Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:02 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,019
How will history see the climate change denialists?

The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we're out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it's too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.

And, obviously, that's just not happening. A large part of the problem is straight-up denialism coming out from one of the primary parties in one of the most energy-greedy nations in the world.

Ignoring, for the moment, the normal person on the street who probably fell for propaganda and at least has some excuse...

How will history look back on people like James Inhofe, Charles Koch, and Christopher Monckton? People who staked large parts of their careers on lying about climate change, when they pretty much had to know that what they were doing was wrong? How will history see the propagandists like Frank Lutz who saw the problem and decided that spin and lying was a good idea?

Obviously, it's a fever dream to imagine any of these people standing in Den Haag for crimes against humanity, but I cannot imagine that, once the consequences become more and more clear, these people end up looking like anything other than monsters in the same category as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. It's just a damn shame that these people will die too soon to see those consequences, and too late to avoid doing any more damage, i.e. not literally right fucking now.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-20-2018 at 04:03 PM.
  #2  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:35 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation 10-12-14
Posts: 24,336
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
  #3  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:40 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
The question is really framed around the ideologues who reject science when it suits them. How do you think such people will be regarded in the long run?

I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don't think they will be regarded as mass murders.
  #4  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:43 PM
Ulfreida Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
Absolutely. Because their solutions are the same (do nothing). Therefore they are equally culpable.
  #5  
Old 10-20-2018, 04:52 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
Pretty much. It's worth referencing the steps of denialism:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Regardless of whether they're denying whether or why, they're denying reality and doing nothing about it.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-20-2018 at 04:54 PM.
  #6  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:13 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
If they are accepting that it is happening, but denying what is causing it (as absurd as that is), then they are still refusing to do anything about it.

If there is an asteroid coming at us, and we have say, 75 years to do something about it, in 74 years, will we still be saying that nothing needs to be done about it, because we were not the cuase?
  #7  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:37 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 5,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don't think they will be regarded as mass murders.
But the problem arises when you have those crackpots running the country. I don't think history will condemn specific deniers who are just cranks. But when the entire Republican Party platform is built around science denial in general, and AGW denial in particular, that will not be forgotten. Neither will the electorate who voted for them. I think history will look back on this and ask how our entire generation could have been so stupid as to put these fools in power.
  #8  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:40 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 79,564
It's too late to avoid disaster, because climate change is already disastrous, and has been for over a decade at least. And it will continue to be a disaster. And the sooner we do something about it, and the more we do, the less disastrous it will be, going forward.
  #9  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:43 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,107
If something isn't done about it, history won't see them as anything because there won't be anything left to have a history.
  #10  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:46 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,881
Will there be history, later on?
__________________
"There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance."
~~~~~ Ali ibn Abi-Talib
  #11  
Old 10-20-2018, 07:50 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we're out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it's too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.

And, obviously, that's just not happening. A large part of the problem is straight-up denialism coming out from one of the primary parties in one of the most energy-greedy nations in the world.

Ignoring, for the moment, the normal person on the street who probably fell for propaganda and at least has some excuse...

How will history look back on people like James Inhofe, Charles Koch, and Christopher Monckton? People who staked large parts of their careers on lying about climate change, when they pretty much had to know that what they were doing was wrong? How will history see the propagandists like Frank Lutz who saw the problem and decided that spin and lying was a good idea?

Obviously, it's a fever dream to imagine any of these people standing in Den Haag for crimes against humanity, but I cannot imagine that, once the consequences become more and more clear, these people end up looking like anything other than monsters in the same category as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. It's just a damn shame that these people will die too soon to see those consequences, and too late to avoid doing any more damage, i.e. not literally right fucking now.
It really depends on how it all plays out. Stalin is still considered, well, less than a monster in may quarters, even here, while Hitler is rightfully vilified. Same goes for Mao. Consider your list there and consider who is really vilified on it and who isn't in the context of what you are asking. All SHOULD be, pretty much equally...yet they aren't. So, how will history see the climate change deniers? IMHO they will probably be seen as the equivalent of the JFK CTers or the Moon Landing Hoaxers...at best, of those who denied tobacco was as dangerous as it turned out to be. Even if things are as bad as I think (let alone as bad as some of the more hysteric climate change enthusiast's are projecting), I don't think that it's going to all come down on climate change denialists...they will simply be seen as the crazy fringe they are, but the reality is that it's you and me and everyone else who still drives around in our cars, still kicks the AC up to frigid in the summer and toasty in the winter, still uses our electronics (making sure they are warmed up and ready whenever we need/want them of course) and still buy tons of crap marked Made in China on the label. We are all pretty much guilty...I seriously doubt that you, OP, have a carbon footprint that much different than the average American or European...certainly I doubt that you have the carbon footprint of the average African, say. And I doubt that most others reading this thread and nodding their heads at the above comments and feeling all righteous about climate change and anger at the deniers are much different than the average.


Maybe the deniers will be seen as the big losers by the masses, but only if the narrative is able to shift the actual blame fully onto their shoulders and let it off the majority of the population, or the fact that there are several 'emerging' nations who are pumping out staggering amounts of CO2 every bit as much or more than the US or Europe. Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it's really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them. Could happen. But I think that, history is going to look down on all of us...me, you and everyone else in this thread as well as the deniers and that orange haired idiot in the white house...AND our pal Xi, and Modi, and Putin and the various heads of state in Europe, Canada, Australia and the rest. JMHO and all, and I won't live to see it, but I think history is going to rip us all a new one and none of us are going to get off lightly.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #12  
Old 10-20-2018, 09:22 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
It really depends on how it all plays out. Stalin is still considered, well, less than a monster in may quarters, even here, while Hitler is rightfully vilified. Same goes for Mao. Consider your list there and consider who is really vilified on it and who isn't in the context of what you are asking. All SHOULD be, pretty much equally...yet they aren't. So, how will history see the climate change deniers? IMHO they will probably be seen as the equivalent of the JFK CTers or the Moon Landing Hoaxers...at best, of those who denied tobacco was as dangerous as it turned out to be. Even if things are as bad as I think (let alone as bad as some of the more hysteric climate change enthusiast's are projecting), I don't think that it's going to all come down on climate change denialists...they will simply be seen as the crazy fringe they are,
How are they the crazy fringe, when they are the party that is currently in control of the government on the federal, and on most state levels?

