How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[jeremyrh]

Either you read by carelessly skipping posts or lines, or you are engaged in blatant falsification. Go back and read the exchange again. Hint: it isn’t about availability of money, but about priorities (the part you either deliberately or carelessly missed above).

I left it out because it's self evident that not everyone has the same priorities. Is that what we're talking about?

[Robert Roaldi]

They're not rolling back automobile emission standards.  What they're doing is making federal regulations followed by the other 49 states the same for California.  By California having a different higher standard which especially has become political lately and not scientific, it creates problems for the world's auto industry as to what standards they have to follow. California or the federal standard.  California becomes like the tail that wags the dog forcing the rest of the country and world to have standards they don't want.  Congress agreed to this cut-out for California in its original regulatory law because that state had smog and pollution problems many years ago when their were little or no standards.  The situation has changed.  Cars pollute about 100 times less than the use too.  Regulations over the years have cleaned up the air there.  Now, America would be better off with one standard that applies to the whole country.  But standards will continue and are in fact increasing.  By the way.  Companies don;t hurt.  They have no feelings, no nervous system.  Employees and stockholders can hurt though.  Regular people who can lose jobs with these companies or lose dividends from these companies to help them in retirement to pay the food bills.

Given your past sympathy for state rights, I am surprised to read that you approve of the feds trying to force California back into line. But your argument that the California regs are a drag on everyone doesn't ring true. They've had different regs in place for decades now and it hasn't hurt either California or the automobile industry. I think you're just reading from a hymn book instead of looking at the real world.

[Alan Klein]

Given your past sympathy for state rights, I am surprised to read that you approve of the feds trying to force California back into line. But your argument that the California regs are a drag on everyone doesn't ring true. They've had different regs in place for decades now and it hasn't hurt either California or the automobile industry. I think you're just reading from a hymn book instead of looking at the real world.

As  a state's right kind of guy, I happen to agree somewhat with California doing what it wants.  On the other hand, regulation of interstate commerce is a national prerogative constitutionally given to the federal government.   Trump was elected and campaigned promising he would cut regulations and help industry.  That's what he's doing.  Elections have consequences.  If the next president and congress want to change the rules, they can. 

Every added safety and pollution control standard added to an automobile raises its cost.  Higher costs have to be passed on to the customers with higher prices.  That reduces sales and affects the industry not only in America, but around the world.  Americans didn't agree to let California, one of fifty states,  have this power. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Instead of forcing California to align with the other 49, it might more sense for the other 49 to follow California's lead.

[Robert Roaldi]

As  a state's right kind of guy, I happen to agree somewhat with California doing what it wants.  On the other hand, regulation of interstate commerce is a national prerogative constitutionally given to the federal government.   Trump was elected and campaigned promising he would cut regulations and help industry.  That's what he's doing.  Elections have consequences.  If the next president and congress want to change the rules, they can. 

Every added safety and pollution control standard added to an automobile raises its cost.  Higher costs have to be passed on to the customers with higher prices.  That reduces sales and affects the industry not only in America, but around the world.  Americans didn't agree to let California, one of fifty states,  have this power.

Higher prices are not a bad thing. It depends what you get for the money. It might be a good thing to get people out of 3-ton pickups that are used to buy groceries and drive the kids to soccer and don't fit in mall parking slots. I, for one, am getting sick and damn tired of having car fenders dinged at truck bumper height in parking lots. It might be a good thing to have cleaner air.

Isn't that the entire point of pricing goods and services? That's how a market reaches equilibrium, that's how we know what's important, that's how we align incentives with the outcomes we want. They could have used them on Easter Island.

[Alan Klein]

Higher prices are not a bad thing. It depends what you get for the money. It might be a good thing to get people out of 3-ton pickups that are used to buy groceries and drive the kids to soccer and don't fit in mall parking slots. I, for one, am getting sick and damn tired of having car fenders dinged at truck bumper height in parking lots. It might be a good thing to have cleaner air.

Isn't that the entire point of pricing goods and services? That's how a market reaches equilibrium, that's how we know what's important, that's how we align incentives with the outcomes we want. They could have used them on Easter Island.

We're not going to have dirty air.  Increasing clean air and car pollution standards will continue.  It just that it isn't very democratic to have one state out of a country of 50 states define what those standards should be. 


Regarding dings from SUV's you get on your smaller car, maybe you should give up driving and use a bicycle.  That would also reduce CO2. You see, you might not like that if  government imposes a standard to give up your car.  The problem is once you give government all that power, you start to lose your personal freedoms.  So regulations have to be balanced against keeping liberties.  When you start taking liberties away from one group, then your next on the list.  Pretty soon no one is free and you have nothing to drive like in Venezuela. 


I don;t understand you repeating the "equilibrium" point.  Government doesn;t decide the price of things.  At least they shouldn't.  A willing buyer and a willing seller decide on price.  Do you want to go to a central planning system like they had in the Soviet Union.  Government decided on how many of everything was made and what the prices were.  That worked out well, didn;t it?  The citizens suffered from constant shortages, loss of liberties, and in the end the country went belly-up. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Speaking about priorities...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X19301299?fbclid=IwAR33YwWDtjq-OaR8Vf-m1JrR2EmgTgZbQ7bYBEX3kRptS-vMSYI_HmAkolM

(Bold mine)

"Our study finds that a full implementation of the emission reduction contributions, stated in the NDCs, is projected to slow down the effort to reduce poverty by 2030 (+4.2% of the population below the poverty line compared to the baseline scenario) ..."

