tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post115617372971769390..comments2011-01-12T05:00:02.088-08:00Comments on Science and politics of global climate change: Tobacco industry racketeering case: Interesting readingAndrew Desslerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06930067023788250505noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1157590251950710542006-09-06T17:50:00.000-07:002006-09-06T17:50:00.000-07:00Tobacco doesn't kill people, inhaling the smoke fr...Tobacco doesn't kill people, inhaling the smoke from it kills people.<BR/><BR/>Guns don't kill people, people shooting bullets kill people.<BR/><BR/>Mercury doesn't kill people, eating fish with high levels of mercury too often kills people.<BR/><BR/>Lead used in gasoline doesn't spread, almost all of it stays on the pavement or within a few feet of the road where people don't go -- from the ads the lead industry ran in Scientific American in the 1950s.<BR/><BR/>Commonality? Argue against limiting problems at the sources, where it's easy, and argue that the effort should be made to educate people instead.<BR/>Then argue that any attempt to limit the production rather than the distribution is an argument against freedom.<BR/><BR/>Caution, do not mention motherhood in these arguments, mothers' interests cut the wrong way.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156998304484660002006-08-30T21:25:00.000-07:002006-08-30T21:25:00.000-07:00Apologies for being late to this. Fossil fuel com...Apologies for being late to this. Fossil fuel companies are major sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A great deal of CO2 is emitted in the refining process which is very energy intensive. Flaring of natural gas, separation of CO2 from natural gas and similar issues release considerable CO2 to the atmosphere (methane will degrade to CO2 in ~5 years.)<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Besides CO2, refining is a major source of VOCs andEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156606177994207962006-08-26T08:29:00.000-07:002006-08-26T08:29:00.000-07:00Dano, no citations?So you have no evidence. Just w...Dano, no citations?<BR/><BR/>So you have no evidence. <BR/><BR/>Just wanted to point that out.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>CAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156530694138473242006-08-25T11:31:00.000-07:002006-08-25T11:31:00.000-07:00Evidence pleez that it hasn't. Thanking you in ad...Evidence pleez that it hasn't. Thanking you in advance.<BR/><BR/>Best......................Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156474154548202712006-08-24T19:49:00.000-07:002006-08-24T19:49:00.000-07:00Power and money corrupt, who gives it makes no dif...Power and money corrupt, who gives it makes no difference, the receivers are corrupted and biased and are not to be trusted, those scientists who take money to spew pseudo-science and half truths (on both sides there are many) are not to be trusted. Book deals, "environmental" awards, TV and consulting contracts, the right parties in Hollywood and NYC with Laurie David on your arm are all suspect. They have sold their scientific souls for a few pieces of gold. There should be a search for an honest scientist, the pro-AGW side seems to have none, they are morally and scientifically bankrupt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156473197814952022006-08-24T19:33:00.000-07:002006-08-24T19:33:00.000-07:00You have obviously very little knowledge of the sc...You have obviously very little knowledge of the scientific method. The reason that a certain scientists" are disparaged is not because of the source of their funding but by their lack of original papers, lack of logical thinking skills, lack of honesty etc. That is what sets those denialists apart from the good and honest scientists. If you study the scientific literature you will be able to follow this reasoning. It just happens that most of the poor "scientists" described above happen to get their funding from big business with a very anti AGW bias.<BR/><BR/>Any reasonable scientists can see through the puffery of those denialists, whether they are climate scientists or are from an other scientific discipline. Good science is good science and can be recognized as such by other competent scientists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156468998203295922006-08-24T18:23:00.000-07:002006-08-24T18:23:00.000-07:00There is an illogical assumption going on here tha...There is an illogical assumption going on here that it is the supplier of funds that determines whether or not the reciever is corrupted by those funds. This irrationality allows people to argue that a scientist getting a paycheck from a private company is 'tainted' by definition, while a scientist getting a paycheck from a government or foundation grant is still pure.<BR/><BR/>Are you folks arguing that governments and foundations have no agendas? (Talk about denialists!)