“Just Believe”: The Closing Of The American Progressive Mind On Matters Of The Economy And Energy

[El Laton Caliente]

“Just Believe”: The Closing Of The American Progressive Mind On Matters Of The Economy And Energy

Have you noticed that the cries of the cultural and political “left” in the U.S. are becoming more venomous and shrill? As President Barack Obama flails on the international stage and approval for his domestic agenda and his party in Congress slips away, so-called “progressive” Americans are also watching something else slip away: the chances of politicians and government bureaucrats getting a strangle-hold on the petroleum energy industry.

The stated goal of progressive energy policy is to stave-off “global warming” (or “climate change” or “climate disruption” or whichever term progressives choose at any given moment), and the means to that end is curtailing oil production and consumption. But expanding government power to force a reduction in oil production and consumption and in turn to mandate “green energy projects” is the only way to make it all happen, so progressives say, and anybody who dares to doubt the agenda is a “climate denier” and to be despised.

Legitimate questions that thoughtful people might otherwise have about “climate science” or the economic viability of alternative energy projects shall not be expressed, and concerns about conflicts of interest or corruption with “climate activists” are to be ignored. Consider for example the excerpt below from New York Times contributing columnist Timothy Egan. In a May 8th piece about billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, Egan wrote, in part:

“They have used a big part of this fortune to attack the indisputable science on climate change, to buy junk scholars, to promote harmful legislation at the state level, to go after clean, renewable energy like solar, and to try to kill the greatest expansion of health care in decades.”

Did you get that? The “science” that animates global warming policies is “indisputable” regardless of how many scientists dispute it. “Clean, renewable energy” is to be praised- always – no matter how much American taxpayer money gets handed-over to green energy companies that end up going bankrupt and never producing any energy at all.

And here’s something else about which American progressives seem completely unaware: free people on at least three different continents have elected governments that are abandoning the progressive goal of destroying the petroleum energy industry and moving in the exact opposite direction of the Obama Administration. One of the most obvious examples of this is just a bit further northward, but right here in North America.


Continues:
http://townhall.com/columnists/austi...6468/page/full

Screech, name-call and ridicule any that oppose you. Can you say Saul David Alinsky?

[LAGC]

You paged?

Nah, I'm not going to deny it, politically-speaking, the climate change denial side has been gaining influence lately...

The sheeple seem to be more concerned with maintaining their cheap energy supplies than they are about the long-term ramifications to the environment.

So be it. Things will just have to play out. We'll see what tune everyone sings in the coming years ahead.

[El Laton Caliente]

The real main argument has never been that climate changes. The secondary argument of man effecting climate is is not really an argument. The REAL argument is if anthropogenic warming is any more than the smallest fraction of the causality and if the massively detrimental economic effect of the proposed "corrections" would have any perceivable effect.

Carbon emissions, by humans, are only a small, tiny, fraction of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon gasses are one of the least effective green house gasses. Green house gasses are only about 1/20th of the heating and cooling effect on the Earth. It is HIGHLY doubtful that if humanity completely disappeared from the planet, the overall climate would be effected by a whole degree.

And this is on top of the fact that life, almost all life, on this planet does better during warm phases. Mass extinction events are almost always during ice ages.

Also, there are estimates that CO2 was as high as 3% based on debatable ice core and fossil sampling. The current ALARMING rate is 401.3 ppm, that is 0.04013% of the atmosphere. And this is a self correcting phenomenon in that plants and algae grow faster and absorb the excess.

You do know that CO2 is injected into greenhouses? To accelerate growth?

[LAGC]

The REAL argument is if anthropogenic warming is any more than the smallest fraction of the causality and if the massively detrimental economic effect of the proposed "corrections" would have any perceivable effect.

Well, you know, and I've said this before in other threads... there is a very simple way we could find out: we could actually, you know, TRY reigning in global greenhouse-gas emissions for 5 or 10 years, and see what actually happens. If indeed the change is negligible, we could always scrap it and go back to "drill, baby, drill" and "burn, baby, burn." I mean, what better way to put the final nails in AGW's coffin than seeing it tried and fail, if you really think that is what will happen?

