Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: When Hope is the Enemy of Change

Do they seasonally adjust climate change polling t...

2009-04-26T02:14:00.000-04:00

Do they seasonally adjust climate change polling the way they do for unemployment? Because they should. Let's be honest here: Americans are much more likely to feel anxiety over our warming earth in the summer rather than the winter. So, relatively cool early april on the east coast = perceived lack of support for combating climate change. Give it a couple months to pick back up.

Gee, Bradford, you're a moron. You know that, rig...

2009-04-24T05:01:00.000-04:00

Gee, Bradford, you're a moron. You know that, right? Just checking.

knickelbein5, Not bad. I doubt I could have writ...

2009-04-23T18:43:00.000-04:00

knickelbein5,

Not bad. I doubt I could have written something like that at 17 (I was sadly lacking in focus). I fear that I've become so cynical that I'd never try anything similar. I have to believe that if every person who was worried about global warming wrote a letter like yours that it'd have a major impact, though, so maybe I should get off my lazy ass.

PeteKent, It takes a special kind of hubris to su...

2009-04-23T18:37:00.000-04:00

PeteKent,

It takes a special kind of hubris to suggest that while we lead the pack of major nations polluting the planet, we aren't obligated to do anything about it because other countries aren't doing it first. We've inflicted many, many years of industrial destruction while the other countries you mentioned aren't nearly as developed as we are. If you wanted to be fair and give everybody the same opportunity, you'd have to give other countries the opportunity to damage the environment for as long as we have. That's not what I am suggesting, but until they do that, you really can't gripe about them having an unfair advantage over us.

According to the data I looked at, if you total the per capita CO2 output of India, China and Brazil it comes out to a little over a 1/4 of ours here in the US. Those countries could increase their emissions ten-fold and still not catch up with us. So I think we have a little leeway here. If we want to address this problem, we need to do something about it ourselves. Nobody is going to follow our lead if we're waiting for them to do things first. Once we start taking serious steps towards reducing our CO2 emissions, then we (and others who are doing similarly) can start to put real pressure on those that aren't.

Also, your line of thinking would have us running sweatshops, silencing troublesome press, and generally doing any unsavory thing other countries do because we don't want to handicap ourselves.

The simple problem with Obama's cap and trade and ...

2009-04-23T15:43:00.000-04:00

The simple problem with Obama's cap and trade and other schemes to reduce green house gases is that he can only make these things happen in the USA. China, India and Brazil, along with host of other nations in the developing world are not inclined to do anything about the problem. They are too busy growing their economies and trying to expand prosperity for their people to worry about the speculative ills of CO2 gasses.

Obama, on the other hand, has the arrogance and malevolence to vainly try and reduce US output of these green house gases without caring that he will lower our standard of living and further destroy the competitiveness of our industry on a global basis, leading to fewer jobs and less income for our people while we choke on the fumes wafting over the Pacific from Asia.

Madness!

PeteKent01 (follow me on twitter)

nova_middle_man: - Technically: Increased efficie...

2009-04-23T10:47:00.000-04:00

nova_middle_man:

- Technically: Increased efficiency of end-use (compact fluorescent light bulbs, application of solar energy for heating, co-generation of heating power with electrical usage); development of non-CO2-generating power (solar, wind, improved nuclear); technology for sequestering CO2 while burning fossil fuels.

- Institutionally: Carbon taxes or cap & trade to give incentive to avoid producing CO2. This basically reduces the externalities involved with producing and dumping CO2.

In broad strokes, this is what the Obama program is about.

Blah blah blah argue argue aruge Anyone want to a...

2009-04-23T10:30:00.000-04:00

Blah blah blah argue argue aruge

Anyone want to actually talk about what to do about this issue

Once again its about us. Who cares rival think tanks or cable news is throwing at each other. Its up to the American people to take action.

Vern, The problem with your idea is that evolutio...

