Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-19-2011, 11:47 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Week in Blog: Shiny Edition (Bill Scher & Kristen Soltis)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-19-2011, 01:03 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Here. Yes, Bill he should be the pro-science candidate, because that's why we elect presidents. Forget about the economy, national defense, judicial appointments, foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Huntsman will storm the Republican primaries by discussing evolution, string theory, and global warming.

Or be more literal, very few outside of 'Think progress' or BHTV care what a Presidential Candidate thinks about "science" or "evolution".

Goofy.

Last edited by rcocean; 08-19-2011 at 01:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-19-2011, 01:12 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Here. Yes, Bill he should be the pro-science candidate, because that's why we elect presidents. Forget about the economy, national defense, judicial appointments, foreign policy, trade, and immigration. Huntsman will storm the Republican primaries by discussing evolution, string theory, and global warming.

Or be more literal, very few outside of 'Think progress' or BHTV care what a Presidential Candidate thinks about "science" or "evolution".

Goofy.
I think it's true that no one cares about science per se. (I suspect this is true of most in Think Progress as well). What many find, rightly or wrongly, troubling about some of the GOP in this regard isn't that they are inferior scientists, but that views on global warming and/or evolution are part of a broader pattern having to do with one of two things: 1) the degree to which the candidate is open to having their views informed by evidence, and 2) mental illness.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-19-2011, 01:43 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default The Correct response to questions about 'Science'

from Republicans candidates:

“I’m running for president not the school board, and my views on this subject are irrelevant. Science education should be left to the local authorities.”

Or

"I'm not a scientist and haven't studied the issues enough to have expert opinion. I'm too busy studying the more important issues facing our country like the economy, trade, defense, and foreign policy".

That Republicans are constantly responding to these dopey Bible and Evolution questions just confirms they're members of the "Stupid Party".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-19-2011, 03:43 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I think it's true that no one cares about science per se. (I suspect this is true of most in Think Progress as well). What many find, rightly or wrongly, troubling about some of the GOP in this regard isn't that they are inferior scientists, but that views on global warming and/or evolution are part of a broader pattern having to do with one of two things: 1) the degree to which the candidate is open to having their views informed by evidence, and 2) mental illness.
Over 80% of Americans believe in creationism either in the form of intelligent designed evolution or the old fashioned way (A giant hand formed adam from a ball of clay?)

A growing number, approaching 50% now, believe the threat of global warming is exaggerated.

If a politician wants to get elected in order to make policy, the last thing he is concerned with is educating the public. Expressing his own views is also not that important; expressing the views of the voters is the most important thing. So, Perry seems to be doing what a politician who wants and expects to get elected does.

Attempting to educate the majority of the public on natural selection, or to embrace Algore's assessment of global warming as the greatest crises facing mankind, would be the insane thing for any politician to do.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-19-2011, 04:10 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I think it's true that no one cares about science per se. (I suspect this is true of most in Think Progress as well). What many find, rightly or wrongly, troubling about some of the GOP in this regard isn't that they are inferior scientists, but that views on global warming and/or evolution are part of a broader pattern having to do with one of two things: 1) the degree to which the candidate is open to having their views informed by evidence, and 2) mental illness.
I am pretty sure that it must be mental illness. All politicians have attended college (at least), so unless American colleges are doing a terrible job, what else could be the explanation for believing such things as creationism, or that global warming is a hoax? If whburgess is right and Republican politicians are merely feigning ignorance and stupidity in order to pander to their base (many of whom have also attended college), they are suffering from split-mindedness, otherwise known as schizophrenia.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-19-2011, 04:23 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I am pretty sure that it must be mental illness. All politicians have attended college (at least), so unless American colleges are doing a terrible job, what else could be the explanation for believing such things as creationism, or that global warming is a hoax? If whburgess is right and Republican politicians are merely feigning ignorance and stupidity in order to pander to their base (many of whom have also attended college), they are suffering from split-mindedness, otherwise known as schizophrenia.
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-19-2011, 04:30 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.
I was being tongue-in-cheek. I am quite aware that schizophrenia is a serious mental illness. Etymologically, it means "split-mindedness":

1912, from Mod.L., lit. "a splitting of the mind," from Ger. Schizophrenie, coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939), from Gk. skhizein "to split" (see shed (v.)) + phren (gen. phrenos) "diaphragm, heart, mind," of unknown origin. Slang shortening schizo first attested 1920s as an adj., 1945 as a noun.