Trump pulled us out of the climate change deal. Republicans are doing everything in their power to deny climate change and prevent anything from being done to mitigate it.
Quote:
but the reality is that it's you and me and everyone else who still drives around in our cars, still kicks the AC up to frigid in the summer and toasty in the winter, still uses our electronics (making sure they are warmed up and ready whenever we need/want them of course) and still buy tons of crap marked Made in China on the label. We are all pretty much guilty...I seriously doubt that you, OP, have a carbon footprint that much different than the average American or European...certainly I doubt that you have the carbon footprint of the average African, say. And I doubt that most others reading this thread and nodding their heads at the above comments and feeling all righteous about climate change and anger at the deniers are much different than the average.
Sure, we are all guilty here, but that is because it is not something that can be addressed on the individual level. If you went off the grid tomorrow, and consumed nothing but what you could grow within walking distance, you would have how much of an impact? If we all did that, how many of us would simply starve?

It is necessary for the govt to address this problem, to make the use of the commons a cost that we all bear now, rather than a cost we foist onto later generations and upon those who benefit the least from our energy usage.
Quote:

Maybe the deniers will be seen as the big losers by the masses, but only if the narrative is able to shift the actual blame fully onto their shoulders and let it off the majority of the population, or the fact that there are several 'emerging' nations who are pumping out staggering amounts of CO2 every bit as much or more than the US or Europe.
The emerging nations that are trying to emulate the United States and our standard of living are not nearly as much at fault as us, who have benefited from our standard of living for a couple generations now.

It was fine when it was just a few of us being wasteful in our lifestyles of luxury, but now that other people want the same, it is suddenly a problem.
Quote:
Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it's really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them.
Who is that, anymore? Far left wing, maybe, but pretty much all moderate democrats are on board with nuclear, so long as it is done safely and with a fair amount of oversight. Nuclear is something that needs to be addressed at the governmental level, once again.

So, republicans have complete control of the government, what is their plan to expand our nuclear generation capacity?
Quote:
Could happen. But I think that, history is going to look down on all of us...me, you and everyone else in this thread as well as the deniers and that orange haired idiot in the white house...AND our pal Xi, and Modi, and Putin and the various heads of state in Europe, Canada, Australia and the rest. JMHO and all, and I won't live to see it, but I think history is going to rip us all a new one and none of us are going to get off lightly.
History doesn't look kindly on those who allow bad things to happen, but they are a footnote compared to the ones who made bad things happen.
  #13  
Old 10-20-2018, 10:05 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,906
When your plane crashes in the mountains, you can blame the pilot for fucking up, or the navigator for reading the charts/weather data wrong, or the ground crew for not making sure the plane was in good enough shape to make this trip, but, in the end, you are stuck in the mountains, and you have to deal with the situation at hand.

If there are still people around in the long future, that is what they will be doing: dealing with what we have left them. They might resent us somewhat for leaving them a mess, but what is done is done, there is nothing to be gained from excoriating us (other than to insure that no one goes this way again) when getting by is paramount. If some form of civilization rises phoenixlike, they will most likely view us in the light of the kind of ignorance we ascribe to those who lived in the “Dark Ages”.

Last edited by eschereal; 10-20-2018 at 10:05 PM.
  #14  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:30 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,611
I agree with pretty much everything XT said but I want to reiterate this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it's really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them.
Future historians will see little difference between CC denialists and nuclear power opponents. If we had continued to ramp up on nuclear power we'd be much closer to carbon neutral now then we'll every be from solar/wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Who is that, anymore? Far left wing, maybe, but pretty much all moderate democrats are on board with nuclear, so long as it is done safely and with a fair amount of oversight. Nuclear is something that needs to be addressed at the governmental level, once again.
I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a "nuclear-free" future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she's agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
  #15  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:34 AM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation 10-12-14
Posts: 24,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The question is really framed around the ideologues who reject science when it suits them. How do you think such people will be regarded in the long run?

I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don't think they will be regarded as mass murders.
People who reject science out of convenience are morons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Absolutely. Because their solutions are the same (do nothing). Therefore they are equally culpable.
Good point. Agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Pretty much. It's worth referencing the steps of denialism:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Regardless of whether they're denying whether or why, they're denying reality and doing nothing about it.
Yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If they are accepting that it is happening, but denying what is causing it (as absurd as that is), then they are still refusing to do anything about it.

If there is an asteroid coming at us, and we have say, 75 years to do something about it, in 74 years, will we still be saying that nothing needs to be done about it, because we were not the cuase?
Yep, got it.

We should all be reducing greenhouse gasses, and also pressuring other countries to be doing so also.

From epa.gov (emphasis mine):

Quote:
A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.0 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year.
Metric tons!

https://buildingenergy.cx-associates...co2-look-like/
Quote:
Based on the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), the global emissions due to fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacturing for 2010 were 33.5 billion metric tonnes of CO2. To understand how much gas this is, imagine the state of Connecticut (5,500 sq miles) covered in a 3,200 foot thick blanket (a 0.6 mile thick blanket of gas).
But maybe most readers of this thread already know this.
  #16  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:46 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
..liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a "nuclear-free" future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she's agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Agree whole-heartedly with this post. Liberals are not immune from being anti-science. Many of the anti-vax and anti-fluoride crowd are liberals. The anti-GMO movement is guilty of anti-science propaganda as well by using terms like Frankenfoods. While there are benefits to the environment from organic farming most of the purported health benefits of organic food are bullshit. Then there is the embrace by many on the left of alternative medicine like ear candling, homeopathy, and other nonsense.

I say all this as someone well to the left of center. It's tempting to deny reality when it conflicts with your world view. I know that in my youth I made excuses for China, Cuba, East Germany and other oppressive regimes. Tip to youngsters: if a country has guns at their border to prevent people from leaving then they are probably on the wrong side of history.

