# 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:** 3
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/41 "2014-06-09T19:25:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What is the goal here? Is it to combat climate change, or to create jobs? Yes. They’re not mutually exclusive, in fact they’re synergistic. > [@](#): > > 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. It ain’t workin’ out that way, is it? Tell us about the Chinese price-dumping that killed Solyndra, and how you cheered for it. :rolleyes: “We get the technology” if we pay what they tell us to pay, is that what you mean? And what do we use for money, if we’re not earning it by making the stuff ourselves? Well, we can buy from the Germans, too. Maybe they’ll get into a price war with China, but that’s not a good bet. **Fuzzy** , where you do you think this new technology is going to appear from, if nobody develops it? The Renewable Tree out back? Come on now. Is it that you don’t think it has to happen, and if so, then yes, you do need to get on the train? ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/42 "2014-06-09T19:34:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes. They’re not mutually exclusive, in fact they’re synergistic. They can be, but there are times when the goal conflict, such as when you slap tariffs on Chinese solar panels that would otherwise be bought and used in the US, thus reducing emissions. This is why politics is a poor way to handle energy policy. There is no way to properly set priorities. Whatever the political need is at the moment, that becomes the short term priority. > [@](#): > > **Fuzzy** , where you do you think this new technology is going to appear from, if nobody develops it? The Renewable Tree out back? Come on now. Is it that you don’t think it has to happen, and if so, then yes, you do need to get on the train? The government is the only entity working on energy advancements, or at least paying for them? Perhaps you missed out on the natural gas revolution, which has been driven mostly by the private sector, or 3D printing, which will reduce the need for shipping and trucking? Oh wait, we can’t have that, that’ll cost politically important jobs. We can only allow advances that will be shipped by the Teamsters. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/43 "2014-06-09T19:42:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes. They’re not mutually exclusive, in fact they’re synergistic. > > It ain’t workin’ out that way, is it? Tell us about the Chinese price-dumping that killed Solyndra, and how you cheered for it. :rolleyes: “We get the technology” if we pay what they tell us to pay, is that what you mean? And what do we use for money, if we’re not earning it by making the stuff ourselves? > > Well, we can buy from the Germans, too. Maybe they’ll get into a price war with China, but that’s not a good bet. > > **Fuzzy** ,\*\* where you do you think this new technology is going to appear from, if nobody develops it? The Renewable Tree out back? Come on now. Is it that you don’t think it has to happen, and if so, then yes, you do need to get on the train\*\*? Im not sure what you are getting at. Mankind for the past 250 years has proven unelievably good at making technological breakthroughs. Mostly without subsidies in place. If the technology works then people will invent it. Human ingenuity has proven to work; government approved subsidies into unproven science is more problematic. The science should come first _not_ the approval of government into certain technologies only. When I say “approval” I mean barrell loads of State subsidies. I’d be all for greater tax breaks for R&D in energy. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/44 "2014-06-09T19:44:10Z")
It’s especially problematic when these companies are donating money to the campaigns of candidates and getting subsidies in return. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/45 "2014-06-09T19:46:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is why politics is a poor way to handle energy policy. There is no way to properly set priorities. The free market approach gives you the Kochs, so I’ll take politics. > [@](#): > > The government is the only entity working on energy advancements, or at least paying for them? Nobody said that. Please think before you post. On the Internet. ---
**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 9, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/46 "2014-06-09T19:48:45Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Im not sure what you are getting at. Mankind for the past 250 years has proven unelievably good at making technological breakthroughs. Mostly without subsidies in place. If the technology works then people will invent it. Human ingenuity has proven to work; government approved subsidies into unproven science is more problematic. The science should come first _not_ the approval of government into certain technologies only. When I say “approval” I mean barrell loads of State subsidies. > I’d be all for greater tax breaks for R&D in energy. Indeed the science is here already. It has advice us that if we do not control our emissions we will indeed lose our coastal cities in the long run. In the short run we will get them more prone to damage from hurricanes and storms. Now, to deal with the issue most experts already see that how to control emissions will change from country to country and region to region. The basic error here is to only look at the subsidies from an incomplete view of the real costs we are actually dealing with. ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/47 "2014-06-09T19:51:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > if we do not control our emissions we will indeed lose our coastal cities in the long run. They’re full of Democrats. Let 'em learn to swim. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/48 "2014-06-09T19:53:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The free market approach gives you the Kochs, so I’ll take politics. > > . Actually, the free market is delivering natural gas, which is reducing emissions substantially. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t like natural gas. Not enough opportunity for graft. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/49 "2014-06-09T19:54:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The free market approach gives you the Kochs, so I’ll take politics. > > Nobody said that. Please think before you post. On the Internet. No offence, but barely a few minutes ago you posted your approval of green energy and its subsidies by saying “It’s the 21st century already. We’re not going back.Deal with it” In what way does this statement have anything to do with global warming or attainable technology? Did it take this debate on at all? ---
**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, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/50 "2014-06-09T19:58:03Z")
It means we need to get on with the job. You advocate footdragging instead. **adaher** , you next need to learn where greenhouse gases come from. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/51 "2014-06-10T02:09:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Indeed the science is here already. It has advice us that if we do not control our emissions we will indeed lose our coastal cities in the long run. But, that “long run” is at least two centuries, right? ---
**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 10, 2014, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/52 "2014-06-10T02:29:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, that “long run” is at least two centuries, right? Yes, if there is no acceleration, one of the most frustrating things I have seen is that the IPCC was very conservative with their estimates, but then again, it was clear that since there was no good evidence in the 2007 or even the more recent one of that suspected acceleration the report just punted and we go for the most likely estimate of about a meter of a rise of the oceans by the end of the century. That is not small potatoes, that still means a lot of money now going to expensive protection of our coastal cities. (Guess what party does not even want to fund or deal with that expense as they do not think this is a problem?) But what about that suspected acceleration? I really hoped it was not going to be as bad as some suspected, but the latest evidence shows that a mess of deniers and even sceptic scientists got it rudely wrong. [http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/06/new-video-reports-on-unstoppable-antarctic-glacial-melting/](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/06/new-video-reports-on-unstoppable-antarctic-glacial-melting/) > [@](#): > > he early May research headed by lead author Eric Rignot of NASA called attention to melting now under way in Antarctica that CBS News anchor Scott Pelley reported “cannot be stopped.” > > “Scientists say the situation is almost certainly unstoppable,” NBC News Anchor Brian Mitchell reported. > > Rignot cautioned that the research indicates “we’ve passed the point of no return … It’s just a matter of time before these glaciers disappear to the sea.” While he indicated that the full melt, at the current pace, might not occur for two centuries, he pointed too to evidence suggesting the likelihood of an accelerating pace. > > “There’s probably nothing that can be done to stop this,” Rignot said. > > “This is really happening,” lead NASA lead polar ice researcher Tom Wagner said. “This weak underbelly of Antarctica is in fact starting to float out into the sea, and there’s not a lot to hold it back.” > > (from the video) The last time that ice sheets disintegrated was 14000 years ago, sea levels went up 20 meters in 400 years, so that is one meter every 20 years. I will have to look around but I saw another researcher made the point that if we do not do a concerted effort soon we will most likely find before the end of the century that in less time than the average mortgage a person will find that his home is worthless before he/she finishes paying for it if they live next or close to the coast. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/53 "2014-06-10T13:20:56Z")
And in all the years since we’ve been told this, which country has done the best and how much have they reduced their carbon footprint? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/54 "2014-06-10T14:45:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I will have to look around but I saw another researcher made the point that if we do not do a concerted effort soon we will most likely find before the end of the century that in less time than the average mortgage a person will find that his home is worthless before he/she finishes paying for it if they live next or close to the coast. :mad: I know who’s behind all this global warming! [Lex Luthor!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(1978_film)) ---
