# Climate change denialism is not a winning position **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939 "2014-06-03T17:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/21 "2014-06-06T20:57:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reason why this subject fascinates me is that it touches many aspects of society, one of them is the media. > > This issue also shows how the idea that the media is mostly liberal is poppycock. And then there is another item: the media is also lazy. You are describing indeed one part of the problem; but as I pointed out, once businesses notice how this will affect their bottom line then the corporate media will pay the attention this deserves; and there is indeed nothing worse than businesses finding out that they were had by the current crop of Republicans. We’ll have to disagree. Businesses are noticing how the issue(not necessarily the reality) of climate change is affecting their bottom line. Thousands of busineses each year are taking advantage of tax breaks for green energy. Thousands are on that particular gravy train. Recieving millions if not billions in state subsidies. All these businesses are already a powerful vested interest lobby group. I also doubt actual real climate change will affect busineses to any great degree(you can probably tell im wary of the catastrophic climate change argument). When China is increasing co2 emmissions by staggering amounts each year there is little the US Government can do. I do forsee increasing amounts spent by the US on green technology. However, I think this will always be a self limiting amount of money. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/22 "2014-06-06T20:59:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d say the top issues right now favor Republicans. > > 1. the economy > 2. federal spending and the deficit > 3. Unemployment. [Today’s headlines:](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2014/06/06/stocks-friday/10061039/) > [@](#): > > Stocks posted healthy gains Friday – the Dow and S&P 500 powering past all-time closing highs – on the back of a stronger-than-expected May employment report, with 217,000 jobs created. > … > Before the market open, the Labor Department said the unemployment rate held steady last month at 6.3%, but the labor market reached a milestone with the recovery of all 8.7 million jobs lost in the recession. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/23 "2014-06-06T21:28:57Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > \I do forsee increasing amounts spent by the US on green technology. However, I think this will always be a self limiting amount of money. Why self-limiting? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/24 "2014-06-06T22:21:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why self-limiting? I think there will always be a vocal group/electorate in the US pointing out that America and the West cannot fight co2 emmissions on its own. That China and India are vastly increasing co2 levels yearly, and they will continue to do so for some time. I believe the US will not vastly increase its spending on green energy while this imbalance continues. In a competative world economy the US will not overly burden itself much more than it already does. I was wrong to say the amount will **always** be self limiting. But it will be self limiting until green energy does become a true economic alternative to fossil fuels. For the forseeable future it will not. If it ever does become a self sustaining alternative then spending on green energy _will_ rise. At the moment it is a sector which is reliant on State aid. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/25 "2014-06-06T23:29:39Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > We’ll have to disagree. Businesses are noticing how the issue(not necessarily the reality) of climate change is affecting their bottom line. Thousands of busineses each year are taking advantage of tax breaks for green energy. Thousands are on that particular gravy train. Recieving millions if not billions in state subsidies. All these businesses are already a powerful vested interest lobby group. Not really as seen by the stupid things the Republicans leaders said recently. > **[The weird, wild world of the House Science Committee](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-weird-wild-world-the-house-msna341446)** > > House Republicans seem to go out of their way to identify the most anti-science members and then reward them with a spot on the House Science Committee. > [@](#): > > There are a couple of problems with this. The first is probably obvious: if Republicans are prepared to move away from climate denialism, they have a responsibility – morally and politically – to come up with some kind of proposed solutions to address the global warming crisis. Resisting the urge to “challenge the existence of climate change” is nice, but let’s not set the bar for praise too low. > > The second is that Republicans really haven’t abandoned climate denialism. One need look no further than the mind-numbing antics of the House Science Committee’s GOP members. > > ``` > Last Thursday the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing to examine the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process. > > In his opening remarks, committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith said the IPCC report and Obama administration’s third National