This is actually an excellent point that isn’t made often enough: the cost of emissions is not factored in to the cost of fossil fuels, so the market is prevented from working as it should, and the cost is instead borne by others, such as those suffering damage from extreme weather, sea level rise, droughts and floods, health effects, crop damage and pest infestations, and countless other ills. The political right wing is big on privatizing everything so they’re fine with paying private firms to take their garbage away, but their automobile tailpipes and power plant smokestacks are totally open to the air, dumping absolutely free and with reckless abandon while costing the world trillions.
That’s one of the complaints that I have heard in the nuclear community. They are responsible for containing every bit of their waste, even things like Tritium and Xenon emissions need to be at undetectable levels. So, a nuclear plant ends up putting out far less radiation than a coal plant, which just spews all of its waste, including radioactive materials, into the air for free.
I don’t know that loosening the restrictions on nuclear is the right play, but tightening them on coal plants would be. Require coal plants to have the same level of radioactive emissions as nuclear, and see how long they stay economically viable.
(Though I do support reducing restrictions on tritium release. It’s expensive to try to contain all of it, and is really a non-issue as far as nuclear contamination is concerned. Xenon is a bit more complicated, but I think we can afford to look at a cost benefit analysis of that as well.)
A passel of young folk, we might be aware, have been pushing forward a class action lawsuit to force the government to mitigate climate change by moving away from fossil fuels. Naturally, the government is not in favor of this action proceeding, has petitioned SCotUS to stay the suit, which has been rejected in the past few days (allowing it to move through the lower courts, eventually to be argued before the 9, one should expect).
The language in DoJ’s latest petition is troubling. On the 14th page of this pdf of the government’s petition (page 4 of the text), one can read
On the merits, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs had stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and a federal public trust doctrine. Id. at 1248-61. The court found in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” U.S. Const. amend. V, a previously unrecognized fundamental right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” and the court determined that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged infringement of that fundamental right. … The government petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus to halt these deeply flawed proceedings. This Court stayed the litigation for seven-and-a-half months but ultimately denied the petition without prejudice.
This can be read as saying that our children/grandchildren do not have a fundamental right to a livable world.
How will history view us? There it is, right there.
You’ve been beating the MMCO2IE drum for 30 years. You’re the one who wants to change the status quo. Your problem seems to be that you can not convince enough people to buy what your selling. I’m suggesting that, maybe, it’s time to change your tactics, or methods. Doing the same thing over and over again, while failing to achieve your expected/demanded results, makes it seem as if you’re stuck in a rut.
(post shortened)
Bumper sticker? 1st, why would I put bumper stickers on my cars? 2nd, YOU have created a bumper sticker, and then attributed YOUR bumper sticker to me. How is that going to convince more voters to buy into your MMCO2IE belief.
Why do I feel like I’m repeating myself? Ah, I know, because I am! This nonsense was all dealt with here. You ignored it. So here’s your chance to demonstrate your open-mindedness by ignoring it again. 
But the facts remain that (a) the majority are convinced about anthropogenic climate change (here’s yet another poll), especially outside the hyperpartisan US, and (b) physical reality is unaffected by what people believe, so it’s a mystery why you’ve been harping on that for years now. What is also clear is that denialism is overwhelmingly associated with Republicans. Yet even among conservatives on this board, you’re one of the last of the deniers here – something you might want to reflect upon. Your idea that no one believes in AGW seems to involve a great deal of projection.
What I wanted to address here in terms of new information is this 30-year claim of yours. That isn’t true, either. Here’s a brief history.
30 years ago marked the founding of the IPCC, but the science then was nowhere near what the science is now. Science advances, believe it or not. The first IPCC assessment was two years later, in 1990, and it was estimated that it would be another decade before the signature of anthropogenic global warning could be declared unequivocal. But the evidence was already strong enough that the Kyoto Accord was signed in 1992.
The second IPCC assessment was published in 1996, and suggested, on the balance of evidence, a discernible human influence on global climate.
The third assessment in 2001 was the first one to publish the “hockey stick” graph because it was the first with access to the Mann et al. research (MBH98, MBH99), but by today’s standards it was still pretty primitive. Nevertheless, it was enough to prompt 16 national science academies to issue a joint statement on climate change. There was now a serious call to action.
The fourth assessment was a monumental landmark effort published in 2007 and was, in my subjective estimation and recollection, when all hell broke loose. It declared, among many other well-supported scientific conclusions, that planetary warming was unequivocal, that there was greater than 90% probability that most of it was due to human causes, that frequencies and intensities of extreme weather events would continue to increase, that the effects would continue to increase for centuries even if greenhouse gases were stabilized, and that the effects would exceed our ability to adapt. In my recollection, this was when the propaganda machines of the oil and coal interests and industrialists really swung into action against the perceived threats to their vested interests, and denialism became a major political force on the right.
The fifth assessment was published in 2014 and echoed the fourth assessment conclusions with greater certainty, the dominance of the human influence now raised to near certainty (95-100% probability), greenhouse gas concentrations found to be unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, and dire warnings about the commitments to temperature rise trajectories and consequent impacts that were already established.
So in my estimation the serious battles between science and political partisanship really began in earnest only around 2007, little more than a decade ago. And with the capitulation of Exxon Mobil, historically one of the worst offenders in the dark-money propaganda game, which now acknowledges anthropogenic climate change as real and as a problem requiring mitigation, it appears that as the science gets more certain and the outlook more alarming, the political battle is being won except among the most extreme elements, which, sadly, are found among many American conservatives.
