Suggestion for Republican Candidates

[kalm]

Government has a tendency to fund things that guarantee a bigger government.

Truth.

Reply: That is true and it needs to be addressed on many levels. For example, according to the IMF, the U.S. government spends more to subsidize fossil fuels than Russian and China combined.

[Pwns]

Truth.

Reply: That is true and it needs to be addressed on many levels. For example, according to the IMF, the U.S. government spends more to subsidize fossil fuels than Russian and China combined.

Oil subsidies: about $5 billion per year
Federal Gas Tax Revenue: $41 billion (2012)

[CID1990]

Really?

I have a front row seat to who gets grant money to study climate change. There's no conspiracy to it. Grant money flows from left to right and from right to left all depending on who is running the show at the moment.

And the spigot shuts off when you step out of line.

Reply: I didn't realize grants were approved through the senate.

(BTW, how is it you have a front row seat? Not denying, just curious)

Cmon man, seriously?

Federal departments tap dance to whatever tune is playing in the White House, and always have. The ones that get the attention are agencies like ICE when they are told to stop deporting certain people, and COngress has nothing to do with it. Who gets what money to study what is also controlled largely by whoever is running the bureaucratic show at the moment, but it usually doesnt make for a sexy news hour.

DoS has a big hand in the push- you can look it up on our website. I'm not one who says that humans have no effect on climate change- I think we DO have an effect- but there's some bad science out there on both sides (as has been said a million times here ad nauseum). But there is a large truth out there: federal research dollars are politically driven in LOTS of different venues, not just climate change. I think Clitz once talked about a friend who wrote a paper on all of the things you CAN'T get research grants for.

If you're a climate scientist and your thesis is "Flaws in Climate Change Predictive Models" you are not going to get a Federal reserach grant, period. And yes, you could get one from Exxon if that was your proposed line of research. But to think that Federal money is any more legitimate than oil company money once again belies a faith in government that is frankly puzzling.

[kalm]

Reply: I didn't realize grants were approved through the senate.

(BTW, how is it you have a front row seat? Not denying, just curious)

Cmon man, seriously?

Federal departments tap dance to whatever tune is playing in the White House, and always have. The ones that get the attention are agencies like ICE when they are told to stop deporting certain people, and COngress has nothing to do with it. Who gets what money to study what is also controlled largely by whoever is running the bureaucratic show at the moment, but it usually doesnt make for a sexy news hour.

DoS has a big hand in the push- you can look it up on our website. I'm not one who says that humans have no effect on climate change- I think we DO have an effect- but there's some bad science out there on both sides (as has been said a million times here ad nauseum). But there is a large truth out there: federal research dollars are politically driven in LOTS of different venues, not just climate change. I think Clitz once talked about a friend who wrote a paper on all of the things you CAN'T get research grants for.

If you're a climate scientist and your thesis is "Flaws in Climate Change Predictive Models" you are not going to get a Federal reserach grant, period. And yes, you could get one from Exxon if that was your proposed line of research. But to think that Federal money is any more legitimate than oil company money once again belies a faith in government that is frankly puzzling.

So I guess we're no longer role playing?

[kalm]

Reply: That is true and it needs to be addressed on many levels. For example, according to the IMF, the U.S. government spends more to subsidize fossil fuels than Russian and China combined.

Oil subsidies: about $5 billion per year
Federal Gas Tax Revenue: $41 billion (2012)

Reply: And the US spent 502 billion in total subsidies (2011). Under my democratic predecessor, exploration subsidies alone nearly doubled from 2009 to 2013 ($2.6 billion to $5.1 billion)

(Still in character)

[Pwns]

Oil subsidies: about $5 billion per year
Federal Gas Tax Revenue: $41 billion (2012)

Reply: And the US spent 502 billion in total subsidies (2011). Under my democratic predecessor, exploration subsidies alone nearly doubled from 2009 to 2013 ($2.6 billion to $5.1 billion)

(Still in character)

502 billion ? I think you are citing the number for all energy subsidies world wide.

This is a breakdown of subsidies from WIkipedia, with a citation from a CBO report.
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

[CID1990]

Cmon man, seriously?

Federal departments tap dance to whatever tune is playing in the White House, and always have. The ones that get the attention are agencies like ICE when they are told to stop deporting certain people, and COngress has nothing to do with it. Who gets what money to study what is also controlled largely by whoever is running the bureaucratic show at the moment, but it usually doesnt make for a sexy news hour.

DoS has a big hand in the push- you can look it up on our website. I'm not one who says that humans have no effect on climate change- I think we DO have an effect- but there's some bad science out there on both sides (as has been said a million times here ad nauseum). But there is a large truth out there: federal research dollars are politically driven in LOTS of different venues, not just climate change. I think Clitz once talked about a friend who wrote a paper on all of the things you CAN'T get research grants for.

