Res Ipsa wrote:In terms of climate policy, I’d say it all fell apart in 2001, when Bush reneged on his campaign promise. But I think it would be fair to say that the seeds were sown in 1994.
I was thinking of the newly elected Republican Congress in 1995 having leadership making moves to back out of ozone deals and sharing then Fred Singer-style skepticism in ozone layer depletion theory. While the anti-environmentalists within the Republican party had been gaining power for a while, that feels like the point where they were firmly in charge.
One of the bigger "what ifs" that fries my brain is Al Gore winning the presidency in 2000 leading to real, meaningful global action on carbon emissions, thus averting the more catastrophic consequences of climate change. That probably would've happened had he won given the importance of the issue to him. And his defeat was so narrow that it turns on the stupidest of butterfly flapping its wings reasons. Sitting here close to the year 2020, it seems increasingly apparent that action isn't going to happen in time to avert serious consequences and it's seeming increasingly possible that humanity might not get its act together to avert extremely serious consequences. All because of a few people who couldn't navigate a butterfly ballot.
Interesting. The Gingrich revolution just keeps biting us in the butt.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
EAllusion wrote:I've been tapped into libertarian politics and writing since around the mid 90's. One of the more embarrassing aspects of libertarian culture during the 90's and into the 2000's was being really into and on the leading edge of anti-anti-industry pseudoscience with most of that surrounding countering environmentalists. While libertarians also got it right against mainstream wisdom, for example correctly attacking the case for corn-based ethanol long before that was cool, this was more than offset by libertarian publications frequently being into garbage ideas like climate change denialism and skepticism in the ill-health effects of tobacco use. The aforementioned Fred Singer was a pop-hero in libertarian culture. Uber dishonest hack Steven Milloy was a heavily promoted figure in libertarian circles at one point.
A point of pride, however, is that libertarians do tend to fancy themselves as rational people following the evidence where it may lead and to their credit are no longer nearly as into this pseudoscience as a group. While that streak isn't gone from libertarian culture, you do see a lot of push-back coming from fellow libertarians and some of its important figures on this front - Ronald Bailey comes to mind - have renounced their earlier incorrect views. That's a wipe of the brow. It's gone from utterly embarrassing to a problematic area of dispute. Young educated libertarians replacing the old probably has something to do with this.
Seeing some reformation in my own political neck of the woods; however, makes it clear to me how utterly broken conservative culture is. Being a global warming skeptic in 1998 is bad. Doing so now is appalling. And the grip of anti-environmentalist pseudoscience has only gotten stronger in Republican party politics during a time when it should've been getting weaker. That's the influence of propagandistic right-wing media.
Yet, since 1995, in America the per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions has reduced by about 15% to 20%...and of the top 20 industrial carbon dioxide emitters...only 3 are American companies (with only 1 in the top 10 - #5 Exxon, #12 Chevron, #16 Peabody).
And being a skeptic of global warming prophecy is a more accurate characterization....of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote: ... of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.
Can you give a link to a statement from a serious scientific commentator who has said that the current Florida hurricane is the first one that was 'because of AGW' (whatever that means).
No serious commentator that I know of has made such a simplistic statement as that 'AGW causes hurricanes'. That would be seriously dumb, given that there were hurricanes long before humans had had the kind of major effect on global climate that they have begun to have over the last century or so.
What GW (leaving aside the question of whether it is AGW) is acknowledged to do is to increase the likelihood of more frequent and more energetic hurricanes, because the energy that feeds hurricanes comes in large part from warm sea water. The warmer the water, the more energy there is to drive the hurricane. I don't think you will find any significant group of meteorologists who will dispute that.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:What GW (leaving aside the question of whether it is AGW) is acknowledged to do is to increase the likelihood of more frequent and more energetic hurricanes, because the energy that feeds hurricanes comes in large part from warm sea water. The warmer the water, the more energy there is to drive the hurricane. I don't think you will find any significant group of meteorologists who will dispute that.
I was listening to an expert on NPR who was saying that even the energy of the hurricanes isn't what's significantly increased (by energy, I assumed you meant wind), but because of the warmer water, more is evaporating which makes these hurricanes much slower and wetter. They are holding and dumping far more water on land than they used to.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I was listening to an expert on NPR who was saying that even the energy of the hurricanes isn't what's significantly increased (by energy, I assumed you meant wind), but because of the warmer water, more is evaporating which makes these hurricanes much slower and wetter. They are holding and dumping far more water on land than they used to.
This was the big problem for us with Harvey. The unprecedented levels of rainfall, coupled with development in wetlands that arguably shouldn't have happened certainly made things worse than they otherwise might have been.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
Chap wrote:What GW (leaving aside the question of whether it is AGW) is acknowledged to do is to increase the likelihood of more frequent and more energetic hurricanes, because the energy that feeds hurricanes comes in large part from warm sea water. The warmer the water, the more energy there is to drive the hurricane. I don't think you will find any significant group of meteorologists who will dispute that.
I was listening to an expert on NPR who was saying that even the energy of the hurricanes isn't what's significantly increased (by energy, I assumed you meant wind), but because of the warmer water, more is evaporating which makes these hurricanes much slower and wetter. They are holding and dumping far more water on land than they used to.
subgenius wrote:And being a skeptic of global warming prophecy is a more accurate characterization....of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.
subgenius wrote:Consider that of about 14% of CO2 emissions are "American" (which ties us with a combine Russia, Japan, and India) and then compare to, say, 30% of CO2 emissions being from "China".
What makes you think that 14% is not significant? By the way, did you know 0.25 mg of Jellyfish venom is enough to kill a dog?
subgenius wrote:And being a skeptic of global warming prophecy is a more accurate characterization....of the 120 hurricanes that hit Florida since 1850, somehow it was last one that was because of AGW.
Nice article, and even if ignore the fact that over the past 68 years hurricane speed tracking has greatly improved (ergo data from 68 years ago is less precise than from 68 minutes ago), there still seems to be an issue that the article offers no discernible cause for the "speed" of any hurricane anywhere at anytime. But thanks for the link, where science says that science says something.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote:Consider that of about 14% of CO2 emissions are "American" (which ties us with a combine Russia, Japan, and India) and then compare to, say, 30% of CO2 emissions being from "China".
What makes you think that 14% is not significant? By the way, did you know 0.25 mg of Jellyfish venom is enough to kill a dog?
14% is only significant by context. And my dog still has no fear of the ocean.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent