Climate Scientists Are Not Experts in Economics

[atheist4thecaus]

I hear a lot of people who say we need to listen to the "scientists" about climate change. We should allegedly harm our economy to meet all these differently environmental goals. You know how these arguments tend to play out. Well, I have something to say about that: Climate scientists are not experts in economics.

A lot of people will laugh at this, but it's an extremely important point. I accept that global warming is happening and it is man-made. I accept that climate scientists generally know about the climate. I don't accept that they know how best to solve the problem. How best to solve the problem is largely an economics question. Do we go out and put solar panels on every house today rather then run a cheap coal plant? Well, that depends on how much time we have, what the research is going to be, what the economic damage will be, etc.

Consider that we could put solar panels on every house, and then in 2 years maybe there is some revolutionary solar panel that makes the old ones obsolete. Then what? We just installed all these obsolete solar panels at great cost and now we have to install new ones at another great cost? Or say nuclear fusion technology is mastered, and it can completely solve our energy problems basically overnight? Then burning fossil fuels today won't hurt as badly. Or what if we can create the technology in a few years to scrub the CO2 out of our atmosphere? Then it would be best to take advantage of our cheaper fossil fuels today for economic advantage and energy independence.

The key here is that climate scientists (as well as other scientists such as physicists, biologists, etc.) can tell us how the climate is changing to some extent, but they can't tell us when to force the market to switch over to alternative energy, or even how to. They can't predict what innovation is going to occur in the future, either. Heck, even predicting the future of the climate is guesswork at best. People, especially on the Left, need to stop shutting down conversation on moral grounds, and we need to start having real discussions about an economic approach to climate science. IMO, the reason action doesn't occur in the way the Left wants it to on climate science policy is because we rarely have a conversation about the economics that can lead to the implementation of real policies, which is generally how the Right things about issues.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

That is true. Scientists should provide the information and then politicians along with economists should implement policy that addresses the issues the scientists bring up. The problem we currently have, however, is too many politicians just disregard what the scientists say altogether. There is a whole range of options between destroying the economy and just sticking our heads in the sand.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

That is true. Scientists should provide the information and then politicians along with economists should implement policy that addresses the issues the scientists bring up. The problem we currently have, however, is too many politicians just disregard what the scientists say altogether. There is a whole range of options between destroying the economy and just sticking our heads in the sand.

There are also a lot of scientists that opt-out of conversations. There is a lot of labeling and attacking that goes on by the Left, including by scientists, when a Republican politician wants to take a more economic approach to the issue. Look at how Democrats recently argued against Red Team/Blue Team discussions on Climate Change. People on the Left keep saying things like "the debate is over". Well, no, the debate is not over. We have to figure out what to do, how long we have, etc. Even climate scientists disagree on timelines and data interpretation. I mean, the reason there are so many climate models is because each model lacks certain types of information to help the super computers process the information more quickly, and they try to make sense of all the different models with different blind spots. The Left has got to stop acting like there are no reasonable discussions/debates to be had on this topic.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I hear a lot of people who say we need to listen to the "scientists" about climate change. We should allegedly harm our economy to meet all these differently environmental goals. You know how these arguments tend to play out. Well, I have something to say about that: Climate scientists are not experts in economics.

A lot of people will laugh at this, but it's an extremely important point. I accept that global warming is happening and it is man-made. I accept that climate scientists generally know about the climate. I don't accept that they know how best to solve the problem. How best to solve the problem is largely an economics question. Do we go out and put solar panels on every house today rather then run a cheap coal plant? Well, that depends on how much time we have, what the research is going to be, what the economic damage will be, etc.

Consider that we could put solar panels on every house, and then in 2 years maybe there is some revolutionary solar panel that makes the old ones obsolete. Then what? We just installed all these obsolete solar panels at great cost and now we have to install new ones at another great cost? Or say nuclear fusion technology is mastered, and it can completely solve our energy problems basically overnight? Then burning fossil fuels today won't hurt as badly. Or what if we can create the technology in a few years to scrub the CO2 out of our atmosphere? Then it would be best to take advantage of our cheaper fossil fuels today for economic advantage and energy independence.

First bolded statement: that's a claim pushed by Big Oil. In reality, there is no solid indication that the economic cost to Big Oil and the coal industry is not more than offset by the economic gain by switching (as much as practicable) to renewables.

Second bolded statement: unless you yourself are an economist, there's no reason to think that the climate scientists know any less about economics than you or me. That being said, if you'll check out the insurance corporations (especially the larger ones), you'll find that they are taking climate change very seriously indeed...and they DO have some very skilled and professional economists working for them.

Third bolded statement: That you said that you agree that climate scientists generally know about the climate says much about you...but perhaps you just made a poor choice of words, and you do understand that the climate scientists know more about the climate than anyone else on Earth. And much of the climate scientists' work has been to identify the sources of the greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. They haven't been saying precisely what we need to switch to as much as they've been saying "these are the things that are within human capability to do something about", such as CO2 production by autos/ships/planes/factories/etc., methane production by cattle, and CO2 production by deforestation.

(the rest of my reply comes in the next comment)

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The key here is that climate scientists (as well as other scientists such as physicists, biologists, etc.) can tell us how the climate is changing to some extent, but they can't tell us when to force the market to switch over to alternative energy, or even how to. They can't predict what innovation is going to occur in the future, either. Heck, even predicting the future of the climate is guesswork at best. People, especially on the Left, need to stop shutting down conversation on moral grounds, and we need to start having real discussions about an economic approach to climate science. IMO, the reason action doesn't occur in the way the Left wants it to on climate science policy is because we rarely have a conversation about the economics that can lead to the implementation of real policies, which is generally how the Right things about issues.

Fourth bolded statement: Are you familiar with the DOD's estimations on the effects of climate change? Here's the opening sentence: "Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday." As a retired Navy man, I can assure you that the DOD is not a left-wing institution (quite the opposite, actually). You complain about our claims on moral grounds...but mitigating poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, and national stability ARE moral issues...because every one of them - especially last - lead to lower standards of living...and sometimes war. THAT, sir, makes it a moral issue.

I know that (especially given today's hyper-partisan political climate) almost all conservatives are loath to agree that liberals are right about anything at all - I get it, especially since I used to be a strong conservative (happily voted for Reagan and Bush 41, both of whom would be seen by today's conservatives as raving liberals). But climate change isn't a matter of politics - it's a matter of SCIENCE...and science doesn't give a tinker's damn about politics. It is happening...and all we can do is to keep it from getting as bad as it can get. It's as if you know that your house IS going to catch on fire - you can either take action right away as the firemen (and common sense) would tell you to do...or you can listen to whoever's telling you that it ain't gonna be that bad. How much of your house is left will depend on whom you listen to.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

First bolded statement: that's a claim pushed by Big Oil. In reality, there is no solid indication that the economic cost to Big Oil and the coal industry is not more than offset by the economic gain by switching (as much as practicable) to renewables.

Second bolded statement: unless you yourself are an economist, there's no reason to think that the climate scientists know any less about economics than you or me. That being said, if you'll check out the insurance corporations (especially the larger ones), you'll find that they are taking climate change very seriously indeed...and they DO have some very skilled and professional economists working for them.

Third bolded statement: That you said that you agree that climate scientists generally know about the climate says much about you...but perhaps you just made a poor choice of words, and you do understand that the climate scientists know more about the climate than anyone else on Earth. And much of the climate scientists' work has been to identify the sources of the greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane. They haven't been saying precisely what we need to switch to as much as they've been saying "these are the things that are within human capability to do something about", such as CO2 production by autos/ships/planes/factories/etc., methane production by cattle, and CO2 production by deforestation.

(the rest of my reply comes in the next comment)

About first bolded statement response, when you say that comment is from "big oil" you are trying to discredit my point by association. Even if what you said was true, that wouldn't make the statement false. How about instead you just deal with the principle behind the comment. Also, you are simply wrong. Subsidies are still necessary for renewable energy, and they are far less cost-effective than fossil fuels. https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/09/14/why-renewable-energy-still-needs-subsidies/

About second bolded statement response, whether I am an expert on economics has no bearing on whether Climate Scientists are. Climate Scientists are recognized as authorities, which is fine for informal forms of evidence, but it's a Fallacy of Authority when Climate Scientists are looked to, to implement environmental policies that impact the economy greatly.

Third bolded statement response: I wouldn't go that far. I would argue that a seasoned physicist probably knows more about the climate than a climate scientist fresh out of college. There are many different types of climate scientists with many different types of expertise as well. I also talked about how climate scientists use incomplete information to try to piece together information, so there is quite a bit they don't know. So yes, I meant what I said, that climate scientists generally know about the climate, and it was an excellent choice of words by you. I would recommend you revise your words that claim that a climate scientist title suddenly makes a person the most knowledgeable on Earth in regards to the climate. You are full of fallacy of authority.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Fourth bolded statement: Are you familiar with the DOD's estimations on the effects of climate change? Here's the opening sentence: "Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday." As a retired Navy man, I can assure you that the DOD is not a left-wing institution (quite the opposite, actually). You complain about our claims on moral grounds...but mitigating poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, and national stability ARE moral issues...because every one of them - especially last - lead to lower standards of living...and sometimes war. THAT, sir, makes it a moral issue.