And this is on top of the fact that life, almost all life, on this planet does better during warm phases. Mass extinction events are almost always during ice ages.

I have no doubt life will continue to chug on. The only question is whether we (homo sapiens) will continue to chug along with it.

You do know that CO2 is injected into greenhouses? To accelerate growth?

Of course. Plants synthesize their carbohydrates from CO2 and water. (Just not as fast as its being pumped out by our ravenous combustion of fossil fuels.)

[El Laton Caliente]

So far the only "solution" I've seen advanced is carbon taxes and carbon exchanges. This would instantly cause prices to increase on energy resulting in huge increases in transportation cost, farming cost, manufacturing cost, etc. likely causing famine in much of the world. All the while enriching the politicians that backed this. And how many taxes have been aborted once the politicians got them in place?

Now propose a real solution...

Why would humans do worse than other life? We have proven the most adaptable higher life form on the planet. Viruses and cockroaches may still have us beat, but not by much...

Your last statement is not true, the increase is MUCH higher than human output. There is good proof that carbon levels are a result rather than cause of warming and both carbon levels and plant reaction are lagging indicators.

[imanaknut]

The funny thing about climate change.

I remember when pollution virtually killed Lake Erie. Scientist cried that it was a lost cause, and would never recover. DUH? A prudent clean up of what was being dumped into the lake was done, along with controls on lake usage and guess what, today Erie has some of the best fishing and recreational areas in the nation.

I remember during the first gulf war when the leader of Iraq lit the oil fields on fire in Kuwait. Master of the Cosmos Carl Sagan cried it was the end of the world, that the black smoke would cover the earth blotting out the sun and causing a horrible long winter. Guess what, a guy by the name of Adair capped the wells, and an amazing thing occurred, it rained and washed the soot out of the air back into the sands from were it came.

Funny thing about global warming, it only affects man and his control over others. While there is no way to pay off on this bet, I would bet everything that no matter what we do to this planet, in the long run well after when man has become the dinosaur of the future, it will be just fine, chugging along as if like the dinosaurs, man had never been here.

[LAGC]

So far the only "solution" I've seen advanced is carbon taxes and carbon exchanges. This would instantly cause prices to increase on energy resulting in huge increases in transportation cost, farming cost, manufacturing cost, etc. likely causing famine in much of the world. All the while enriching the politicians that backed this. And how many taxes have been aborted once the politicians got them in place?

Now propose a real solution...

We could focus more on conservation... if everyone moved from incandescent to LED bulbs, that would make a big impact. But it still wouldn't come cheap.

I disagree that carbon taxes would necessarily cause famines. Governments could always use the revenue from a carbon tax to help subsidize the cost of farming, for example. (Look how much we subsidize it already...)

Why would humans do worse than other life? We have proven the most adaptable higher life form on the planet. Viruses and cockroaches may still have us beat, but not by much...

Who knows what kinds of new organisms and pathogens might arise in a warmer environment? HIV is bad enough, our tropical rain forests are veritable breeding grounds for all sorts of new critters -- evolution is a bitch, and isn't predictable at all.

99.9% of all species ever to grace the Earth with their presence have gone the way of the wooly-mammoth.

Humanity may very well be able to survive, but most likely not in anywhere close to the numbers we see today.

Your last statement is not true, the increase is MUCH higher than human output. There is good proof that carbon levels are a result rather than cause of warming and both carbon levels and plant reaction are lagging indicators.

Again, the proof would be in the pudding. We can test this and see who is right. If you are right, if we cut back on carbon emissions the world should still keep on heating at the same general rate. If climate scientists are right, the rate of heating will slow.

We could end all this bickering and debate once and for all.

[LAGC]

And how many taxes have been aborted once the politicians got them in place?

You mean like the estate tax?

Look what happened to Communism? If an economic policy doesn't work, it doesn't work. It will fall of its own dead weight.

