Santorum: Democrats are anti-science

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether tar-sand oil ends up being piped to Oklahoma and Texas, and burned in American gas tanks, or piped to British Columbia, and burned in Chinese gas tanks isn't going to matter. It is going to happen, like it or not. It can't be "avoided."

Regardless of whether, or not, tar-sand petroleum is "energy efficient," it is economically viable. A pipeline is going to be built for that reason.

What the average American wants to know from "science" is whether, or not, it is safe to pipe across the plain states? When "science" starts to involve itself in the political questions, rather than the scientific questions, it is being politicized.

[Wisconsin+17]

Uh Democrats aren't environmentalists? News to me.

[Хahar 🤔]

Can we just make an omnibus $#*! My Santorum Says thread?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

[Politico]

I am not a climatologist, but it is my impression that the level of understanding of the cloud albedo effect is not that solid. It is possible that even the moderate forecasts will be incorrect. With that said, I would prefer to defer to the general consensus among scientists as it stands right now. However, I will add that many of the popular ideas proposed to combat climate change (i.e., international carbon tax, international cap-and-trade agreement, etc.) have no chance of occurring given the ramifications upon the global economy. My suspicion is that if the costs of climate change become too large to ignore, we will see implementation of geo-engineering that cools the planet via injection of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere (i.e., essentially simulate a volcano eruption without the messy consequences beneath the atmosphere; see: Mount Pinatubo). That would be the perpetual course of action (i.e., simulate Mount Pinatubo on a yearly basis) until technology is developed that allows us to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Problem solved if it exists, and the global economy is not destroyed in the process. Personally, I am supremely confident we will eventually have technology to get greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Short of a huge hit to the world's population soon (maybe a virus), it is the only way CO2 emissions will get back to pre-industrial levels within the next one hundred years.

Lastly, I would agree that many Democrats are anti-science when it comes to economics. Many of them are ignorant of what living in a world of scarcity really entails, not to mention a great many other details in the realm of economics. Many of them do not even acknowledge common sense facts such as "you cannot obtain/make something out of nothing."

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether tar-sand oil ends up being piped to Oklahoma and Texas, and burned in American gas tanks, or piped to British Columbia, and burned in Chinese gas tanks isn't going to matter. It is going to happen, like it or not. It can't be "avoided."

Regardless of whether, or not, tar-sand petroleum is "energy efficient," it is economically viable. A pipeline is going to be built for that reason.

What the average American wants to know from "science" is whether, or not, it is safe to pipe across the plain states? When "science" starts to involve itself in the political questions, rather than the scientific questions, it is being politicized.

See: We can agree on something, Bob. You and I are not so very different. Obama's rejection of Keystone was one of his biggest shames. There's a whole ocean of oil underneath various parts of northern Canada, and we need to help secure it and ensure it stays within North America given the inherent instabilities of the Middle East.

Atmospheric scientists are not in a position to tell people what to do, or what must be done. They should be sticking to what they think will happen to the climate given various scenarios for CO2 emission levels. Finding a cost-effective way to combat the problem if the dire consequences come true, or their likelihood appears more certain, is an an economic problem. In other words, it is not a problem for atmospheric scientists. And it is really strange to see some atmospheric scientists attempt to delve into another discipline (And/or, oddly enough, to associate themselves with people, including fringe economists with a radical agenda, they would normally steer clear of). One could say that mainstream economists should fight back by claiming such atmospheric scientists have a perverse incentive to overstate certain aspects of climate change in order to receive more research funding and so forth. I hope it does not get to that point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Problem solved if it exists, and the global economy is not destroyed in the process. Personally, I am supremely confident we will eventually have technology to get greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Short of a huge hit to the world's population soon (maybe a virus), it is the only way CO2 emissions will get back to pre-industrial levels within the next one hundred years.

Global warming is not the only potential problem from high CO₂ levels.  The acidity of the oceans is increasing and the primary suspected culprit for that is CO₂, tho not the other greenhouse gases IIRC.  That acidification is a problem for a number of organisms that make hard shells as it makes it more difficult to make them.

There's enough evidence that high CO₂ levels are affecting the ecology that I think we need to deal with it, but not with the command-and-control bureaucratic boondoggle that is cap-and-trade.  A phased in carbon tax, with the tax revenues used to cut other taxes is the best option in my opinion.  A carbon tax provides the incentives to reduce carbon use in an easy to administer form, while phasing it in and using it to offset other taxes minimizes the economic impact of doing so.

Problem is the coal and petrochemical industries would be adversely affected so they lobby against a tax, preferring that a cap-and-trade system with a high cap be imposed, while industries that emit a lot of carbon are hoping to make a buck by gaming cap-and-trade, and I expect they will in a manner that does little to actually reduce carbon use.  Last but not least, there are the alternative energy folks who want the sure thing of government subsidies instead of taking a risk that a higher price on carbon encourages people to be more efficient in their energy use instead of switching to their subsidized product.

