Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 Next
Comments 16951 to 17000:
-
megreen831 at 03:16 AM on 29 October 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
I try to use this website to debunk climate deniers. Yet, when I see an article like this, which has absolutely nothing to do with climate science, and in particular seems to be filled with anecdotal information and personal attacks, I wonder how neutral this site plans to be.
I'll counter your anecdotal data with my own and we'll be exactly where we started. I'm a technology manager. I've employed men and women with it being overwhelmingly
I once had a woman on my team and she was one of two females in a team of 20 engineers. She decided a public team meeting was the appropriate place to bring up that I didn't have enough women on my team. She was clearly calling me a sexist (pig?). And yet, what she failed to grasp was that I had hired every woman who applied, including her. She failed to see that more times than not when I posted an opening for a position, I would receive only applications from male applicants.
Was she good at her job? Yes, she was. Are there good female scientists? Yes, there are. Does the fact that there are good female scientists and engineers mean that women aren't applying for jobs in STEM fields as much as frequently as men?
One more anecdotal piece of information. Google is such a diverse place that they fire a qualified engineer just for THINKING in a way counter to Google's policies on diversion. If they're so diverse, why isn't 50% of their population of engineers and scientists female?
For a scientist who looks at inputs and outputs all day, you certainly are missing that women are not applying for STEM jobs.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:49 AM on 29 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Adding to my previous comment:
As a Professional Engineer I have also encountered many cases where already developed/built items were discovered to be unacceptable from the perspective of the Public Interest. In those cases the resistance to accepting that understanding increased with the magnitude of the costs associated with correcting the problem. And in some cases those facing that 'cost or loss of benefit' went in search of different professionals hoping to find someone who would say the item did not need to be corrected.
Fortunately, in every case like that that I was involved in the clients never did find a alternate professional who would say things were OK as they are. However, the news is full of tragedies that are the result of pursuers of private interest being made aware of the unacceptability of what they desire but seeking out and finding someone who would support/excuse their damaging desires.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:19 AM on 29 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
A carbon tax could help reduce the rate of GHG pollution, but ultimately more responsible leadership action is required to terminate the creation of increased harm by pursuers of personal benefit from the ultimately unsustainable burning of non-renewable fossil fuels.
Global humanity is suffering from an epidemic due to the infectious pursuit of private interest benefits that is made more virulent by misleading information delivery. The symptoms of the disease include democracies failing to ensure that their leadership deliver Good Results. The Winners in games of popularity are often the characters without Character, people focused on unjustifiably getting away with obtaining self-interest benefits for only a portion of humanity to the detriment of current day Others and to the detriment of all of future humanity.
My Professional Engineering thoughts enlightened by my MBA training plus decades of observation, and too many other sources of information to practically list (including this OP and the comments made 'in reaction' to it), are that "understandably unacceptable options must not be allowed to compete for popularity or profitability".
Popularity and profitability contests can be seen to result in less acceptable competitors getting a competitive advantage and Winning until/unless effective external limits are imposed on their behaviour. And more freedom for people to believe anything and do whatever they want makes it worse. That free-for-all competition can result in competition to be the least acceptable in even the 'supposedly most advanced nations'. And it can develop the related delusions that the less fortunate 'deserve their fate'.
As a Professional Engineer I experienced many cases where I had to say No to objectively unacceptable options (options that were contrary to the public interest), that were desired by clients as well as executives in the companies I worked in. In some cases people even tried to claim that how much cheaper or quicker an unacceptable option was needed to be considered, implying that the protection of the public interest from the potential actions of a pursuers of personal benefit should be compromised/balanced with a private interest for more personal benefit.
Correcting/restraining the likely harmful results of competition is a responsibility of Regional Governments (leaders governing the behaviour of a regional sub-set of global humanity). That responsibility of governing groups makes the Objectives of their actions the important measure. How big the government is in terms of tax funded actions does not matter. How effectively the government accomplishes Good Results is the key measure.
Good results are sustainable improvements of the living circumstances of the least fortunate and future generations. Making an already more fortunate person even more fortunate because of the Dogma that 'lower taxes are better' (or taxes are bad) is not a solution. And collecting a tax that does not achieve the required Good Result/Objective is also not a solution.
Freedom should be limited to those who responsibly self-limit their actions to things that are not harmful to future generations or the less fortunate (particularly the least fortunate). Without that understood limit on Freedom democracy or the freedom of people cannot be expected to develop Good Results.
For the climate science/change issue the Objective is the rapid termination of the creation of new excess GHG combined with efforts that effectively reduce the already over-developed, and still increasing, level of GHGs.
Irresponsible leadership resulting in a lack of proper education of global humanity has pushed humanity to the current daunting requirement for massive rapid corrections of what has developed, including the increased challenge of education regarding the massive required correction of incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity.
Winners trying to limit awareness and proper understanding of climate science through misleading marketing are among the greatest threats to the future of humanity that have ever developed, and they need to be treated as the threats that they actually are.
Education of the population about the importance of self-limiting their behaviour, understanding ethical limits to achieve Good Objectives, is the most sustainable solution. The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are a globally applicable presentation of the measures of ethical/good objectives. These goals are open to improvement if Good Reason is provided to substantially alter part of the developed awareness and understanding that is already the basis for the Sustainable Development Goals.
Ultimately, regions/groups of people cannot be allowed the freedom to continue to believe and do things that are contrary to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. And like all other globally unacceptable behaviour the education of the global population will ultimately have to include effective sanctions on any regional group that attempts to persist in believing that they do not need to change their minds and behave more responsibly.