<BR/><BR/>Either money 'corrupts' or it doesn't. If it does, then let us compare the amount of money currently fueling the AGW climate change agenda and compare it to the amount of money that AGW crisis skeptics have recieved for arguing their case. It appears that the AGW crisis folks are several orders of magnitude MORE corrupt than the skeptics!<BR/><BR/>AGW crisis proponents can either drop this argument and stick to the science or continue to behave irrationally. <BR/><BR/>(I look forward toward your irrational responses.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156366883799928222006-08-23T14:01:00.000-07:002006-08-23T14:01:00.000-07:00I originally said; "Will someone explain to me exa...I originally said; "Will someone explain to me exactly what 'the fossil fuel industry' has to 'fear' from CO2 emissions regulations?"<BR/><BR/>You replied; "Having to pay to clean up their externalities, and big tobacco-like lawsuits."<BR/><BR/>I then said; " Firstly, the fossil fuel industry is not a major emitter of CO2. The demand for and consumption of its products and services produces very significantly more CO2 than the industry itself. Over 13 times as much the last time I looked at the numbers."<BR/><BR/>And you said; " If CO2 emissions do not come from fossil fuels, where do they come from?"<BR/><BR/>I then said; " The industries that recover and process fossil fuels do not themselves emit significant amounts of CO2. 'Big Oil' and 'Big Coal' do not emit significant amounts of CO2. The significant emissions occur when the products and services of the fossil fuel industries are utilized. All of us who create demand and thus consume are the root cause of the emissions."<BR/><BR/>And ultimately you said; "Yes. I merely clarified that fossil fuels create emissions, in response to your 'firstly' statement."<BR/><BR/>Thus you (1) 'clarified' something that was never in question, and more importantly (2) never, not one word, addressed the issues. Not the first question that I asked and not the more detailed issues that came up in the discussions. Actually, you 'clarified' something that you alone stated.<BR/><BR/>You have a way with avoiding the issues under discussion. That's why I will from now on not be sucked into meaningless discussions with you.<BR/><BR/>Advocacy based on instilling fear into those who produce fossil fuels is a very disgusting approach. Misguided advocacy itself is disgusting enough, but advocacy based on instilling fear will only make those being threatened dig in their heels even deeper. It is also an approach that is doomed to failure.<BR/><BR/>A more equitable approach would be to tax the consumption of energy and all other products that are responsible for CO2 emissions. As we already do in the cases of automobile tires and batteries, for examples, consumers pay for proper disposal of the products after their useful life; the tire and battery manufactures do not pay for disposal. All other products are taxed at the point of consumption. A consumption tax would also be less regressive than taxes levied against fossil-fuel producers. Automobile makers are not levied a CO2 tax, personal computer makers are not, so far as I am aware, none of the products and services that we consume are levied a CO2 tax. Yet they are all responsible for CO2 emissions and we are responsible for the demand and consumption of the products and services. I will pay for my part and I will resist all attempts to make others pay for my share.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156366135458358362006-08-23T13:48:00.000-07:002006-08-23T13:48:00.000-07:00"Also, there are no 'internal memos' were AGW cris..."Also, there are no 'internal memos' were AGW crisis skeptics discuss how to ignore or twist the evidence".<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should do a google search for "Global Climate Science Communications Plan" written by Joe Walker of API and sent to a number of Oil Companies. It describes very accurately the propaganda techniques adopted by the AGW deniers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156365934806942352006-08-23T13:45:00.000-07:002006-08-23T13:45:00.000-07:00dano, I knew I would regret dealing with you. You ...dano, I knew I would regret dealing with you. You know full well how many NSF, NASA, NOAA, etc. (I bet many of your university buds have them)grants are set up for pro-AGW applicants, and how many book sales are done by the pro-AGW forces engaging scientists, and the number of liberal political and environmental lobbyists that engage people like Dr. Webster from Ga. Tech. to endorse ideas about recent hurricanes being caused by AGW. There are so many I would clog this blog with tinyurls, and that would serve no purpose since you have your mind made up and would deny them and ask for more and then we would get into splitting hairs over how many pro-AGW scientists there are and what "most" means and I have no time or interest in that. <BR/><BR/>I am glad you chose not to make another ad hom attack, but it does mean to attack the messenger, not the message, (a logical fallacy) so if you attack sources of a story