Then again CB is not insane (Ray).

This is a poor argument.

The argument is that the United States should solve it's own energy inefficiency issues.

Wild, draconian measures won't change that, but the gradual creeping wide-spread adoption of smarter energy policies over many, many decades will.

Yes, yes, the one closer to your position is the more rational one. Shocking how that works.

Though I admit it's kind of fun that this comes from someone to whom climate change is a religion.

There are only two ways to "solve" energy inefficiency in the U.S.: A major technological or scientific discovery, or the forced relocation of suburbanites into very dense cities.

I don't mind turning my thermostat down 2 degrees, but it really doesn't matter if all of my neighbors are spending 2 hours per day in their cars.

"Many, many decades"? I thought Manhattan and Miami were going to be underwater by 2050 if we don't change our ways and fast?

We have a remarkably low population density in this country, made more dramatic by several very large urban population centers. A huge part of this country simply cannot function without heavy automobile travel, and we consume enormous amounts of energy shipping goods from one region to another. At the same time, we've got ancient infrastructure that gets replaced a little piece at a time. We've gone about 150 years since we last had a whole city destroyed by war that we had to rebuild (and even then, never in most of our largest cities).

We're not even close to our fair share of carbon emissions; if we were to cut our output in half, we'd be only slightly behind the entire European Union. The reason I think cap and trade won't work for us is because we'd need an obnoxiously large cap or to spend an outrageous amount of money buying credits from other countries (something our economy can't handle right now, and perhaps never will be able to). The United States, for better or worse, is fundamentally different from every other country in the world, and "worked for Europe" doesn't translate into "works for the US."

I think that's the really disconcerting part. I think I'm pretty moderate and realistic on this issue: we should be doing something (which we are), we should be trying to do more (which I also think we are), but we need to prioritize our efforts to address this problem and a number of other problems we are facing as a nation and a planet.

I'm being characterized by some as "throwing my hands up in the air" and "wanting to do nothing."

Though I admit it's kind of fun that this comes from someone to whom climate change is a religion.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

Incremental improvements in technology over time won't address energy inefficiency? Really?

You're a deficit hawk, Joe, would you agree that we should address the budget the way you want to address AGW, and let the chips fall where they may?

Worst part is, when people really do start dying because of this, all the obstructionists will likely already be dead, unaffected by the consequences of their inaction.

Woohoo!!

What's stopping you from getting started?

How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles?

Is your air conditioner running right now?

How big is your home?

You don't really need a TV, do you?

Is this the part where we all cheer the thought of Ray's death, and then Jim bans Andy?

I don't mind turning my thermostat down 2 degrees, but it really doesn't matter if all of my neighbors are spending 2 hours per day in their cars.

Within the context of the budget, every dollar not spent is a dollar not spent. But with climate change, no one even knows with any certainty that we'd get positive ROI on the billions or trillions of dollars spent (or that the reduction in standard of living would be worth the sacrifice).

I'm enjoying Mitt's PR operations response to his Israel-Palestinian "culture" dust-up -- the response is essentially "I wasn't just talking about the Palestinians -- Mexico has inferior culture compared to the US

Yet Joe keeps pulling out the "you hypocritical liberals still drive cars" card.

I just saw it for the first time, with Sam's post upstream on this page.

Never saw him whinge.

It's not just cars. It's trucking and rail and planes that deliver goods all around the country.

Are you talking about regional/national C&T or worldwide C&T like the IET in Kyoto?

I want to make sure we're not talking about two different things. I'm fine with regional C&T, but I'm not fine with committing to an international agreement where money flows out of this country into other countries to purchase carbon offsets. We have our own problems to fix that are more imminent and we can't afford to pay more for energy than we're already paying. I'm also skeptical of our ability to ensure accurate measurement and reporting and to enforce the caps on other sovereign nations.

That sounds like more political suicide. I think we heavily subsidize the automobile in this country simply by failing to charge people adequately for the public cost of driving (pollution, noise, damage to roads, etc.) but good luck selling that to the American people.

But ... but ... the only kind of coal they burn nowdays is CLEAN coal!

Which is why we should build transit infrastructure and tax gasoline to $10 per gallon. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, I thought we'd thoroughly established that while personal lifestyle choices are all well and good, the significant issue is in public energy/transportation/urban planning policy. Yet Joe keeps pulling out the "you hypocritical liberals still drive cars" card.

