AN ANTI-SCIENCE MANIA TAKES OVER GOP

[watsup]

Who profits from climate alarmism? And how does one monetize that?

Alarmism is a denier talking point word that should not be part of a serious discussion of AGW.

 

[istodolez]

If they institute Carbon credits, there will be plenty who profit from it.

A cap and trade concept actually helped us solve acid rain. I thought you would like a "market fix". Carbon credits would seem to be that.

I'm not sure I agree with them, but they are a tool.

But as for "profiting", don't you think that oil companies have a MUCH bigger economic incentive to do nothing with regards to carbon fuels? Seems to me like a no brainer. A hypothetical benefit to some nefarious cabal related to "carbon credits" or a very real every day BENEFIT to petroleum and coal companies for status quo.

 

[watsup]

That's true, but they do have to realize the limits of what they've exposed themselves to before they draw conclusions of their own based on those limited sources.

When the very great majority of climate scientists agree, then the conclusion that’s there is AGW is perfectly reasonable.

 

[bubbabgone]

When the very great majority of climate scientists agree, then the conclusion that’s there is AGW is perfectly reasonable.

That's all the evidence you needed to draw your conclusion? You heard somewhere that "the very great majority of climate scientists agree"?

 

[longview]

A cap and trade concept actually helped us solve acid rain. I thought you would like a "market fix". Carbon credits would seem to be that.

I'm not sure I agree with them, but they are a tool.

But as for "profiting", don't you think that oil companies have a MUCH bigger economic incentive to do nothing with regards to carbon fuels? Seems to me like a no brainer. A hypothetical benefit to some nefarious cabal related to "carbon credits" or a very real every day BENEFIT to petroleum and coal companies for status quo.

Since the CEO of Exxon has come out in favor of a carbon tax, I have to wonder if the people pushing they have considered all the ramifications?
I wonder for example, if the paper industry would get credit for all the carbon they sequester with their forest and paper production?

 

[watsup]

That's all the evidence you need to draw your conclusion? You heard somewhere that "the very great majority of climate scientists agree"?

What other evidence do you think that I need? The climate scientists have studied and researched the science of climate change for a few decades now and have come to a general consensus of a very great majority. In actuality, a person would need to do in-depth study to try to find a reason to DISAGREE with them. Did any of the Congresspeople in the OP do that, as far as you can tell? Which of their statements do you agree with.

 

[istodolez]

I wonder for example, if the paper industry would get credit for all the carbon they sequester with their forest and paper production?

I guess it would depend if it is a responsible forestry paper company. Not all paper comes from sustainable forestry. Forward thinking paper companies are working to ensure they are responsibly sourced.

 

[longview]

When the very great majority of climate scientists agree, then the conclusion that’s there is AGW is perfectly reasonable.

Again the debate is not if AGW is real, it is! The debate is about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
It is correct that almost anyone with a science background, would agree that AGW is real,
but not all would agree that it is of concern!

 

[istodolez]

Again the debate is not if AGW is real, it is! The debate is about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.

That's like saying "Evolution is real...we just don't agree with the idea of DNA"

I don't understand how you can reject the core science while accepting the overall effect that humans are causing the warming. (Remember the "A" in AGW is "anthropogenic"). So what do you think humans are doing that is causing the warming if it doesn't include CO2 as a major player?

 

[bubbabgone]

What other evidence do you think that I need? The climate scientists have studied and researched the science of climate change for a few decades now and have come to a general consensus of a very great majority. In actuality, a person would need to do in-depth study to try to find a reason to DISAGREE with them. Did any of the Congresspeople in the OP do that, as far as you can tell? Which of their statements do you agree with.

For one thing, since it was enough to convince you, how do you know "the very great majority of climate scientists agree"?

 

[bubbabgone]

What other evidence do you think that I need? The climate scientists have studied and researched the science of climate change for a few decades now and have come to a general consensus of a very great majority. In actuality, a person would need to do in-depth study to try to find a reason to DISAGREE with them. Did any of the Congresspeople in the OP do that, as far as you can tell? Which of their statements do you agree with.

For one thing, since it was enough to convince you, how do you know "the very great majority of climate scientists agree"?

And what exactly do you think they agree with?

 

[longview]

I guess it would depend if it is a responsible forestry paper company. Not all paper comes from sustainable forestry. Forward thinking paper companies are working to ensure they are responsibly sourced.

Not really the point, most paper companies grow their own trees, but the CO2 from that growth is sequestered in the form of paper,
do they get credit for that?
As a side note, have you ever seen one of the commercial wood forests? I saw one as a young man, as they allowed hunting and fishing on them,
I always thought they were too easy to get lost in, too much symmetry.

 

[longview]

That's like saying "Evolution is real...we just don't agree with the idea of DNA"

I don't understand how you can reject the core science while accepting the overall effect that humans are causing the warming. (Remember the "A" in AGW is "anthropogenic"). So what do you think humans are doing that is causing the warming if it doesn't include CO2 as a major player?

Not at all, I am sure there are plenty of nuances of evolution that not everyone agrees with, and many that are broadly accepted.
No one loses their job or funding over a minority position.
This cannot be said for AGW! For AGW it is a all or nothing proposition.
Judith Curry, was called a heretic for publishing a paper showing a likely ECS of 1.8C.
CO2 can cause warming, it is not a black or white issue, the amount of warming that added CO2 can cause is many shares of grey,
but the empirical data shows that the amplified feedbacks to warming have very finite limits.