you are doing that to obfuscate the discussion. A good tactic on this issue, but it doesn't work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156365784482802492006-08-23T13:43:00.000-07:002006-08-23T13:43:00.000-07:00There is a vast difference between what an honest ...There is a vast difference between what an honest climate scientist does with the money he receives and a dishonest AGW denier. The honest scientists take the money (they usually never see it since it will be deposited in a trust account at their institution), hire research assistants and work in the field for long stretches of time. They pay overhead to their institutions, pay for computer time etc. etc. They take considerable efforts to make the resulting paper as accurate as possible through many drafts, send if off for publication, probably have to make one more draft then finally have it published in a reputable journal.<BR/><BR/>The dishonest scientist puts the money in his pocket spends a few hours writing rubbish about a paper he happens to disagree with and sends it off to a friendly media outlet who publishes it because it reinforces their political view point.<BR/><BR/>There is no way that you can compare the two groups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156360886323306752006-08-23T12:21:00.000-07:002006-08-23T12:21:00.000-07:00OK, dano, I will try once and see if you engage in...OK, dano, I will try once and see if you engage in the same ad hominem attacks you did against Dr. J and his source, which of course got it from this source. So, if you attack the messenger here, we will know where you are coming from.<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/fqc3r<BR/><BR/>This was a $250,000 award from a foundation controlled by a political candidate's wife (fact), the recipient subsequently endorsed the political candidate for president (fact), and served as a scientific advisor to Al Gore for his movie and PowerPoint slide show (fact). The recipient also said in a speech at the New School in New York City recently of the Bush administration: "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States"(fact). He also was a keynote speaker in April at a teleconference The National Environmental Trust held with top Democrat legislators and staff (fact). Tell me all this doesn't add up to a biased scientist who is the same as the few skeptics being attacked here (apologies to Dr. Dessler, but dano asked for this, I would rather not engage in it). <BR/><BR/>Now you can attack, but the message please, tell me all the ways that $250,000 had no bearing on anything and how this 18 year pattern is not one of political bias towards a vested outcome of the debate on AGW.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Hughes, I agree with most of what you say here, it is clear and logical and backed up by my experience, including the fact about not being able to have a rational conversation with dano because of his attacks and poor reading abilities, it has already driven serveral posters away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156358257538423542006-08-23T11:37:00.000-07:002006-08-23T11:37:00.000-07:00dano ..The industries that recover and process fos...dano ..<BR/><BR/>The industries that recover and process fossil fuels do not themselves emit significant amounts of CO2. 'Big Oil' and 'Big Coal' do not emit significant amounts of CO2.<BR/><BR/>The significant emissions occur when the products and services of the fossil fuel industries are utilized. All of us who create demand and thus consume are the root cause of the emissions. <BR/><BR/>So, why tax the industries that produce the fuels and not the emissions, and not tax the industries/consumers that produce the emissions?<BR/><BR/>The tax, or costs, will nonetheless be a significant burden for those who can least afford it.<BR/><BR/>ps,<BR/><BR/>It is very difficult to attempt to carry on a productive dission whenever statements such as this, "If CO2 emissions do not come from fossil fuels, where do they come from?" appear. No one here said, and especially I did not say, that CO2 emissions do not come from hydrocarbon fuels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156357814740844272006-08-23T11:30:00.000-07:002006-08-23T11:30:00.000-07:00dano ..The industries that recover and process fos...dano ..<BR/><BR/>The industries that recover and process fossil fuels do not themselves emit significant amounts of CO2. 'Big Oil' and 'Big Coal' do not emit significant amounts of CO2.<BR/><BR/>The significant emissions occur when the products and services of the fossil fuel industries are utilized. All of us who create demand and thus consume are the root cause of the emissions. <BR/><BR/>So, why tax the industries that produce the fuels and not the emissions, and not tax the industries/consumers that produce the emissions?<BR/><BR/>The tax, or costs, will nonetheless be a significant burden for those who can least afford it.