The inevitable result of the persistent reluctance of people to behave better is effective penalties that they angrily refuse to accept because they demand 'No restrictions on their freedoms of belief or actions'.
Constantly improved objective understanding, not just climate science, is strengthening the objective basis for ethical behaviour. It also clarifies the basic understanding of equality for subjective beliefs while reinforcing that a subjective belief does not over-rule, and should not even be allowed to compromise, an objective understanding.
That strengthening objective evidence and understanding makes it harder to maintain subjective beliefs or dogma. That has angered many people who want to benefit by holding on to subjective personal interest beliefs (dogma's and ideologies) that are contrary to constantly improving understanding of Good Objectives - Public Good. Anger is one response to the anxiety of the cognitive dissonance they face. But learning to change their minds is the only way to resolve the anger causing anxiety.
The angry people pursuing personal interests that are contrary to the Public Good Objectives can be seen to be gathering together to support each others' understandably unacceptable wants and desires. This can be seen to be the fundamental core of many Unite the Right movements like the one growing inside the Republican Party in the USA. Rather than setting up an additional option for voters, Unite the Right groups hope to take over established conservative brands and fool responsible conservative minded people into voting for them by claiming the Conservative name/brand.
Responsible people would disagree with the understandably unacceptable beliefs and desires of those new members now entrenching themselves inside the disguise of the 'taken-over Brand'. The hope is that those who are strongly inclined to simply like the brands 'Conservative or Libertarian' will see no choice but to support what they can understand is unacceptable. And that tactic works very well in a population raised to respond to misleading marketing messages and develop powerful Brand, Religion or Nationalist loyalty (Powerful for ISIS. Powerful for Unite the Right).
As John Stuart Mill warned in "On Liberty": “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”
The future of humanity requires the Leaders of global humanity to understand their obligation to educate the global population and minimize the number of people who 'grow up mere children'. Climate Science and the tragic examples of the responses of people based on the 'freedom to think and do as they please' have developed a great Case Study for that education. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the Winners who understandably do not deserve to be Winners will be effectively Re-Educated/Corrected or be restricted from significantly impacting others or the future of humanity.
The Winners who fail to act responsibly to Sustainably Develop the Public Good are developing damaging results and will persist until they are educated/corrected to 'sustainably change their minds'.
-
Eclectic at 22:34 PM on 28 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Having a far less academic inclination than Ari Jokimaki, I am more offended by Florides's gross errors in the content of the F13 paper. Though I appreciate that the plagiarism aspect is an easier point of attack when approaching Elsevier.
Ari will be well aware that Florides had published some similar errors in 2009 and 2010 (possibly without the high level of plagiarism).
Question: What is an engineer (or three) in Cyprus up to, when he repeatedly publishes statements of very bad science? [i.e. in an area apparently outside his field of expertise]. Why the repeated gross errors? Not to mention Florides's refusal to properly engage with criticism, plus his refusal to make corrections.
It seems hard to go past the conclusion that Florides is simply a zealous crackpot on the subject of climate science. A denialist who wishes to publish as well as exist as a science-denier.
When I put on my Ten-Gallon Hat of Suspicion, I wonder whether the large amount of plagiarism in F13 might also point to the presence of a ghost-writer [a hack ghost-writer] supplying the bulk of the draft of the F13 paper (with final touches done by Florides et alia).
Is it known whether Heartland (or similar propaganda machines) provides a ghost-writing service for amenable denialists, in order to sprinkle the scientific literature with a few handfuls of "contrarian" papers?
-
nigelj at 16:54 PM on 26 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Bchip @24, you make some good points.There appears to be general acceptance of the tax with the population at large, it's politicians who are reluctant. I suppose its a case of getting enough critical mass of public opinion so that politicians can no longer avoid the issue. Websites like this help, talk to your local politicians, vote for environemtally aware parties.
As someone above noted these things tend to ultimatly reach tipping points where large numbers reach a silent and similtaneous consensus that things must change, and at that point change is sometimes rapid, just look at history. But you can push people towards the tipping point as much as possible.
One issue is big governments means different things to different people! Some resent government getting in our bedrooms, some resent taxes and rules, or capture by the banksters (which is a real problem) etc,etc. I think theres some optimal size, not too big not too small.
As you say its also a function of real circumstances, because if automation does cause mass unemployment, theres no escaping something like a universal basic income, unless we want serious deprivation and complete chaos. In the end "reality bites hard" and makes ideological posturing seem inadequate.
My country has made its share of mistakes. It probaly tends towards slightly big government simply because we are so small you need that for practical reasons. But we have a "fiscal responsibility act" that requires government to keep debt low. This constrains government size, but is designed to be flexible to handle recessions. It has worked surprisingly well.
-
nigelj at 16:23 PM on 26 October 2017What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?
For me its hard for me to believe biological differences explain a shortage of women in technology. Its well known girls are outperforming boys at school in science and maths, which undermines any biological theory. I know plenty of talented women in science and technology.
Theres no evidence google discriminates on gender, and they would hardly have some programme promoting gender balance if they did.
I would think its more about career choices. There appears to be a shortage of women qualified in computer science as below.
www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-science/
This is due to girls seeing computer programming etc as a mans world of nerds, and computer games enthusiasts who are mainly men. I think this is probably changing, but maybe slowly.
I dont think you can actually expect some perfect 50 / 50 balance of men and women, because the sexes just do sometimes have different preferences, which are not always sinister or anything, but huge differences suggest some obstacle or issue of some sort to me.