True, but from what I’ve seen of your posts on this subject over the years, his/her hypothetical bumper sticker for you – “I MADE UP MY MIND NOT TO LISTEN TO YOU SO IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT THAT I’M WRONG” – accurately represents your views and actions. As just noted above, in fact. You willfully ignore evidence and then claim that the science is not persuasive enough.
Just stop responding to him until he answers the question I posed in post 94. Until he answers that question engaging with his claims is pointless.
Leave the moderating to the mods, BPC. You don’t get to stifle debate by telling others what to respond to.
Actually the posts that I pointed at showed that people are listening more to the science and to people that do follow the science like me.
As pointed out, thank you for showing all how one should dismiss your uninformed opinion once again.
One more thing:
As a bonus to show the levels of failure that was included on that post, I have to point out that even on that you are wrong. I have been a member of this site for about 18 years, not 30; and got deep into this subject thanks to a “the stupid, it burns” point of a denier about 10 years ago regarding the “hockey stick” that has nowadays even more overwhelming support. Here one has to point out that any source that you rely on that has not corrected the gross and inaccurate information just on that item alone should be dismissed too.
Scientists figured out about the issue more than 100 years ago and only in the last 60 figured out that nature was not going to drive the changes in climate, but us.
Well I can’t just straight-up come out and say what I want to say here, and the mods clearly aren’t dealing with the problem, so… What would you propose I do? :mad:
For the utter fools that they actually are.
You frame your post non-imperatively. “Why are people responding to this poster’s raving bullshit? It is an exercise in utter futility that is crufting up the thread, rendering it barely readable. Make it stop, pleeease.” You know, something like that. Put a little art in it.
I would suggest that you just stop reading the thread if you do not like the manner in which other posters participate.
You could report a broken rule if you believe a rule has been broken. If no Mod responds (in text or by action), you may come to the understanding that no rule has been broken.
Further discussion should take place in the proper forum, ATMB.
Have they figured out that climate related deaths have been plummeting for that 100 years despite a rapid increase in population?
No? I’ll give them another 60.
I have also pointed before many times at the good news from people that investigate how progress has indeed make things better, like the great late statistician Hans Rosling:
So yes, even the ones that do look at the numbers are telling us that the climate change deniers are the ones that belong as an example of that old kid’s song" “one of things is not like the other”
Oh well, too late for you. It is clear that you became also an example of not being aware of what I and others like Rosling have posted before. 
The point that is missed spectacularly is that while everything is getting better, scientists and others that look at the issue would be dumb to not warn others about the dangers that are very likely to make things turn bad. As I have pointed before, we can be optimistic, but it depends on people doing the right thing.
Like them dumping the weakest link, and those are the current Republicans in congress.
There are two things working in opposite directions in regard to climate and human life. On the positive side are advances in technology and medicine, which makes it easy to paint a misleadingly rosy picture. On the negative side are increasing premature deaths from two major impacts: the effects of air pollution, mainly due to particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulphur dioxide (SO2) – all from fossil fuels, and the direct effects of climate change, which includes the effects of extreme heat, water shortages, malaria, diarrhoeal disease, malnutrition and starvation from crop failures, and deaths in natural disasters due to extreme weather. The line of argument about improved prospects for human life is one of the most ridiculous angles on climate change denial I’ve seen yet.
FTR, I’m not posting under any illusions that anything I say will change his views. The stuff I post apparently in response is only to elucidate for other readers how wrong he is. He can’t answer your question about what kind of evidence would change his mind because his views aren’t informed by evidence, they’re informed by the incessant drumbeat of the right-wing spin machine.
Realistically, these people will only come around and stop spouting unscientific nonsense when the political leaders of their own party are forced to acknowledge reality. And that isn’t going to happen as long as there’s political advantage to be gained from denialism. Oil companies and even coal companies nowadays may publicly say reasonable things about climate change in order to display a veneer of respectability, but when it comes to what really matters – where they put their money – they’re still going to fund the political careers of those who are committed to opposing inconvenient legislation on clean air or emissions regulation. And they still do a brisk business – mostly in the shady world of dark money – in spreading FUD and denialism about climate science. It’s a losing battle for them in the long run but they’re going to keep it up as long as it’s profitable.
It is the Democrats who are saying ‘nuclear power is marginally worse than optimal, therefore we should spend a huge amount on solutions that are even worse.’
Regards,
Shodan
(post shortened)
Since I have never said that no one believes in MMCO2IE (aka AGW), that projection seems to be yours, not mine. You appear to be willingly to ignore evidence. That doesn’t help your cause.
What I am pointing out is that the MMCO2IE side has failed to convince enough voters to change the status quo. Which is true, whether you wish to hear that, or not. If the MMCO2IE side had been able to CONVINCE enough voters that AGW must be addressed immediately, the issue would have already been settled. It hasn’t been because your side can’t CONVINCE enough voters to buy what your selling.
The IPCC has been around for 30 years. You’ve pointed out that the/their science has gotten better. What your side has not been able to do for the last 30 years is CONVINCE the opposition, and the fence-sitters, that you’re right and they’re wrong. You can take my advice, and change your tactics/strategy, or you can waste your time telling me that I said no one believes in AGW. Which action will improve your credibility with the undecided, and unconvinced?