I know that (especially given today's hyper-partisan political climate) almost all conservatives are loath to agree that liberals are right about anything at all - I get it, especially since I used to be a strong conservative (happily voted for Reagan and Bush 41, both of whom would be seen by today's conservatives as raving liberals). But climate change isn't a matter of politics - it's a matter of SCIENCE...and science doesn't give a tinker's damn about politics. It is happening...and all we can do is to keep it from getting as bad as it can get. It's as if you know that your house IS going to catch on fire - you can either take action right away as the firemen (and common sense) would tell you to do...or you can listen to whoever's telling you that it ain't gonna be that bad. How much of your house is left will depend on whom you listen to.

About fourth bolded statement response, are you familiar with the climate scientists that determined that Earth has more time than originally thought: Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests | The Independent Furthermore, as someone who is Left of Center, I assure you that I don't dismiss sources simply because they are Left.

You talk about conservatives, but do you not see that I'm labeled "slightly liberal"? I voted for President Trump, but I also voted for President Obama, twice. You say that climate science isn't a matter of politics, but you are wrong, because how we react to the changing climate is highly economic and political. You say global warming is happening, but how quickly? How should we react? These are questions not so easily answered, and some are not answered by science at all because they are not scientific questions. As for your analogy, get out of here with that crap. That doesn't further our discussion at all. Yeah, there's a fire in California and it's heading my way in Wisconsin. Clearly I should evacuate tonight, right? I'm sure that won't cause unnecessary harm to me when I leave all my belongings behind and I'm stuck in -20 F wind chill when the fires from California will likely never reach my house in Wisconsin. But hey, fires are a matter of science! This isn't political, I need to evacuate RIGHT THIS MINUTE OR I COULD DIE SOME DAY! This isn't alarmism based on emotionalism at all, either.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

About first bolded statement response, when you say that comment is from "big oil" you are trying to discredit my point by association. Even if what you said was true, that wouldn't make the statement false. How about instead you just deal with the principle behind the comment. Also, you are simply wrong. Subsidies are still necessary for renewable energy, and they are far less cost-effective than fossil fuels. https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/09/14/why-renewable-energy-still-needs-subsidies/

About second bolded statement response, whether I am an expert on economics has no bearing on whether Climate Scientists are. Climate Scientists are recognized as authorities, which is fine for informal forms of evidence, but it's a Fallacy of Authority when Climate Scientists are looked to, to implement environmental policies that impact the economy greatly.

Third bolded statement response: I wouldn't go that far. I would argue that a seasoned physicist probably knows more about the climate than a climate scientist fresh out of college. There are many different types of climate scientists with many different types of expertise as well. I also talked about how climate scientists use incomplete information to try to piece together information, so there is quite a bit they don't know. So yes, I meant what I said, that climate scientists generally know about the climate, and it was an excellent choice of words by you. I would recommend you revise your words that claim that a climate scientist title suddenly makes a person the most knowledgeable on Earth in regards to the climate. You are full of fallacy of authority.

1. You are pointing out the subsidies that renewables get...but you're forgetting the subsidies that Big Oil gets. "What subsidies", you ask? Why the heck do you think we've been stationing carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf since before I joined the Navy in 1981? Every penny we've spent on "Defense" to protect the flow of oil is essentially subsidizing Big Oil at taxpayer expense! And let's not forget Bush 43's very first cabinet meeting (over 8 months before 9/11) wherein the major topic of discussion was the invasion of Iraq and which corporations would get which oil fields! Perhaps you should consider which source of energy's been costing the taxpayers so dearly!

2. Your statement is a strawman - climate scientists are NOT "looked to, to implement environmental policies that impact the economy greatly". Why is it a strawman? (1) Scientists do NOT implement government policy - our elected officials do that, and (2) you're still going on the assumption that the policies (that are NOT implemented by the climate scientists, remember) would indeed "impact the economy greatly". That being said, the failure or refusal to address what the climate scientists are pointing out WILL indeed impact the economy greatly...adversely so, and to a FAR greater extent than any amount spent today. Personally, that's why I listen to the insurance industry - their livelihood depends on them being right about risk factors. Swiss reinsurer Re is the world's second-largest reinsurer...and here's what they have to say about climate change.

3. And you, sir, should learn that the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy itself fails in the face of scientific consensus. When the overwhelming majority of those who know best on a subject all agree on general principles on that subject, there is scientific consensus...and referring to the judgment of that overwhelming majority is not a commission of a logical fallacy. Evolution is "just" a theory, but it's not a logical fallacy to point to the overwhelming majority of biologists who agree about the general principles of evolution. Same thing for the theory of gravity (yes, it's a theory - it's not proven to the degree of scientific rigor required yet...especially since Einstein et al tossed a relativistic monkey wrench into the works). Again, it's not a logical fallacy to refer to what is truly scientific consensus.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

About fourth bolded statement response, are you familiar with the climate scientists that determined that Earth has more time than originally thought: Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests | The Independent Furthermore, as someone who is Left of Center, I assure you that I don't dismiss sources simply because they are Left.