<BR/><BR/>ps,<BR/><BR/>It is very difficult to attempt to carry on a productive discussion whenever statements such as this, "If CO2 emissions do not come from fossil fuels, where do they come from?" appear. No one here said, and especially I did not say, that CO2 emissions do not come from hydrocarbon fuels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156356828296549892006-08-23T11:13:00.000-07:002006-08-23T11:13:00.000-07:00BKC-I see your point. However, I would respond th...BKC-<BR/><BR/>I see your point. However, I would respond that I'm not really claiming anyone is corrupt, just pointing out a similarity in tactics. You and I might conclude that because the tactics are similar, that says something about whether they are corrupt, etc., but that was not my point.<BR/><BR/>Do you disagree that the tactics of the anti-AGW crowd and the anti-smoking-regulation crowd are similar?<BR/><BR/>Regards.Andrew Desslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06930067023788250505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156352592952930572006-08-23T10:03:00.000-07:002006-08-23T10:03:00.000-07:00dano, grow up.dano, grow up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156351134368049962006-08-23T09:38:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:38:00.000-07:00I would just repeat: one of the tried-and-true tac...<I>I would just repeat: one of the tried-and-true tactics in any advocacy battle is to paint your opponent as biased or corrupt. The reason this approach is so common is because it's effective. Claiming someone is corrupt is easy to do and impossible for them to disprove. If they try, then the debate has successfully been shifted away from the scientific/policy issues --- exactly what the person making the claim wants.</I><BR/><BR/>Dr. Dessler,<BR/><BR/>Isn't this exactly what your original post is doing?<BR/><BR/>BKCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156349980839436032006-08-23T09:19:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:19:00.000-07:00Sorry dano, I read the attacks you made on Dr. J w...Sorry dano, I read the attacks you made on Dr. J when he documented some of the political and financial ties some "believer" scientists had, I shall not play that game, but it is well documented, perhaps you are in denial about it? If you truly think all those scientists who promote and spend much of their time flogging the pro-AGW issue are totally without motives other than to promote science, you are living in a dream world. And Dr. Dessler, I was not the first to use the tactics you speak of, I was responding in kind, motives are questioned all the time on this issue, but it isn't just some skeptics that have skeletons in their closet. Do you disagree? I am not wanting to continue this line of discussion, it cheapens science, but please don't think one sided misinformation and half truths will survive without challenge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156349864288824242006-08-23T09:17:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:17:00.000-07:00dano ...Firstly, the fossil fuel industry is not a...dano ...<BR/><BR/>Firstly, the fossil fuel industry is not a major emitter of CO2. The demand for and consumption of its products and services produces very significantly more CO2 than the the industry itself. Over 13 times as much the last time I looked at the numbers.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, no industry exists in a vacuum. Any and all CO2 emission taxes will be paid by the consumers. You cannot possibly think an industry can produce unlimited amounts of money to pay all imposed taxes in the absence of customers. <BR/><BR/>Thirdly, what other products and services are taxed at the production end in contrast to the consumption end? Unfortunately, if the production end is taxed, the burden of the proposed taxes will be carried by those who can least afford them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156349208252970832006-08-23T09:06:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:06:00.000-07:00George, I think 15-20 years is a major underestima...George, I think 15-20 years is a major underestimate. It took 40 years to bring electricity to the country-side in the US. And that was for the situation in which a product or service was being replaced by a vastly superior product or service, and no major infrastructure needed to be upgraded/replaced. And I have seen other estimates of market saturations following the S-curve of about 50 years.<BR/><BR/>For the present situation of fossil fuels, whatever is developed to replace them is faced with the fact that what we have is already well-accepted and the replacements will very likely not offer any costs or convenience advantages. Customers are not exactly going to be beating down the doors to sign up.<BR/><BR/>I think high-efficiency home appliances, including for examples space heating and cooling, might be a good analog. These devices are seldom the first choice when someone needs to replace an exisitng unit; the pay-back periods are simply too long.