# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/81 "2014-06-14T14:02:51Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You live in Florida, I understand? Then one thing that happens is that there continues to \*be \*a Florida. Wow, a tiny emissions cut is going to save Florida? Who knew? Is that the IPCC that promised that, or are you trying to copy my style now? ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/82 "2014-06-14T15:05:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wow, a tiny emissions cut is going to save Florida? Who knew? Is that the IPCC that promised that, or are you trying to copy my style now? Good to know that you acknowledge that you are saying things with no thought whatsoever. Again, I do not think congratulating or tacitly approving the inaction and little emissions cuts are things that deserve pride. Your gross mistake here is to assume the cuts will remain small forever, they are small at the beginning because virtually all that look at the problem do not think going cold turkey is the solution, but deniers like to make that the straw man point so as to make the ones looking for a solution look ridiculous. In the meantime an economist like Nordhaus was elected president of the American Economic Association in 2014 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/83 "2014-06-14T15:21:31Z")
An expensive, but small solution, does a lot of harm. Politically, once you’ve doubled people’s electric bills, you aren’t going to get them to go with you for the next step. Which is why you should keep your powder dry until you have an idea that actually fixes the problem. The last thing a family paying double for their electricity wants to hear is that it’s the first step. How much will step 2 cost? ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/84 "2014-06-14T15:24:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good to know that you acknowledge that you are saying things with no thought whatsoever. > > Again, I do not think congratulating or tacitly approving the inaction and little emissions cuts are things that deserve pride. > > **Your gross mistake here is to assume the cuts will remain small forever, they are small at the beginning because virtually all that look at the problem do not think going cold turkey is the solution** , but deniers like to make that the straw man point so as to make the ones looking for a solution look ridiculous. > > In the meantime an economist like Nordhaus was elected president of the American Economic Association in 2014 You on the other hand are assuming huge emmission cuts can be made in the long term. That is a huge assumption. When I say cuts I mean economically viable cuts. We all know we can cut emmissions vastly in the short term, but those cuts require us to shut down the economy. Right now the economic viability of future co2 cuts are the great unknown. ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/85 "2014-06-14T15:30:38Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > You on the other hand are assuming huge emmission cuts can be made in the long term. That is a huge assumption. No, it is based on what was done before with CFCs, Acid Rain producing emissions and lead in our gasoline. The ignorance is to assume that a problem brought by our technology can not be solved by controlling the part of it that is causing the problem, or that once the change is done with dedication it will never continue. > [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > When I say cuts I mean economically viable cuts. We all know we can cut emmissions vastly in the short term, but those cuts require us to shut down the economy. Right now the economic viability of future co2 cuts are the great unknown. And again the strawman, no one seriously recommends to cut emissions vastly in the short term, this say so is made once again in an attempt to ridicule scientists and even well recognised economists. ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/86 "2014-06-14T15:37:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, it is based on what was done before with CFCs, Acid Rain producing emissions and lead in our gasoline. > > The ignorance is to assume that a problem brought by our technology can not be solved by controlling the part of it that is causing the problem, or that once the change is done with dedication it will never continue. > And again the strawman, no one seriously recommends to cut emissions vastly in the short term, this say so is made once again in an attempt to ridicule scientists and even well recognised economists. Please, stop it with the strawman accusations. My use of the words “short term” was unimportant to my main point. My main point was that is it very easy to cut emmissions. It is the economic consequences of such cuts that are not easy to solve. That placing undue hope in only a few relatively untested technologies is not a clever idea. ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/87 "2014-06-14T15:43:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > An expensive, but small solution, does a lot of harm. Using ignorance to continue to ignore the pound of harm that is coming to save pennies is folly. > [@adaher](#): > > Politically, once you’ve doubled people’s electric bills, you aren’t going to get them to go with you for the next step. Which is why you should keep your powder dry until you have an idea that actually fixes the problem. Weaponized ignorance, solutions are implemented and the issue now is the nonsensical delaying made specially by one party in the United States. > [@adaher](#): > > The last thing a family paying double for their electricity wants to hear is that it’s the first step. How much will step 2 cost? As I have seen in many reports your point of doubling the electric bill came for the netherlands of the posterior of many denier sites, once again, you start with a flawed or mistaken idea your conclusions will be crap, even Republican scientists are either becoming independent or they become more blunt with the Republican nonsense. [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865603909/Who-are-the-alarmists-here-Real-conservatives-value-evidence.html](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865603909/Who-are-the-alarmists-here-Real-conservatives-value-evidence.html) > [@](#): > > As the scientific case for human-caused climate change becomes even more compelling, it would be nice if my fellow political conservatives would try to maintain some credibility about this issue, so that any solutions eventually adopted reflect our values as closely as possible. If two recent op-eds by Robert Samuelson (May 11) and Dan Liljenquist (May 14) are any indication, our prospects continue to dim. > > Samuelson at least suggests we adopt “a carbon tax to help finance government and stimulate energy-saving technologies and new forms of non-carbon energy,” but what’s wrong with coupling such a strategy with more immediate action using existing technology? Samuelson claims it would not be “sane” for any government — especially those of developing countries like China and India — to dramatically curtail fossil fuel use because the future benefits are too “uncertain.” > > This is an odd position, given that the IPCC recently estimated it would cost a mere 0.06 percent reduction in the annual consumption growth rate, from a baseline of 1.6 - 3.0 percent, to stave off the worst of the problems associated with accelerated climate change in a cost-effective manner. Certainly there are broad uncertainties in the scientific and economic estimates, but almost none of the probability lies in the range for which a “wait and see” approach would be justified. > [@](#): > > So who is being “hysterical” and “alarmist?” On one hand, we have people using all the best scientific, political and economic analyses — complete with estimates of uncertainty and risk — to come up with recommendations on how to solve a pressing problem in the most cost-effective manner. On the other hand, we have self-proclaimed “conservatives,” supposed champions of personal responsibility, neglecting to obtain even a cursory familiarity with the best scholarship on the topic, blaming our inaction on what they assume (without evidence) China will do, extolling the unlimited capacity of humans to solve problems while excusing the present generation from even trying, and shrieking overwrought, nonsensical warnings about what serious climate action will cost. > > Some real conservatives, like former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-SC, have proposed excellent, minimally invasive strategies for dealing with climate change, such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but we have little chance of these policies being adopted if they continue to be overshadowed by intellectually and morally bankrupt rhetoric. ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/88 "2014-06-14T15:47:21Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Please, stop it with the strawman accusations. My use of the words “short term” was unimportant to my main point. My main point was that is it very easy to cut emmissions. It is the economic consequences of such cuts that are not easy to solve. That placing undue hope in only a few relatively untested technologies is not a clever idea. As Bickmore (Republican, Conservative scientist from BYU) reported you are relying here on arguments from ignorance, the economy is not bound to be affected as the denier Republicans are telling you. For all their talk about alarmism coming from the scientists and economists, the real alarmism is in reality coming from the ones claiming that the sky will fall 🙂 if we take of the problem now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/89 "2014-06-14T16:02:14Z")
**adaher** , you could \*so \*easily choose to be part of the _solution_, instead of wasting your energies this way. So easily. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/90 "2014-06-18T16:11:38Z")
[The world may have just lived through its hottest spring on record.](http://www.salon.com/2014/06/18/the_world_may_have_just_lived_through_its_hottest_spring_on_record/) ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/91 "2014-06-30T08:33:04Z")
Adaher - I think it might be a bit instructive for you to read about [Singapore’s water experience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Singapore) When the push for self sufficiency started - people scoffed. They said that “the public” would never accept reclaimed water. Then they complained that desalination (via reverse osmosis) was foolish because it cost something like 5 or more times the price of raw water from a neighbouring state. Now? Singapore makes big money from selling the technology - their water is safe and secure, and the price has come down hugely - my personal monthly water bill is around $30 - for a family of 5. China is moving fast and furious in renewables and clean technology. If nothing is done, the US will be left behind. Furthermore - for as long as the US is doing nothing, both India and China can claim a justification in doing nothing. Once the US starts to act, then more pressure can be placed on others. The longer you delay - the more abrupt (and thus expensive) solutions are. I think the phrase goes - don’t let the perfect get in the way of the possible right? Or if you prefer - don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/92 "2014-06-30T17:14:06Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > They said that “the public” would never accept reclaimed water. All water is reclaimed; every molecule of H2O on this planet has passed through countless living organisms countless times. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/93 "2014-07-01T00:06:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > All water is reclaimed; every molecule of H2O on this planet has passed through countless living organisms countless times. Well yeah - but psychologically, the “Newater” we are talking about went directly from the waste pipes to the water treatment plant - It was a huge controversy here when it was launched - now people don’t give a shit ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/94 "2014-07-01T00:15:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I see that you like to carry water for the ones that would in the end ignore the point of King Canute. For someone who wants to prevent the oceans from rising King Canute is pretty much the worst myth to mention. The entire point of that story is that mankind is nothing compared to nature and can’t possibly control it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/95 "2014-07-01T00:21:41Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > For someone who wants to prevent the oceans from rising King Canute is pretty much the worst myth to mention. The entire point of that story is that mankind is nothing compared to nature and can’t possibly control it. Which is false, of course. Even in Canute’s day he could have ordered construction of a dike. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/96 "2014-07-01T00:22:33Z")
In Russia, dikes are in favor of King Cnut! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/97 "2014-07-05T17:12:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > All water is reclaimed; every molecule of H2O on this planet has passed through countless living organisms countless times. This isn’t correct. Water molecules are being split constantly in plants and new water molecules are formed as part of the [Electron Transport Chain.](http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/cellular-respiration/v/electron-transport-chain) It makes sense that there would be a mechanism to create new water molecules as so many of them are destroyed (split) every second of every day. ---
**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:** [July 6, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/98 "2014-07-06T00:34:47Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > For someone who wants to prevent the oceans from rising King Canute is pretty much the worst myth to mention. The entire point of that story is that mankind is nothing compared to nature and can’t possibly control it. Nope, I looked at the real point of the tale, as the BBC and others reported before the actual point of the tale is missed by many, King Canute actually was giving their subjects a lesson, the point I was making is that the current rulers of the republicans are pathetic cowards for not giving their [del]servs[/del] constituents a lesson like king Canute did, they should had told them a long time ago that ignoring science is bananas and they should not ignore what nature will do with all the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere. Instead the real lesson of the tale is ignored and both Republican leaders and constituents miss the point and do ignore science and pretend that they can order the oceans to ignore what was found to be happening. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/us-usa-northcarolina-idUSBRE86217I20120703](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/us-usa-northcarolina-idUSBRE86217I20120703) > [@](#): > > Backed by real estate developers, the Republican-led General Assembly passed a law requiring that projected rates of sea level rise be calculated on historical trends and not include accelerated rates of increase. > > North Carolina is among the state’s most vulnerable to sea level rise with its long coastline and thousands of square miles of low-lying land. A 2012 study by the U.S. Geological Survey says sea levels along the Atlantic Coast from North Carolina to Massachusetts are rising three to four times faster than the global average. Global sea level rise has been projected to rise two to three feet by the end of the 21st century, but in hot spots, the increase may be greater. > > A panel of scientists that advises North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission, a state policy panel, said coastal communities should plan for about 39 inches of sea level rise by 2100 based on seven scientific studies. > > That drew a backlash from a coastal economic development group called NC-20 that called it fake science. The group said making development take into account 39 inches of sea level rise could undermine the coastal economy, raise insurance costs and turn thousands of square miles of coastal property into flood plains that could not be developed. > > During floor debate Tuesday, Rep. Pat McElraft, a Republican who sponsored the bill, questioned the scientific accuracy of climate change and said that sea level rise along North Carolina’s coast in the last century had averaged 8 inches. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/99 "2014-07-06T17:40:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I mean revenue would not rise. We could reduce the payroll tax to make it revenue neutral. At this point it would be madness to tinker with the tax system in any way that does not increase revenue. ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/100 "2014-07-06T21:15:32Z")
The government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=6)