-
bjchip at 14:39 PM on 26 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
The way to get the changes required is to put on the tax, not for the government to spend the money . I agree that it'd be reasonable to additionally spend that money on changing the emissions profiles faster, but... and this is deadly important... how do you get general acceptance of the tax. The people asserting that big government is a hazard to the society are NOT wrong about that. The capture of government by industry and the banksters is already almost complete. That is a real thing, and if you want to get a tax in place, which is the most important SINGLE thing we can do to get this change to happen, we have to pay attention to the results. Moreover, it is absolutely true that the government will have people in it who will be motivated to keep the emitting happening to keep the money flowing. It isn't an "entitlement, it is a refund arrangement and if society manages to survive another 20 or so years the automation of every nearly every decent job out there is going to be near complete and the government is going to be "redistributing" money anyway.
-
Eclectic at 09:26 AM on 26 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Nigelj @22 , your Scientific American article is from 6 years ago. While the rest of the world (especially China and India) has moved forward over that 6 years, there doesn't seem to have been much change in the USA, judging by the Yale studies [per NorrisM @21].
If we can believe the 10-year series of Yale surveys, then 66% of Americans do not discuss [this major topic] with family & friends. ( I wonder if football games & Kardashian games rate as poorly! ) Apparently, 50% say they never give [climate] a thought.
All of which strongly suggests the proposal that: American households would countenance a $177 per annum fee to counter AGW . . . is a rather uninformed assessment resting on a flimsy base. I would like to think Americans could do a lot better than 18 cents per day per person — once they achieve a properly-informed opinion, that is !
Some things change slowly — and sometimes "a week is a long time in politics". And a tipping point occurs.
There are often unexpressed depths in human thinking. But fires floods and hurricanes can gradually chip away at the dam wall — until there's a sudden collapse, and reality comes flooding through.
-
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 26 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Norris @21
The studies do indeed show republicans and conservatives do figure disproportionately in climate science scepticism. In fact it goes further, with conservative white males being particularly prominent as in this article from Scientific American.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics/
The article explores reasons of course and there are several suggested reasons. One issue is people often take a view of climate scepticism because they 'assume' their peer group all think that way, when in reality their peer group may not be thinking that way at all or not as much as is assumed. The fact a good percentage support renewable energy suggests wider belief that we are altering the climate than might be apparent in science question polls, because of this effect.
-
nigelj at 06:07 AM on 26 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Scaddenp, I meant zero carbon legislation. I'm getting confused with the tax and dividend article.
-
nigelj at 05:56 AM on 26 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Scaddenp @181
To be honest, I got most of my knowledge of the proposed zero carbon tax just from some superficial article in the Herald. I read the Herald on line each morning, and sometimes I buy the paper version.
When you mentioned zero carbon, I confess actually did a google to get more detail for myself, and decided to post a link for you, and in case others reading this thread are interested (probably just a couple of us now though). But I think the principle of legislation of that sort is really important, and worth promoting.
I totally agree it could be a great thing at state level in the USA and could possibly happen there. If california can have an ETS, you would think they could have carbon legislation and bipartisan bodies to deal with things, or bodies a little separate from government. But then I dont know how much law the states are permitted to have. Its so different to our system in NZ. Trump would probably try to sabotage it as well.
California is large and seems interested in such things, but you never know, smaller states might pick up on these ideas as well, given smaller population sometimes means decisions are easier to make.
-
NorrisM at 01:32 AM on 26 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
sauerj @ 9
Could I just clarify the math in your post? I am assuming you are correct that the average US emissions per person is 18t/yr. As of June 2016, the US population was around 323MM. The Kotchen et al September 2017 concludes that on average American households would be prepared to pay $180 ($177) per household to combat global warming. The same study states that there are approximately 126 MM households in the US. So that works out to 2.56 persons in each household. So that works out to a contribution per person (not household) of $70. If you divide this amount by the 18t/person/yr that works out to a carbon tax of $4/t/person that Americans are willing to pay for based upon their emissions. It is certainly not more than double that figure even if you base it on adults per household.
My only other comment I will make on this thread is that all of these studies show a very clear divide between Democrats and Republicans which would suggest a real "whipsawing" going forward in American policy dependent on which party is in power.
The May 2017 Yale Study shows that only 42% of Moderate/Liberal Republicans are concerned about global warming. When you mix in the Conservatives to get Total Republicans, that percentage is just 29%.
-
Ari Jokimäki at 00:44 AM on 26 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Marco, thank you for the correction regarding the iThenticate. I have corrected the relevant section of part 4.
I don't think I would describe the actions of the Editor-in-Chief as trying to evade the issue. I think he handled the issue sloppily, but I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that he was deliberately trying to evade the issue.
As was noted in the part 4, we did send our plagiarism analysis also to the executive publisher of the journal.
-
scaddenp at 17:44 PM on 25 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
nigelj - likewise in NZ but you are obviously more on top of the news than me. Still prefer to digest in morning paper rather than trying to follow it all online.
To me, it seems like a lot of similar things like this and the UK could happen at state level in US. Not all states would be interested but the many of the most populous could.
-
nigelj at 12:57 PM on 25 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Scaddenp @179, as it happens I live in NZ. You are correct in that summary, and the policies look good to me. However details are still sketchy, and time will tell.
This is what a zero carbon act may look like:
The intention is to de-politicise it as much as possible similar to Britain by 1)having a long term act that puts things in writing with goals, and 2) having a commission outside of politics to advise on policy. This is not going as far as the UK, but its a similar concept.
It all reflects similar policy approaches in NZ where we passed a fiscal responsibility act in the early 1990s that requires governments to keep government debt low. Its worked well, and parties on both left and right have followed the act quite well. I dont think anyone would dare change the act, its quite broadly accepted now and fundamentally makes sense.
-
nigelj at 12:23 PM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Why not divide the tax dividend like this: 50% given back to the public, 25% carbon sinks, 25% help with renewable energy?
The only way to sell the idea is probably to give at least some back to the public. The public may also be amenable to a dedictated fund for soil sinks and renewable energy.
Either way all this keeps it out of the black hole of general government spending, and stops it trickling into stealth bombers, or politicians pay rises or whatever it is you dont like.
-
RedBaron at 10:51 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
I have to disagree with you Bjchip. The "do stuff with" a carbon tax needs to include reducing emissions where verifialble, and increasing sinks where verifiable. All other uses should be invalid, including a rebate to the general public. Otherwise forget it. No tax.
The last thing we need is another entitlement. I agree there. But I have no problems at all using a tax and spend if indeed the "spend" is spent on actual verifiable carbon in a long term sink. (maybe even 10% used for research and development and/or start up business loans for renewable energy projects and/or sequestration projects)
That certainly could include a farmers field if he can verify it using a standardized verification protocol.
There should be no problem paying for a public service. We do that already. It causes zip zero nada economic disruption at all. We can even do it without adding a tax just by redirecting current subsidies identified as belonging to outdated systems contributing to AGW. In that case it is a Win/Win
-
bjchip at 09:27 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Actually I would reckon that the most important reason to make a carbon tax revenue neutral would be to ensure that the revenue does not become something the government or the society depends on to do stuff. Want better schools then set the income tax rates accordingly and pay for schools. Want better mass transit? The same. Don't use the CO2 tax to do anything but discourage the emissions of CO2 because if government gets dependent on it there is created a perverse incentive for some parts of government to maintain the emissions to keep the income flow.
Just saying. :-)
Also :
" "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."" apparently contains the assumption that governments can reduce pollution. This is only regarded as an assumption by a certain class of extremist who is ignorant of the experiences in Sweden and Canada and France where government action did unquestioningly reduce pollution, though the French result is clearly secondary.
Similarly
""congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."" appears to offend the same nerve endings that are so ultra-sensitized to the use of government to do the things that the people separately cannot accomplish. Which is a description of the purpose of government generally.
Reading the above, it is fairly clear that the offending passages aren't offensive, and the perception that they are is a matter of someone trying to re-frame the debate and shift the overton window even further to the right of our home than it is, and it is already in the vacant lot next door.
In a few years it won't matter. I expect the financial crash of 2018 to put paid to the neoliberals.
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
macquigg @16, my thoughts exactly. Somehow in the past people on right and left had more of a consensus on environmental issues, as you say. in fact the big silent majority constantly show they are generally moderate in beliefs, and what we might be seeing right now is a very noisy partisan minority of activists on the right becoming ever more prominent and influential and noisy (and possibly on the harder left as well at times in their particular way).
I think its driven by conservatives mainly with a fear that social values are liberalising generally and economics is moving slowly from being belief orientated, to more evidence based. I suggest those more strongly and partisan inclined towards the Republicans are seeing their very belief orientated way of thinking, and socially conservative values becoming ever more challenged by a more science based approach and are becoming defensive and very loud and opposed to some of the key science theories. This spills over now into environmental issues. They compromised in the past but are now becming nervous. I have a more liberal outlook, but even I get nervous at the pace of change sometimes.
I dont know what the answer is but it must include emphasis at all times on the value of science, evidence and logic and try to constrain beliefs and values to simple defensibe things most people would accept, and there are plenty of those. I hasten to add those that lean very liberal sometimes have their own echo chamber problems, and dogma its not all one sided.
I do agree partisan politics appears to be a big factor in denialism. But we shouldnt over simplify too much, and I think several things contribute, including basic understanding of science way of thinking, vested interests, jobs, politics and world view. Most writers I have come across think the same, and it reflects my own experience talking to people.
I can also at least imagine that anyone whos job is immediately threatend by policy would understandably be nervous, and perhaps fight back against the science, regardless of their political leanings. Of course some poeople are more accepting and sanguine and just move on to new horizons. But some democrats are also climate sceptics, its not a republicans, for example so this shows ideology is unlikely to be the only factor.
Having said this , its remarkable just how many of the loud, persistent, noisy climate sceptics turn out to be driven by conservative / right leaning / libertarian ideology. I find this in my personal experience, and this is also backed up by some evidence as this website has shown polls where conservatives do feature more in climate scepticism. I think its a gut visceral dislike of government rules and restrictions over business, so quite deep seated in character and beliefs. Of course their point of view sometimes has merit, but it seems to have become extraodinarily irrational and dogmatic these days, possibly for the reasons I explained above. You only have to read their discourse in the media.
-
scaddenp at 06:53 AM on 25 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Maybe the new government in NZ could provide some pointers for state governments. Looks to be more serious about climate change.
Details of the coalition between center-left Labour, populist center NZ First, and the leftie Greens (their first time in government) were in newspaper this morning. Includes attempt to move government fleet to emissions-free vehicles by 2025-26; 100% renewables for electricity by 2035; a Zero Carbon Act (not sure what that will mean); 100 million trees per annum to be planted; Green Investment fund of $100m to stimulate investment in low carbon industries; subsidized public transport for low income people; emphasis on rail infrastructure, cycling, walking and cancelling a major motorway project. NZ population less than that in half the US states (about same as Louisiana or South Caralina).
-
macquigg at 06:22 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
What's amazing to me about this survey is what a huge impact special interest spending has on public opinion. When I was a kid, conservation of our environment was non-partisan, maybe even "conservative". Now we are seeing a 69 to 25 spread between liberal and conservative over an issue which is not fundamentally aligned with either party. How can these people who argue with such great passion against climate science be so thoroughly controlled by forces they aren't even aware of? They can't all be industry shills. My best guess is partisan tribalism, spreading like a virus. P.S. I'm not talking about Tom13. I don't know his politics.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
I dont have a problem with people expressing sceptical points of view like Toms. I think people have a right to comment even climate sceptics (I say this reluctantly and through clenched teeth). Freedom of speech is so important.