If you're a climate scientist and your thesis is "Flaws in Climate Change Predictive Models" you are not going to get a Federal reserach grant, period. And yes, you could get one from Exxon if that was your proposed line of research. But to think that Federal money is any more legitimate than oil company money once again belies a faith in government that is frankly puzzling.

So I guess we're no longer role playing?

Roleplaying?

I guess you're too nuanced for me.

[kalm]

Reply: And the US spent 502 billion in total subsidies (2011). Under my democratic predecessor, exploration subsidies alone nearly doubled from 2009 to 2013 ($2.6 billion to $5.1 billion)

(Still in character)

502 billion ? I think you are citing the number for all energy subsidies world wide.

This is a breakdown of subsidies from WIkipedia, with a citation from a CBO report.
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

Reply: Not when you account for carbon based externalities like the IMF does. That's real accounting ladies and gentleman, considering the total cost of fossil fuels rather than cherry picking. Global fossil fuel subsidies are over $1 trillion. My opponent is simply playing games with the numbers.

Spoiler: show

Between directly lowered prices, tax breaks, and the failure to properly price carbon, the world subsidized fossil fuel use by over $1.9 trillion in 2011 — or eight percent of global government revenues — according to a study released this week by the International Monetary Fund.
The biggest offender was by far the United States, clocking in at $502 billion. China came in second at $279 billion, and Russia was third at $116 billion. In fact, the problem is so significant in the U.S. that the IMF figures correcting it will require new fees, levies, or taxes totaling over $500 billion a year, or more than 3 percent of the economy.
The most significant finding is that most of the problem — a little over $1 trillion worth — is the failure to properly price carbon pollution. Global warming is the ultimate example of a “negative externality” — a market failure in which one market actor enjoys the benefits of an exchange while another actor pays the costs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 ... ubsidizer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

So I guess we're no longer role playing?

Roleplaying?

I guess you're too nuanced for me.

Not much nuance. It's how the thread was going. Looks like someone took a ride on the struggle bus this morning.

[Pwns]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 ... ubsidizer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/spoil]

So in other words, $500 billion in theoretical spending and not real spending.

[kalm]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0 ... ubsidizer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/spoil]

So in other words, $500 billion in theoretical spending and not real spending.

Yeah...environmental, healthcare, military, and infrastructure costs are "theoretical".

[Baldy]

I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my shit together.

Oh fuck!

Nevermind...

[Ivytalk]

I'm voting for DSU.

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my **** together.

DSU, I don't care about the white women part, but when you join 93 and me at Sambo's this year, remember it's cash only!

[93henfan]

Last year the only place on the planet cooler than normal was the east coast of the US.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Pwns]

So in other words, $500 billion in theoretical spending and not real spending.

Yeah...environmental, healthcare, military, and infrastructure costs are "theoretical".

From your think progress article.

In calculating the value of the externalities subsidy, the IMF assumed the global warming damages of carbon emissions at $25 per ton

"Assumed". So basically, whenever there is, say, a tornado, that tornado can be assumed to be a part of climate change and factored into externalities.

[JohnStOnge]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I'm suggesting. You change the playing field. You don't argue about the details of climate science. You argue about what the process of science is.

Like, for instance, if you say a controlled experiment is required to infer cause and effect with statistical data you're not going to be in a situation where only something like 3% agree with you. It's going to be pretty close to 100%. You're certainly going to get 100% agreement among frequentist statisticians. They can't argue with you on that proposition. Then you point back to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is on record as saying that it's not possible to conduct the experiments that would be necessary to provide unequivocal attribution.

That sort of thing. You don't argue with climate scientists about climate. You argue with them about the more general matter of science and the limitations imposed on climate science by the nature of the endeavor.

You could even do things like turn the way they like to ask about what you'll do if one doctor tells you one thing while 99 doctors tell you another around by contrasting medical science with climate science. Medical science is a strong experimental science. Climate science is not. It's an observational discipline. You could point out that the type of evidence that's being accepted as showing cause and effect in climate science would NEVER be accepted as such in medical science.

In other words, attack the entire realm of climate science. It's a "soft" science that due to its nature is necessarily fraught with uncertainty.

Believe me, it's fertile ground if anybody ever decides to cultivate it.

[houndawg]

Last year the only place on the planet cooler than normal was the east coast of the US.

Thanks for the compliment.

That's just because normally you are not very cool..

[Pwns]

I understand what you are saying JSO.

I would add to that the alarmists that believe that renewables can become the predominant energy source within the time frame we supposedly have to make emission reductions. Also people who oppose nuclear power. People need to be called out for that too.

[Chizzang]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I'm suggesting. You change the playing field. You don't argue about the details of climate science. You argue about what the process of science is.

Like, for instance, if you say a controlled experiment is required to infer cause and effect with statistical data you're not going to be in a situation where only something like 3% agree with you. It's going to be pretty close to 100%. You're certainly going to get 100% agreement among frequentist statisticians. They can't argue with you on that proposition. Then you point back to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is on record as saying that it's not possible to conduct the experiments that would be necessary to provide unequivocal attribution.

