Politics

Out of context: Reply #23923

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 33,469 Responses
  • deathboy-5

    "Donald Trump is a climate menace, no doubt about it," asserts Greenpeace U.K. spokesperson John Sauven. "President-elect Donald Trump threatens our environment and we vow to fight him every step of the way," declares Kate Colwell from Friends of the Earth. The Union of Concerned Scientists Research Director Gretchen Goldman warns, "It is hard to imagine a Trump administration where science won't be politicized."

    Yet none of Trump's cabinet picks seem to agree that man-made climate change is hoax.

    In the hearings for various cabinet nominees, Democrats have sought valiantly to unmask them as "climate change deniers." So far, not one has questioned the scientific reality of man-made global warming. On the other hand, they have tended not to be as alarmed as their interlocutors, and/or have failed to endorse the climate policies that Democrats prefer.

    Take Scott Pruitt. The Oklahoma attorney-general, nominated to run the Environmental Protection Agency, stated flatly: "I do not believe that climate change is a hoax." He added, "Science tells us the climate is changing and human activity in some manner impacts that change. The ability to measure and pursue the degree and the extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue."

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was particularly annoyed that Pruitt pointed to uncertainties about the future course of warming. But those uncertainties are real. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that warming will continue unless GHG emissions are curbed, but it also notes that "the projected size of those changes cannot be precisely predicted." IPCC further observed that "some underlying physical processes are not yet completely understood, making them difficult to model."

    Pruitt is one of the 27 state attorneys-general that are challenging the legality of President Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP), which would require electric utilities to cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by 30 percent below their 2005 levels by 2030. The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the CPP last February, which indicates that Pruitt and his fellow attorneys-general have substantial legal grounds to challenge that EPA regulation. In November, the eco-modernist think tank the Breakthrough Institute released a study that suggested that the U.S. could well speed up its GHG reduction trends if the CPP was abandoned.

    Other nominees asked about their views on climate change include former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson (nominated to run the State Department), Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke (Interior Department); Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (Justice Department); businessman Wilbur Ross (Commerce Department); and former Texas governor Rick Perry (Energy Department). Tillerson testified, "I came to the decision a few years ago that the risk of climate change does exist and the consequences could be serious enough that it warrants action." Zinke similarly declared that he does not believe climate change is "hoax."

    Sessions offered, "I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it." Ross would head the department in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that just reported that 2016 was the hottest year in the instrumental record. Signaling a hands-off approach, Ross declared: "I believe that science is science, and scientists should perform science." In his opening remarks at his hearing, Perry states, "I believe the climate is changing. I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man-made activity. The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn't compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy, or American jobs."

    Tillerson, unlike Trump, does not appear to be in favor of "cancelling" the Paris Agreement on climate change, testifying instead that the United States should have a "seat at the table" during international discussions of the issue. On the other hand, Tillerson did say that the Paris Agreement looks to him like a "treaty," which implies that it needs to go through the constitutional process of senatorial advice and consent. It would be unlikely to fare well in the Senate, where Republicans hold the majority of seats. Still, as a signatory to the already ratified United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.S. would continue to participate in international climate change diplomacy.

    I have been reporting on the science and politics of climate change for more than 25 years. During that time it became clear to me that many pro-market policy makers have refused to acknowledge that man-made climate change might become a significant problem because they oddly accepted the plainly ideological claim by progressives that a vast collectivist reorganization of the world's economy is the only solution. Let's be clear: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. Trump's cabinet nominees are right to the extent that they point out that the risks of climate change need to be balanced against the risks that proposed solutions pose to economic freedom and future prosperity. Tillerson is also right when he argued that climate change is largely an "engineering problem" that can be solved with human ingenuity. And nothing unleashes human ingenuity like the incentives in free markets.

    In any event, simply denying what the best research says about the possible risks posed by climate change is unsound policy. Given their testimony Trump's Cabinet picks seem to understand that, even if the man who nominated them does not.

    recommend also reading the cited stuff. alot of good stuff there
    http://reason.com/archives/2017/…