But we'll never know unless we try.

[El Laton Caliente]

So, use LED bulbs and see if a disastrous economic collapse happens is your solution? Rosy prospect...

The estate tax is still with us... did you have a point? So are around 100 new taxes since 1900...

Humanity may very well be able to survive, but most likely not in anywhere close to the numbers we see today.

That seems to be the true goal of the warmers. No thanks.

[LAGC]

So, use LED bulbs and see if a disastrous economic collapse happens is your solution? Rosy prospect...

No, silly. Reduce our energy consumption so that we don't have to burn as much coal and gas, then measuring the results.

The estate tax is still with us... did you have a point?

Only for estates worth over $5 million.

That seems to be the true goal of the warmers. No thanks.

We currently have over 7 billion hungry mouths to feed on this planet and growing rapidly. How is this sustainable, especially as more and more farmland becomes arid and unusable due to climate change?

Big changes are coming, whether we like it or not. All we can do is try to mitigate the consequences of our reckless breeding.

[imanaknut]

Big changes are coming. Considering that Indiana used to be under a one mile thick slab of ice, that is ice over 5200 feet thick, and there is no ice now, the climate is warming. The ice flow that covered us then is still retreating. Scientists have shown that there were several ice ages, so if we believe that, once the retreating stops, and we are at the warmest we will see, which is normal per the history of this planet, the ice will then restart it's southward flow in the continued change that seems to be the normal for the planet earth.

Believe what you want, with egos so huge that people believe they can cause long term change in the life of planet earth, but in the long run, make yourself happy by destroying the great things that man has achieved, all in the name of saving a planet that could not care less what you do to it. The sun will still heat the earth, the moon affect tides which per the same scientists affect weather patterns, and volcanoes will still erupt spewing tons of garbage higher into the air than our SUVs.

All through history there have been rulers, and those ruled. Unfortunately here in the United States we decided to tell the elite rulers to go to hell, that we the people will make the rules. We the people are the government. We the people. Unfortunately as is history, there are those who must rule over others, and if we submit to that, the greatest nation in the history of this earth will revert to that which our founders fought against. Sorry, but we the people know better. Why, because this country allowed all people to get an education, and some who are smart enough can see that people like King Barack and his minion want to turn this country into that which history has shown only works for a short time for the ruling elite.

Big change in climate coming? Damn right, as this earth continues it's cycle that is longer than we the people, and will outlast our best, most noble causes, regardless as to what we do to it. The earth doesn't care, only those who wish to control us do.

[LAGC]

Big change in climate coming? Damn right, as this earth continues it's cycle that is longer than we the people, and will outlast our best, most noble causes, regardless as to what we do to it. The earth doesn't care, only those who wish to control us do.

I have no doubt the Earth will outlive us. But that doesn't mean we can't try to control ourselves so as to maximize the amount of time we share with it.

Didn't you say your daughter was a scientist? What does she think about this global warming debate?

[Oswald Bastable]

Didn't you say your daughter was a scientist? What does she think about this global warming debate?

I thought it was settled and the debate was over...

Gotta love how the rules change when a progressive is setting the agenda.

[El Laton Caliente]

No, silly. Reduce our energy consumption so that we don't have to burn as much coal and gas, then measuring the results.

How, without great hardship and suffering? How do we measure the results? By the dead?

Only for estates worth over $5 million.

Short memory, The rate had not been adjusted since the tax started, it was only indexed back to the original by the inflation rate.

The tax was killing multigenerational family farms and small businesses. IIRC, the CBO study said income and business taxes from the businesses saved paid for the difference a just a few years. But, don't let facts get in the way of class warfare...

We currently have over 7 billion hungry mouths to feed on this planet and growing rapidly. How is this sustainable, especially as more and more farmland becomes arid and unusable due to climate change?

And a couple centuries ago we had trouble feeding 500 million. Now the only famine is caused by governments.

Big changes are coming, whether we like it or not. All we can do is try to mitigate the consequences of our reckless breeding.