Last edited by Florian; 08-19-2011 at 04:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-19-2011, 04:31 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.
Most of us suffer from faithiness in something. There are just not enough hours in the day to be fully informed about anything. I think David Hume spelled this out a while back.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-19-2011, 04:43 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.
This is not what is normally meant by "creationism," as I'm sure you know.

My best friend in jr high was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in creationism, the hard core kind in which the earth was young and there were never any dinosaurs. What made this more surprising to me at the time was that she was also an excellent science student and read a lot of popular science stuff. Her family's take on it, which is different than that of some creationists I've met, was that the evidence of evolution, the age of the earth, etc., was planted by God to test one's faith. Therefore, the empirical evidence could well support the scientific conclusions but those conclusions still be wrong. Based on this, learning science was fine, one just had to keep in mind that it wasn't reality.

I think this is pretty bizarre -- both in trying to wrap my mind around how that would affect conclusions about other things to think like that and from a theological standpoint. I would have thought a more common Christian notion was that God was truthful and thus that the evidence of the world wouldn't mislead us. Having learned more about theology, I think it could be a form of radical Calvinism -- total depravity affecting our ability to understand the world or some such. (And from a Dawkins-esque perspective, I guess all Christians or theists are involved in some form of this.)

But odd as I may find it, I think it bothers me less than the more common claim that scientists are just lying about the evidence or the efforts to twist science to support conclusions that it just doesn't support.

Anyway, I don't have a point here, it was just something the discussion made me think of.

(I lost touch with the friend in question years ago, so I don't know if she maintains that form of creationism, studied science in college, or what her views are on climate change.)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-19-2011, 05:55 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
This is not what is normally meant by "creationism," as I'm sure you know.
I'm referring to supposedly 'scientific' creationism, rather then the biblical expression, taken at face value, that "God formed a human out of clay and breathed life into him" form. The latter is a mythological expression that is very compatible with the science of natural selection, in my opinion.


Quote:
My best friend in jr high was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in creationism, the hard core kind in which the earth was young and there were never any dinosaurs. What made this more surprising to me at the time was that she was also an excellent science student and read a lot of popular science stuff. Her family's take on it, which is different than that of some creationists I've met, was that the evidence of evolution, the age of the earth, etc., was planted by God to test one's faith. Therefore, the empirical evidence could well support the scientific conclusions but those conclusions still be wrong. Based on this, learning science was fine, one just had to keep in mind that it wasn't reality.

I think this is pretty bizarre -- both in trying to wrap my mind around how that would affect conclusions about other things to think like that and from a theological standpoint. I would have thought a more common Christian notion was that God was truthful and thus that the evidence of the world wouldn't mislead us. Having learned more about theology, I think it could be a form of radical Calvinism -- total depravity affecting our ability to understand the world or some such. (And from a Dawkins-esque perspective, I guess all Christians or theists are involved in some form of this.)
I think the Calvinistic doctrine that God creates delusions for some people he chooses to damn and gives faith to some he chooses to save, completely apart from any qualities within the persons themselves, and based on his own mysteriously unknowable will, certainly would give a great deal of support to these ideas your friend had.

However, in my own experience of growing up devout in a fundamentalist home, the idea that the Bible is without factual error and anyone who doubts this is on the highway to hell plays a more direct causal role in this. Although Calvinism in its purist form, as described above, is much derided by fundamentalists, in that they say God chooses and enlightens those who seek him, but the vestige of Calvinism remains in that He sends delusions to those who don't choose Him.

My own experience with those fundamentalist authorities in my life that I respected most was that they would simply say "We don't know just how God did it or how long he took to do it, the important thing is to acknowledge he did do it, and to respond accordingly". Every now and then though, I'd encounter a minister who took pains to publicly preach that God created the world with dinosaur bones already in it, in order to send delusions to those people who would choose to believe this evidence over His Holy Word. I found this highly offensive, and was disappointed that others, even those who didn't agree with this, weren't offended as well. Just one reason among many that I'm not a fundamentalist christian anymore.

Quote:

But odd as I may find it, I think it bothers me less than the more common claim that scientists are just lying about the evidence or the efforts to twist science to support conclusions that it just doesn't support.
I think very few people who call global warming a hoax believe that some scientists got together with a conscious written plan to delude the public, get grant money, bring in venture capitalists, create a carbon market exchange, create companies which would make them wildly rich in these markets, and influence governmental policy to make this happen. And are now in the process of putting this plan into effect while taking time to giggle diabolically in chorus now and then.

I believe it is possible, although not necessarily the case, that there is some fraudulent aspects of the Global warming industry. Here are some factors that cause me to believe this.

I believe it highly possible that the scientific establishment is very diverse and the branches among themselves depend largely on the findings of the others without actually knowing the science itself. Much in the same way that many of us non scientists do.

There is considerable evidence that some of the climate scientists regarded as most influential in GW alarmism were defensive, in a very unscientific way, to critics. Particularly when some of their findings were proven to be substantially flawed.

When I am told, by a politician, that a consensus has formed and the debate is over, and yet I still see debates and articles by reputable and respected scientists who disagree.

When companies have formed to take advantage of 'markets' which will be created whole cloth from government policy, and the people who support this are either ex politicians who will financially and publicly benefit enormously or they are capitalists who will do so. And all these people have pooled their efforts to influence public policy into one political party.

When the MSM, which in my view are in the pocket of one political party, use every occasion of notable weather, whether its overly warm, overly cold, overly windy, overly dry, overly wet, etc, as proof that global warming is happening.

When the very alarming statements and outrageous statements are made by scientists who play a central role in the United Nations study on the subject are allowed to continue making those statements and holding their position until they are outed by skeptics.

When global warming skeptics, some of who are respected reputable scientists, are equated with holocaust deniers or flat earthers. I ask myself, why are these people so hysterical or more likely, why are they so desperate to politically marginalize skeptics?

I could go on.

However, regarding my own position, I do believe that human activity influences the climate in the long term, and that this has some potential to be devastating both to the ecosystem and to humans.

However, I don't trust everything I read about the risk assessment and the resulting policy prescriptions. I very much support continued funding in studying this, and I hope those who are alarmed and responsible for informing the public will find a more convincing, i.e. less political, way to present their side of the story. Because a lot is at stake and I want to hear what they have to say.

And if someone else takes a more skeptical view then I do, for the reasons I gave above, I can't blame them really.

Last edited by whburgess; 08-19-2011 at 06:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-19-2011, 10:08 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

AGW is a topic I'm fairly interested in. If you wish to get more into specifics I will have more to say and would welcome a discussion. One of the reasons, outside of the science itself, I believe AGW is a real problem is the vagueness of many skeptics and the low quality of science by other leading skeptics.

Seriously, remember back to the last dozen or so high profile papers that were in the popular press suppose to cast real doubt on AGW. They to a letter are always found to have serious flaws that invalidate the paper. Meanwhile skeptics have dropped it and are lionizing the next crap paper... while also harping about one historical temperature reconstruction that is over a decade old. I'm suppose to take these people seriously? Just how many times are we suppose to bother taking seriously Lindzin's Iris hypothesis? Just how many times does it have to be until we can start assuming that the people that are wrong over and over again are wrong one more time, until proven otherwise?

I also think your view of scienticists as dispassionate is highly idealized and never how it's been done.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 08-19-2011 at 10:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-19-2011, 10:54 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
AGW is a topic I'm fairly interested in. If you wish to get more into specifics I will have more to say and would welcome a discussion. One of the reasons, outside of the science itself, I believe AGW is a real problem is the vagueness of many skeptics and the low quality of science by other leading skeptics.

Seriously, remember back to the last dozen or so high profile papers that were in the popular press suppose to cast real doubt on AGW. They to a letter are always found to have serious flaws that invalidate the paper. Meanwhile skeptics have dropped it and are lionizing the next crap paper... while also harping about one historical temperature reconstruction that is over a decade old. I'm suppose to take these people seriously? Just how many times are we suppose to bother taking seriously Lindzin's Iris hypothesis? Just how many times does it have to be until we can start assuming that the people that are wrong over and over again are wrong one more time, until proven otherwise?
broad generalizations: I don't think skeptics have dropped anything. I don't know where you are getting this besides maybe from sites which hold the opposite view. Maybe you should present some examples of where They to a letter are always found to have serious flaws that invalidate the paper.