2009-04-23T10:14:00.000-04:00

Vern,

The problem with your idea is that evolution takes place on timescales of many thousands, even millions of years. A dramatic change in temperature (few degrees in 200 years) is much faster than anything that evolution is ready to deal with. Evolution is a random process, in order to adapt to changes it takes lots of time. Expecting a species (and a biosphere) to adapt to that rapid a change is like expecting a lizard slammed by a hammer to evolve a shell.

This point has been spelled out by, among others, the eminent biologist E.O. Wilson.

I find it slightly worrying that people are talkin...

2009-04-23T10:12:00.000-04:00

I find it slightly worrying that people are talking about 'Left' and 'Right'. This isn't about ideology, it's about facts.

Mingl: Mitt Romney finds it difficult to mingl

It's ironic that the left tosses aside evolution c...

2009-04-23T09:53:00.000-04:00

It's ironic that the left tosses aside evolution completely when it comes to their view of the environment. All species both adapt to and change the environment.

Environmental changes are neither good nor bad, simply favorable or unfavorable. The species that adapt will go on, those that do not, won't. It doesn't matter whether the intelligent designer is us - adaptation is NOT design.

ONLY if you take the view that humans are "above" or "outside" of nature can one conclude that we have some special ability (let alone responsibility) to design our own future.

I believe you mean "innumerable" rather than "innu...

2009-04-23T08:26:00.000-04:00

I believe you mean "innumerable" rather than "innumerate."

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

in·nu·mer·ate (ĭ-nōō'mər-ĭt, ĭ-nyōō'-)
1. adj. Unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.
2. n. A person who is unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.
in·nu'mer·a·cy n.

Bradford, I'm familiar with the IPCC report. Ther...

2009-04-23T06:38:00.000-04:00

Bradford,

I'm familiar with the IPCC report. There is no doubt that there WILL be warming, but the DEGREE of warming depends very much on what human beings decide to do about producing power. That is why they have twenty or so different scenarios, with different expectations for each of them.

Indeed, if CO2 emissions were to stop entirely, heating would continue for some 20 years, and then stall; over the next several hundred years, average global temperature would decline, as biological mechanisms (foraminafera) took CO2 out of the system and buried it at the bottom of the ocean.

Whereas if current trends in CO2 emissions continue ("business as usual"), we can expect to hit +4 degrees-C warming by 2100, and continued increase going forward.

So the horse is out of the barn, but the horse is still tame, and can be lured back into the barn, for now. Of course if we start firing guns at it, it will head for the hills.

We can all agree that Fox is not a news channel, i...

2009-04-23T05:35:00.000-04:00

We can all agree that Fox is not a news channel, it is the TV version of Rush's radio show. Both are unlistenable/unwatchable tripe.

Neal- Go read the IPPC report linked above. The ...

2009-04-23T05:34:00.000-04:00

Neal-

Go read the IPPC report linked above. The best scientists in the world reached a consensus that the horse has left the barn. Stopping this is damn near impossible. The problem with their model is it assumes a static planet and solar system in all other ways, which we know is not true.

Dark Eden, Fox News is notorious for putting a lo...

2009-04-23T02:40:00.000-04:00

Dark Eden,

Fox News is notorious for putting a lot of spin and misinterpretation on stories they get from newspapers. This doesn't affect ALL their reporting, however: Just science, politics, financial, and current events. I think they do just fine on sports.

The degree of scientific consensus on AGW can be measured by studying the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of global climate change. Naomi Oreske did such a study a few years ago, and found that there were essentially 0% of relevant scientific papers that even tried to cast doubt on the basic concept that there is global warming, and that it is due in large part to the combustion of fossil fuels. (Some folks jumped on her study, and claimed to find some 18 "doubting" papers out of thousands - but after all the dust settled, she was found to be right.)

So, you're almost right: the only correction is that the Fox News folks are NOT covert. They spin & lie to your face.

I'm not even going to try to argue anything in her...

2009-04-23T02:33:00.000-04:00

I'm not even going to try to argue anything in here; I'll just drop a link.

I have to wonder how much of Fox News' budget libe...