Why not continue technical advancement and feed them, educate them, then move off planet to the solar system and beyond? I forget, the movement is really regressive, not progressive.

[LAGC]

I thought it was settled and the debate was over...

Gotta love how the rules change when a progressive is setting the agenda.

Nah, I was just curious. Thought I'd shoot for an anecdote closer to home.

I think his daughter is a neuroscientist anyway, but most scientists respect other scientists' work and tend to defer to their observations from their dedicated field of study.

[LAGC]

How, without great hardship and suffering? How do we measure the results? By the dead?

WHAT?! Switching to LED bulbs is going to lead to great hardship and suffering?! And death?!

Or do you mean shuttering more coal-fired plants because we don't need the electricity any more? While granted, that might lead to more hardship for those formerly employed there, I don't see how it would lead to more dead, unless you think they'd all commit suicide or something?

Short memory, The rate had not been adjusted since the tax started, it was only indexed back to the original by the inflation rate.

The tax was killing multigenerational family farms and small businesses. IIRC, the CBO study said income and business taxes from the businesses saved paid for the difference a just a few years. But, don't let facts get in the way of class warfare...

Hey, I'm with you. I have no problem with abolishing the "death tax."

And a couple centuries ago we had trouble feeding 500 million. Now the only famine is caused by governments.

Why not continue technical advancement and feed them, educate them, then move off planet to the solar system and beyond? I forget, the movement is really regressive, not progressive.

Sure, why not? Last time I checked though, Obama and the Republicans were busy slashing NASA's budget. So short of some more, you know, REVENUE, how will we ever hope to escape this planet?

[El Laton Caliente]

The USA switching to LED bulbs would not get you anywhere. You have replaced a 60 watt bulb with a 20 watt bulb. I'm a fan of LED and think compact florescent bulbs are a step in the wrong direction, but Obama's partnership with GE has greatly slowed that conversion down. Lighting is a small part of the electric bill, what are you doing about the big part, heating and air conditioning. Then are you reintroducing the wash board and cloths line to replace the washers and dryers?

I was assuming you wanted a real reduction to oh, say half of the carbon emissions world wide. LEDs ain't coming close... You need half the cars to go away, half the ships, half the trains, half the factories, half the tractors....

BTW, short of nuking half the world, it ain't happening... Well, maybe just India and China...

[stinker]

I disagree that carbon taxes would necessarily cause famines. Governments could always use the revenue from a carbon tax to help subsidize the cost of farming, for example. (Look how much we subsidize it already...)

Institute a tax the hell out of you, destroy the agriculture industry with it, cause mass starvation, use the tax money to promote agriculture so starving people can be fed....

GREAT PLAN!

99.9% of all species ever to grace the Earth with their presence have gone the way of the wooly-mammoth.

So what you're saying is....
Only 0.1% of all the species that have ever existed are alive during roughly about 0.1% of the planets time that any species has ever existed on it?

I'm strangely comfortable with this statistic...

Again, the proof would be in the pudding. We can test this and see who is right. If you are right, if we cut back on carbon emissions the world should still keep on heating at the same general rate. If climate scientists are right, the rate of heating will slow.

We could end all this bickering and debate once and for all.

We are testing to see who is right.
Lets NOT do a damn thing that you want to "fix it" and see what happens.

Time will reveal the liars.

So why won't you compromise in the interest of our planets future?
Do you want to see people and the planet suffer unthinkable horrors in the name of false religious dogma or do you want to save the Earth?

[LAGC]

We are testing to see who is right.
Lets NOT do a damn thing that you want to "fix it" and see what happens.

We are seeing it happen right before our eyes. Katrina was just the tip of the iceberg. One big train-wreck in slow-motion...

Time will reveal the liars.

Indeed it will.

[El Laton Caliente]

Institute a tax the hell out of you, destroy the agriculture industry with it, cause mass starvation, use the tax money to promote agriculture so starving people can be fed....

GREAT PLAN!

I found that ironic as hell... but typical for a regressive solution.