You talk about conservatives, but do you not see that I'm labeled "slightly liberal"? I voted for President Trump, but I also voted for President Obama, twice. You say that climate science isn't a matter of politics, but you are wrong, because how we react to the changing climate is highly economic and political. You say global warming is happening, but how quickly? How should we react? These are questions not so easily answered, and some are not answered by science at all because they are not scientific questions. As for your analogy, get out of here with that crap. That doesn't further our discussion at all. Yeah, there's a fire in California and it's heading my way in Wisconsin. Clearly I should evacuate tonight, right? I'm sure that won't cause unnecessary harm to me when I leave all my belongings behind and I'm stuck in -20 F wind chill when the fires from California will likely never reach my house in Wisconsin. But hey, fires are a matter of science! This isn't political, I need to evacuate RIGHT THIS MINUTE OR I COULD DIE SOME DAY! This isn't alarmism based on emotionalism at all, either.

1 - I take the claimed political leans of people on the internet with more than just a few grains of salt. Just because you say are "slightly liberal" means nothing...especially since that label in and of itself would have as many definitions as there are people of any political lean. You might well be slightly liberal in YOUR view...but quite conservative in the view of many (or perhaps most) liberals such as myself.

2 - See your statement from your first post? "IMO, the reason action doesn't occur in the way the Left wants it to on climate science policy is because we rarely have a conversation about the economics that can lead to the implementation of real policies, which is generally how the Right things about issues." That's a broad-brush fallacy - neither the left or the right are nearly so monolithic as you seem to think. Besides, given the actions of the GOP leadership (not "the Right", but the GOP leadership) over the past decade, I think a strong case can be made to show that a "conversation about the economics" is in actuality very low indeed on their priority list. Even then, IMO the GOP leadership would love to...except that they run a very real danger of being metaphorically crucified by the most influential among the right-wing media for working with the "Left" on almost anything...or at least that's the reason Speaker John Boehner gave for "sneaking" into the White House for meetings with Obama.

3 - you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding my metaphor about the "house on fire". Why do I say that? Because you are intelligent and literate, and it is obvious that I do not need to "dumb down" my language in a discussion with you. For that reason, I am quite sure that you understood precisely what I meant...and your dismissal of it evinces a desire not for a serious discussion about an issue, but for "winning the argument" even if you might be wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

I hear a lot of people who say we need to listen to the "scientists" about climate change. We should allegedly harm our economy to meet all these differently environmental goals. You know how these arguments tend to play out. Well, I have something to say about that: Climate scientists are not experts in economics.

A lot of people will laugh at this, but it's an extremely important point. I accept that global warming is happening and it is man-made. I accept that climate scientists generally know about the climate. I don't accept that they know how best to solve the problem. How best to solve the problem is largely an economics question. Do we go out and put solar panels on every house today rather then run a cheap coal plant? Well, that depends on how much time we have, what the research is going to be, what the economic damage will be, etc.

Consider that we could put solar panels on every house, and then in 2 years maybe there is some revolutionary solar panel that makes the old ones obsolete. Then what? We just installed all these obsolete solar panels at great cost and now we have to install new ones at another great cost? Or say nuclear fusion technology is mastered, and it can completely solve our energy problems basically overnight? Then burning fossil fuels today won't hurt as badly. Or what if we can create the technology in a few years to scrub the CO2 out of our atmosphere? Then it would be best to take advantage of our cheaper fossil fuels today for economic advantage and energy independence.

The key here is that climate scientists (as well as other scientists such as physicists, biologists, etc.) can tell us how the climate is changing to some extent, but they can't tell us when to force the market to switch over to alternative energy, or even how to. They can't predict what innovation is going to occur in the future, either. Heck, even predicting the future of the climate is guesswork at best. People, especially on the Left, need to stop shutting down conversation on moral grounds, and we need to start having real discussions about an economic approach to climate science. IMO, the reason action doesn't occur in the way the Left wants it to on climate science policy is because we rarely have a conversation about the economics that can lead to the implementation of real policies, which is generally how the Right things about issues.

You seem to think that scientists don’t know this.

Anyone who accepts the science will naturally conclude that action is needed now. Economists included.

 

[Visbek]

I hear a lot of people who say we need to listen to the "scientists" about climate change. We should allegedly harm our economy to meet all these differently environmental goals. You know how these arguments tend to play out. Well, I have something to say about that: Climate scientists are not experts in economics.