I believe the people who see AGW as being an unapproachable problem are looking at it the way Malthus looked at population increases. All of his possible solutions were from the past, and even though his theories seemed to make perfect sense at the time, technology rendered Malthus hopelessly wrong within a few decades.

"Urban planning policy"? That train left the station decades ago. What's your plan for compelling tens of millions of people to move into densely populated cities and ditch their cars (and McMansions)?

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. [...] Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. ...

• The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
• Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
• [...]
• The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel ...
• The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
• The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
• [...]
• The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
• [...]
• The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
• The group is preoccupied with making money.
• [...]
• Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. I wouldn't call you cultish for wanting people to stop spending what they don't have and for countries to stop spending what they don't have, although that will obviously cause a lot of people a lot of financial hardship at this point - seemingly your biggest problem with the liberals on this issue. Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

I didn't realize you classified McMansions-in-the-suburbs as "infrastructure."

You never bothered answering this before, so I'll repeat what has to be a very very basic point: as 7 billion people did not act in concert to get the world to this position, 7 billion people will not have to do so to have a positive effect.

The easy transit that encouraged people to build homes their in the first place? Infrastructure!

I still can't tell if you're dense or just feigning it for argument's sake.

Aaaand Joe finally pushes this conservative to place him on Ignore...

I'm getting "cult" from the fact that the liberal approach to this issue -- moving money around and forcing drastic lifestyle changes on people -- is entirely in line with the way liberals approach pretty much all issues. You wave your hands about the science, as if that's informing your approach, when really your worldview is informing your approach. Climate change is a means to and end - just a vehicle to have the society "progress" in ways you think it should. If this weren't true you'd consider the obviously legitimate approach of doing nothing, which approach is supported by any reasonable cost-benefit analysis. But you never consider that, because your religion won't allow you to.

You keep talking as if I'm anti-technology. I'm not. As I've been saying all along, the only real-world solution to the energy/climate change problem is technology

That is, poor people in developing countries have absolutely no desire to remain poor just so Mother Earth might be 2 degrees cooler some 50 or 100 years from now. They want houses and cars and electrical gadgets just like us polluting Americans.

All three people who've felt compelled to announce they put me on Ignore are all listed as Moderators.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

You've qualified technological advances as having to be "major" to matter. I'm arguing that the constant, incremental, widely adopted improvements in energy efficiency would, over time, have a large impact on AGW.

Poor people in America want that, too. Thus, it would behoove us all if there were more energy-efficient ways to deliver those products.

Remember when Ray and DMN and Joe were trying to save the world from the freedom-hating liberals in the ObamaCare thread? Good times.

All three people who've felt compelled to announce they put me on Ignore are all listed as Moderators.

"The solutions involved require money to change hands" is not a rebuttal.

"I LIKE TO WHINE ABOUT LIBERALS" is not a rebuttal.

Yes, yes, in a massive country the size of the U.S., we totally should have expected people to cram into crowded cities rather take advantage of all the available space.

Hey, I don't mock your second-grade spelling errors ...

Ray, thanks for answering, even if your answer was simply to - yet again - call liberals dishonest.

And, again, when have I argued against such incremental technological advances? I'm in favor of technological advances, but things like "cap and trade" aren't technological advances. They're political schemes.

But "[you're not considering] the obviously legitimate approach of doing nothing, which approach is supported by any reasonable cost-benefit analysis" is. So you're just ignoring that.

This would imply that people who care deeply about the quality of discussion on this site think that you're worthless.

Ray, thanks for answering, even if your answer was simply to - yet again - call liberals dishonest.

Policy matters. Continuing to hold on to the same unhappy energy policies that have guided us to this point does nothing for us. If ever new tech did rear its head, existing policies wouldn't know what to do with them.

Except Ray didn't answer your questions from #3832. He did retort to your relative softball question #3838. Which was a mistake posing it IMO, because it allowed him to dodge the harder questions from 3832 without making it look like he was dodging.

It's similar to a religion, really, except in this case you have a different god. Which is kind of ironic given the way Sam and his merry band of catholic bashers treat Snapper in the religion wars debates.

I wouldn't - and didn't - use the word "dishonest" here.

You wave your hands about the science, as if that's informing your approach, when really your worldview is informing your approach.

I think your worldview is clouding your ability to see the issue objectively.