But Tom has not backed up his key asstertion on leading questions, and dogmatic empty repetion does clutter things up, and obscure interesting comments like Sauerj.
-
psries at 06:03 AM on 25 October 2017IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers
Just wanting to point out the link under "Many of the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating" in the 2nd from last paragraph no longer goes anywhere. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home
I'm not sure if this was due to a recent webpage change at USGS.
-
nigelj at 06:03 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Sauerj @9, yes the carbon prices in the survey example does not reflect the full cost of emissions on society, if thats what you are saying. However I think any intial carbon tax would be set in the low to moderate level, and ideally increased over time. It's just how the world works in regard to so many things. So the survey was sprobably correct to be based on the lower price. I hope I'm correctly interpreting what you are getting at.
Regarding your other comments on the most desirable option, I agree a carbon tax and dividend does have a lot of positive attributes provided its correctly implemented. I'm inclined to agree let the market decide on best renewable options. To me markets do this sort of thing well and governments role is to set the boundaries and rules of the game.
However I dont have a problem with subsidies, provided they dont favour one particular renewable energy source, and provided they are time limited. Even in a good quality market it can be very hard for things to get off the ground, especially new technology coming up against predatory entrenched interests. The UK wind industry has taken off and had modest subsidies. I'm not sure a tax alone would have been enough; or as quick to get results, and we do need reasonably rapid progress now.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13@13
"I also highlighted two of the specific leading questions in the Yale surveys."
They are not questions. For the second time they are statements!
There is a huge difference between leading questions that manouver people to a desired result, and statements made along the way that are just background material. Of course such statements need to be carefully accurate, but your examples were accurate.
The statements also dont lead anyone, because they are simply factual statements that dont imply some result or manipulate in some way or lead someone to a false or constrained conclusion.
I dont think you understand the philosophy in your own links. In my experience surveys by large organisations of repute as above rarely lead people, you get that more in surveys by smaller ideologically driven smaller lobby groups trying it on shamelessly!
I'm open minded. If someone can show a genuine leading question in the surveys that's interesting, but Tom hasnt. He is time wasting instead. He made a claim and can't back it up, so just goes on repeating the claim. Is that not being dogmatic?
Moderator Response:[JH] Tom13's most recent comment was dleted in its entirety because it was a Moderation Complaint. He is on the cusp of recusing himself from posting on this website.
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13 @8
I have already read your link on leading questions. Thanks for more links, but I have read similar articles in the past anyway.
You have made a series of completely hollow accusations, with not one single piece of evidence, and nothing more than empty circular rhetoric and ad hominems.
You have not provided one single alleged leading question you think is somehow comparable to the principles and examples in your link. Not one.
-
macquigg at 03:21 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13 @8: How would you phrase the survey questions to be NOT biased in your opinion? Also, please stop the ad-hominem argument. Everyone here is "up to speed" on the issue at hand.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:53 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
I looked at the surveys Nigelj mentioned and I do not find the leading questions that Tom13 is objecting to. Clicking on the survey link in the PEW aricle took me to a discussion of the survey and the questions do not rely on assumption that a fact is true, or the various other pitfalls described in Tom13's own link. Once again, just saying that something is bad does not make it so.
Examples include:
First on the list: "percent of adults who say _____ should be the more important priority for adressing America's energy supply." Answers can be "Alternative sources" or "Expand production of oil, coal and natural gas" or "Both" or "Don't know." This is completely different from the examples in Tom13's link of what constitutes a leading question.
Other surveys and questions were referenced and I compared with the descriptions in Tom13's link but did not really find them either to include the characteristics of bad design mentioned in said link. As far as I can tell, the PEW surveys' results linked by NigelJconstitute valid public opinion information.
-
sauerj at 00:24 AM on 25 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
What does $15/mon equates to $X/ton-CO2?: Rough math: Avg Emission: 18ton/US-person/yr; so $15/(18*4/12)=$2.5/ton. Close enough? Compare to: CCL's $100/ton (after 10yr ramp) or CLC's starting $40/ton plus ~2%>%GDP ramp. CCLs: at $100/ton is ~$1/gal petro and $0.10/kwh for coal power. So, $2.5/ton is 2.5c/gal petro and $0.0025/kwh. ... $2.5/ton rate is negligible in correcting the 'market failure' of the existing FF price signal.
A more apropos survey question would be aimed at increasing household total costs (direct & indirect) to equal either 1) 'the generally accepted present value of future costs' or 2) 'current CCL or CLC proposed rates'. For example, $240/mon (@ $40/ton) or $600/mon (@ the full ramped $100/ton). The survey results would then be more forthcoming on public sentiment for the degree of incremental price signal required to truly drive market-based transitions with a high degree of economic force & efficacy.
The implications on the weak carbon tax policies of EU and Australia should also be considered in the big picture here, where some of the revenue was returned to the carbon polluters as hardship subsidies (EU) or used for pet projects by the government (both); the former making the tax ineffective, the latter making it regressive. This history shows how hard it is for the public to economically & politically "bite the bullet" in transiting away from status quo. We are enslaved by its 'present-day' short-term security; fooled by the lie of its incorrectly low 'non-future cost' pricing; and too weak & ignorant to want to pay the correct price now & let 'right' economics force us to change.