    deathboy -5Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • they are smart enough to not claim it is a hoax but have a long record in actively pursuing political and business interests that cause climate change.lowimpakt
    • This is such a low bar...they didn't say it was a Chinese hoax like Trump because they would have been laughed out of the room.yuekit
    • At ExxonMobil, Tillerson and his pals have been funding climate change denial since the 80s.BuddhaHat
    • These people are representing the oil industry. There is no plan to address the issue because they simply don't care.yuekit
    • And unfortunately conservative media (like Reason which is funded by the Kochs) has spread disinfo and turned it into a partisan debate in America.yuekit
    • Majority of scientists and people across the world believe one thing, conservatives in America (voting for a party heavily funded by big oil) believe somethingyuekit
    • else. That's an amazing coincidence isn't it?yuekit
    • All you needed to say was 'funded by the Kochs', yuekit. That's sufficiently incriminating in itself.BuddhaHat
    • https://www.scientif…yuekit
    • http://www.al.com/ne… quite interestingdeathboy
    • Climate change skeptics from Alabama... only interesting if you're into disinformation.BuddhaHat
    • "There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don't speak out." - Bullshit.BuddhaHat
    • belief is a strange thing. is it taught? is it populism? is it a chemical reward for a preferred outcome? such a strange thingdeathboy
    • just a reminder hes not picking a bunch of anti climate believers, just ppl who see the outcomes of current policy being as accurat as climte models of the pastdeathboy
    • yuekit im all about following the money incentive. the 558m seems small compared to the billions given for pro climate change studiesdeathboy
    • be nice if that article did more of a comparison when researching the money incentivedeathboy
    • Where'd you get the number for 'billions for pro climate change studies'? source?BuddhaHat
    • And $558m is a drop in the ocean compared to the profits of Koch Industries and other fossil fuel producing organizations.BuddhaHat
    • In 2013-2015, Forbes listed it as the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill), with an annual revenue of $115 billion.BuddhaHat
    • ^ That's Koch Industries' profits.BuddhaHat
    • sorry should say study/funding. http://www.forbes.co…deathboy
    • as far as incentives go for money, id say all u need to be a pro climate alarmist with a hustle for new business interests, anti fund def measure from existingdeathboy
    • Author of your linked article is Larry Bell. Bell is the author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. A denier.BuddhaHat
    • business interests. i doubt either care about the environment as much as they do about the money they're making, as far as real effects. we have only seendeathboy
    • increased costs, and for all the ppl worrying about the small guy that has effected them the most.deathboy
    • So just to be clear, you think an oil company heavily invested in fossil fuels, which is on record funding a disinfo effort, is more credible than most of theyuekit
    • world's climate scientists. That doesn't strike me as very reason-able.yuekit
    • Inhabitants of Pacific Island nations don't care if people get rich off green tech, if it stops their country disappearing into the ocean.BuddhaHat
    • climate change denial IS a belief system.fadein11
    • I mean clearly it was money well spent, their disinfo campaign worked.yuekit
    • just saying yuekit there is a lot of money and a lot of incentive for the "scientific" models. i see both sides with incentive. i see a majority of models faildeathboy
    • ing, ive read about different methods which, me not even being a scientist i can call BS on, becuase they neglect to take in obvious factors.deathboy
    • im simply saying i dont think anyone can predict or have a accurate climate model. scientists cant even give an evaualtion of effectiveness of current measuresdeathboy
    • the only measures we have seen is increased costs, cronyism, and reach of political processes on aspirational adventures of politiciansdeathboy
    • yuekit what is the model you base your belief off of? is there one? or could it be the same machination of triple AAA stamped CDOs. a false grouping by expertsdeathboy
    • 'increased costs, cronyism, and reach of political processes on aspirational adventures of politicians'BuddhaHat
    • Science is not funded by a single centralized group though. Different governments, universities, private companies...yuekit
    • - increased costs for middle class home buyers on day 1
      - cronyism - swampiest cabinet in history
      - aspirational adventures - Mexico wall      BuddhaHat
    • am I getting that right? and you think the same people have the right idea on climate change? it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.BuddhaHat
    • vs. oil companies which have a very clear and obvious financial stake in the status quo continuing.yuekit
    • all that aside you know where i get my belief from. where do you get your yuekit? there msut be a model you follow and why u choose policy that goes with thedeathboy
    • model right? perhaps the model that says we need coal to be 30% lower emissions? you wouldnt think that was a good idea without reason right?deathboy
    • http://data.whicdn.c…BuddhaHat
    • id bet you have no idea of any preferred model, nor anyone else here, and as much i cant expect anyone to know what they expect from any policydeathboy
    • On an issue like this I'd say it makes sense to have some humility and listen to what majority of scientists are saying. I would definitely not get my infoyuekit
    • The model that keeps warming less than 2º above pre-industrial times, the threshold at which shit starts to go seriously sideways.BuddhaHat
    • from a corporation that is spending hundreds of millions to deceive people. Unless you enjoy being propagandized to.yuekit
    • is that what trump would do buddha? still acting like him? :( feel free to chime in with the model you believe to be correct and the policy and reasons 4 itdeathboy
    • The point where frequency of serious weather events escalates rapidly, where crop production is damaged and people starve, where islands start to disappear.BuddhaHat
    • And all of those issues mentioned all have severe economic consequences as well.BuddhaHat
    • This is the problem with modern political discussion BTW -- people use whataboutisms and false equivalence so that you can't tell what is true anymore.yuekit
    • It's simply not the case that all of the world's scientists are involved in a quid pro quo the way the oil companies are. That's completely silly.yuekit
    • that goes without saying. did you also know an ice age would really eff shit up too?deathboy
    • @yuekit, I was going to say 'bullshit masquerading as intelligent discourse', but yours just about covers it.BuddhaHat
    • And just because there is some uncertainty on predictions -- of course there is -- doesn't mean its not a serious issue. Let's not pretend to be stupider thanyuekit
    • we are. The truth is it would be great if climate change was made up, then we wouldn't have to deal with a difficult and costly problem. But that's not theyuekit
    • reality unfortunately.yuekit
    • i dont seem to have a problem finding truth. that is the only thing im biased for. why i like political philosophy and hate partisianship.deathboy
    • why im trying to get down to the specifics that create the belief, the science and reason. my belief is I havent seen anything to generate the beleif the mediadeathboy
    • likes to hint at. they never get into specifics either, or if they do they pick and choose, and a good reader reads what isnt said. why im really curiousdeathboy
    • about the specifics of your belief?deathboy
    • oh i believe in climate change. and i believe it will happen regardless of the money we throw at it. and it will be disruptive. that is a certainitydeathboy
    • talking future doom id be more concerned with solar flares for disruption. but these notes are getting a bit long in the tooth. i dont really expect an answerdeathboy
    • for specifics, but something to ponder, float and shape i guess. im happy i think i finally figured out the base question to ask after all this timedeathboy
    • I agree that we will suffer the consequences regardless, but it's an escalating issue. The longer we put off solution the worse the disaster.yuekit
    • also remember john dewey i read somewhere believed in the future we wouldn't judge upon evidence but associations, brands.deathboy
    • which i think has something to do with beliefs in green technology. id really like to believe all the policy was good, be so much easierdeathboy
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread