• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doc Savage Fan said:
Not much to discuss beyond demonizing and ridiculing each other. Nuclear is a non-starter for liberals....end of discussion. Cap and trade is a non-starter for conservatives...end of discussion. Philosophically, liberals and conservatives are on different planets.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is not a non-starter for liberals. In fact, according to Gallup 50% of Democrats favor nuclear power:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/A...r energy&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles

_4v0pgzdleqcdnrah443ma.gif


I found a more recent poll that showed an overall decline in support in recent years, but they didn't have a party breakdown. Regardless, clearly something with around 50% support for a number of years isn't a nonstarter.

I for one support expanding nuclear power and cap and trade. Both make sense to me.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Not much to discuss beyond demonizing and ridiculing each other. Nuclear is a non-starter for liberals....end of discussion. Cap and trade is a non-starter for conservatives...end of discussion. Philosophically, liberals and conservatives are on different planets.
Click to expand...

How is that any worse than the current state of believers vs. deniers? At least if the arguments were about solutions they'd be more honest and occasionally might even be informational ... purely by accident, of course.

Personally, while I don't see nuclear as the sole solution, I agree it is a key part of a comprehensive solution. Pragmatism.
 
eskimospy said:
Nuclear is not a non-starter for liberals. In fact, according to Gallup 50% of Democrats favor nuclear power:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/A...r energy&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles

_4v0pgzdleqcdnrah443ma.gif


I found a more recent poll that showed an overall decline in support in recent years, but they didn't have a party breakdown. Regardless, clearly something with around 50% support for a number of years isn't a nonstarter.

I for one support expanding nuclear power and cap and trade. Both make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Glad to see Democrats supporting nuclear...all we need now is leadership.
 
eskimospy said:
Finally, his paper argues that the consensus rate should be anywhere from 90% to 94% instead of 97%. Furthermore, if you read the rest of your paragraph you will notice that exactly 0.7% of the ratings differed between rejection and endorsement. Even taking Tol's numbers as being correct yields the result where the overwhelming majority of scientists agree. It's funny that not even the author of your paper himself disagrees with the fact that the scientific consensus for AGW is overwhelming, haha.
Click to expand...

Consensus on exactly what? Consensus that AGW is warming the planet? Consensus on how much AGW will warm the planet in the next century (1 degree, 5 degrees, 20 degrees)? Consensus on the impact of that warming on the planet (net positive, net negative, net neutral, net catastrophic world ending, etc...)? Consensus on the impact of outlawing fossil fuels (net negative, net neutral, net positive, net catastrophic, etc....)? Etc.....

In the end it really is a silly argument on both sides. Like scientific consensus now is going to determine the weather in 2100. When we are all dead, the world will know if the predictions of these scientists were accurate or if there were serious variables missed that made their predictions garbage. In any event none of us will never know.

We do know that their models missed significantly for the past 25 years. They will obviously make adjustments to their models to account for this previously unknown variable.

I would be pretty interested in the scientific models that prove burning fossil fuels is a net negative to humanity. From a quality of life POV, that clearly seems to be the exact inverse of documented reality. Less starvation, better health care, cleaner water, safer food..... it is world wide phenomenom. In the face of 100 years of catastrophic AGW, humanity has lived far far far better than any society in world history and it just keeps getting better.
 
eskimospy said:
What specific actions would you like Obama to take?

Also while we are on the subject, when can we expect Republican leadership on cap and trade? They seem to be actively undermining it instead of providing leadership.
Click to expand...
Republicans are typically against cap and trade as they don't see it as as an effective solution, so I highly doubt you'll see any leadership there. I would like to see Obama advocating the development of safer reactor designs and streamlining the regulatory process for NRC licences....but I won't hold my breath.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Republicans are typically against cap and trade as they don't see it as as an effective solution, so I highly doubt you'll see any leadership there. I would like to see Obama advocating the development of safer reactor designs and streamlining the regulatory process for NRC licences....but I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt I won't see leadership there. As soon as Democrats started supporting cap and trade Republicans jumped ship. It's interesting to look at how quickly people go from supporting something to seeing it as ineffective when they have a political incentive to do so.

As for expanding research funding and approvals, good news! Obama upped his request about 10% year on year. He has substantially increased funding to it, although it would appear slightly less than Republicans want him to.

http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/DOE-Defends-Its-Nuclear-Energy-Spending-Request

So now that the Democrats are doing what you complained about, surely you will condemn the Republicans for their lack of leadership on the issue, correct?
 
eskimospy said:
I have no doubt I won't see leadership there. As soon as Democrats started supporting cap and trade Republicans jumped ship. It's interesting to look at how quickly people go from supporting something to seeing it as ineffective when they have a political incentive to do so.

As for expanding research funding and approvals, good news! Obama upped his request about 10% year on year. He has substantially increased funding to it, although it would appear slightly less than Republicans want him to.

http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/DOE-Defends-Its-Nuclear-Energy-Spending-Request

So now that the Democrats are doing what you complained about, surely you will condemn the Republicans for their lack of leadership on the issue, correct?
Click to expand...
I was not aware that Republicans broadly supported cap& trade before "jumping ship". Please link.

Obama's FY16 budget for the Office of Nuclear Energy ($907.5 million) is BELOW what Congress approved for FY15 ($913.5 million). Is this the part where I'm supposed to make a snide comment about how you've been duped?

Anyway, Republican leadership has their hands full with a lot of issues right now and, since they've only had leadership for a few months, I'll cut them a little slack on making this a priority for the time being. As a side note, isn't it nice having bills regularly come to the floor for vote, giving the minority party an opportunity to not only vote, but the ability to amend these bills? What a concept!
 
Last edited:
Jeff7 said:
Does it make sense to intentionally poison the place where you live?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But are we? Since the advent of writing utensils someone, somewhere, has been holding up a sign saying 'The end is near'. Too many have filled a void within them with a cult-like worship of 'climate change'. In my lifetime I've heard apocalyptic scenarios that cross the entire spectrum of climate. I, along with the rest of you should have been dead many decades ago. All victims of the climate catastrophe du jour. Curiously, the same people that loathe organized religion seem to be very willing to genuflect to the gods of climate change. Curious, that.

Plenty has been done (and very successfully too), plenty is being done and plenty will be done. The anxiety of the climate change worshipers causes them to become despondent from time to time and to then reach out demanding solace, demanding that all others worship their God. Hopefully with their wallets. Gaia needs your money!

No worries, this planet has survived far, far worse than what mere man can throw at it. It will survive. You, are guaranteed not to regardless. Obama told you he was going to slow the rise of the oceans. My God, have a little faith will you? He's still got nearly two years left!

State of the planet: It's better than ever
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I was not aware that Republicans broadly supported cap& trade before "jumping ship". Please link.
Click to expand...

No problem!

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...d-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/

Obama's budget for the Office of Nuclear Energy ($907.5 million) is BELOW what Congress approved for FY15 ($913.5 million). Is this the part where I'm supposed ro make a snide comment about how you've been duped?
Click to expand...

No, it's below what Congress approved, but about 10% above what he requested last year. Last year's request was increased by Republicans, and now he's come closer to that position. Only in DSF land does increasing your request 10% over what you requested the year before represent decreasing your position.

You should read the whole article before commenting.

Anyway, Republican leadership has their hands full with a lot of issues right now and, since they've only had leadership for a few months, I'll cut them, a little slack on making this a priority for the time being.
Click to expand...

Okay, do you have a time frame for when we can expect leadership on climate change?

As a side note, isn't it nice having bills regularly come to the floor for vote, giving the minority party an opportunity to not only vote, but the ability to amend these bills? What a concept!
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that has to do with this. Do you find the dramatic decrease in filibusters by the new minority refreshing as well? Perhaps the Republicans have something to learn from watching people not throw a temper tantrum when they aren't in power, wouldn't you agree?
 
eskimospy said:
No problem!

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...d-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/
Click to expand...
WTF? Have you been drinking today? There is no broad Republican support for cap & trade for carbon dioxide emissions...which was the context of our discussion.

eskimospy said:
No, it's below what Congress approved, but about 10% above what he requested last year. Last year's request was increased by Republicans, and now he's come closer to that position. Only in DSF land does increasing your request 10% over what you requested the year before represent decreasing your position.
Click to expand...
Obama wants to REDUCE year-over-year spending for nuclear and you want to spin that as a huge positive because it was 9% more than he recommended the previous year. Now that's just plain sad.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
You may want to take your own advice. I am not at all surprised you listed a paper by a well known climate change denier, however.
Click to expand...
Please quote where Dr. Tol rejects that the climate changes.

eskimospy said:
Just from a quick perusal of his paper it seems that Tol has made a number of elementary errors.
Click to expand...
Since you failed to find any why would you make such a statement?

eskimospy said:
1. He complains about the search source because he has another one that returns more papers. Unless he can show a systematic bias in the smaller sample, its impact on the findings is mostly irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It was not irrelevant as he showed that Cook's sample was not representative of the climate science literature.

eskimospy said:
2. Tol misunderstands the basis for his contention that abstract reviewers get 'tired' over time by misapplying other research about repeated interview subjects. The journal is also responsible for this error as they should have caught this mistake in the peer review process.
Click to expand...
Really? Quote where he does.

eskimospy said:
3. The author states a disagreement with classification (that impact assessments shouldn't be classified as implicit acceptance) and then declares the original study wrong on the subject. This is a highly dubious claim, as apparently he is saying that an author is likely to be writing a paper about what humans can do to mitigate climate change while not believing that humans are causing climate change. Simply stating "I disagree with this based on my personal opinion" is not a compelling argument.
Click to expand...
Belief and scientific evidence supporting a claim are two different things. Utilizing impact studies is not scientific evidence in support of the existence of AGW, as it is no better than using an editorial. What is dubious is presenting a study that falsely claims 97% of the climate science literature endorses AGW when in reality you only have 65 papers and the majority 66% held no position.

eskimospy said:
Finally, his paper argues that the consensus rate should be anywhere from 90% to 94% instead of 97%.
Click to expand...
Wrong, he argues no such thing let alone provides scientific evidence to support any such number.

eskimospy said:
Furthermore, if you read the rest of your paragraph you will notice that exactly 0.7% of the ratings differed between rejection and endorsement. Even taking Tol's numbers as being correct yields the result where the overwhelming majority of scientists agree.
Click to expand...
Wrong, it showed Cook et als methodology to be worthless and it never should have passed peer-review. In no way does it support any conclusion except that the author's self ratings do not support the abstract rating as you wrongly stated.

eskimospy said:
It's funny that not even the author of your paper himself disagrees with the fact that the scientific consensus for AGW is overwhelming, haha.
Click to expand...
Having an anthropogenic component vs being the primary cause are not the same position.

eskimospy said:
Basically his methodology was biased against consensus regardless of what data was put into it. It was bullshit. I would suggest that you better comprehend papers you provide in the future before commenting on it.
Click to expand...
You have failed to support any of your nonsensical conclusions.
 
eskimospy said:
Nowhere in that 'rebuttal' does he address a single substantive criticism of his method, the most important one being that his analysis produced lower results regardless of the inputs. If it does that, it's bullshit, end of story. He also repeats himself about reviewer fatigue despite that clearly being based on his incorrect understanding of research he cited for his previous paper.
Click to expand...
Hand-waving and attempted mind-reading are not valid arguments.

eskimospy said:
If you wish to cite a rebuttal of his that addresses the numerous listed failures in his methods I'm all ears. Failing that I would suggest that you are the victim of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Show me an actual published comment and I will provide you with the rebuttal. You appear new to this debate and should have done more homework before entering it.
 
thraashman said:
From your own link

So even your guy is admitting that climate change is occurring and due to man. He's just unwilling to do anything to fix it.
Click to expand...
Are you new to this debate too? All skeptics believe the climate changes and the majority believe there is an anthropogenic component. The real debate is the magnitude of the contribution and its impacts.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
WTF? Have you been drinking today? There is no broad Republican support for cap & trade for carbon dioxide emissions...which was the context of our discussion.
Click to expand...

Interesting, their presidential nominee's campaign platform included a cap and trade provision but I guess Republicans didn't really support that.

So wait, are you trying to argue that although Republicans supported cap and trade regulations for a bunch of other pollutants relating to energy production that it only becomes unworkable when applied to CO2? Spin us some more, haha.

Obama wants to reduce year-over-year spending for nuclear and you want to spin that as a huge positive because it was 9% more than he recommended the previous year. Now that's just plain sad.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, if I say I want to spend $100 last year on something and then say I want to spend $110 on it this year, you take that to mean that I've reduced my support for it.

Now that's some impressive math right there.
 
humans will destroy this planet and in the grand scheme of things it wont matter one bit. Sure there will be suffering, but that has always been the way. And with religion leading the charge about "using the planet" no amount of science will stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top