Not that you want to engage with someone who obviously refuses to accept reality and with whom you've been around and around so many times before. but just in case...
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 08-19-2011 at 10:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-19-2011, 11:32 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
AGW is a topic I'm fairly interested in. If you wish to get more into specifics I will have more to say and would welcome a discussion. One of the reasons, outside of the science itself, I believe AGW is a real problem is the vagueness of many skeptics and the low quality of science by other leading skeptics.
I'm not sure I can contribute much to a discussion on the science.

The fact that over 90% of climate scientists believe humans effect the climate is enough for me---in addition to the fact that it seems obvious to me that this would be the case--I don't see how our tremendous activity on the planet couldn't be having some effect.

I'm interested in information that would give some sense of how big of a problem most scientists think it is,
the various levels of alarm and the percentages of scientists at each level.
any cost benefit analysis of the various proposed remedies, etc.

I think the people who are truly alarmed will stop making this a political issue. They will see that it would be much more helpful to the cause to leave it off the table during campaigns and as a political issue, and instead work with those people in the Republican party who agree with them to empower an infrastructure within the party to effect change when Republicans are in power.

The fact that Al Gore and others keeps screaming and calling people names makes me suspicious. Does he really care? Is he really so stupid to not realize he's hurting more then he's helping? Does he really believe what he says? If so, it seems he'd find ways to not make it political.

Last edited by whburgess; 08-19-2011 at 11:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-20-2011, 01:07 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default My hobby horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I'm not sure I can contribute much to a discussion on the science.

I'm interested in information that would give some sense of how big of a problem most scientists think it is,
the various levels of alarm and the percentages of scientists at each level.
any cost benefit analysis of the various proposed remedies, etc.
{Disclaimer} When talking about impacts and adaption strategies I'm moving away from my main interest in this, a general understanding of how the atmosphere works and how ecosystems respond to changes in the atmosphere. As this is all off the top of my head I can't guarantee the accuracy of supplied numbers {/Disclaimer}

Despite what you may have heard; The last IPCC report, AR4, is still in high standing among scientists. There was a recent survey I linked to here a few months ago that I can't find atm, I believe it was of a poll over the percentage of the top researchers (highest h-numbers*) that in broad-stroke asked if they agreed with the IPCC. It cleared 90%.

*Think of this as a researchers batting average

The IPCC says that stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm will cost world GDP 3%. Estimates put the cost incurred by the corresponding climate of 450 ppm at 5% world GDP. Reports** talking about what a atmosphere off 550, 650, or even 800*** seem to range from really bad to the apocalypse. They all have lots of caveats, but it all basically boils down to this hypothetical future Earth is nothing like any Earth humans have ever seen before and their a little bemused anyone would even ask for them to make a prediction. Kind of a angels dancing on pins deal. A couple of thoughts on this;

**Not a component in the aforementioned survey
***I don't think we could get that high if we tried. Eventually we are just going to run out of things to burn. I think sooner then most.

-That 5% world GDP doesn't really capture the brunt of the human suffering that will be caused by AGW as most of the damage will be felt by third world countries that contribute little to world GDP. You could nuke the poorest 100 countries off the map, a group of countries that 750 million people, and world GDP would only go down 4%.

-In some ways curtailing AGW is easier then people think. Most people think in order to keep CO2 concentrations from increasing past 450 ppm we will need to completely stop all 100% of our emissions. This is not true! . We can actually get away with 2Gt C per year in perpetuity and still stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm. To put this in perspective we emit about 10Gt per year. There are technologies/policies we should be pursuing right now that will take a big chunk out of that 8Gt C we need to cut back on. One example and a tad of backstory; We should be using CCS (Coal capture and storage) right now!. About 68% of CO2 emissions come from coal power plants. There are about 50,000 coal power plants worldwide. Refitting all 50,000 of them would be hopelessly expensive, but a few (about 150) of the biggest power plants emit a disproportionate amount of the emissions. About 10% of our total CO2 emissions come from those 150 biggest coal power plants. Refitting just those won't break the world economy and will reduce emissions by 1Gt C per year. 8Gt C per year to go. There are other low hanging fruit. Not enough to get us to that 2 Gt C per year mark, but we should do what we can that's fairly cheap now. The slower we reduce emissions now means the faster we are going to reduce emissions later. Way to much of "Since we can't solve 100% now we shouldn't do that 20% we can now" going around.