It's easy to embrace science when it conforms with to your own value system. If you live in an urban area with good mass transit or are healthy enough to ride a bike or walk, then being anti-car is no big deal. If you have enough money to shop at Whole Foods or farmers' markets* then eating organic is possible. For others, spending $1.00 to buy one freaking peach is a ridiculous extravagance.

*Not farm stands in the country, you may find some good deals there, I mean the farmers' markets in places like my home town where I can blow through $20 to get one small bag of veggies.

Last edited by Batano; 10-21-2018 at 12:50 AM.
  #17  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:57 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
But maybe most readers of this thread already know this.
One way to deal with this is a better plan than the "cash for clunkers", but this time geared more towards low income people to get credit to get a hybrid or electric car.
  #18  
Old 10-21-2018, 01:15 AM
Batano Batano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One way to deal with this is a better plan than the "cash for clunkers", but this time geared more towards low income people to get credit to get a hybrid or electric car.
I never understood why some politician didn't propose a massive program to insulate houses and upgrade heating and cooling systems. Seems like a no-brainer. Especially if you said equipment and parts needed to be domestically produced. While this chart shows residential use as only comprising 11% of greenhouse emissions, the 28% contribution from electricity includes power needed for electric heat and cooling.

Last edited by Batano; 10-21-2018 at 01:15 AM.
  #19  
Old 10-21-2018, 01:33 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I agree with pretty much everything XT said but I want to reiterate this:

Future historians will see little difference between CC denialists and nuclear power opponents. If we had continued to ramp up on nuclear power we'd be much closer to carbon neutral now then we'll every be from solar/wind.

I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power.
There were previous discussions that are totally ignored to get a post like that.

What I see here is similar to the coal people that blamed Obama and environmentalists for the closing of coal mines. In one very recent discussion it is clear that many of the proponents of nuclear are ignoring economic forces (and political pressure coming from conservatives too) that are also working against nuclear power nowadays.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=214

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=222


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Obama BTW kept on funding new nuclear power plants under construction, and research.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...nuclear-energy

As for current pushes, what Trump is doing fails once one considers how he is supporting efforts to gut regulations against CO2 emissions and for supporting more coal power.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-21-2018 at 01:35 AM.
  #20  
Old 10-21-2018, 01:47 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batano View Post
I never understood why some politician didn't propose a massive program to insulate houses and upgrade heating and cooling systems. Seems like a no-brainer. Especially if you said equipment and parts needed to be domestically produced. While this chart shows residential use as only comprising 11% of greenhouse emissions, the 28% contribution from electricity includes power needed for electric heat and cooling.
Several decades ago, we were kind of moving in that direction. We had this “energy crisis” thing going on (as I recall, you could only buy motor fuel on odd or even days, depending on what the number at the end of your license plate was). The President was even pro-nuclear, being a Navy man. Then there was a recession, which led us to getting a shiny new President who said, “Pish-posh on that, we will point big guns at the Ayrabs until the give us lots of cheap oil.” So that solved that. That President shut down the expensive Mirror Fusion Test Facility, and because of that loss, we are still 20 years short of solving controlled nuclear fusion when it could be only 20 years away.
  #21  
Old 10-21-2018, 09:39 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,571
The thing is, we don't need to ask how history will view these people. Many people (including me) view them with utter contempt right now.

The OP is correct that many of the denialists know what they are saying is wrong. Vox did a video recently mashing together clips of how the climate change discussion has changed over the last 12 years. It's interesting to notice some of the figures that are now saying that "the science is not clear" previously accepting the science.

For all the other people, who just watch clips that "prove" climate change is a hoax and are not even aware of the other side and the evidence...I can't hate those people, because they aren't necessarily bad people, just ignorant, including being ignorant of critical thinking. But I hate the culture and circumstances that mean that whole swathes of the public (oh, and the president), can spend their lives immersed in bullshit.

Last edited by Mijin; 10-21-2018 at 09:41 AM.
  #22  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:30 AM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 13,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
But the problem arises when you have those crackpots running the country. I don't think history will condemn specific deniers who are just cranks. But when the entire Republican Party platform is built around science denial in general, and AGW denial in particular, that will not be forgotten. Neither will the electorate who voted for them. I think history will look back on this and ask how our entire generation could have been so stupid as to put these fools in power.
Bolding mine.

The electorate that voted for the likes of Trump will continue to believe that they did every thing right, and wonder why someone didn't save them.

They voted for Trump. Think about that.

To point a finger at their support for this moron and administration, is pointing a finger at the mirror. They'll never denounce the decisions that they are making, or made in the past.

The entire republican platform is now based on blaming someone else while robbing the cookie jar.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #23  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:31 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post

I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a "nuclear-free" future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she's agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Yucca mountain is not nuclear power, and it was poorly thought out from the beginning, starting from the idea that the stuff that comes out of a nuclear reactor is waste, and not extremely valuable material.

I agree that Bernie is against nuclear power, and that was one of my biggest things that I held against him. Clinton was "agnostic" because she didn't want to upset the fringe left and Bernie followers in a very close election where she stood to lose far more votes by being for nuclear than being "agnostic."

Yes, the crazy environmental groups tend to be towards the left, as the right has no interest whatsoever on the environment, and many environmental groups are fueled more by FUDD than by science when it comes to nuclear.

As far as national liberal politicians for nuclear power, here's some links:

GOP, Democrats join forces to advance nuclear power bill

Quote:
But nuclear energy appears to be an issue where both parties can find some agreement. Democrats on the environment committee like nuclear energy because it produces no emissions and can help combat the effects of climate change.

"This legislation shows how we can work together, across the aisle, to address issues that are important for our country," said Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the committee. "When done responsibly, nuclear power can help combat the negative impacts of climate change on our environment and public health, while also providing economic opportunities for Americans."
The quick guide to America’s political parties stances on nuclear energy

Quote:
Democratic’s political stances on nuclear energy
Science Issues
Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

Democratic’s answer: Yes
At climate conference, Democrats shift tones on nuclear power

Quote:
"Anything that is a low-carbon solution has to be pursued, and anything that can get bipartisan support ought to be pursued," said Schatz. "That's not to say nuclear power is necessarily a solution in most instances, but there may be instances where it's the best solution."
"I think it can be part of a clean energy environment," Cardin said.
"I'm not saying we've solved any of the problems with fuel storage, but I think in terms of the big vision of saving our planet, it's worth exploring that strategy," Merkley said.
And to be fair, of course, Merkley also has some reservations:
Quote:
"If safety is not compromised, if economics are not compromised, if nuclear nonproliferation issues are not compromised, then I support nuclear power," Markey told me after the press conference in an interview. "If they have to be compromised in order to accomplish that goal, then no I don't. And thus far they have not been able to 30 years overcome those obstacles."
Now, what you are talking about is the far left, who are complaining about moderate democrats getting on board with nuclear. For instance:

'Til Death Do Us Part? Democrats are Still Pushing Nuclear Power and Weapons

Quote:
The most recent absurdity comes from three Ohio Congressional Dems—Tim Ryan (Youngstown), Marcy Kaptur (Toledo) and Marcia Fudge (Warrensville Heights). They can claim a radioactive soulmate in New York’s “liberal” Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Rather than embrace the renewable revolution now remaking the global energy supply and the millions of jobs key to the future of a working-class constituency, these Democrats are pursuing the GOP wet-dream of atomic energy.
As you can tell by the tone of that passage, Wasserman is not a big fan of nuclear, and is calling out the democrats who are. The article is full of poor science and outdated concerns.

Yes, the Green party is completely against nuclear, but I'm pretty sure that, in the end, they are dubious on the benefits of civilization itself. And, yes, the Green party does tend to align with the left, but that is because at least the left wants to do some level of protection of the environment, while the right seems to want to exploit it to maximize profits. I would not count them as part of the democratic party for the purpose of this discussion.

Now, the way I see it is that it was Nixon who caused the most damage to nuclear, when he canceled Oak Ridge's MSR project in favor of the Fast Breeder, not because of any science or technical reason, but for political reasons, and in 1983, the fast breeder was then cancelled by a republican majority senate.

These ideas about nuclear power are a generation or more old, and based on the the very real concerns that the public had about the state of the nuclear industry in the 70's. Carter was the last Democratic president who was strongly against nuclear, and in fact, new nuclear power plants broke ground for the first time in decades under Obama.

Quote:
Obama just gave a speech on clean energy after touring a clean jobs training facility in Lanham, MD. In the speech, he made the announcement that his administration has approved an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the US in three decades.
The problem is, is that we are using 60 year old technology that was designed for one purpose, to propel submarines, and that is not the best method of producing electricity for the grid. We have not developed the newer generations of reactors that should bring down the cost and risk substantially.

It tends to be costly.
Quote:
Costs for the two new nuclear reactors have nearly doubled to more than $27 billion. Partners and politicians are worried the costs will trickle down to rural customers’ electric bills, but the sunk costs of halting construction would also be expensive for consumers.
So, I ask again, with the republicans completely controlling the federal government, what is their plan for expanding our nuclear power generation capacity?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-21-2018 at 11:31 AM. Reason: formatting
  #24  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:43 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,263
I think they'll be seen as irrelevant. They largely exist in countries whose emissions have already peaked and the problem has largely passed Western governments by. If the EU and the US were to completely cut admissions to zero. We'd still be admitting worldwide at 2000 levels. The growth is largely in developing countries and you're never going to convince them to let their people starve just to avoid cheap coal. I assume at some point renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels and that will be what caps emissions, but until that happens, the position of first worlders is of secondary importance.
  #25  
Old 10-21-2018, 01:03 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
I think they'll be seen as irrelevant. They largely exist in countries whose emissions have already peaked and the problem has largely passed Western governments by. If the EU and the US were to completely cut admissions to zero. We'd still be admitting worldwide at 2000 levels. The growth is largely in developing countries and you're never going to convince them to let their people starve just to avoid cheap coal. I assume at some point renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels and that will be what caps emissions, but until that happens, the position of first worlders is of secondary importance.
But, the first worlders can assist the developing nations in rasingin their standard of living without ballooning their carbon footprint.

We are less wasteful now, due to technologies that we developed, which were helped by our wastefulness.

Rather than having all the developing nations go through all the stages we did, we can bootstrap them to a higher level. LED lighting, rather than incandescents or gas. electric vehicles, rather than ICE vehicles. If we step up our nuclear development, we can provide that technology, rather than relying on fossil fuels.
  #26  
Old 10-21-2018, 01:23 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,622
There is historical precedence for this. History will see the climate change denialists like the cigarette smoking denialists. There were experiments that pretty conclusively showed that cigarette smoking was dangerous in 1950. Not just a little dangerous, but "immediately causes substantial tumors in rats". It took about 40 years for anything really substantive to be done about it, and now, almost 70 years later, cigarettes are still legal. I understand that quitting this addictive drug is extremely difficult, but at a minimum, we could make illegal the manufacture and open sale of cigarettes themselves. Chewing tobacco has about half the death rate, we could probably make a gum that was full strength with about 1-10% of the death rate, the evidence says that vaping probably is about 5% or less as harmful, and so on.

People talking about how much they love their trucks and massive inefficient houses and low prices for gasoline remind me of this a little. (none of this would be affordable with a reasonable surcharge on carbon emissions)
  #27  
Old 10-21-2018, 02:09 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Carter was the last Democratic president who was strongly against nuclear …
That is not accurate. Carter was mostly in favor of nuclear power, but 3MI was a wrench in the works.

The biggest problem seemed to be the LMBRs. They tend to be much, much safer than BWRs or PWRs, with their hands-off passive safety design. I suspect people would become more confident having them down the road as long as they were well explained. But the LMBR program was canceled in the late '70s.

Why was it canceled? From what I can tell, we still had a robust Cold War at the time. Safe LMBRs are not good in a Cold War because they do not produce explody stuff. In other words, the nuclear power program is highly dependent on the MIC. Nuclear power is difficult and expensive, with negative RoI, so it cannot be done strictly by for-profit business. It is scary to people, and fossil industries have very good, fast profit, which they can funnel into reinforcing the fear.