[Alan Klein]

Speaking about priorities...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X19301299?fbclid=IwAR33YwWDtjq-OaR8Vf-m1JrR2EmgTgZbQ7bYBEX3kRptS-vMSYI_HmAkolM

(Bold mine)

Of course.  Electricity and industry production is cheaper with fossil fuels.  Removing the use of fossil fuels raises prices of electricity, heating, hot water, construction, transportation, and goods making people even poorer.  It makes whole countries poorer to help their own people.  So the poverty rate goes up with green energy.  Imagine if poor countries had to pay for electricity what Germans pay for theirs? 

[faberryman]

Of course.  Electricity and industry production is cheaper with fossil fuels.  Removing the use of fossil fuels raises prices of electricity, heating, hot water, construction, transportation, and goods making people even poorer.  It makes whole countries poorer to help their own people.  So the poverty rate goes up with green energy.  Imagine if poor countries had to pay for electricity what Germans pay for theirs?

Climate change also makes a country poorer when increasing temperature reduces arable land, taking it out of production for necessary food.

[Alan Klein]

Climate change also makes a country poorer when increasing temperature reduces arable land, taking it out of production for necessary food.

But eliminating fossil fuels will create more poor.  Unless you don;t believe the aforementioned scientific report that Slobodan posted.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

But eliminating fossil fuels will create more poor.  Unless you don;t believe the aforementioned scientific report that Slobodan posted.

Try reading the report, before accepting a selective quote as representative of what's written in that report.

But I have to give it to you, it's a fine demonstration of misrepresentation, which is the topic of the thread.

The report also says;

Among the  most prominent  studies, Hussein et al (2013)   estimate that a carbon tax on fossil fuels in Annex I countries leads to poverty reduction in  most  of  the  non-Annex  I  countries.  However,  when  a  forest  carbon  sequestration  incentive  (paid  by  Annex  I  parties)  is  added  in  the  developing  regions,  the  effect  is reversed,  with most low-income  countries  showing  an  increase  in  returns  to  the land,  leading  to  reduced  agricultural output and increased food prices.

So, a Carbon tax has a positive effect. Maybe one should increase the carbon tax to offset the negative effect of a forest carbon sequestration incentive ...

[LesPalenik]

The Russian media has stopped now over-representing climate skeptics.

the warming that is opening up the Arctic seas may be starting to have a less beneficial effect on the frozen landmass of northern Russia, the heartland of the country’s oil and gas development and production.
“Permafrost is undergoing rapid change,” says the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate report adopted by the IPCC last week. The changes threaten the “structural stability and functional capacities” of oil industry infrastructure.

The warming that is opening up the Arctic seas may be starting to have a less beneficial effect on the frozen landmass of northern Russia, the heartland of the country’s oil and gas development and production. “Permafrost is undergoing rapid change.”  The changes threaten the “structural stability and functional capacities” of oil industry infrastructure.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-suddenly-believes-060006117.html

[Robert Roaldi]

Regarding dings from SUV's you get on your smaller car, maybe you should give up driving and use a bicycle.  That would also reduce CO2. You see, you might not like that if  government imposes a standard to give up your car.  The problem is once you give government all that power, you start to lose your personal freedoms.  So regulations have to be balanced against keeping liberties.  When you start taking liberties away from one group, then your next on the list.  Pretty soon no one is free and you have nothing to drive like in Venezuela. 

None of this made any sense to me. Are you saying it's my fault that people with large vehicles cannot park them properly because I don't ride a bicycle?

But a more serious question is this. What is it that is actually happening in the real world that is leading to these wild-eyed warnings about how we might become Venezuela soon. I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

[Alan Klein]

None of this made any sense to me. Are you saying it's my fault that people with large vehicles cannot park them properly because I don't ride a bicycle?

But a more serious question is this. What is it that is actually happening in the real world that is leading to these wild-eyed warnings about how we might become Venezuela soon. I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

Socialism leads to left-wing Fascism.  That's what  Venezuela has become.  Stronger central government power leads to loss of liberty.    Ask Slobodan if you still don;t understand.  He's lived through it. 

[Alan Klein]

The Russian media has stopped now over-representing climate skeptics.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-suddenly-believes-060006117.html

Putin is signing the Paris agreement because he feels that being in the group he can better protect Russia's oil and gas industry by limiting Paris edicts that would negatively affect their operation.  Russia's good at this.  They used their position for decades as a permanent member  on the UN Security Council to veto any edict the counsel might issue that they didn't agree with.  A similar position in Paris would castrate their power.  It's the same things the CHinese are doing.  They're on the Paris board even though they have not agree to meet any reductions in CO2 until at least 2030.   By the way, that was one of the arguments why the US should be on the Paris board so we can protect our interests as well.  There's something to be said about that except Obama had agreed to spend American money that Trump doesn;t want too unless China does as well.  .

[jeremyrh]

Socialism leads to left-wing Fascism. 

Must be why they speak Spanish in Sweden.

[Alan Klein]

Must be why they speak Spanish in Sweden.

Sweden isn't socialist the way you think.   Its economy is rated 15th freest in the world. America is 18th.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767

[jeremyrh]

Sweden isn't socialist the way you think.   Its economy is rated 15th freest in the world. America is 18th.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767

Having lived in Sweden, I'm pretty familiar with how "socialist" it is, thanks.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Having lived in Sweden, I'm pretty familiar with how "socialist" it is, thanks.

At least you used quotation marks correctly 😉

[Alan Klein]

Having lived in Sweden, I'm pretty familiar with how "socialist" it is, thanks.

When did you live there?  Apparently, there was a point when they were very Socialist.  But the economy began to fail and they had to reverse it.  So they implemented free market policies. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767