 

[istodolez]

Not really the point, most paper companies grow their own trees, but the CO2 from that growth is sequestered in the form of paper,
do they get credit for that?
As a side note, have you ever seen one of the commercial wood forests? I saw one as a young man, as they allowed hunting and fishing on them,
I always thought they were too easy to get lost in, too much symmetry.

I have worked in paper coating industry for several years in both the US and Europe

 

[istodolez]

Not at all, I am sure there are plenty of nuances of evolution that not everyone agrees with, and many that are broadly accepted.
No one loses their job or funding over a minority position.

You do realize that intelligent design people made a full documentary about this topic called “Expelled” in which they made the argument that people do. Right? That this is an EXTREMELY common complaint among creationists. Right?

 

[longview]

I have worked in paper coating industry for several years in both the US and Europe

The orderly rows all looked the same, it is actually a strange experience.

 

[longview]

You do realize that intelligent design people made a full documentary about this topic called “Expelled” in which they made the argument that people do. Right? That this is an EXTREMELY common complaint among creationists. Right?

I have no room for the creationist, I am talking about actual science!
Physics is much better than the subjective topics that still ware the mantle of science.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the amount of warming it is capable of causing is subjective.
The basic idea that 20% of the 33C greenhouse effect is from fully equalized CO2, at roughly 280 ppm.
Counting backwards by half s, gets a little over 8 doubling s to reach 1 ppm.
6.6C/8=.825C per doubling.
Now CO2 is nearing saturation, of the center band, but pressure broadening can expand the absorption bands a bit.
This actually is limited itself, as molecules in a state of population inversion at the center band, simply pass the photons on.
If the inversion level gets high enough, the pressure is no longer high enough to support the shoulders.

 

[istodolez]

I have no room for the creationist, I am talking about actual science!

But you made a factual error in that you seemed to think that AGW somehow caused people to lose their jobs unlike in evolutionary theory. You were, effectively, making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT creationists make. This is a weak position. Unfortunately when one sets out to go against the majority of the earth's experts oftentimes they are left only with those weaker positions to explain why their favorite fringe science isn't more accepted.

 

[istodolez]

The orderly rows all looked the same, it is actually a strange experience.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. Managed forests are weird.

 

[longview]

But you made a factual error in that you seemed to think that AGW somehow caused people to lose their jobs unlike in evolutionary theory. You were, effectively, making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT creationists make. This is a weak position. Unfortunately when one sets out to go against the majority of the earth's experts oftentimes they are left only with those weaker positions to explain why their favorite fringe science isn't more accepted.

I am sure the alarmist would like to paint those skeptical of high levels of CO2 sensitivity with the same brush used for the intelligent design people,
but the difference is a subjective idea vs one based on measurable data.
A person cannot prove one way of the other if Evolution is a result of natural selection of some other cause,
but the climate's feedbacks can be tested, by evaluating how the climate has responded in the past.

 

[istodolez]

I am sure the alarmist would like to paint those skeptical of high levels of CO2 sensitivity with the same brush used for the intelligent design people,

I was talking about your point that people lose jobs or grant funding for not toeing the line.

To say that fringe science doesn't get funding because of some failure to "toe the line" or something like that is a weak position. It has nothing to do with the quality of the science.

 

[longview]

I live in the Pacific Northwest. Managed forests are weird.

Too Hilly, it takes several square miles of flat land with a tree planted every 20 feet or so in both directions, to get the symmetry I am speaking of!
It looks like a lot of things, natural is not one of them.

I was talking about your point that people lose jobs or grant funding for not toeing the line.

To say that fringe science doesn't get funding because of some failure to "toe the line" or something like that is a weak position. It has nothing to do with the quality of the science.

Or a flaw in the process.
Time will tell!

 

[istodolez]

Or a flaw in the process.
Time will tell!

But isn't it clear? The system isn't inherently flawed. Sure there may be isolated cases where malfeasance happens but when you start thinking that the ONLY reason your favorite fringe hypothesis doesn't get more support is because of some nefarious cabal enforcing dogma then you have entered into the same area as Creationists.

Doesn't that seem worrying?

The fact of the matter is we have a world's worth of experts over the space of a century who have zeroed in on a pretty solid hypothesis. There may be some questions around the edges but the core is pretty solid.

 

[watsup]

Again the debate is not if AGW is real, it is! The debate is about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
It is correct that almost anyone with a science background, would agree that AGW is real,
but not all would agree that it is of concern!

If AGW is a scientific fact, then why is it that the great majority of your fellow right wingers “don’t believe in it”. To repeat, it does indeed appear that the Repub party depends on the IGNORANCE of its voting base. If a Republican political actually talks about manmade climate change, he or she is immediately ostracized and called a RINO. As far as I can tell, a RINO is a Republican who actually engages in honest and thoughtful dialogue.

 

[watsup]

I am sure the alarmist would like to paint those skeptical of high levels of CO2 sensitivity with the same brush used for the intelligent design people,
but the difference is a subjective idea vs one based on measurable data.
A person cannot prove one way of the other if Evolution is a result of natural selection of some other cause,
but the climate's feedbacks can be tested, by evaluating how the climate has responded in the past.

How has the climate responded in the past to an excess of CO2, and when did that occur?