**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 10, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/55 "2014-06-10T16:10:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, if there is no acceleration, one of the most frustrating things I have seen is that the IPCC was very conservative with their estimates, but then again, it was clear that since there was no good evidence in the 2007 or even the more recent one of that suspected acceleration the report just punted and we go for the most likely estimate of about a meter of a rise of the oceans by the end of the century. > > That is not small potatoes, that still means a lot of money now going to expensive protection of our coastal cities. (Guess what party does not even want to fund or deal with that expense as they do not think this is a problem?) But what about that suspected acceleration? I really hoped it was not going to be as bad as some suspected, but the latest evidence shows that a mess of deniers and even sceptic scientists got it rudely wrong. > > [Yep! Flora's Media and Forum - Nature Blog](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/06/new-video-reports-on-unstoppable-antarctic-glacial-melting/) > I will have to look around but I saw another researcher made the point that if we do not do a concerted effort soon we will most likely find before the end of the century that in less time than the average mortgage a person will find that his home is worthless before he/she finishes paying for it if they live next or close to the coast. A serious question; should that concerted effort also inculde greater reliance on nuclear power? ---
**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 10, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/56 "2014-06-10T16:19:53Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > A serious question; should that concerted effort also inculde greater reliance on nuclear power? Sorry Mario, but your extremist is in another castle! 😉 I’m on the record on supporting nuclear power as an important piece to deal with the issue, until better battery technology is available, and thanks to the efforts of private industry and government (including subsidies) the situation is changing so much that even nuclear may not be as important. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/57 "2014-06-10T16:25:53Z")
Hmm? Nuclear is generation, batteries are storage. That said, there are well-known environmental issues with nuclear, but there are with anything else, too, and yes, it should have a place in the picture. ---
**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 10, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/58 "2014-06-10T17:05:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sorry Mario, but your extremist is in another castle! 😉 > > I’m on the record on supporting nuclear power as an important piece to deal with the issue, until better battery technology is available, and thanks to the efforts of private industry and government (including subsidies) the situation is changing so much that even nuclear may not be as important. Fair enough. Im glad to hear you are not of the loony brigade. That it is worthwhile to explore all options in regards to power. Placing most of our eggs into one as yet unproven basket is dangerous to me. PLenty of R&D for all energy research is welcome. Placing more emphasis on solar energy in Arizona and New Mexico is sensible. I live in the UK. I really dont see why we should be experimenting/subsidising solar panels at all, other than in the R&D department. Yet if an individual here in the UK installs a solar panel he or she get all sorts of tax allowances. In deepest darkest Northern England this is next to pointless imo. ---
**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 10, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/59 "2014-06-10T17:33:04Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Fair enough. Im glad to hear you are not of the loony brigade. That it is worthwhile to explore all options in regards to power. Placing most of our eggs into one as yet unproven basket is dangerous to me. PLenty of R&D for all energy research is welcome. Placing more emphasis on solar energy in Arizona and New Mexico is sensible. I live in the UK. I really dont see why we should be experimenting/subsidising solar panels at all, other than in the R&D department. Yet if an individual here in the UK installs a solar panel he or she get all sorts of tax allowances. In deepest darkest Northern England this is next to pointless imo. Just a nit here, it is true that England would not be big on solar, but the example of Germany shows that solar cells efficiency and deployment are telling many that the limitations that they had before are less of a concern and places that have less sun can still benefit. > **[Fox News: Can You Get Any More Insane? Germany Is Sunnier Than The US? (VIDEO)...](https://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/08/fox-news-can-you-get-any-more-insane-germany-is-sunnier-than-the-us-video/)** > > Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! –\>Update: You may also like “Fox News Fails BIG TIME On Solar Subsidies” and “10 Huge Lessons We’ve Learned From Germany’s Solar Power Success.“ Fox News... (Hilarious bit of FOX news declaring that Germany is sunnier than the USA.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/60 "2014-06-13T13:26:26Z")
[A new nugget of data:](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/americans-by-2-to-1-would-pay-more-to-curb-climate-change.html) > [@](#): > > By an almost two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 33 percent, Americans say they would pay more for energy if it would mean a reduction in pollution from carbon emissions, according to the Bloomberg National Poll. > > While Republicans were split, with 46 percent willing to pay more and 49 percent opposed to it, 82 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independents say they’d accept higher bills. New taxes! Higher costs! Jerbs! Oh noez! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=4)