-Those researchers are going to be statisticians, physicists, chemists, ecologists, etc. People majoring in "Climate Science" is a recent phenomenon and those that did by and by aren't accomplished enough to make that survey. Shouldn't we instead care about what economists think? Possibly. I tend to think ecologists are more important here. Regardless there does appear to be ALOT more controversy on this among economists. Unfortunately whenever I hear economists downplaying the effects of AGW they are not actually talking about anything where I care overmuch what they think. Always questioning the science instead of, to use one example, how humans will grow different crops to replace wheat.

-There is lots of uncertainty in Climate Science. Doubly true when talking about the economic aspects. Just in my opinion; More uncertainty means AGW is more of a problem. More uncertainty points towards this is more of a problem then uncertainty leading to AGW being less of a problem. For a little on this see my recent posts here or here.

Kind of scatter-brained I know. I suppose someone more knowledgeable could synthesize these trivia into a coherent narrative. I can't. /shrug?

Quote:
I think the people who are truly alarmed will stop making this a political issue. They will see that it would be much more helpful to the cause to leave it off the table during campaigns and as a political issue, and instead work with those people in the Republican party who agree with them to empower an infrastructure within the party to effect change when Republicans are in power. The fact that Al Gore and others keeps screaming and calling people names makes me suspicious. Does he really care? Is he really so stupid to not realize he's hurting more then he's helping? Does he really believe what he says? If so, it seems he'd find ways to not make it political.
I don't see how this can be when anytime anyone proposes anything conservatives raise bloody hell. Not to mention from my perspective it's Republicans that keep raising these issues (Google Perry and EPA) to score points with the base. It's also worth noting that it isn't advocates of reducing emissions that turned this into a culture war issue. It's the do nothingers that did. Nothing Democrats can do about this.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 08-20-2011 at 01:23 AM.. Reason: added some
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:00 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: My hobby horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
{Disclaimer} When talking about impacts and adaption strategies I'm moving away from my main interest in this, a general understanding of how the atmosphere works and how ecosystems respond to changes in the atmosphere. As this is all off the top of my head I can't guarantee the accuracy of supplied numbers {/Disclaimer}

Despite what you may have heard; The last IPCC report, AR4, is still in high standing among scientists. There was a recent survey I linked to here a few months ago that I can't find atm, I believe it was of a poll over the percentage of the top researchers (highest h-numbers*) that in broad-stroke asked if they agreed with the IPCC. It cleared 90%.

*Think of this as a researchers batting average

The IPCC says that stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm will cost world GDP 3%. Estimates put the cost incurred by the corresponding climate of 450 ppm at 5% world GDP. Reports** talking about what a atmosphere off 550, 650, or even 800*** seem to range from really bad to the apocalypse. They all have lots of caveats, but it all basically boils down to this hypothetical future Earth is nothing like any Earth humans have ever seen before and their a little bemused anyone would even ask for them to make a prediction. Kind of a angels dancing on pins deal. A couple of thoughts on this;

**Not a component in the aforementioned survey
***I don't think we could get that high if we tried. Eventually we are just going to run out of things to burn. I think sooner then most.

-That 5% world GDP doesn't really capture the brunt of the human suffering that will be caused by AGW as most of the damage will be felt by third world countries that contribute little to world GDP. You could nuke the poorest 100 countries off the map, a group of countries that 750 million people, and world GDP would only go down 4%.

-In some ways curtailing AGW is easier then people think. Most people think in order to keep CO2 concentrations from increasing past 450 ppm we will need to completely stop all 100% of our emissions. This is not true! . We can actually get away with 2Gt C per year in perpetuity and still stabilize CO2 at 450 ppm. To put this in perspective we emit about 10Gt per year. There are technologies/policies we should be pursuing right now that will take a big chunk out of that 8Gt C we need to cut back on. One example and a tad of backstory; We should be using CCS (Coal capture and storage) right now!. About 68% of CO2 emissions come from coal power plants. There are about 50,000 coal power plants worldwide. Refitting all 50,000 of them would be hopelessly expensive, but a few (about 150) of the biggest power plants emit a disproportionate amount of the emissions. About 10% of our total CO2 emissions come from those 150 biggest coal power plants. Refitting just those won't break the world economy and will reduce emissions by 1Gt C per year. 8Gt C per year to go. There are other low hanging fruit. Not enough to get us to that 2 Gt C per year mark, but we should do what we can that's fairly cheap now. The slower we reduce emissions now means the faster we are going to reduce emissions later. Way to much of "Since we can't solve 100% now we shouldn't do that 20% we can now" going around.