Erm.... Why didn't you spend 5 minutes looking on Google? You would have seen that economists have, in fact, directly researched, examined and discussed a variety of issues related to climate change.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-new-economics-of-climate-change

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-previously-thought/?utm_term=.d1fb9611d45c

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ts-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

Amazon has numerous books on the subject. They even sell a textbook -- which is in its 2nd edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction...=8-4&keywords=the+economics+of+climate+change

We just installed all these obsolete solar panels at great cost and now we have to install new ones at another great cost?

I'm sorry, but that's an absurd argument.

There are tons of consumer products that drop in price over time. In many cases, they fall in price specifically because people are buying them. You have economies of scale, which reduces costs; you have competition, which drives prices down and efficiency up; the companies making the panels have more resources for R&D, to make more efficient and cheaper panels.

Or say nuclear fusion technology is mastered, and it can completely solve our energy problems basically overnight?

Fusion is a long, long way off. Decades. We've been working on it for decades already, too. We cannot wait for fusion to work itself out, and become economically viable.

Or what if we can create the technology in a few years to scrub the CO2 out of our atmosphere?

Climatologists have in fact considered that possibility. Unsurprisingly, in a way that any student of behavioral economics would immediately grasp, they are worried that people will use that option as an excuse to dump more CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important is that screwing around with the environment in that way could have unknown environmental impacts. Not to mention that lots of the damage cannot be undone -- e.g. if there is significant loss of land ice, removing CO2 from the atmosphere will not restore it.

Dealing with an impacted climate is not like putting a car in reverse. It's more like trying to put an egg back together.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump

People, especially on the Left, need to stop shutting down conversation on moral grounds, and we need to start having real discussions about an economic approach to climate science.

Yeah, thing is? People have been engaged in those discussions, for a long time. I'm not sure how you missed it.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The largest collective statement ever made by economists was on...........Climate Change! a very long time ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists'_Statement_on_Climate_Change

 

[Visbek]

People on the Left keep saying things like "the debate is over". Well, no, the debate is not over.

They're referring to the questions of climate change. Not the economic impacts, or how to convince people to take climate change seriously before it's too late.

The Left has got to stop acting like there are no reasonable discussions/debates to be had on this topic.

Uh, hello? They're objecting to the unreasonable claims of the denialists. They are openly stating that there are big ranges of possible effects, they discuss things as probabilities... I think you really need to read up a bit more, rather than attack "The Left" for accepting the evidence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They're referring to the questions of climate change. Not the economic impacts, or how to convince people to take climate change seriously before it's too late.

No, they are claiming CO2 is the largest problem. That is not settled. There are other specifics claimed as settled that are not.

Uh, hello? They're objecting to the unreasonable claims of the denialists. They are openly stating that there are big ranges of possible effects, they discuss things as probabilities... I think you really need to read up a bit more, rather than attack "The Left" for accepting the evidence.

The left treated anyone that disagrees with their dogma, and deniers. So be it. I am an atheist to the faith of AGW.

The science papers discuss things as possibilities and probabilities. The pundits of AGW, lie, and claim these as facts.

please learn these sciences and read actual peer reviewed papers. Your ignorance, portrayed as fact, is not needed. It makes you arrogant.

 

[Threegoofs]

No, they are claiming CO2 is the largest problem. That is not settled. There are other specifics claimed as settled that are not.


The left treated anyone that disagrees with their dogma, and deniers. So be it. I am an atheist to the faith of AGW.

The science papers discuss things as possibilities and probabilities. The pundits of AGW, lie, and claim these as facts.

please learn these sciences and read actual peer reviewed papers. Your ignorance, portrayed as fact, is not needed. It makes you arrogant.

So wait.... the arrogant guy is the one who is listening to what the current science says instead of pretending to know more about the science than the people who actually DO the science?

I’m confused how that works.

 

[lurchadams]

I hear a lot of people who say we need to listen to the "scientists" about climate change. We should allegedly harm our economy to meet all these differently environmental goals. You know how these arguments tend to play out. Well, I have something to say about that: Climate scientists are not experts in economics.

Neither are most politicians that make economic policy. Many GOP congressmen are climate science deniers as well.

A lot of people will laugh at this, but it's an extremely important point. I accept that global warming is happening and it is man-made. I accept that climate scientists generally know about the climate. I don't accept that they know how best to solve the problem. How best to solve the problem is largely an economics question. Do we go out and put solar panels on every house today rather then run a cheap coal plant? Well, that depends on how much time we have, what the research is going to be, what the economic damage will be, etc.that we could put solar panels on every house, and then in 2 years maybe there is some revolutionary solar panel that makes the old ones obsolete. Then what?

You replace it. When your roof becomes obsolete you replace it. When your tech gadgets become obsolete, you replace them. What's the difference - this is part of the cost of living? People are already buy hybrid and electric vehicles - they get a tax break for doing it.

No scientist can force us to do anything. It's up to us to innovate energy alternatives and make it worthwhile to convert.