Reality is that we are a pig in shit, fat, happy and a real pain in the ass to drag out of the shit. Our great-grandchildren will have it pretty hard comparatively, because we are taking the stuff they need and crapping in their salad bar. That we could cut back and act with due restraint for their sake seems a bit improbable at this point.
  #28  
Old 10-21-2018, 03:19 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
That is not accurate. Carter was mostly in favor of nuclear power, but 3MI was a wrench in the works.
Personally, sure, but policy wise, he did slow the development of nuclear power. But, agreed, he wasn't actively hostile to it. I was responding to Deeg's assertion that democrats are against nuclear power, and was giving him as much benefit of the doubt as I could on that one.
Quote:
The biggest problem seemed to be the LMBRs. They tend to be much, much safer than BWRs or PWRs, with their hands-off passive safety design. I suspect people would become more confident having them down the road as long as they were well explained. But the LMBR program was canceled in the late '70s.

Why was it canceled? From what I can tell, we still had a robust Cold War at the time. Safe LMBRs are not good in a Cold War because they do not produce explody stuff. In other words, the nuclear power program is highly dependent on the MIC. Nuclear power is difficult and expensive, with negative RoI, so it cannot be done strictly by for-profit business. It is scary to people, and fossil industries have very good, fast profit, which they can funnel into reinforcing the fear.

Reality is that we are a pig in shit, fat, happy and a real pain in the ass to drag out of the shit. Our great-grandchildren will have it pretty hard comparatively, because we are taking the stuff they need and crapping in their salad bar. That we could cut back and act with due restraint for their sake seems a bit improbable at this point.
We don't really have to cut back, we just need to be smarter. Cars get far better gas millage than they did in the 70's, and they are getting even better. We don't need to drive fewer miles if we can produce less CO2 per mile.

Development of nuclear is probably the only realistic way of accommodating our desire to consume more and more energy intensive goods and services, while not ruining our planet. Very few are going to listen to greenpeace and cut back on their carbon footprint voluntarily, not enough to do any good. But even fewer will care much if the energy that produces and powers their Iphone comes from solar, wind, nuclear, or coal.

There are some promising developments in the world of fusion that may make most of this irrelevant anyway. If someone develops a practical electricity producing fusion plant, then pretty much all our problems are solved. Short of that holy grail (which may be slightly more attainable than the actual holy grail), fission is really the best bet for our future.
  #29  
Old 10-21-2018, 03:36 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There are some promising developments in the world of fusion that may make most of this irrelevant anyway. If someone develops a practical electricity producing fusion plant, then pretty much all our problems are solved. Short of that holy grail (which may be slightly more attainable than the actual holy grail), fission is really the best bet for our future.
They are? In such a world, yes, electricity would be very cheap.

But the machinery costs to run an industrial plant that uses cheap energy to collect CO2 from the atmosphere and produce synthetic methane or methanol might end up being more expensive than the current method. Synthetic oil is pricey today, both the kind for your car engine and so is synthetic crude oil.

The cost difference might be small - $100 a barrel for pure synthetic oil vesus the $60 or so the natural stuff costs - but in a world where it's politically impossible to assess any kind of tax or fee for destroying the environment, it wouldn't matter.

(the way it would work, buying a barrel of synthetic oil gets a carbon credit, since it was made by extracting CO2 from the air, that exactly equals the carbon tax that would otherwise be assessed on it. While oil taken from the ground would be hit with the tax but not the credit)

As a side note, solar panels made with an automated production chain (where not just the panel production is automated, but the robots that gathered the materials are automated, and the robots that made the robots are also automated - all becoming rapidly more feasible with advances in machine learning) might end up producing electricity so cheap that you end up with almost the same benefits you would get with fusion.

Yes, there's no power at night, but you could store excess power in the day as methane or methanol.
  #30  
Old 10-21-2018, 03:45 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Yes, there's no power at night, but you could store excess power in the day as methane or methanol.
Or batteries.

https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla...-service-cost/
Quote:
Tesla’s giant Powerpack battery in Australia has been in operation for about 6 months now and we are just starting to discover the magnitude of its impact on the local energy market.

A new report now shows that it reduced the cost of the grid service that it performs by 90% and it has already taken a majority share of the market.

When an issue happens or maintenance is required on the power grid in Australia, the Energy Market Operator calls for FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services) which consists of large and costly gas generators and steam turbines kicking in to compensate for the loss of power.

Electricity rates can be seen reaching $14,000 per MW during those FCAS periods.

Tesla’s 100MW/129MWh Powerpack project in South Australia can provide the same service cheaper, quicker, and with zero-emissions, through its battery system.

It is so efficient that it reportedly should have made around $1 million in just a few days in January, but Tesla complained last month that they are not being paid correctly because the system doesn’t account for how fast Tesla’s Powerpacks start discharging their power into the grid.

The system is basically a victim of its own efficiency, which the Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed is much more rapid, accurate and valuable than a conventional steam turbine in a report published last month.

Now McKinsey and Co partner Godart van Gendt presented new data at the Australian Energy Week conference in Melbourne this week and claimed that Tesla’s battery has now taken over 55% of the FCAS services and reduced cost by 90%.
  #31  
Old 10-21-2018, 03:56 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
They are? In such a world, yes, electricity would be very cheap.

But the machinery costs to run an industrial plant that uses cheap energy to collect CO2 from the atmosphere and produce synthetic methane or methanol might end up being more expensive than the current method. Synthetic oil is pricey today, both the kind for your car engine and so is synthetic crude oil.

The cost difference might be small - $100 a barrel for pure synthetic oil vesus the $60 or so the natural stuff costs - but in a world where it's politically impossible to assess any kind of tax or fee for destroying the environment, it wouldn't matter.
I didn't say anything at all about synthetic fuels, but, since you brought it up...

You remember just 10 years ago when oil was well over $100 a barrel, peaking at $160? So, if you are saying $100 for synthetic, then that's a great deal.

Oil prices are very unstable, depending on political issues, wars, pipelines, transport. I watch gas prices fluctuate up to 3 a gallon, and back down to 2.35 a gallon on a weekly basis.