That sort of thing. You don't argue with climate scientists about climate. You argue with them about the more general matter of science and the limitations imposed on climate science by the nature of the endeavor.

You could even do things like turn the way they like to ask about what you'll do if one doctor tells you one thing while 99 doctors tell you another around by contrasting medical science with climate science. Medical science is a strong experimental science. Climate science is not. It's an observational discipline. You could point out that the type of evidence that's being accepted as showing cause and effect in climate science would NEVER be accepted as such in medical science.

In other words, attack the entire realm of climate science. It's a "soft" science that due to its nature is necessarily fraught with uncertainty.

Believe me, it's fertile ground if anybody ever decides to cultivate it.

So you're saying a guy (Republican Candidate) The very same guy
who believes - along with his constituents - the Earth is 5 thousand years old
should flip the debate around
and not argue the details of science - but - cleverly argue the "process" of science


Seems Reasonable

[houndawg]

I think you guys are missing the point of what I'm suggesting. You change the playing field. You don't argue about the details of climate science. You argue about what the process of science is.

Like, for instance, if you say a controlled experiment is required to infer cause and effect with statistical data you're not going to be in a situation where only something like 3% agree with you. It's going to be pretty close to 100%. You're certainly going to get 100% agreement among frequentist statisticians. They can't argue with you on that proposition. Then you point back to the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is on record as saying that it's not possible to conduct the experiments that would be necessary to provide unequivocal attribution.

That sort of thing. You don't argue with climate scientists about climate. You argue with them about the more general matter of science and the limitations imposed on climate science by the nature of the endeavor.

You could even do things like turn the way they like to ask about what you'll do if one doctor tells you one thing while 99 doctors tell you another around by contrasting medical science with climate science. Medical science is a strong experimental science. Climate science is not. It's an observational discipline. You could point out that the type of evidence that's being accepted as showing cause and effect in climate science would NEVER be accepted as such in medical science.

In other words, attack the entire realm of climate science. It's a "soft" science that due to its nature is necessarily fraught with uncertainty.

Believe me, it's fertile ground if anybody ever decides to cultivate it.

So you're saying a guy (Republican Candidate) The very same guy
who believes - along with his constituents - the Earth is 5 thousand years old
should flip the debate around
and not argue the details of science - but - cleverly argue the "process" of science


Seems Reasonable

Well it seems a lot easier than trying to convince educated people that the earth is 5,000 years old, virgins have babies, and dead people walk out of their tomb and fly away up into the sky.

[Chizzang]

So you're saying a guy (Republican Candidate) The very same guy
who believes - along with his constituents - the Earth is 5 thousand years old
should flip the debate around
and not argue the details of science - but - cleverly argue the "process" of science


Seems Reasonable

Well it seems a lot easier than trying to convince educated people that the earth is 5,000 years old, virgins have babies, and dead people walk out of their tomb and fly away up into the sky.

Hmmm...
My point was, if you're going to argue the values of the scientific process
How could you also simultaneously NOT use the scientific method regarding the Earths age..?

Answer:
You wouldn't
You either value the scientific method or you do not value it
But paying it lip service for one debate and not another - is stupid

[houndawg]

Well it seems a lot easier than trying to convince educated people that the earth is 5,000 years old, virgins have babies, and dead people walk out of their tomb and fly away up into the sky.

Hmmm...
My point was, if you're going to argue the values of the scientific process
How could you also simultaneously NOT use the scientific method regarding the Earths age..?

Answer:
You wouldn't
You either value the scientific method or you do not value it
But paying it lip service for one debate and not another - is stupid

No, I wouldn't, and neither would you. But when your constituency is as I described, why would you worry about consistency?

[Chizzang]

Hmmm...
My point was, if you're going to argue the values of the scientific process
How could you also simultaneously NOT use the scientific method regarding the Earths age..?

Answer:
You wouldn't
You either value the scientific method or you do not value it
But paying it lip service for one debate and not another - is stupid

No, I wouldn't, and neither would you. But when your constituency is as I described, why would you worry about consistency?

ah... Yes I see

[DSUrocks07]

I'm a black man who's divorced a white woman who i had a kid with, had another child out of wedlock with another white woman, paying child support for both and remarried to another white woman, i also have bad credit and have judgements against me in civil court.

I would have to run as a Dem just to have a chance make it out of the primaries

Maybe 20 years from now tho, when i get my **** together.

DSU, I don't care about the white women part, but when you join 93 and me at Sambo's this year, remember it's cash only!

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a...





never mind

[kalm]

Yeah...environmental, healthcare, military, and infrastructure costs are "theoretical".

From your think progress article.

In calculating the value of the externalities subsidy, the IMF assumed the global warming damages of carbon emissions at $25 per ton

"Assumed". So basically, whenever there is, say, a tornado, that tornado can be assumed to be a part of climate change and factored into externalities.

And they may have low balled the estimate with some estimates as high as $85/ton.

At least they're recognizing there's an economic impact to externalities.