Of all macro policies (tax, cap-trd, cmnd-cntrl, subs), it is relatively obvious that carbon taxing is the most effective (least burdensome, most direct); read book linked below. But, contrary to the weak tax policies of EU & Au, we have to let the tax force non-sustainable processes to crater & die, and this means making the tax as politically durable as possible, so it doesn't 1) get repealed (like in Au), 2) doesn't subsidize the polluters and 3) has serious economic force to it. Policitical durability makes it stick for businesses: "We are in this for keeps; you better change if you want to remain profitable". And, the most politically durable plan is to return all of the revenue to the households, no pet political favors & projects! Let the market drive the best technologies and where the investments go. Or, at the most, do these side transitional efforts with side money; let them support themselves financially; like we would do today with today's tax revenue.
Read the book linked here and see if you can find anything wrong with it. It's about the truest, clearest thinking on how best to fix our present-day market failure of carbon energy pricing. islandpress.org/book/the-case-for-a-carbon-tax
-
Tom13 at 23:41 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Nigelj
I gave you a link at #2 above, I have also included a few additional links below in order to assist you in getting up to speed on the subject of misleading surveys. Once you are up to speed, then you should be able to recognize the deficiencies in the quality of the results of the surveys you are currently defending.
surveyanyplace.com/docs/leading-question/
researchaccess.com/2013/07/leading-questions/
Moderator Response:[JH] Your posts suggest that you consider yourself to be well-versed about how survey questions should be formulated. If so, you should be able to explain why a particular survey question is "biased" without resorting to hand-waving and lecturing other commenters.
-
nigelj at 16:44 PM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael Sweet, thank's for the article its interesting. I have read similar views in the past, and they are very convincing.
Basically everything I said is completely consistent with the article, so Im not sure of your point.
Like you say it comes down to economics in the end, so the nuclear debate is a bit of an arm chair debate. I don't think nuclear has something so special that governments in market economies like America should force it onto countries, so it comes down to costs and what generators want to do.
I was reading that it will take 20 years to fully decomission some old reactor in The UK. Just astonishing and sobering.
Ultimately nuclear is low emissions, but it is not truly renewable, so is out of step philosophically with the way things are slowly starting to go.
-
nigelj at 16:21 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Heres the Pew Reseach. It say two thirds of Americans favour renewable energy as below. Its not the same as a carbon tax, (as I stated above) but it does show good support for renewable energy,and forms another part of the overall picture on public opinion on doing something about climate change.
-
nigelj at 16:01 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13 @4, and another thing. You now appear to say the following are leading statements. It's the only way I can interpret it:
"Look at the first Leading question "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."
"The second example "congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."
This is just really hard to comprehend. What on earth is a leading statement? Theres no such thing really.
They also dont lead anyone, because they are simply statements of reasonable fact as I already explained. Governments can most certainly reduce pollution, just look at the historical evidence In America going right back to Nixon in the 1960s with vehicle pollution. And its clear theres reasonable support by Congress for at least considering a carbon tax and dividend. The sentence said 'may' not that they absolutely would. So its reasonable not manipulative or exaggerated or "leading".
But above all theres no evidence of misleading questions or so called misleading statements.
-
nigelj at 15:46 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom @13,
"Both polls are using leading questions and/or leading statements -"
No they arent. Please provide specific examples of your alleged leading questions with internet links back to the relevant page. Frankly I doubt it. I havent seen any.Im tired of people who post wild claims.
"You mentioned other surveys that have similar results."
The article above listed other surveys "This result is consistent with a survey from last year that also found Americans are willing to pay an average of $15 to $20 per month to combat climate change. Another recent Yale survey found that overall" The survey websites were linked in the words.
With the greatest of respect dont you actually read anything?! I gave you yet another survey, the pew research survey on climate change. Its old and doesnt ask the same question but shows majority support for renewable energy.
"Your last statement "The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear:" -Based on what - misleading surveys which dont reflect actual public opinion such as the two yale surveys cited in this article?"
We have a total of four surveys. You havent provided any evidence at all that they are flawed, just wild accusations and conflated claims. The point I was also making that maybe is too subtle for you is its unlikely all these survyes would have a genuine flaw. And none do anyway.
You also haven't supplied any evidence of any surveys finding anything different, and I mean proper recent surveys, not trash from some think tank. So you are asking is to believe your wild accusations, while not providing anything better. I dont buy it.
-
Tom13 at 14:57 PM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Nigelj
Both polls are using leading questions and/or leading statements - a very common trick to influence the survey results.
FYI - I cited one of the many articles which discuss common tricks used in surveys to generate preferred responses, Its a common trick and an obvious trick. The point is that when surveys use such tricks/tactics, the survey results rarely reflect the actual sentiment of the public.
You mentioned other surveys that have similar results. Can you give us a citation or link to a survey that had similar results without the leading questions-
Your last statement "The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear:" -Based on what - misleading surveys which dont reflect actual public opinion such as the two yale surveys cited in this article?
-
michael sweet at 11:05 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Abbotts 2009 article about solar thermal is available here. Look for the button to download the PDF (it took me a little while to find it). It seemed to me that the article is out of date. Jacobson has done a more recent, in depth resource analysis and likes wind and pv solar better. I think in the end we will build whatever technologies are the most economic. The economics of many renewable energy technologies are shifting so rapidly that the favoured technologies in 10 years are likely to be different from the mix of technologies favoured now.
Nigelj,
Read Abbotts article about nuclear before you comment on its contents.