<BR/><BR/>In the case of transportation, significant replacement of fossil-fueled vehicles seems to be a pipe dream. The schemes for alternative-fueled electricity production so far presented do not even pass the smell test. Wind and solar both will require such enormous quantities of base-loaded generation that displacement of fossil-fueled generation is very unlikely. Fission-fueled electricity generation would provide a positive means of reducing CO2 emissions, however it appears that fission is opposed too.<BR/><BR/>All these very long time scales start counting after decisions have been made and laws passed and implemented. The take-off point is thus extremely uncertain and may in fact require more elasped time than implementing the changes.<BR/><BR/>I would like to see papers and reports in which the time scales for replacing/displacing fossil-fuels are realistically estimated.<BR/><BR/>Finally, why is there an always unstated hypothesis that a CO2 emissions tax will automatically (1) reduce demand and consumption and also at the same time (2) cut the profit margins of the fossil-fuel industry. All industries have businesses large and small. Small businesses can and do also make a profit just as large businesses do. Why is always assumed that when the fossil-fuel industry is concerned that lower demand will always lead automatically to lower profits?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156348613351542082006-08-23T08:56:00.000-07:002006-08-23T08:56:00.000-07:00All-In response to George Landis' comment:Again, m...All-<BR/><BR/>In response to George Landis' comment:<BR/><BR/>Again, most of the AGW believer scientists have strong financial and political ties and a vested interest in the outcome of the debate and policy actions. <BR/><BR/>I would just repeat: one of the tried-and-true tactics in any advocacy battle is to paint your opponent as biased or corrupt. The reason this approach is so common is because it's effective. Claiming someone is corrupt is easy to do and impossible for them to disprove. If they try, then the debate has successfully been shifted away from the scientific/policy issues --- exactly what the person making the claim wants.<BR/><BR/>Regards.Andrew Desslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06930067023788250505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156345407012069452006-08-23T08:03:00.000-07:002006-08-23T08:03:00.000-07:00Good question Dan, in my opinion very little. The...Good question Dan, in my opinion very little. They stand to make good profits for decades. First of all, the world can't get by without large quantities of fossil fuels for a long time (15-20 years in my opinion) even with drastic policy actions by ALL the world's governments. That will not happen, since the massive amounts of taxes, draconian measures to replace fossil fuels and other expenditures would be a huge financial and lifestyle shock to the world no politician could ever do for long without being booted out. Small steps will be the order of the day for some time to come, like Kyoto or the agreement between Arnold and Tony Blair, etc. Even Kyoto is really nothing, and it will be years before that is strengthened. The fossil fuels industries are really not spending very much to stop CO2 emissions regs anyway, I would bet the environmental, left wing, and Democrat pressure lobby groups spend much more, that would be an interesting comparison actually. I know places like Pew, UCS, Sierra Club, etc. spend many millions every year on their lobbying and pressure tactics. Auto companies, well that's another story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156341228134313762006-08-23T06:53:00.000-07:002006-08-23T06:53:00.000-07:00Will someone explain to me exactly what 'the fossi...Will someone explain to me exactly what 'the fossil fuel industry' has to 'fear' from CO2 emissions regulations? <BR/><BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156339074272890212006-08-23T06:17:00.000-07:002006-08-23T06:17:00.000-07:00Again, most of the AGW believer scientists have st...Again, most of the AGW believer scientists have strong financial and political ties and a vested interest in the outcome of the debate and policy actions. They are no purer than the Singers and Seitzs of the world. This is a paid liars match in many ways, that's what is wrong with the whole discussion, and why it needs to change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31913525.post-1156308549316149702006-08-22T21:49:00.000-07:002006-08-22T21:49:00.000-07:00No Jim, it is not a logical fallacy, I have provid...No Jim, it is not a logical fallacy, I have provided factual statements backed by documents in the files of the tobacco companies. In particular the quid pro quo for Singer was 20K$/report. I am sure his fees have increased.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, a deciding issue is that what the Freds wrote was wrong, false, dare I even say on this family blog, crap. <BR/> <BR/>Can you provide equivalent documentation for your claims? <BR/><BR/>Some people can be bought.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com