-Those researchers are going to be statisticians, physicists, chemists, ecologists, etc. People majoring in "Climate Science" is a recent phenomenon and those that did by and by aren't accomplished enough to make that survey. Shouldn't we instead care about what economists think? Possibly. I tend to think ecologists are more important here. Regardless there does appear to be ALOT more controversy on this among economists. Unfortunately whenever I hear economists downplaying the effects of AGW they are not actually talking about anything where I care overmuch what they think. Always questioning the science instead of, to use one example, how humans will grow different crops to replace wheat.

-There is lots of uncertainty in Climate Science. Doubly true when talking about the economic aspects. Just in my opinion; More uncertainty means AGW is more of a problem. More uncertainty points towards this is more of a problem then uncertainty leading to AGW being less of a problem. For a little on this see my recent posts here or here.

Kind of scatter-brained I know. I suppose someone more knowledgeable could synthesize these trivia into a coherent narrative. I can't. /shrug?
.

Good post. Thanks. I read it all, it was clear to me. I'm pretty much on board with doing those things that we can do that don't cost a lot of money,but can help reduce a lot of the Co2 emissions. I really hope this isn't due to the fact that I've made some money over the years helping install scrubbers in coal fire plants !

I think this isn't done by tax dollars but by making the plants install them--although this does end up getting passed on in costs of product, its probably insignificant. I also think that it isn't going to be a big problem getting this done throughout the USA, whether a Republican or a Dem is president, it's something that is already under way. I have a feeling that it's those coal fire plants in China and India that you're going to have a problem with.

Edit: I actually did a little research and learned that installing co2 scrubbers in addition to the existing scrubbers we are installing in coal fire plants could increase fuel requirements by as high as 40% and utility rate costs by as high as 90%.

Ouch!

Last edited by whburgess; 08-20-2011 at 02:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-20-2011, 02:38 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: My hobby horse.

I don't think the costs with your 40% and 90% are significant if those costs are shared across all coal power plants. This is of course going to need to have some regulatory framework forcing the owners of one coal power plant to pay for upgrades to another coal power plant.

I also think there is some apples vs. oranges thing going on. Your numbers are probably an average over many different types of plants. I expect the numbers to be lower for my set of 150 plants then the average of the total set of all power plants. Any chemist will tell you it's easier to set up a higher reaction rate at higher concentrations then lower concentrations. Now bigger plants means bigger boilers & pulverizers which translates into higher temperatures. Higher temperatures means higher concentrations of CO2 in the flue gas. Higher concentrations translates into more efficient scrubbers. I also expect there to be many permitting costs that are largely independent of plant size. This further widens the gap between your numbers and what mine should be. I've also read some interesting stuff about supplying boilers with elevated levels of oxygen which further elevates concentrations of CO2 in the flue gas. Getting the oxygen cheaply will become easier when there are more renewables.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-19-2011, 05:05 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.

...
It obviously wasn't meant literally. However a "scientific mind" should have a great deal of trouble with the statement "God created the universe" as a matter of epistemic import.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-19-2011, 06:08 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
It obviously wasn't meant literally. However a "scientific mind" should have a great deal of trouble with the statement "God created the universe" as a matter of epistemic import.
I think a scientific mind recognizes statements often express matters of import to human beings even if there is no scientifically epistimic import.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-19-2011, 05:18 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.
What industry? Whose self-interest? I've never heard an account of this in which the interested parties are anywhere near capable of the conspiracy that this theory implies.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-19-2011, 05:36 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
What industry? Whose self-interest? I've never heard an account of this in which the interested parties are anywhere near capable of the conspiracy that this theory implies.
But there is definitely a conspiracy about denying AGW. That's for certain.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-19-2011, 06:55 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
What industry? Whose self-interest? I've never heard an account of this in which the interested parties are anywhere near capable of the conspiracy that this theory implies.
You don't think that there will be massive financial gain in the exchange of carbon credits?