Politicians can make it advantageous to convert, either through tax policy or how about this - Instead of subsidizing petroleum companies, how about instead funding R&D into more efficient and environmentally safe forms of energy?

Anyway - my major point is, not ones going to do anything just because a scientist tells us to. Bottom line - it's up to us.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Neither are most politicians that make economic policy. Many GOP congressmen are climate science deniers as well.

Denier is the wrong word. They just don't agree with the alarmism. They do not deny warming is occurring.

Why do you guys constantly misrepresent the facts?

 

[lurchadams]

denier is the wrong word. They just don't agree with the alarmism. They do not deny warming is occurring.

Why do you guys constantly misrepresent the facts?

lol

Misrepresent facts? Like inaugural size, 5 million people voting for Clinton illegally, Obama being a Kenyan Muslim? Remember when you point the finger at someone there are four fingers pointing back at you!!!

/mike drop

 

[Lord of Planar]

lol

Misrepresent facts? Like inaugural size, 5 million people voting for Clinton illegally, Obama being a Kenyan Muslim? Remember when you point the finger at someone there are four fingers pointing back at you!!!

/mike drop

That's politics as usual, and both sides pull that crap.

 

[lurchadams]

That's politics as usual, and both sides pull that crap.

Nope you're wrong and I should know - I have a very good brain, am a stable genius, and am the most correct person as anyone in history.

I guarantee you that - Believe me!

 

[atheist4thecaus]

1. You are pointing out the subsidies that renewables get...but you're forgetting the subsidies that Big Oil gets. "What subsidies", you ask? Why the heck do you think we've been stationing carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf since before I joined the Navy in 1981? Every penny we've spent on "Defense" to protect the flow of oil is essentially subsidizing Big Oil at taxpayer expense! And let's not forget Bush 43's very first cabinet meeting (over 8 months before 9/11) wherein the major topic of discussion was the invasion of Iraq and which corporations would get which oil fields! Perhaps you should consider which source of energy's been costing the taxpayers so dearly!

2. Your statement is a strawman - climate scientists are NOT "looked to, to implement environmental policies that impact the economy greatly". Why is it a strawman? (1) Scientists do NOT implement government policy - our elected officials do that, and (2) you're still going on the assumption that the policies (that are NOT implemented by the climate scientists, remember) would indeed "impact the economy greatly". That being said, the failure or refusal to address what the climate scientists are pointing out WILL indeed impact the economy greatly...adversely so, and to a FAR greater extent than any amount spent today. Personally, that's why I listen to the insurance industry - their livelihood depends on them being right about risk factors. Swiss reinsurer Re is the world's second-largest reinsurer...and here's what they have to say about climate change.

3. And you, sir, should learn that the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy itself fails in the face of scientific consensus. When the overwhelming majority of those who know best on a subject all agree on general principles on that subject, there is scientific consensus...and referring to the judgment of that overwhelming majority is not a commission of a logical fallacy. Evolution is "just" a theory, but it's not a logical fallacy to point to the overwhelming majority of biologists who agree about the general principles of evolution. Same thing for the theory of gravity (yes, it's a theory - it's not proven to the degree of scientific rigor required yet...especially since Einstein et al tossed a relativistic monkey wrench into the works). Again, it's not a logical fallacy to refer to what is truly scientific consensus.

1) I know that oil gets subsidies. The reason for that is because oil is one of the most cost-effective forms of energy, and because transportation plays such a huge part of the cost on every product in the entire economy, it makes sense to subsidize the cheapest form of energy for transportation. And I think the importance of diversity often gets lost. Different energy forms have different strengths, weaknesses, and best uses. Nuclear energy is the cheapest, but we don't use it on vehicles, and for good reason. If completely ended fossil fuels and switched entirely over to renewables, we would lose a lot, not just in cost benefits, but also in being able to power different types of things effectively. Here's a small 1-page statement about the value of diversity in energy: https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/The-Value-of-Energy-Diversity And btw, energy diversity is the Republican stance. They don't just push fossil fuels. If you look at what President Trump's policy was, all forms of energy, including renewables, are promoted/allowed. This is a market-based approach.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

1 - I take the claimed political leans of people on the internet with more than just a few grains of salt. Just because you say are "slightly liberal" means nothing...especially since that label in and of itself would have as many definitions as there are people of any political lean. You might well be slightly liberal in YOUR view...but quite conservative in the view of many (or perhaps most) liberals such as myself.