-
nigelj at 09:58 AM on 24 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
High sulphur coal is definitely part of the problem. This is both Chinese coal, and particularly coal they import which has been low grade:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516203000314
cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-air.html
www.wsj.com/articles/china-coal-ban-highly-polluting-types-banned-starting-in-2015-1410852013
Heres part of the problem relating to regulation and enforcement challenges.
cen.acs.org/articles/95/i4/Peering-Chinas-thick-haze-air.html
"Although the overall efforts to curb pollution are escalating, many facilities have tried to cut costs and evade strict emission limits by covertly shutting down their air pollution controls, often at night. There are no accurate estimates of how much these illicit emissions contributed to long-term pollution and the corresponding haze. However, websites of environmental regulation agencies at different levels of government indicate that virtually every pollution inspection by regulators in recent years detected dozens of such illegal emissions."
-
nigelj at 09:34 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @175
The best answers are sometimes a bit complex. A world with thousands of nuclear reactors would probably stretch supplies of uranium, and be high cost, but above all it lifts the chances of a serious accident very high. And nuclear accidents have little respect for borders.
But if a country has no other useful energy resources, nuclear would probably be appropriate. If its confined to just a few countries.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Tom13@2, I'm struggling to make sense of your comments. You have quoted statements, not questions.
The statements are also reasonable, correct, and evidence based, and regardless of that its up to the public to decide whether they agree.
The link on leading 'questions' is very good, but just doesn't appear relvant to anything you have said.
Please note regardless of your criticism of this particular study, several others listed in the article had a similar result, and Pew reserach has also found a majority want more done on renewable energy, although that reseach was more general and is older now. The case of what the majority want is however pretty clear
-
NorrisM at 07:22 AM on 24 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
michael sweet @ 113
Just got around to reading the Derek Abbott paper today on the problems with nuclear power supplying the world's needs. Very sobering. I think one of the contributors to the Clack paper criticizing Jacobson made reference to some comment by Keynes regarding changing your views with new informatiion. I am not saying that I am turning 100% just reading one article but the sheer number of nuclear plants required even to deal with half of the world's needs (he works on a theoretical 100% just to point out the order of magnitude) is quite staggering. He is effectively suggesting 2,000 nuclear plants in the USA alone (for 50%). The same goes for the access to sufficient uranium without resorting to sea water. This article certainly is food for thought.
If I cannot find Abbott's 2010 paper on solar thermal technology I will ask for help. First want to try Google Scholar on my own. I was able to access this paper for free from the url.
-
Tom13 at 06:34 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
This survey is a prime example of a typical biased survey. Look at the first Leading question "governments can reduce pollution that causes xxxx...."
The second example "congress may consider at tax on ...xxxx... to 'help"..."
the attached link points out some of the more common tricks used in advocacy surveys - Dont place too much credibilty on such a survey.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 24 October 2017Americans want a tax on carbon pollution, but how to get one?
Yes the huge silent majority are completely ignored, again. And yes politicians are worried about losing even a few votes. You also have the problem of campaign donations, and you cant tell me this doesn't influence policy.
And it all makes a mockery of democracy and the will of the people. Do the leaders have the moral right to ignore the will of a strong majority, especially when they are clearly taking a responsible position?
Having said that I think you are right. Lets be optimistic. Eventually the huge silent majority do tend to prevail, and politicians finally start thinking and taking notice, just looking at history and a good recent example is drug decriminilisation.
Carbon taxes have the virtue of practicality and the dividend does overcome ideological concerns about excessive taxation. There is a lot to be said for cap and trade in theory. It is a very elegant mechanism, but not so acceptable to Republicans, and IMO rather opaque and susceptible to manipulation by corporates and government alike. (Just look at evidence in Europe). Carbon tax and dividend appears more politically acceptable, transparent and practical. Of course you can also have both in parallel apllied to different problems.
But a dividend fully returned to the public would not necessarily go into buying electric cars and so on. IMO Ideally about half the divided should go to the consumer, and half to promoting renewable energy and electric car charging networks. But please just do something, anything.
-
nigelj at 05:06 AM on 24 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Aleks @43, well biofuels are supposed to be carbon neutral from what I gather.
However I'm not much of a fan of biofuels. Mostly a waste of time and a dead end. I cant see the sense in planting and subsidising vast acres of maize, for minimal gains and just causing a whole raft of other problems, and displacing other crops.
The exception might be biofuels made from algae and processes like that
-
ubrew12 at 03:48 AM on 24 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
I don't understand it either. Perhaps one factor is the Chinese coal is high in sulfur and other contaminants.
-
aleks at 02:21 AM on 24 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
nigelj@37
"Stop burning fossil fuels". I completely agree if you mean not only "fossil" but all hydrocarbon containing fuels including biofuel. The problem is only in order of actions. It's impossible to stop burning before obtaining a sufficient amount of energy from pure sources (solar etc.).
-
RedBaron at 18:05 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Yes Nigelj,
That's the exact same thing Alan Savory was discussing in his famous TedTalk that got everyone all stirred up. Here are proper peer reviewed scientific studies about it:
First the laymen version so people from different specialties can read up:
Multi-paddock grazing is superior to continuous grazing
And here is a free copy of the study:
And another independant verification:
Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho
Keep in mind these guys are in pretty harsh conditions and are sequestering carbon right in the same range Dr. Jones 10 years case studies showed in Australia... Which in this case is 11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr over standard grazing practices. (Which probably does sequester some carbon anyway)
Dr. Jones says 5-20 with a 32 outlier. Teague measured 11 which splits it right down the average. Unfortunately the Idaho study didn't measure soil carbon, but did measure soil moisture, which improves vegetative growth which means the carbon is most certainly increasing even over complete rest. And it shows desertification can be reversed like Alan Savory claims.
Now here is the issue I have with your comments and 1/2 the internet. If the livestock industry is causing all this ecological harm, (and it is) then surely we must blame the cow? Or is that exactly the opposite of reality. Cows are not harmful, it is only because they are fenced and penned improperly to their biological nature and ecosystem niche that turns a beneficial process into a harmful one. Raise them properly and they are part of a larger grassland biome that is a net sink for both CO2 and CH4. Raise them improperly and they become a net emissions source for both CO2 and CH4.
So we should not be talking about reducing meat production, we should be figuring out how to increase meat production...with the nuance that we raise it properly.
-
nigelj at 17:14 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Red Baron @40, yes I understand all that, and it's a real problem. Its nuts subsidising basically uneconomic crops etc. But thanks for the references, looks interesting I will have a look.
I was meaning more something related to a video I was looking at on grasslands in Australia used for cattle grazing, and how simple changes in how this is done is improving soil quality specifically in reference to carbon.
But with so much criticism of meat consumption, I wonder how long it is before those lands end up as crop lands. Thats what I was meaning. Hopefully if its crop lands, its the right crops. Here's the video :
-
RedBaron at 13:46 PM on 23 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Nigeli, again as I stated before, you can produce more food on grass than crops that get fed to animals. Your consternation is due to a false equivalence made by the exact same merchants of doubt obfuscating climate science for the exact same reasons too.
Grassland properly managed produces more yields per acre not less. It has both many many times more primary productivity, but even after a lower feed conversion rate still yields MORE per acre over corn and soy fed. Think about it. They try to state the opposite by comparing marginal land that can't even grow crops with prime arable land. Be sure that on the prime land the grass grows even thicker and taller still. It never gets beat by corn wheat or soy. It just doesn't.
The subsidies are designed to allow the far far far less efficient corn and soy to feed lot and ethanol plant production models to stand a chance even though they produce less primary productivity, less net productivity, less gross profit, less net profit, more gross polution, more net polution, less efficiency in every single category excepting labor, and there are even workarounds for that too. It is a lose lose lose for everyone and everything. There is NO winner for the industrial systems in effect now. They lead only to complete biosphere collapse and the end to worldwide human civilization. Even the people who think they are protecting themselves with this subsidized system are working off old flawed science. They just don't realize it yet.
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues
It's EXACTLY analogous to subsidizing coal so as to save coal jobs, when actually solar produces many times more better jobs without lung cancer and at less social cost than coal and no where near the environmental harm.
Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined
Renewable Energy Is Creating Jobs 12 Times Faster Than the Rest of the Economy
Sometimes what we do is just based on tradition and not reality. And sometimes the neoluddites are simply obfuscating the same way they have with energy.
-
nigelj at 12:52 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Just my two cents on this freedom of speech issue. We do have some restrictions imposed on university campuses in America. I read an article recently cant recall where, may be the Economist.com, but it made some excellent observations.
1) Its not the students. Polls show quite clearly university students are far more tolerant of letting people express extreme views even hate speech, than the general population
2) Its universities imposing rules to keep the angry minority of anti free speech aggrieved lobby groups happy. Its easists and expedient
For myself I think closing down free speech would be unfortunate. People should have a right to opinions even crazy ones, provided they dont incite violence or descend to swearing and blatant threats.
However free speech is never unlimited and is also somewhat dependent on location and even the America Constitutions recognises "time and place restrictions". although this would not extend to government control of what is said on campus. Free speech concepts were really designed to strictly limit ability of governments to censor etc, not give a free pass to anything. Website do moderate comments to reduce endless personal fueds etc cluttering things up.
So free speech is not a simple thing but I feel opinions should be a strong right as a general rule.
Coming to the books, I read Ian Plimmers sceptical book heaven and hell, a load of old nonsense. Yes its hard for most people to know who to believe and the devil is in the detail. But good detective work and sharp legal minds like Norris should spot some clues. Plimmers book depended on about 10 key graphs that looked mighty suspicious to me and different to the IPCC, and nowhere did his book give sources for these graphs. It listed sources for quotes, but not the graphs.
Detail matters, and you dont need any science to spot that sort of thing. I'm sorry, but the sceptical climate books I have read are riddled with cherrypicking, out of context material, missquoting people, and a dozen logical fallacy outrages, as well as bad science.
-
nigelj at 12:28 PM on 23 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris M @171, just echoing other comments France went nuclear ages ago. I was wondering why myself,and I suspect part of the reason is it has limited coal and hydro potential, and given the devastation of two wars Franc eprobably didn't want to be reliant on Germany for coal. I'm guessing, but politics and self reliance splays a big part sometimes, and Trump is a good example of all that.
I wouldn't suggest for a minute France go back to wind power. They might as well stay with nuclear at least for the reasonable future.
I do think aesthetics are important, and I used to be an amateur oil painter, and work in a design / technical related profession, etc. However normally there are solutions that balance aesthetics and functionality, and its always a challenge like this with anything. Wind farms dont have to be everywhere, and I have already given you engineering studies to show only about 2% of land is needed in Germany and its hard to see why France would be that much different if it did want wind farms. And for many countries a huge part of their wind farms can be offshore, and practically invisible and the UK is doing this.
Obviously it would not be acceptable to put wind farms in scenic areas. Likewise you dont want huge solar arrays planted just anywhere, but they tend to suit desert climates anyway, or dry arid areas, which are usually away from human habitation or tourist areas, so it works out quite well. A huge solar programme called Desertec has been planned in preliminary form and is capable of powering all electricity in Europe. Its planned to be located in northern africa and spain in high sunlight desert areas away from human habited areas in the main, and uses direct current transmission grid into europe.
Prev 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 Next
