactic when their findings were questioned was to blame their opponents for being politically motivated. WHy is this any different?

 

But you're not removing dependence on oil if it hurts real people - which it inevitably will (and it will help real people too). Accordingly we are stuck at square 1.

By the time we know that we are on the last tree, it's probably too late.

But I think you're a little obsessed with the form over the function and "sky falling' predictions. The easter island story is hardly the first case of a society that collapsed due to a scarcity of resources, and hardly the last.

But anyway it illustrates in a simple way that the economy is harnessed to the environment in a way that you don't seem to want to accept at least, because your posts always seem to refer or imply to a disconnect between the two.

Fine, then I will direct you to the Norse settlements in Greenland, or the Anaszi people, or the Mayans or any number of collapses (that I'm stealing from Jared Diamond's book on this subject). There are some pretty hard and fast rules with regard to ecosystems that, in the end, people (and economies) are not immune to

 

Sam --

Honestly, you're arguing with the wrong guy.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. In application, when it really comes down to it, one would have a hard time distinguishing between us on this issue.

Why do you think I'm obsessed with the sky is falling line of reasoning? I'm merely suggesting there is a long continuum of what the implications of global warming are, once you agree it's happening and it's man-made. I posted an article here not too long ago that suggested it didn't matter what we did...we've already doomed the planet. Yet there are clearly other scientists out there who suggest we can turn it around. So posting an Easter Island example is more than a cautionary tale to me...it just seems to be a bit of an exaggeration to me. That's where my disconnect as to economy comes into play...not because I don't think they're related...but because I don't think you create policy that definitely has negative effects to avoid an outcome that MIGHT have negative effects. That doesn't mean you don't come up with creative solutions to fix the problem, anyway, in this case. As I've said, I think the environment needs cleaning up whether you choose to believe the worst case scenario is imminent or not.

As for the fuel prices..you'll have to forgive me when I don't get giddy about prices going up when that affects people I know very directly and leaves them making very tough decisions.

 

"This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle. It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure. And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle and, by default, to let the thing fall away. I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought. I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for human beings. If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation." -- Richard Feynman

 

By far, the quickest & easiest path to reduced CO2 emissions in the US would be through a carbon tax. Unfortunately, there is no way around the fact that this would be horribly regressive.

This debate is a bit tiresome, where the real interest & need lies with *what we should actually do* about it, of which there has been very, very little discussion in this thread.

 

And I'm surprised to hear that sort of thing from people who would otherwise demonize any regressive taxation.

 

Weighing in here again I think both you, MadMax and Sam Fisher, are right but are looking at somewhat different things. Obviously any major economic change is going to cause pain and MM you are absolutely correct that things like high fuel prices cause real pain to real people.

Living in a cold climate I am very accutely affected by natural gas prices since I heat my house with it. I make a decent living and can afford my gas bill but there are people who have a hard time paying their heating bill at all. I understand that high gas prices could be lethal to people like that and advocate some social safety net regarding that situation. For people like me though high gas prices are a direct incentive to conserve. I would definately like to keep the thermostat at 75 but to save money I keep it at 69 and wear a sweatshirt and sleep under extra blankets. While if gas was cheap I might still keep my thermostat low out of my own desire to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions but most people aren't going to be motivated by something that indirect.

Sam Fisher though is pointing out that there is a longterm costs that is potentially far greater than the shortterm costs in terms of economics. While these longterm econonimc costs though are in the realm of "might be" they are potentially so disastrous as to completely destroy the economy.

In the end both of you are talking about costs. As Yogi Berra said "its hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Its easier to see the shortterm than longterm but given the possibility of major disaster it seems worthwhile to me to prepare for the longterm.

 

Here's something else for you to chew on, Max, when thinking about the effects of large-scale C02 emission recuction on people:

Global C02 emissions & infant mortality

Global C02 emissions & life expectancy

 

Damn, Sishir... 69 degrees is what my AC is kept at! (with me in a t-shirt!)




D&D. This is a Cold Place.

 

am i reading those wrong??

those seem inverted from what i would have thought.

 

If you like to be cool you should move to MN.

 

I think what he's trying to say is that your theory about CO2 taxes being regressive is not true in the global sense.

 

No thanks!!

Honestly, my wife is always turning up the heat, so my 69 degrees is an illusion that I wish were true more often than it is. (unless she's gone for awhile!) I grew up with a big window unit in my bedroom that was supposed to cool half the house. This was in H-town, so it was on all the time during the summer. My Dad liked it COLD. When I went to the university to hang out with him it was COLD. I guess I just got used to it being COLD, although I love it when it's HOT.

Could explain why I am betwixt and between.



D&D. 69 degrees of Separation.

 

thanks! if you use one syllable words, i usually catch on quicker.

very true. we are all "rich" by global standards in the US. historically-speaking and compared to other nations. excellent point.

 

As I indicated before, you could say this about any claim of censorship or chilling effect, making the parallel fairly useless. While there is a mountain of evidence of past recorded action to testify to the Holocaust (pictures, personal accounts, bodies, crematoriums), the link between human CO2 emissions and a sped up warming effect is a theory. A well regarded theory with data that would support it but not anything like the data that shows there was a holocaust.

In addition those who claim the discussion has become politicized do not just number those who claim it isn't 'man made,' or those who gain financially from oil companies, which also makes it wholly unlike your parallel. OTOH we can see from articles you've posted that the 'pro-GW side' also has a tendency for marginalizing contrary views (see 'only the WSJ editorial board thinks...') and the testimony of other scientists who are well published in relevant fields that claim they can't get something published on this issue. Further, the arguments discuss multiple instances in different forums where the effect is occuring - in peer reviewed journals, in the media, in governmental organizations and panels like the IPCC.

 

Might be a good thread on its own.