But, overall, it tends to trend up as a finite resource is used. As fossil fuels get more expensive, synthetic fuels will become more economical, until you get to the point where fossil fuels just don't make any sense to use.

In any case, liquid fuels would not be used as much as they are now, as electric cars should replace ICE cars in relatively short order. You still need liquid fuels for some applications, unless we develop a battery that has anywhere near the energy density of gasoline, which I kind of doubt will happen.
Quote:

(the way it would work, buying a barrel of synthetic oil gets a carbon credit, since it was made by extracting CO2 from the air, that exactly equals the carbon tax that would otherwise be assessed on it. While oil taken from the ground would be hit with the tax but not the credit)
A carbon tax may make development of such technology proceed more quickly, but I think that the natural rising cost of oil should make synthetic fuels economical all by itself.
Quote:
As a side note, solar panels made with an automated production chain (where not just the panel production is automated, but the robots that gathered the materials are automated, and the robots that made the robots are also automated - all becoming rapidly more feasible with advances in machine learning) might end up producing electricity so cheap that you end up with almost the same benefits you would get with fusion.
Until your automated robots start gathering materials from your house... I do hear that fresh organics are useful in many recipes...

You still need them cited on land somewhere, land that someone may want to use for something. You still need to mine the materials somewhere. You still are going to need at least some humans in the loop to perform maintenance and make sure that they are not evolving into killer robots.
Quote:
Yes, there's no power at night, but you could store excess power in the day as methane or methanol.
If it is cheap enough to do it that way, maybe, but you are not looking at very efficient use of your energy doing that.
  #32  
Old 10-21-2018, 04:01 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Quote:
Electricity rates can be seen reaching $14,000 per MW during those FCAS periods.
What does this mean here? Is it supposed to be per MWh? In which case, we are talking $14 per KWh, probably about 100 times what most people are used to paying.

Also, Tesla's pack can only produce full power, if fully charged, for a bit over an hour. Is that enough to get through the night?
  #33  
Old 10-21-2018, 04:18 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,233
The closest historical analogy I can think of is to those who refiused to believe that Hitler and the Naxis were a threat. Some didn't seem to mind Hitler - the America Firsters, for instance. That is like the oil companies and coal companies. Some were too dumb to see the threat. Those were like the cotton farmer in Georgia whose fields were wiped out by the hurricane but still says it is just weather, not climate change.
I guess the historical perspective is how could they be so evil/stupid? I think the same will be true for the deniers.
  #34  
Old 10-21-2018, 04:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What does this mean here? Is it supposed to be per MWh? In which case, we are talking $14 per KWh, probably about 100 times what most people are used to paying.

Also, Tesla's pack can only produce full power, if fully charged, for a bit over an hour. Is that enough to get through the night?
I noticed now that it was not much at night where that setup is for, right now that is to deal with changes in the flow; however, in the front of saving money and providing energy at night, the efforts are more modest, but they are showing that they are viable too and growing in importance.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-powe...alian-college/
Quote:
The Cathedral College in Rockhampton is the first school in Australia to use Tesla’s Powerpack system to spur 40 to 50 percent in energy savings for the institution, and the school expects a return on investment in just six years.

A video released by Tesla details the project, showing the school’s use of the Powerpack battery storage unit combined with a 100kW solar system to power the college’s boarding houses and other buildings throughout the night.

“The motivation for us with installing the Tesla Powerpack was to create an efficient way for us to harness the energy produced by the sun and use that at nighttime,” Aaron Nunn, ICT Manager for The Cathedral College, said.

According to the video, a single Powerpack is charged using solar energy throughout the day and is used to power an entire dormitory for roughly five hours at night.

“The Tesla Powerpack has definitely exceeded expectations,” Nunn said.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-21-2018 at 04:32 PM.
  #35  
Old 10-21-2018, 05:37 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
The closest historical analogy I can think of is to those who refiused to believe that Hitler and the Naxis were a threat. Some didn't seem to mind Hitler - the America Firsters, for instance. That is like the oil companies and coal companies. Some were too dumb to see the threat. Those were like the cotton farmer in Georgia whose fields were wiped out by the hurricane but still says it is just weather, not climate change.
I guess the historical perspective is how could they be so evil/stupid? I think the same will be true for the deniers.
That's a pretty good analogy that works on several levels. Many people didn't properly assess the threat because they weren't fully aware of all the evidence, and the nature of the threat was in many ways without precedent. There was therefore a tendency to regard those warning about it to be alarmists. In his book In the Garden of Beasts, Erik Larson recounts the experiences of William Dodd as US ambassador to Germany between 1933 and 1937 when the Nazis were consolidating their power and anti-Jewish sentiment was becoming extreme, and even then many American politicians were not only unaware of Hitler's true intentions, but were in some cases outright sympathetic to him. The magnitude of what was happening only dawned on Dodd gradually despite being right in the center of it. His own daughter was fascinated by the pomp and circumstance of the Nazi regime, and it was even rumored that she had an affair with Rudolf Diels, then head of the Gestapo. Like climate change, it was hard to see Nazism for what it was because its impacts were gradual, and we often don't see powerful gradual changes until they overwhelm us.
  #36  
Old 10-21-2018, 07:30 PM
Scylla Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,855
I find the question of the OP in need of definition. This is a complicated topic, and I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that there are bad arguments being made on both sides, both as to what exactly is the extant of manmade clinate change and what is a reasonable reaction to it?

1. C02 absorbs infrared. This is a scientific fact. All other things being equal adding C02 reduces sunlight reflected to space. This has a warming effect. This is another fact. Burning fossil fuels does this. Another fact.

Disagreeing with this makes one an idiot, yes?

2. Let’s look at this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffp...7b00326edc/amp

This actually says that long term debt and wildfires are consequences of global warming. This seems sketchier. Is one who disagrees with elements of this article a denier?

What if I disagree with the increasingly popular premise that the way to solve the problem is to end capitalism and find this to be a cheap communist tactic?