2009-04-22T23:34:00.000-04:00

I have to wonder how much of Fox News' budget liberals think they spend on plants and faking news and manufacturing scientific reports and things! Apparently about 95% of Fox News' budget goes to these things, if one is to believe all these liberal commenters!

Or maybe the "consensus" that exists on AGW is a scam? Nono that can't possibly be. Millions of Fox News covert agents HAVE to be behind it all!

Insect/Neal/Mike I share your views for the most ...

2009-04-22T23:13:00.000-04:00

Insect/Neal/Mike

I share your views for the most part. Nobody's climate model can be completely relied on, but to say we can't stop putting CO2 in the air because it's too disruptive to the world economy is absurd.

If there's a relatively small but significant likelihood that our CO2 may have catastrophic effects (I think there is), then lets start by making it a goal to stop CO2 and see what we can do.

Zero carbon is a worthy goal, to be reached as soon as humanly possible, IMHO.

I wrote this letter to my representatives in Congr...

2009-04-22T20:51:00.000-04:00

I wrote this letter to my representatives in Congress. I want people to know the younger generation (my generation) cares about environmental issues and is not a bunch of slackers. Please tell me what you think:

Dear Congress,
My name is Daniel Knickelbein and I am 17 year-old high school student from Oak Park, Illinois. I guess you could call me an “environmentalist,” based on the fact that I believe that global warming is a serious threat to mankind and I believe in the conservation of natural lands and resources in their purest form. But I don’t think I can be labeled as a crazy left-winger because, well, who doesn’t like clean water, or land available for fishing or hiking, or restoring natural forests to their original beauty.
The reason I am writing this letter is because I believe that starting TODAY, the United States Congress must act to pass serious climate change legislation, and must also recognize that we must conserve the few natural lands we still have left in this country.
The science on global warming is unmistakable. When 97 percent of climatologists in this country believe that global warming is man-made and will have serious effects on our world, we must act to do something about that. It is unfathomable to me how some of you in Congress can not address this issue, while you sit and bicker about party ideals.
For those who say that addressing climate change and global warming will hurt the economy, you must think again. As many economists and scientists point out, a “green” economy is an investment in the future, sort of like beginning to tackle the large deficit that has been passed down by many presidents. Now some of you skeptics will say that I am an affluent suburban teenager who has no idea what it is like to experience financial hardship that you say will be cause by tackling global warming. Please think again. My father was a chemist employed at his dream job for 20 years, but when the recession hit, his lab was forced to fire him because of lack of funding. While I am currently by no means poor, my father’s misfortune has left our family in a somewhat difficult situation.
Now, we have any opportunity to help millions of other Americans like my father. If our country (you guys and girls in Congress) decide to invest in my future with green technologies, my father might be able to work again. And yes investing in renewable energy and green technology is MY future. Long after all 535 of you are gone, I would like to live in a safe and prosperous planet, not a planet where I have to worry about where I find my next meal, or my next glass of water. If we continue to allow global warming to go unchecked, that scenario is not exactly science fiction, it could and very well may become reality.
So today, on the 39th Earth Day, I ask every single member of Congress to consider their priorities as some of the most powerful people in the United States. Do you wish to leave your children and grandchildren in a safe and prosperous world? Should we leave them in a place that is dangerous and unhealthy? Should we allow the few remaining natural lands to be destroyed for a profit? These are questions that I hope you will consider when voting on a climate change bill. The only thing I ask of all of you is to please read my letter, and to consider what I have said.
I also want to give thanks to every single one of you for the service you do for your country. I am very lucky to be able to live in a country where I can write this letter freely, and a country where I am able to express my opinions without afterthought.
Please consider what I have said in this letter.
Sincerely,
Daniel Knickelbein

fred posted as follows: "As for suffering - is it...

2009-04-22T20:48:00.000-04:00

fred posted as follows:

"As for suffering - is it better from a suffering standpoint to hold Somalia and Bangaldesh down so they can't move to modern carbon based economies, or does it cause less?"