(Personal trivia.  Back when I last bought a car, 2000, I considered one of the VW diesel cars, but determined that even if I bought a VW, the added up front cost of the car was not worth the savings from having a more fuel-efficient vehicle.  Plus there was the fact that to have a diesel (in my price range at least) I'd have to buy a VW and that was unattractive for several reasons, not least of which was the distance to the nearest VW dealer was much more than that to a Toyota or Honda dealer.  Now if fuel prices had been considerably higher, I might have been tipped into buying diesel VW.

[Politico]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway? Furthermore, you underestimate the likelihood of politicians introducing a global carbon tax, with promises that they're going to offset the tax by cutting taxes elsewhere, and then watching them not follow through on the latter promise. Perhaps more importantly, most folks who are pushing these schemes have ties to companies that would like to use these schemes to essentially keep competition down in their respective market. Lastly, it would be absurd for us to implement a carbon tax if China does not agree to do likewise. It would need to be a global carbon tax, and is that possible? This is the biggest problem with throwing out these global "solutions": They just do not appear economically/politically feasible no matter how dire things become, so efforts need to be diverted elsewhere (e.g., technology to get CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans). I am sure human ingenuity will find a way, especially in light of the technology advancements of the past century. I would say it is almost infinitely more likely that technology will solve the CO2 problem rather an international taxation scheme.

In the interim, the best thing America can do is start building nuclear plants again. If Obama's entire economic stimulus package had been put simply towards building more nuclear plants, I am sure we would have stimulated the national economy more and created far more positive spillover effects for the future. And not to go all Gingrichian, but nuclear power is the only way mankind will ever be able to get off this planet in the future and move onto another planet. In other words, if you want to talk about future generations then a commitment to safe and reliable nuclear power is absolutely essential.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway?

Most people like to eat fish, and some people have to; how often you hear about a problem isn't necessarily a good indicator of how severe it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed on this, though safety is always a little harder here than with other sources.

[Politico]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway?

Most people like to eat fish, and some people have to;

We can farm fish. Besides, if the problem is so dire that we might no longer be eating fish soon, I think we would be hearing about it more than we have heard about climate change. Of course this is not the case.

Something to contemplate for folks who support cap-and-trade and/or a carbon tax: What if an international taxation scheme does not solve the problem, but also prevents some scientists/entrepreneurs from finding funding that would have otherwise created a technology that gets CO2 out of the atmosphere/oceans, solving the CO2 conundrum? One of those "what ifs" for you to chew on.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway?

Most people like to eat fish, and some people have to;

We can farm fish. Besides, if the problem is so dire that we might no longer be eating fish soon, I think we would be hearing about it more than we have heard about climate change. Of course this is not the case.

We can but the entire oceanic ecosystem is more important. That was just the first (admittedly whimsical) example that came to mind.

The idea that a problem becoming more severe automatically results in it getting more attention is ridiculous.

[Politico]

The idea that a problem becoming more severe automatically results in it getting more attention is ridiculous.

This is generally the case, so I would not say it is ridiculous. There are exceptions, but I see no evidence that this qualifies. If ocean acidification were as much of a problem as climate change, scientists would be letting us know en masse right now.

[BigSkyBob]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

2) You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "efficiency." Caculating "energy in/ energy out" is, basically, an engineering question. Calculating the "efficiency" of extracting tar sand oil is, basically, an economic calculation. Calculating the political desirability of extracting tar sand oil is, basically, the combination of the economic calculation with a consideration of the opportunity costs, third party effects, etc. The engineering question about EI/EO shouldn't even be a teriary consideration for politicians.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

What? How on Earth is what I am using 'slang'? I'm genuinely baffled as to how any native speaker of English could possibly consider the post you're quoting 'slang'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these types of 'efficiency' are connected in case of the tar sands. The economic efficiency is based partially on the engineering efficiency, since engineering has to be done by people, using money. Incidental benefits and detriments are likewise not inherently political concepts, although they certainly can be.

[BigSkyBob]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

What? How on Earth is what I am using 'slang'? I'm genuinely baffled as to how any native speaker of English could possibly consider the post you're quoting 'slang'.

"Gets off" is slang. Your use of "gets off" is non-standard given the usual informal rules for slang. If I had to guess what you were trying to say, I'd guess something like, "Where does Bob derive the authority to argue...." But, that was just my guess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these types of 'efficiency' are connected in case of the tar sands. The economic efficiency is based partially on the engineering efficiency, since engineering has to be done by people, using money. Incidental benefits and detriments are likewise not inherently political concepts, although they certainly can be.
[/quote]

The bottom line is that if the Canadians weren't making money at today's oil prices, they wouldn't mine/leach oil from the sands of Northern Alberta.