Climate Assessment are “designed to spread fear and alarm and provide cover for previously determined government policies.” > > ``` > > The Republican chair of the House Science Committee added, “The president and others often claim that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is primarily driven by human activity. However, the study they cite has been debunked.” > > Smith added, “We should focus on good science, rather than politically correct science.” > > Oh my. > > It’s important to note that the 97% figure comes from “a peer-reviewed study which found that 97.1 percent of scientific papers taking a position on anthropogenic climate change ‘endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.’” > > It has not been “debunked.” > > It’s also worth remembering that House Republicans seem to go out of their way to identify the most anti-science members of their conference, and then reward them with a spot on the House Science Committee. Smith, clearly, is an odd choice to hold the chairman’s gavel, but let’s not forget that this same committee is home to Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), perhaps best known for arguing that cosmology, biology, and geology are, quite literally, “lies straight from the pit of Hell.” > > Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) not long ago said in reference to global warming, “I’m really more fearful of freezing. And I don’t have any science to prove that.” His party put him on the House Science Committee. > > Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) once drafted a resolution for Americans to “join together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions” after a series of destructive tornadoes and droughts. His party put him on the House Science Committee, too. > > Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) once suggested “dinosaur flatulence” may have caused climate change 55 million years ago. His party put him on the House Science Committee, too. [Since most of the people agree with the latest EPA limits](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/public-endorses-limits-carbon-pollution) one has to say that it is the fossil fuel and right wing think thanks the ones putting those words in their mouths BTW. > [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > I also doubt actual real climate change will affect busineses to any great degree(you can probably tell im wary of the catastrophic climate change argument). When China is increasing co2 emmissions by staggering amounts each year there is little the US Government can do. I do forsee increasing amounts spent by the US on green technology. However, I think this will always be a self limiting amount of money. We are now discussing the difference between a few feet in the increase of the oceans level vs the complete loss of coastal cities in the long run. You bet business will be affected. And that difference is made in big part by the ones that are telling us that we should do nothing. In reality the first thing we need to do is not to vote Republican until they get the idea of not rejecting science. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/20/these-20-cities-have-the-most-to-lose-from-rising-sea-levels/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/20/these-20-cities-have-the-most-to-lose-from-rising-sea-levels/) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/26 "2014-06-06T23:38:21Z")
I didn’t read the whole article, but the snippet in the OP is rather comical. It’s easy for someone to say they wouldn’t vote for a candidate for “x” reason, but you don’t vote for candidates in a vacuum. It’s always going to be a choice between two people, and it’s easy to overlook the “I wouldn’t vote for x” if the other guy looks worse. I’m sure many people voted for Romney in the last election who would have said they couldn’t see themselves voting for a Mormon if asked that question in a poll. Besides, the true “deniers” are few and far between. What you hear today is “sure, humans may be contributing to climate change, but it’s not as bad as the Chicken Littles are saying, and it’s not worth crashing the economy over”. I’d be very surprised if climate change played a big role in the next election. Further down the road maybe, but short-term, no. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/27 "2014-06-06T23:39:38Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > I think there will always be a vocal group/electorate in the US pointing out that America and the West cannot fight co2 emmissions on its own. That China and India are vastly increasing co2 levels yearly, and they will continue to do so for some time. I believe the US will not vastly increase its spending on green energy while this imbalance continues. In a competative world economy the US will not overly burden itself much more than it already does. I expect the end of the Communist Party in China if they do not work harder on controlling their emissions, in any case as we are one of the biggest consumers we have a lot of power and influence once we begin to change on a larger scale. > [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > I was wrong to say the amount will **always** be self limiting. But it will be self limiting until green energy does become a true economic alternative to fossil fuels. For the forseeable future it will not. If it ever does become a self sustaining alternative then spending on green