You don't think that there are global warming adherants who, coincidentally, favor the transfer of wealth from the first world to the third?

You aren't aware of the scams that have occurred in the "carbon offset" business, already?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-19-2011, 07:07 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
You don't think that there will be massive financial gain in the exchange of carbon credits?

You don't think that there are global warming adherants who, coincidentally, favor the transfer of wealth from the first world to the third?

You aren't aware of the scams that have occurred in the "carbon offset" business, already?
Industries that don't exist yet don't usually conspire to create themselves. And besides, the kinds of profits being made or being imagined in these markets pale in comparison to the profits being made by the businesses that effective anti-AGW regulation would cripple. Really, this line would be more plausible if you just blamed the Illuminati or something.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-19-2011, 10:20 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Industries that don't exist yet don't usually conspire to create themselves. And besides, the kinds of profits being made or being imagined in these markets pale in comparison to the profits being made by the businesses that effective anti-AGW regulation would cripple. Really, this line would be more plausible if you just blamed the Illuminati or something.
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington--from electric utilities to Detroit automakers--one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.

--The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/environme...y/planet-worth

Goldman Sachs....JP Morgan.......meh, might as well be the Illuminati.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:17 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington--from electric utilities to Detroit automakers--one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.

--The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/environme...y/planet-worth

Goldman Sachs....JP Morgan.......meh, might as well be the Illuminati.
DV: Frum and Bartlett on cap and trade
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-20-2011, 06:53 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington--from electric utilities to Detroit automakers--one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.

--The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/environme...y/planet-worth

Goldman Sachs....JP Morgan.......meh, might as well be the Illuminati.
Hold on just a second. What you have is an example of banks trying to push policy responses to AGW towards forms that they can take advantage of, not banks creating pressure to deal with AGW in the first place. That's not at all the same thing, so we're back to square one. Nobody has anywhere near the incentives to create a fake global warming crisis that various stakeholders have to pretend that said crisis doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-20-2011, 08:13 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Hold on just a second. What you have is an example of banks trying to push policy responses to AGW towards forms that they can take advantage of, not banks creating pressure to deal with AGW in the first place. That's not at all the same thing, so we're back to square one. Nobody has anywhere near the incentives to create a fake global warming crisis that various stakeholders have to pretend that said crisis doesn't exist.
Hey Don, haven't you got the memo from marketing yet? It's 'climate change' not 'global warming'? How are our friends in the media going to use every occasion of extreme weather to sell our problem, and it's solutions, if you don't get up to date on the lingo?

Seriously though, I don't have a conspiratorial mind, (just a skeptical one), and I really don't know much about this. So, when I read your post, it occurred to me that maybe cap and trade actually could be a typical example of a market solution in search of market.

So I expertly googled "origins of the cap and trade idea' and the first link I clicked was this..
Lo and behold.
Cap and Trade was not only a market solution in search of a market, it was a proven and successful market solution in search of market expansion.

I did not know that. This has to be taken into account when assessing the skeptical response to global warming. Err..climate change.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-20-2011, 09:19 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Hey Don, haven't you got the memo from marketing yet? It's 'climate change' not 'global warming'? How are our friends in the media going to use every occasion of extreme weather to sell our problem, and it's solutions, if you don't get up to date on the lingo?
We have people on both sides pointing to specific instances of weather. It's silly.

But as for climate change as a phrase, it was coined by that liberal Frank Luntz. The marketing being attempted is to make it seem less serious than it actually is (i.e, change sounds better than warming)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:06 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
We have people on both sides pointing to specific instances of weather. It's silly.

But as for climate change as a phrase, it was coined by that liberal Frank Luntz. The marketing being attempted is to make it seem less serious than it actually is (i.e, change sounds better than warming)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange
Interesting to know. Of course I don't believe AGW advocates get marketing memos. Obviously 'climate change' is a better word to be using during those periods of time when the earth actually don't get warmer or cools which is why I suspect its used much more often now.