2 - See your statement from your first post? "IMO, the reason action doesn't occur in the way the Left wants it to on climate science policy is because we rarely have a conversation about the economics that can lead to the implementation of real policies, which is generally how the Right things about issues." That's a broad-brush fallacy - neither the left or the right are nearly so monolithic as you seem to think. Besides, given the actions of the GOP leadership (not "the Right", but the GOP leadership) over the past decade, I think a strong case can be made to show that a "conversation about the economics" is in actuality very low indeed on their priority list. Even then, IMO the GOP leadership would love to...except that they run a very real danger of being metaphorically crucified by the most influential among the right-wing media for working with the "Left" on almost anything...or at least that's the reason Speaker John Boehner gave for "sneaking" into the White House for meetings with Obama.

2) Give me a break. All generalizations are not "broad-brush fallacies". lol Obviously not every single person on the Left makes a moral argument and every single person on the Right makes an economic argument, but that's not what I claimed, either. If you look at the types of arguments that come out of the Left and Right, especially on environmental issues, the Left tends to make moral arguments (i.e. we have a responsibility to our children to solve global warming) and the Right tends to make economic arguments (fossil fuels are most cost-effective than renewables right now). Sure, there are exceptions among people and individuals make different arguments that may be on both sides, but I'm talking about what perspective has guided the main ideas on both sides.

3 - you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding my metaphor about the "house on fire". Why do I say that? Because you are intelligent and literate, and it is obvious that I do not need to "dumb down" my language in a discussion with you. For that reason, I am quite sure that you understood precisely what I meant...and your dismissal of it evinces a desire not for a serious discussion about an issue, but for "winning the argument" even if you might be wrong.

3) Metaphors are not meant for proving things, they are simply meant for explaining. I understand what you are saying so there is no reason to use a metaphor. The fact that you call my dismissal of your analogy a "dismissal of evinces" shows that you are guilty of the Fallacy of Analogy.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

You seem to think that scientists don’t know this.

Anyone who accepts the science will naturally conclude that action is needed now. Economists included.

You can assert this all you want, but this point has no teeth. Also, economists are not climate scientists. That's part of the problem here, and why it's so difficult to turn climate science information into economic policy, especially given that climate science and economics are not "science" in the traditional forms as both struggle to predict the future. There's a reason these models give broad ranges.

Erm.... Why didn't you spend 5 minutes looking on Google? You would have seen that economists have, in fact, directly researched, examined and discussed a variety of issues related to climate change.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-new-economics-of-climate-change

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-previously-thought/?utm_term=.d1fb9611d45c

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ts-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

Amazon has numerous books on the subject. They even sell a textbook -- which is in its 2nd edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction...=8-4&keywords=the+economics+of+climate+change



I'm sorry, but that's an absurd argument.

There are tons of consumer products that drop in price over time. In many cases, they fall in price specifically because people are buying them. You have economies of scale, which reduces costs; you have competition, which drives prices down and efficiency up; the companies making the panels have more resources for R&D, to make more efficient and cheaper panels.



Fusion is a long, long way off. Decades. We've been working on it for decades already, too. We cannot wait for fusion to work itself out, and become economically viable.



Climatologists have in fact considered that possibility. Unsurprisingly, in a way that any student of behavioral economics would immediately grasp, they are worried that people will use that option as an excuse to dump more CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important is that screwing around with the environment in that way could have unknown environmental impacts. Not to mention that lots of the damage cannot be undone -- e.g. if there is significant loss of land ice, removing CO2 from the atmosphere will not restore it.

Dealing with an impacted climate is not like putting a car in reverse. It's more like trying to put an egg back together.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Yeah, thing is? People have been engaged in those discussions, for a long time. I'm not sure how you missed it.[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned earlier, just as climate scientists are not economists, economists are not climate scientists. Sure, some economists have weighed in on climate science policy, but there is far from any consensus on what to do. Plus, I mentioned economics as an example, but there are other issues such as competing values. For instance, the biggest problem with eliminating coal worldwide is that this will take away energy from the poorest people in the poorest nations. The reason India has plans to build coal plants all over India is because they have hundreds of millions of people without electricity at all. For all the people that thing renewable energy is so much cheaper without subsidy, India's decision to go with coal proves how wrong you are.

I also agree that many consumer products drop in time, so when renewables drop to the point of being economically feasible, they will start to be implemented. Some renewables are just starting to reach that point, actually, and so we are seeing these renewables start to enter the market as an economically viable energy rather than what I've heard referred to as a romantic energy, where people basically buy it for non-economic reasons such as moral reasons (romance doesn't scale). I think it was in Al Gore's new movie where he talks about how the reddest county in one of the reddest states has become completely sustainable on renewable energy (mainly solar IIRC). It's in Texas, where solar energy is more cost-effective than other places. Even self-described “right-wing Republican and mayor in one of the reddest cities, counties, states” support transition to 100% renewable energy | Rapid Shift Here's an article titled "In Trump County, Renewable energy is thriving": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/...&gwh=C62EAB67F83A13076D707C1A7127782D&gwt=pay Republicans are perfectly happy to take on renewable energy when it is economically viable. That's just starting to happen, but to expect this to scale nationwide at this point would be ridiculous.