What if I think we will find a technological solution, or that mankind will adapt, or that change is a constant and global warming may make some things better or some things worse? What if I think that pavement and cities may be having an absorptive effect greater than C02 increases?

Not saying I believe any of these things or not, just curious how a denier is defined.
  #37  
Old 10-21-2018, 07:53 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I find the question of the OP in need of definition. This is a complicated topic
To simplify things:

There'd be widespread agreement that refusal to accept a large role for human interventions causing climate change (i.e. long-term rising global temperatures) despite excellent evidence for such, constitutes climate change denial.

Similarly, refusal to accept powerful evidence on behalf of other propositions that have overwhelming scientific consensus (evolution, HIV being the cause of AIDS, safety/usefulness of vaccines, fluoridated water, genetically modified crops etc.) makes one a denier. Bonus points for flogging the views of fringe figures lacking training and expertise on these subjects, and believing in widespread conspiracies to explain why one's viewpoint is failing to gain traction.

As for climate change in particular, one can certainly dispute the accuracy of long-term projections and argue against policies proposed to deal with climate change, for which the term "denier" would not be accurate.
  #38  
Old 10-21-2018, 08:29 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I find the question of the OP in need of definition. This is a complicated topic, and I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that there are bad arguments being made on both sides, both as to what exactly is the extant of manmade clinate change and what is a reasonable reaction to it?

...

What if I disagree with the increasingly popular premise that the way to solve the problem is to end capitalism and find this to be a cheap communist tactic?

What if I think we will find a technological solution, or that mankind will adapt, or that change is a constant and global warming may make some things better or some things worse? What if I think that pavement and cities may be having an absorptive effect greater than C02 increases?

Not saying I believe any of these things or not, just curious how a denier is defined.
The position of what are called "climate change deniers" is actually much less nuanced and much more insidious than you imply. It doesn't even matter if they've crossed the threshold of admitting that the climate is noticeably changing in the modern era; the essence of their argument is that we don't know enough and with enough certainty to justify serious efforts at mitigation. This belief is manifestly false, and these people are therefore dangerous obstructionists to vitally necessary mitigation efforts. The comprehensive IPCC assessments lay out all the scientific data and address the risks and mitigation and adaptation policies. These folks believe they're exaggerated or entirely wrong and are politically motivated. There is no subtlety here. To cite one recent example, Trump recently announced that he agreed that the climate has changed, but that it will change back again. So, nothing to worry about. These people are dangerous nuts, and one of them is running the executive branch of the federal government. Many others are in Congress.

Regarding your specific hypotheticals that I quoted, no one but a nut of a different kind would suggest that we need to "end capitalism" and I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that. On the "technological solution", if you believe something other than mitigation -- like geoengineering -- will magically solve all our climate problems, you have a belief that is shared by few serious scientists and is essentially fantasy.

If you believe we will simply adapt, you are again indulging in a fantasy that is not scientifically supportable. Yes, adaptation is an important part of the way forward, but only in concert with serious mitigation efforts, because many of the damages of a rapidly changed climate, like severe weather and storm surges and potentially devastating impacts on crop yields in the world's most vulnerable areas, and the effects on marine life of an acidifying and warming ocean, are simply not amenable to adaptation. Indeed the adaptation potential of the world's entire ecosystem is severely limited compared to the pace of climate change, so that the entire ecosystem and the diversity of life on earth is threatened.

If you believe that climate change will simply make some things better and some things worse, you need to be apprised of the scientific consensus on impacts, because they are overwhelmingly negative and often severe, and even most of the positive ones -- like improved yields of some cereal crops in some northerly latitudes -- are expected to be temporary and will be more than offset anyway by devastating impacts to food crops in poorer, more southerly countries.

And finally, your last hypothetical is simply flat-out wrong. The effects of urban pavement, roofs, and other albedo effects are highly localized and so minor that they're not even counted in itemizing major climate forcings. In fact, the total impact of all land use changes due to human activity is actually a small negative forcing, not a positive one, and the biggest component is due to the increased albedo of snow-covered agricultural areas compared with forests. But the impact is still small enough that the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is overwhelmingly dominant.
  #39  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:24 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
2. Let’s look at this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffp...7b00326edc/amp

This actually says that long term debt and wildfires are consequences of global warming. This seems sketchier. Is one who disagrees with elements of this article a denier?

What if I disagree with the increasingly popular premise that the way to solve the problem is to end capitalism and find this to be a cheap communist tactic?
You should understand our cite a bit better.
Quote:
Signs of a world in turmoil are not hard to find. People are increasingly feeling the effects of rapid climate change. Cities boil in more than 120-degree heat, California burns and the Arctic thaws. Meanwhile, biodiversity loss is reaching terrifying levels, with animals going extinct at about 1,000 times the natural rate. In addition, as societies, we’re facing increased inequality, unemployment and soaring personal debt levels.
In other words debt is happening along with climate change, but nowhere does it say long term debt is caused by climate change.
As for wildfires, in my town the police get called when people smell smike from fires 60 miles away. Climate change is indeed contributing to more and worse fires over more of the year.
I also didn't see where that article involved anyone asking for communism. Unless you think carbon taxes and credits are communism. But please give us a model where a pure capitalist system would do anything about climate change. It sure didn't do much about pollution until the government stepped in.
  #40  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:14 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,044
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem. Plus, according to 2525 morals, segregation was shown to be absolutely the way to go.

Couldn't people in Virginia in 1927 look at people in 1867 and say that their ideals about equality for the black race were wrong and our new enlightened sterilization and segregation laws have shown that society is better now?

I'm sort of joking about the last two, but it illustrates my point. Nobody in 1518 could predict how we would think in 2018 and we cannot either. What frame of history are we talking about?
  #41  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:18 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
"Deniers" are not legitimately denying anything. They are simply lying, intentionally and maliciously. They don't believe their own bullshit.

Last edited by DavidwithanR; 10-21-2018 at 11:20 PM.
  #42  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:46 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem.
And I get annoyed by people who have zero understanding of the science but make ridiculous nonsensical proclamations anyway, like "we don't understand enough" or Trump's "climate change is a Chinese hoax", James Inhofe's "only God can change the climate", or Trump's more recent "the climate will change back again".