There's a reason that Catholicism worked so hard to suppress science-- the church's claims to knowledge couldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, so used all the means it had available to suppress the competing theory of knowledge. Continuing to equate the two only demonstrates that you don't understand how knowledge is verified and produced in either system.

Of course, at least you posted it here in the thread, instead of running to the forums like 'Gold Star,' 'Perros,' and 'Tim Foli' to talk behind my back like a bunch of gossipy 14-year-olds. Talk about "worthless."

I did say that you grind my gears. I had not considered the effect my words would have on you when I typed them. I hereby apologize.

I believe Perros' forum comment was that he was disappointed in the responses you received. So I don't know why you are angry with him.

Gold Star - just Gold Star - 30 July 2012 08:28 PM
Joe Kehoskie: that dumb, or trollery?

Perros - 30 July 2012 08:46 PM
I hate the charge of ‘troll’, but that’s all that brand is.

It's similar to a religion, really, except in this case you have a different god. Which is kind of ironic given the way Sam and his merry band of catholic bashers treat Snapper in the religion wars debates.

Of course, at least you posted it here in the thread, instead of running to the forums like 'Gold Star,' 'Perros,' and 'Tim Foli' to talk behind my back like a bunch of gossipy 14-year-olds.

Of course policy matters, but how do you propose to unring this particular bell?

Er, I think you're mistaking Sam for gef and others here. Unless I'm really missing something, Sam isn't among the anti-catholics here - he in fact made a point of debating me on being able to have morals without a religion.

I didn't equate science with catholicism; I equated liberalism with religion.

You forgot to mention the terms of service. Fail.

Yeah, that was a whiff. Is it too late to mention they should have their kids taken away?

Of course policy matters, but how do you propose to unring this particular bell?

The U.S. is a big country, population density is very low, and people are addicted to their cars. It would require forced relocations and perhaps trillions of dollars to accomplish population density such that car use was substantially reduced in favor of mass transit, walking, biking, etc.

And this is what I'm talking about: While I have made multiple posts on why we should be making small, incremental steps towards implementing new technologies, you always go directly to the worst case scenario and saying, "we can't stop it now!!!!"

#3790 James Burke was one of the first to talk about global warming and he predicted that inertia would carry the day until it was too late. It's the concept behind "After The Warming". Not among his best stuff, but he certainly did a good job of predicting how the debate would play out.

You keep flip-flopping between the words "technologies" and "policies." At no point have I argued against implementing technological advances. I've simply argued against energy policies whose costs potentially outweigh the benefits.

In theory, I'm with Sam — jack up the price of gas to $10 and the sprawl would stop almost overnight. But with millions of homes in the suburbs, such a policy would cripple the economy.

If the climate is moving in a way that severely damages human life, who cares whether it's our fault or something beyond our control...let's do all we can to work against it.

In theory, I'm with Sam — jack up the price of gas to $10 and the sprawl would stop almost overnight. But with millions of homes in the suburbs, such a policy would cripple the economy.

If the climate is moving in a way that severely damages human life, who cares whether it's our fault or something beyond our control...let's do all we can to work against it.

This. Other life forms on earth go extinct literally all the time. We take the survivability of the human race for granted. We really shouldn't.

And what you wrote is fear mongoring.

Doing "all we can" to work against something that is "beyond our control" doesn't make us smarter than the giraffes and chimps. It makes us dumber.

This has been entertaining -- it's as if you took all the unpreparedness and amateur hour of Sarah Palin, but decided to leave behind the base-boner inducing charisma. Well done, GOP!

Well done, GOP!

I wouldn't - and didn't - use the word "dishonest" here.

You know what, I do have a question for you, Ray: What about the liberals' support of action combatting climate change is cultish? I mean, words have meanings, and I'm not understanding your usage here. [...] Where exactly are you getting "cult" from?

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups

***

Hmm ...

I think nuclear is a great temporary solution (eventually, we really want waste-free energy sources)

Ahhhh.... fine end to a fine trip -

Romney Press Secretary Rich Gorka tells press corp to "kiss his ass" as they try to ask Romney questions.

This has been entertaining -- it's as if you took all the unpreparedness and amateur hour of Sarah Palin, but decided to leave behind the base-boner inducing charisma. Well done, GOP!

, "Governor Romney, are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip."
"Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?"
"What about your gaffes?"