Even if extracting that oil had a negative energy return, it would merely mean that tar sand oil is the most economically efficient means of converting more abundant energy sources such as coal, and natural gas into the more scare hydrocarbon chains.

Again, such calculations are economic calculations. This is the beauty of the price mechanism. Tar sands are only going to be exploited if prices remain relatively high. If natural gas becomes more abundant the price mechanism will tell us whether it is better to convert it to oil by extracting tar sand oil and driving our cars, or scraping our current fleet of a hundred million vehicles, building replacement natural-gas powered vehicles, and building a distribution network to the service stations that will fill those vehicles.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

What? How on Earth is what I am using 'slang'? I'm genuinely baffled as to how any native speaker of English could possibly consider the post you're quoting 'slang'.

"Gets off" is slang. Your use of "gets off" is non-standard given the usual informal rules for slang. If I had to guess what you were trying to say, I'd guess something like, "Where does Bob derive the authority to argue...." But, that was just my guess.

'Gets off' is 'something other than entirely formal written English', not 'slang' (the slang meaning of 'to get off' is something different). There's a difference, which you should know considering the...profoundly informal lexical style of a lot of your posts. Also, since it's obvious in context, 'bizarre' and 'incomprehensible' certainly are not the case even if it is slang, which it is not.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Not a gaffe in the GOP.

Wrong. Santorum implied indirectly that Republicans are pro-science.

Scandal.

[Jason Alvarez]

No political party that I know of is anti-science. -_-

[Jacobtm]

If you can use science to bring jobs to an area while poisoning it, Santorum is all for it.

Makes sense that the only science he believes in is big things made of metal.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I am not a climatologist, but it is my impression that the level of understanding of the cloud albedo effect is not that solid.

That's true.  And what complicates it more is what kind of clouds would be produced by an increase in temperature.  Low-level clouds lead to cooling.  High-level clouds lead to warming.  Thick clouds are about right at 0 forcing.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am curious by what is meant by "opportunity costs" in this context, which typically refers to that which is precluded by virtue of doing something.  Can you further explain what you mean by use of that term here BigSkyBob?  Thanks.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am curious by what is meant by "opportunity costs" in this context, which typically refers to that which is precluded by virtue of doing something.  Can you further explain what you mean by use of that term here BigSkyBob?  Thanks.

Joke: Man asked, What does a candy bar cost?" He answers, "60 cents." Economist asked same question answers, "What you would have otherwise would have done with the money, a little tooth decay, and some addition weight that was presumably unwanted."

I have no illusions about the giant tailing piles that will be left behind. It is a political question as to whether, or not, Canadians want the oil mined. Their political choice was for the oil, and the money and jobs it brought. It is the choice I would have supported.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am curious by what is meant by "opportunity costs" in this context, which typically refers to that which is precluded by virtue of doing something.  Can you further explain what you mean by use of that term here BigSkyBob?  Thanks.

Joke: Man asked, What does a candy bar cost?" He answers, "60 cents." Economist asked same question answers, "What you would have otherwise would have done with the money, a little tooth decay, and some addition weight that was presumably unwanted."

I have no illusions about the giant tailing piles that will be left behind. It is a political question as to whether, or not, Canadians want the oil mined. Their political choice was for the oil, and the money and jobs it brought. It is the choice I would have supported.

That is more about  externalities (items that are not internalized into the price system, and thus are not paid for either as a benefit (positive externalities - you kept a nice front lawn, with no junk cars in sight), or as a cost (negative externalities - such as pollution that is created but not paid for).

[Chaddyr23]

LOL, please. Everything from sexual science to climate science, Republicans are on the wrong side of things.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I suspect the increased acidity of the oceans does not warrant the introduction of a global carbon tax, especially given the ramifications upon international trade. How often do you hear about the problem of increased acidity of the oceans, anyway?

Most people like to eat fish, and some people have to;

We can farm fish. Besides, if the problem is so dire that we might no longer be eating fish soon, I think we would be hearing about it more than we have heard about climate change. Of course this is not the case.

You do realize that fish farms generally feed their fish with fish meal made from fish we humans don't like?  Fish farming mainly serves to turn 2 or more pounds of fish we don't like into 1 pound of fish we do like.  The main problems aren't with fish themselves, tho they will be impacted, but on diatoms, shellfish, and corals.

Something to contemplate for folks who support cap-and-trade and/or a carbon tax: What if an international taxation scheme does not solve the problem, but also prevents some scientists/entrepreneurs from finding funding that would have otherwise created a technology that gets CO2 out of the atmosphere/oceans, solving the CO2 conundrum? One of those "what ifs" for you to chew on.

And what if once that technology is created because we weren't willing to pay for the best known methods of reducing CO2, we still aren't willing to pay for it?  After all, the future will have better and cheaper technology, won't it?  What you are suggesting is that we play a perpetual game of kick the can under the optimistic scenario that we'll be able to see when there is no more road in time for us to stop kicking.