Or hypothesizing fantastical imaginary inventions that will fix everything all up. We can't predict what we may or may not invent in the future, but we can say that the 37 billion tons of CO2 the world emits every year is no small matter and is not going to be fixed by someone's backyard invention, not to mention the accumulated billions of tons already in the air for the long term.

The radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is not a "value" that we "project", it's an established scientific fact. The destruction wrought by severe weather, floods, and droughts and the large-scale decimation of food crops aren't "values" either; those are very bad things in any culture. We need to be guided by scientific facts and plausible scenarios, not by scientific illiterates who don't know the facts and partisan lunatics who lie about them.

Last edited by wolfpup; 10-21-2018 at 11:47 PM.
  #43  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:56 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
And I get annoyed by people who have zero understanding of the science but make ridiculous nonsensical proclamations anyway, like "we don't understand enough" or Trump's "climate change is a Chinese hoax", James Inhofe's "only God can change the climate", or Trump's more recent "the climate will change back again".

Or hypothesizing fantastical imaginary inventions that will fix everything all up. We can't predict what we may or may not invent in the future, but we can say that the 37 billion tons of CO2 the world emits every year is no small matter and is not going to be fixed by someone's backyard invention, not to mention the accumulated billions of tons already in the air for the long term.

The radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is not a "value" that we "project", it's an established scientific fact. The destruction wrought by severe weather, floods, and droughts and the large-scale decimation of food crops aren't "values" either; those are very bad things in any culture. We need to be guided by scientific facts and plausible scenarios, not by scientific illiterates who don't know the facts and partisan lunatics who lie about them.
This is not the Let's Debate Climate Change thread. That thread is down the hall, second door on the right. It is the How will history see thread.
  #44  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:00 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem.
History has shown that that will not solved by the ones denying that there is a problem.

Also: many of the ones telling us not to do anything are not willing to pay a dime for solutions like that, and on top of everything they disparage now the very same scientists that would be working on that solution in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Plus, according to 2525 morals, segregation was shown to be absolutely the way to go.
But enough about reminding posters that many of the climate change deniers are also creationists that also dislike people with different skin tones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Couldn't people in Virginia in 1927 look at people in 1867 and say that their ideals about equality for the black race were wrong and our new enlightened sterilization and segregation laws have shown that society is better now?

I'm sort of joking about the last two, but it illustrates my point. Nobody in 1518 could predict how we would think in 2018 and we cannot either. What frame of history are we talking about?
How about now? When we already do know enough that we should do more efforts to prevent worse scenarios?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE
Quote:
It's true that Earth's a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works.
-From Republican scientist Richard Alley.

BTW, I did teach history on a past temp position and my background is in social studies and technology, knowing that we have items that are more likely to take place, such as the raising of the oceans, it follows that there will be displacements of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of peoples thanks to that ocean rise. Such displacements in the past (not due to climate but warfare) were not happy occasions nor they were cheap.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017...-refugees-2100
  #45  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:15 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This is not the Let's Debate Climate Change thread. That thread is down the hall, second door on the right. It is the How will history see thread.
I'm addressing the history aspect. "Facts" are not "values" and this distinction means that history will see denialists as dangerous obstructionists who delayed vital and time-critical progress in mitigating the world's most serious problem.
  #46  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:24 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This is not the Let's Debate Climate Change thread. That thread is down the hall, second door on the right. It is the How will history see thread.
Turns out that if that is the case, then I'm just under the position of principal of the school.

Looking at history, what is bound to happen is to see the corporations that funded denial to cut their support to yahoos like Soon and other misleaders. Those corporations then will use the government to insulate themselves from liability in exchange of supporting efforts to control emissions, while they will continue to extract oil and coal...

What? Did you think that was going to stop? For the tobacco producers, a lot of that nicotine they also make is going now into vaping, for the fossil material producers of the future a lot of what they are doing now is really wasteful indeed. It is just that in the future many will really wonder what they were smoking in the past when they thought that it was a good idea to burn and dump a lot of that carbon into the atmosphere instead of using all that carbon for the coming nano tube and diamond age.
  #47  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:28 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.
Given that you're a republican/conservative, this does not surprise me at all. History has been exceedingly unkind to conservatives recently.

Quote:
We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem.
"Best case scenario, some futuristic technology we currently are expending next to no effort in developing might save us from this very difficult problem, thus rendering our concerns meaningless"? Good news, guess I can keep eating double cheeseburgers every day for lunch, because probably we'll come up with some solution to obesity before my heart gives out.

Quote:
I'm sort of joking about the last two, but it illustrates my point. Nobody in 1518 could predict how we would think in 2018 and we cannot either. What frame of history are we talking about?
Well, given the current evidence, within my lifetime, we're facing incredibly widespread destruction. Within my lifetime, we will be facing extreme consequences from the lying denialists currently in congress and the white house. Not their lifetimes, sadly, but my life time, almost certainly (assuming I lay off the double cheeseburgers). Moral change quickly. They don't change that quickly when it comes to things like "causing incredible death and destruction by denying and obfuscating clear scientific evidence".
  #48  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:21 AM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we're out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it's too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.

And, obviously, that's just not happening....
(post shortened)

The IPCC began it's campaign in 1988.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil side doesn't seem to be able to do is CONVINCE enough voters that their story is believable. Back when clean air, and clean water, were major issues, advocates were able to actually CONVINCE people to support their cause. FYI - If you can't CONVINCE sufficient numbers of people to support your cause du jour, you need to figure out what you are doing wrong?
  #49  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:32 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,952
Since innovation and capitalism have caused climate related deaths to plunge to record lows never seen in the history of mankind, I doubt that the climate changing will have much of an impact on history. That said, the period of capitalist prosperity has not been covered honestly by pop-history so maybe there should be no assumption of integrity.
  #50  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:45 AM
namahoo namahoo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3
The "Cecil Adams" of 2006 went with it don't matter, it's all economic growth to me, let's wait till there's no more fossil fuel to burn.

Fighting ignorance and not rocking the boat since 1973.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017