But I don't think Luntz actually coined the term since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-20-2011, 10:13 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
But I don't think Luntz actually coined the term since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988
I was clicking around trying to find out more about this Luntz kerfuffle and looky you! good one!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-21-2011, 12:03 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Interesting to know. Of course I don't believe AGW advocates get marketing memos. Obviously 'climate change' is a better word to be using during those periods of time when the earth actually don't get warmer or cools which is why I suspect its used much more often now.
I hope that you aren't implying that the earth has stopped getting warmer, since that's not true. In fact, 10 of the 11 warmest years on record were in the past decade, and the other one in that top 11 was 1998.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-21-2011, 12:58 AM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
I hope that you aren't implying that the earth has stopped getting warmer, since that's not true. In fact, 10 of the 11 warmest years on record were in the past decade, and the other one in that top 11 was 1998.
That seems like a good argument for Global warming.

However, I suspect that the fact that 6 of those years was cooler then the one before is one factor in why the preference is to call it 'climate change' now. That's all I was saying. I'm not a AGW denier; I don't know enough.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-21-2011, 01:51 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
That seems like a good argument for Global warming.

However, I suspect that the fact that 6 of those years was cooler then the one before is one factor in why the preference is to call it 'climate change' now. That's all I was saying. I'm not a AGW denier; I don't know enough.
just a little something to chew on.

Quote:
Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 to 22 years.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-22-2011, 02:44 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
However, I suspect that the fact that 6 of those years was cooler then the one before is one factor in why the preference is to call it 'climate change' now. That's all I was saying. I'm not a AGW denier; I don't know enough.
What is in bold is the most important issue here. I do not know enough either, and I doubt that most of the supporters of AGW reform do. I doubt that the late night line up of MSNBC know much more about the details of GW science than I do, nor do the politicians in office. I doubt this because they are so woefully ignorant on issues I am familiar with.

This is all deference to scientific consensus. The reason why I am loathe to join in that deference is that I am unfamiliar with an example of scientists being so declarative with hypotheses so new! And with such massive implications in both economic and social order. It is also alarming at how often extreme predictions of cataclysm have failed to pass, or have been revised down significantly once enough time has passed for it no longer to be a useful point of political discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-21-2011, 12:56 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Interesting to know. Of course I don't believe AGW advocates get marketing memos. Obviously 'climate change' is a better word to be using during those periods of time when the earth actually don't get warmer or cools which is why I suspect its used much more often now.

But I don't think Luntz actually coined the term since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988
You're right. I should have said "popularized"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-20-2011, 08:26 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Hold on just a second. What you have is an example of banks trying to push policy responses to AGW towards forms that they can take advantage of, not banks creating pressure to deal with AGW in the first place. That's not at all the same thing, so we're back to square one. Nobody has anywhere near the incentives to create a fake global warming crisis that various stakeholders have to pretend that said crisis doesn't exist.
So what are the incentives to pretend that the crisis doesn't exist?
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-21-2011, 04:34 AM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-22-2011, 02:46 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Hold on just a second. What you have is an example of banks trying to push policy responses to AGW towards forms that they can take advantage of, not banks creating pressure to deal with AGW in the first place. That's not at all the same thing
It is functionally the same thing, in that AGW is the identified creator of a new market. Banks have an incentive in national acceptance of a Cap and Trade scheme, and that scheme is only instituted if AGW is treated as an existential threat.

There is no real contest between Big Finance and "Big Coal". Finance will win every time.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-22-2011, 02:57 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
There is no real contest between Big Finance and "Big Coal". Finance will win every time.
and the economy will be saddled with more malinvestment. yippie!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-22-2011, 04:42 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: The Goofiness of Bill's Suggestion to Huntsman

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
My scientific mind is skeptical of the idea that the only way any educated person could believe God created the universe and human beings, is if they are 'schizophrenic'.
sure, but to disbelieve evolution is the tool god used requires insanity or stupidity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I'm also skeptical of the idea that schizophrenia is the only explanation for why anyone would believe that the global warming industry may be fueled by self-interest and politics in addition to disinterested science.
the "global warming industry"? amazing that someone as intelligent as you could buy into that garbage. the power of the media is awesome.
__________________
civil disobedience a problem? NO! Our problem is that people are OBEDIENT all over the world, in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war and cruelty. -HZ
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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 On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.