You also seem to want to preach to me about the importance of solving global warming, but I already agree with you on that. I'm also new here, so I don't know what conversations you have had previously. I have no idea why you think you're so important that a random person on the Internet should already know what conversations another random person on the Internet had in their history. The interesting thing is that you claim to have had the economic discussion on climate change and yet that's not what you are giving me here.

The largest collective statement ever made by economists was on...........Climate Change! a very long time ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists'_Statement_on_Climate_Change

This was organized by a single think tank that focused on the environment and isn't even around anymore. We don't need economists to get on board with an official document or anything like that, we need conversation to enter the public consciousness to a great extent on economics. As I said earlier, there are more than just economists and climate scientists that need to be involved as well. Business owners, average people, etc. all need a say to develop the best possible solution. Cap-and-Trade can sound great and all, but there's a reason even Obama backed off that. It would destroy our economic competitiveness with the globe. There are many, many economists that don't agree with Cap-and-Trade. Even many environmentalists are against Cap-and-Trade because they think many businesses will just choose to pay the tax for carbon emissions rather than switch to renewables, and they can then pass that cost onto the consumer. In 2013, there were already talks about "Cap-and-Trade's last hope": Cap-and-trade: Good Idea or Bad Idea? - Environmental Watch

 

[atheist4thecaus]

They're referring to the questions of climate change. Not the economic impacts, or how to convince people to take climate change seriously before it's too late.



Uh, hello? They're objecting to the unreasonable claims of the denialists. They are openly stating that there are big ranges of possible effects, they discuss things as probabilities... I think you really need to read up a bit more, rather than attack "The Left" for accepting the evidence.

No, many people on the Left are not just shutting down conversation on the science of climate change, they are shutting down all aspects of that conversation. When I bring up the economic side, I'm often preached to about the importance of solving global warming and told there is no room for debate on this because it is settled. And as someone else mentioned, there is a lot within Climate Science that is not decided. If the Science is settled, why are articles like these being published: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

Also, you mock my usage of the term "the Left" but you say nothing about my usage of the term "the Right". I don't use these terms disparagingly, merely to recognize who I'm talking about in general in a simple way that makes sense. It's merely a term of convenience. As I've said before, while I may not pass the purity test of many on the Left, I consider myself to be more left than right, hence my "slightly liberal" tag.

Neither are most politicians that make economic policy. Many GOP congressmen are climate science deniers as well.



You replace it. When your roof becomes obsolete you replace it. When your tech gadgets become obsolete, you replace them. What's the difference - this is part of the cost of living? People are already buy hybrid and electric vehicles - they get a tax break for doing it.

No scientist can force us to do anything. It's up to us to innovate energy alternatives and make it worthwhile to convert.

Politicians can make it advantageous to convert, either through tax policy or how about this - Instead of subsidizing petroleum companies, how about instead funding R&D into more efficient and environmentally safe forms of energy?

Anyway - my major point is, not ones going to do anything just because a scientist tells us to. Bottom line - it's up to us.

My tech gadgets don't last me as long or cost me as much as solar panels, and many of them don't have competition. I'm not a fan of your analogy. A lot of people buy hybrid vehicles for non-economic reasons. They know they are paying more and they don't care. In cases where it is actually economically better to buy a hybrid, that only shows that the natural market will gear towards renewables the more economically feasible they become without forcing them on people. Furthermore, hybrids show exactly why a diversity of energy is a good idea. It is an example of a diversity of energy. Hybrids wouldn't exist if fossil fuels were banned. We'd have electric cars, which have their limitations. Battery costs are a huge problem, and the distance one can travel is a problem, too. The power of the vehicle is a problem. Where I worked with a construction company, there was an electric- and gas-powered forklift. We couldn't use the electric forklift for half of the things we needed to use because it wasn't powerful enough.

Your idea is to take off subsidies for the most cost-effective and pragmatic form of vehicle energy and put that money towards R&D of renewables with no short-term effect, and in the mean time, your policy will destroy our economic well-being, cause massive inflation, will raise the costs of all goods in society, and it will harm the poor the most. So then when food skyrockets, the government will have to raise minimum wage, welfare programs, etc. and that will create even more inflation. Then you'll see companies firing people by the masses and replace them with robots, creating higher unemployment, a huge burden on insurance companies, and a huge burden on the government yet again. Your policy would quite literally lead to massive hardship in this country, and a recession if not a depression. Or, we could keep the subsidies, continue to develop alternatives, and then introduce them to the economy as they become economically viable, with actual economic gain rather than economic hardship. Funny how your morals don't care about the poor people you would be harming.