View Single Post
Old 10-26-2018, 12:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,107
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This, of course, is not true. Discussions about the most effective approaches to emissions mitigation are not being stopped in any significant way for Bernie or Ocasio-Cortez or Harry Reid or any Democrat or any green loony.

They are stopped, or they should be, by the scientific consensus that nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem, and that solar and wind and renewables will not scale up in anything like what we need.

Being anti-nuclear is being anti-science just as much as any other kind.

History will look back on the climate change denialists and say "what were they thinking?" It will also look back on the nuclear energy denialists and say "what were they smoking?"

As I have said in the past, we aren't going to do anything about AGW, except on an ad hoc basis and as problems arise. One side thinks we don't need to do anything, and the other thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won't work.
It is of course true. What you've posted here is a load of crap from start to finish.

Republicans as a group are almost universally hostile to climate science and its findings, and for a Republican to say otherwise is political suicide. Mitt Romney initially acknowledged AGW during his presidential campaign, then had to quickly backtrack when that blew up in his face. Did the US pull out of the Paris climate agreement, the only country in the world to do so? Yes, they did. Who did it? A Republican. QED. Just like the Republican who brought a snowball into Congress to "prove" that the world isn't warming (James Inhofe), or another Congressional Republican who used his authority to threaten and harass climate scientists (Joe Barton). Or the Republican in the Bush administration who falsified National Academy of Sciences climate reports to make them seem less definitive (Philip Cooney) and when exposed, quit and went to work for Exxon Mobil. They're virtually all like that. I've seen Rick Santorum present a complete pack of lies about the issue, just outright falsehoods and gibberish pushing denial. The rare brighter ones like Ben Sasse bring more nuanced arguments, but the bottom line is always the same: do nothing.

Don't try to tell us Republicans haven't blocked discussion of mitigating climate change -- in various coastal red states, even terms like "climate change" and "sea level rise" have literally been banned from government discourse.

In any case the only "discussion" that matters is meaningful legislative action, and that's effectively impossible when virtually every Republican knows that climate change denial is a prerequisite for getting elected, and in some states as I said you're not even allowed to mention it in Republican administrations. Your side. Not just deniers, but batshit crazy.

You're also wrong of course about nuclear power being some kind of "science" debate. It's purely a political policy issue. If you want nuclear power you need to get politicians to vote for it, build it, and decide how to run it and subsidize it.

And you're also wrong in stating as some kind of indisputable scientific fact or law of nature that "nuclear power is the only practical approach to addressing the problem". I think most of us feel it's an important part of the solution, but it's far from a scientific absolute. Wind power is remarkably reliable if broadly geographically distributed, and solar power is very efficient in some areas, while hydroelectric is feasible in others, plus other options. Again, it's a cost and policy matter. It's a also a continuum of options, where the most important priority is getting rid of coal-fired plants, a real scourge on the environment in many different ways. Even if we had gas-fired peak power plants for the medium term it would be a big improvement. But of course your side is now trying to bring back coal in a big way! It bears repeating: Your side. Batshit crazy.

And you're also wrong in the claim that one side "thinks we need to do something that costs a shitload and won't work". It's not even clear if you mean Democrats, or if you mean highly qualified economists and policy analysts like those of the IPCC Working Group III, which is entirely devoted to the topic of mitigation. Perhaps you believe that the entire series of assessments from experts in the WG3 is just crap that "costs a shitload and won't work". I don't. I think it's a comprehensive set of broad policy options from the world's leading experts in their fields.

As I said, your entire screed is just total nonsense from start to finish.