energy _will_ rise. At the moment it is a sector which is reliant on State aid. They are already competitive once the cost of us using the atmosphere as a sewer is added. And as we see now there are a lot of moves from energy companies to stop people from putting solar panels in their homes because they are finding that it makes economical sense. Even conservative media is noting this, and how silly it is to support the big energy companies on this issue: [http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/11/04/solar-industry-takes-on-crony-capitalism-in-arizona-n1735569/page/full](http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/11/04/solar-industry-takes-on-crony-capitalism-in-arizona-n1735569/page/full) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/28 "2014-06-06T23:46:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Besides, the true “deniers” are few and far between. Unfortunately they are being elected, and thanks to powerful interests and think tanks. > **[Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/climate-of-doubt/transcript/?)** > > FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change. > [@](#): > > Sen. JOHN KERRY (D), Massachusetts: Well, American politics is being completely defined by huge sums of money. We had really a very broad coalition of people who believed that we ought to move forward and do something. But as the campaign and the fear built up, people began to retreat. > > They spent huge sums of money in a campaign of major disinformation that had an impact, had a profound impact. And it has now made many people in public life very gunshy because they’re afraid of having those amounts of money spent against them. > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [voice-over] This is what they fear, what happened in 2010 to six-term South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican who once thought he was a safe incumbent in his solidly red state. > > BOB INGLIS (R), Fmr. Congressman, South Carolina: You know, I’m pretty conservative fellow. I got a 93 American Conservative Union rating, 100 percent Christian Coalition, 100 percent National Right to Life, A with the NRA, zero with the ADA, Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal group, and 23 by some mistake with the AFL-CIO. I demand a recount. I wanted a zero. > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: But Inglis does accept the scientific consensus on global warming and favors legislation to curb the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. He faced a tea party rebellion in his primary. > > BOB INGLIS: I had a big tent gathering in Spartanberg County, a bunch of Republicans underneath a great big tent. Comes a question to me, “Yes or no, do you believe in human causation on climate change?” Well, I had a bad habit of answering questions, so I said yes. Boo, hiss, comes the crowd. I was blasted out from underneath the tent. And so— I mean, there were a couple of hundred, 300 people there. I mean, it was intense. > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: He was pounded in commercials and on talk radio. > > BOB INGLIS: It became an oft-repeated theme on talk radio, and that is a major source of information, of course, for Republican primary voters. They were hearing, “Inglis has left the reservation. He’s over there somewhere with Al Gore.” > > So how are things around here? > > STORE OWNER: Slow. The economy’s way off and— > > BOB INGLIS: When you get the financial collapse going, that’s what made it possible for some well-spent money to blow doubt into the science because, you know, the bankers failed us, the federal government is failing us, it’s spending too much money, and these scientists who are funded by that federal government, they’re probably in it, too. And besides, they’re godless liberals. > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: Inglis was defeated. > > MYRON EBELL, Competitive Enterprise Institute: Bob Inglis was defeated in a Republican primary 79 to 21 percent. Now, how many times has an incumbent who isn’t in prison or facing a prison sentence lost his own primary by 79 to 21 percent? This was overwhelming. But what’s happened is— > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: [on camera] The smile on your face suggests, “Man, we won one.” > > MYRON EBELL: Of course we won one! > > Rep. BOB INGLIS: We’re on the record. And our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren are going to read— > > JOHN HOCKENBERRY: This climate hearing in the lame duck Congress was Inglis’s last. > > Rep. BOB INGLIS: Your child is sick, 98 doctors say treat him this way, two say, “No, this other is the way to go.” I’ll go with the two. You’re taking a big risk with those kids. > > Rep. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: **That was a very key factor in 10 to 15 congressional districts in the 2010 election, where strong supporters of climate change legislation ended up being defeated.** ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/29 "2014-06-09T12:10:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I expect the end of the Communist Party in China if they do not work harder on controlling their emissions, in any case as we are one of the biggest consumers we have a lot of power and influence once we begin to change on a larger scale. > They are already competitive once the cost of us using the atmosphere as a sewer is added. And as we see now there are a lot of moves from energy companies to stop people from putting solar panels in their homes because they are finding that it makes economical sense. > > Even conservative media is noting this, and how silly it is to support the big energy companies on this issue: > > [http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/11/04/solar-industry-takes-on-crony-capitalism-in-arizona-n1735569/page/full](http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/11/04/solar-industry-takes-on-crony-capitalism-in-arizona-n1735569/page/full) I dont believe solar is yet anywhere near making economic sense apart from in places such as Arizona. Arizona is well placed to take advantage of progress in solar development. Most locations are not. That’s why it is silly imo to push solar in so many geographic areas. Green energy policy in Vermont ought to be entirely different to green energy policy in Arizona or New Mexico. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/30 "2014-06-09T17:29:57Z")
Which is precisely why places like Vermont should be implementing pro-solar policies. Yes, solar doesn’t make sense now in those places, but it will, once the technology improves enough. And how do you think the technology improves? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/31 "2014-06-09T17:53:37Z")
German implementation has been the result of a national policy, the _Energiewende_, that provides subsidies and guaranteed feed-in tariffs for renewable resources. The FIT’s expire in 20 years, enough time for the technology to mature economically while the environmental benefits occur. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/32 "2014-06-09T18:30:20Z")
That’s a heck of an assumption. You can’t just assume that a technology will become viable, and a subsidized technology shielded from competitive pressures is even less likely to ever become viable. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/33 "2014-06-09T18:32:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You can’t just assume that a technology will become viable You’re not getting it. The technology has become necessary. Viability is a secondary consideration, believe it or not. > [@](#): > > and a subsidized technology shielded from competitive pressures is even less likely to ever become viable. Quick question: What technology did you use to post that? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/34 "2014-06-09T18:42:15Z")
Just so long as you realize that solar may never exist free of taxpayer support. And that you might even have to make people use it eventually. BTW, how much as Germany reduced its emissions? And when are the rolling blackouts scheduled to start? And here’s the other problem. Germany isn’t replacing fossil fuels. They are replacing an already clean energy, nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/35 "2014-06-09T18:44:22Z")
It’s the 21st century already. We’re not going back. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/36 "2014-06-09T18:50:19Z")
So you’re walking across a bridge that isn’t finished yet and you’ll just walk right over the edge whether it’s finished or not by the time you get there. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/37 "2014-06-09T19:06:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Which is precisely why places like Vermont should be implementing pro-solar policies. Yes, solar doesn’t make sense now in those places, but it will, once the technology improves enough. And how do you think the technology improves? Well it doesn’t improve efficiently by installing 2014 solar technology in Vermont when that technology will be out of date soon. If some really efficient solar/storage technology comes along then thats when it needs implemented in Vermont. How efficient is it to replace 10’s of thousands of solar panels in Vermont when the next era of solar comes along. The 2014 era solar technology is simply not good enough for such environments. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/38 "2014-06-09T19:09:54Z")
The longer you drag your feet, the worse the problem gets, 'kay? And the less you work on the technology, including its manufacturing costs, the slower the costs come down, 'kay? And if others are working on it but you aren’t, they’ll control the market and you’ll have to pay what they tell you, 'kay? So it’s time to stop the footdragging. **adaher** , you’re leaving out the part about the raging fire catching up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/39 "2014-06-09T19:17:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s the 21st century already. We’re not going back. Deal with it. Sorry, I disagree. If another form of cost efficient/cleanish energy comes along we will jump on it. It all depends on the technological improvements to be made in the future. Where these technological improvements in energy will be made no-one knows. Its as likely to be in something we find unimagineable today as it is in solar. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/40 "2014-06-09T19:18:09Z")
Interesting that you mentioned others working on it. What is the goal here? Is it to combat climate change, or to create jobs? If the goal is to combat climate change, then having the Chinese do all the research is win-win. We get the technology and the taxpayers don’t pay for it. And if it doesn’t end up working out, they wasted their money, not us. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=3)