How will Bangladesh do if it's under water?

wv: ganne. Which is what will happen to many island and coastal nations in the near future.

On Mike's ocean remarks: One of the first consequ...

2009-04-22T20:13:00.000-04:00

On Mike's ocean remarks:

One of the first consequences will be the dissolving of the coral reefs, wiping out the ecosystems which live around them. Unfortunately, we may have passed the point of no return on that. The idea is to not pass many other such points.

No, Rudy, the pH at which coral dissolves and the acidity of dissolved CO2 are not highly speculative issues.

Another thing to consider is that, even if we are ...

2009-04-22T20:05:00.000-04:00

Another thing to consider is that, even if we are completely wrong about the climatic effects of carbon dioxide, or we succeed in creating a technology for reducing global warming by increasing reflectivity with high clouds, we're still left with the chemical effects of doubling the CO2 concentration--namely, ocean acidification. That itself will have huge consequences for the biosphere and civilization.

Michael (mbw) is right on about the theory being f...

2009-04-22T20:00:00.000-04:00

Michael (mbw) is right on about the theory being far ahead of the observed warming. Svante Arrhenius, in the 19th century, didn't have a very sophisticated theory, but his ideas of increasing CO2 warming the planet weren't generated as a way of explaining observed warming.

There's some evidence that people walking through ...

2009-04-22T19:55:00.000-04:00

There's some evidence that people walking through a particular neighborhood at night are getting killed, but all we have to go on is word of mouth ("he said he was going to that new bar once he got through cleaning out his freezer") and normal routine ("she always walked down Willow St. to get home after a game"). Thus far, only one body has been found, and it was dumped in another county, so there really is no proof, only indications. Now, your daughter cuts through the neighborhood in question to get home from work at night. She could go around it, but it would add 5-10 minutes to her walk time. What do you counsel her to do?

If you're the average Republican, you rail about how there's no proof that bad things are happening in that neighborhood, point out how inconvenient it would be to go around it, and send your daughter on her merry way.*

If you're the average Democrat, you decide that the stakes are very high and advise your daughter to be prudent and go around the neighborhood. Hell, even if you're poor you probably scrape together enough cash to get her an old clunker to drive so she doesn't have to walk at all.

The point of all of this is that even if the details of global warming are ambiguous, you should damn well err on the side of not destroying the biosphere (or making it unlivable for humans). The same people who shrug off major climate change as something endurable run scared at the idea of slowing economic growth by a few percentage points. Does this seem incongruent to you (particularly given the impact major climate change would have on the economy)? Do Republicans really only care about putting money in their pockets right now (and let the future be damned)?

Some people won't be convinced of the danger unless and until the planet is actually on fire (and half of those people would still be claiming that it's a natural process). I think that there is some honest scientific skepticism out there, but that the debate is mostly a political one. On one side you have people who worry about indications that man is screwing up the planet. On the other side you have people who don't want to see the danger because it would hurt their pocketbooks. The tragedy about all of this is that by making the debate political, the second group is elevated to equal importance to the first, which makes no sense. It should all be about what scientists believe and not how well politicians can spin things.

Let me finish here by saying that if there's only a 1 in 6 chance we are drastically screwing up the biosphere, let's not play Russian Roulette (and I think the chances are much greater than that).

*And buying your daughter a gun or a car is analogous to allocating significant portions of money to stave off the possibility of major climate change.

Bradford: You say, "Global warming is real, but w...

2009-04-22T19:48:00.000-04:00

Bradford:

You say, "Global warming is real, but we cannot stop it, and we do not understand the consequences."

I don't understand your position. If GW is due to increased CO2 (which is agreed by the vast majority of climate scientists), then it is incorrect to say that "we cannot stop it".

An extreme measure (which I am NOT advocating) would be to stop using fossil fuels suddenly and completely. As we discussed earlier, that would end GW in approximately 20 years. This would constitute "stopping GW".

And there may very well be technological solutions that cut down or even eliminate the emission of CO2. So what makes you say it is impossible?