tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post8546804375441271280..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Rejecting Climate Change: Not Science Denial, but Regulation Phobia?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-43268256577025483312017-11-24T15:00:35.965+00:002017-11-24T15:00:35.965+00:00Yes, the retail price financial advantage to the r...Yes, the retail price financial advantage to the rooftop investor is simply a transfer from the electric supplier to the rooftop owner and not a real gain to society. However the second one is a benefit to the grid operator without them having to invest so this is mainly a transfer the other way so it somewhat evens out transfer issue.crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-41213997306113556522017-11-24T08:57:21.471+00:002017-11-24T08:57:21.471+00:00> Don't think those LCOE include anything f...> Don't think those LCOE include anything for storage. <br /><br />Ah. That would certainly be a hole if true.<br /><br />> Rooftop solar appears expensive but there are interesting advantages: The investor saves at retail rates<br /><br />That is true in financial terms but I'm not sure it makes sense in ecological terms. The costs are presumably real ones, reflecting greater use of materials and person time to build the installation. The benefits in terms of financial costs are unreal to society as a whole.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-49292708735910226032017-11-23T22:42:34.321+00:002017-11-23T22:42:34.321+00:00[Due to some moderation nonsense, this comment app...[Due to some moderation nonsense, this comment apparently from me is really from CR]<br /><br />>"what should influence that choice. If renewables are sufficiently cheap, then the market will do all that is required."<br /><br />Not sure if this wrinkle needs mentioning but:<br />Cost of renewables is cost of generating only. Gas is dispatchable meaning it doesn't have to be stored but renewables do have to have some storage in order to match supply to demand. Don't think those LCOE include anything for storage. Adding batteries (or pump up storage or...) adds considerably to cost and the higher the renewables% the greater the amount of storage that will be needed. While these cost are also falling rapidly, it is still too early to declare victory, but I would suggest that we seem to entering a new phase.<br /><br />Rooftop solar appears expensive but there are interesting advantages: The investor saves at retail rates which is much higher than wholesale rate due to distribution costs etc. Secondly the generation is at point of use, which means that if there are growing number of consumers/houses/businesses, the grid company might have to invest in infrastructure to increase amount of electric that can be distributed to that area. However if there is generation in that area reducing the net demand then the required investment might be delayed or avoided.<br /><br />>"You're also suggesting (I think) that people get some "vote" in this by how their risk profiles are amalgamated. That sounds maybe-possible, but messy, so I'd tend to shy away from it."<br /><br />Not sure I follow:<br />Surely it is money with the same risk profile that gets amalgamated? <br />People are responsible for their investment choices.<br />If there is lots of investment money that the investors want to go into climate risk reducing investments then they should be free to choose to do that. Such choices by investors shouldn't be ignored and these choices affect where investment money flows.<br /><br />Perhaps 'channelling' was the wrong word or confusing. I don't want coercion, I want to allow free choice. It is more about enabling money to flow into climate risk reducing investment if that is what investors want. If the flow of investment money can be increased by reducing barriers and costs to doing so, then I would suggest this could have significant effect and should at least be examined in more detail than I am able to do.<br /><br />Such details are important to get right and it is worth considering government intervention in such detail.<br /><br />>> Electric markets is a natural monopoly so more regulation is appropriate<br />>More than what? <br />More than in a competitive market. The ideal level of regulation could easily be less than currently. Still don't see where this discussion is going.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-45162600341914833592017-11-23T15:47:24.656+00:002017-11-23T15:47:24.656+00:00> You have a choice: spend...
Yes indeed. And ...> You have a choice: spend...<br /><br />Yes indeed. And the question is what should influence that choice. If renewables are sufficiently cheap, then the market will do all that is required. If renewables would be sufficiently cheap if there were carbon taxes, then we should have carbon taxes and leave the rest to the markets. Or, we could have govt intervention in detail: subsidising rooftop solar, for example. I think govt intervention in detail is a bad idea.<br /><br />You're also suggesting (I think) that people get some "vote" in this by how their risk profiles are amalgamated. That sounds maybe-possible, but messy, so I'd tend to shy away from it.<br /><br />> Electric markets is a natural monopoly so more regulation is appropriate<br /><br />More than what? Even if we agree that it is natural monopoly we are also agreed that it is not, currently, an actual monopoly; so why the need for *more* regulation?<br /><br />> policy directed towards channelling investments<br /><br />I'm dubious. I would put such an idea behind carbon taxes.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-35473336185926089632017-11-22T23:29:56.746+00:002017-11-22T23:29:56.746+00:00>"I notice that you very carefully avoid c...>"I notice that you very carefully avoid commenting on the price caps."<br /><br />Hmm not sure about the 'very carefully', more like not sure such a discussion would be useful, but if you insist. Price caps are a bad idea where there is free and fair competition. Electric markets is a natural monopoly so more regulation is appropriate. My understanding of situation is that there effectively is already price regulation in terms of limiting return on investments to reasonable levels. Having two different forms of price regulation seems like a bad idea. Not sure where this discussion can go, if you don't even accept that electric market is a natural monopoly.<br /><br />More useful might be to see if you accept that this is a new area. Climate action has been directed at R&D and making renewables cheaper and so on. Do you agree that little thought or study has gone into whether climate action can or should have impact on policy directed towards channelling investments possibly for the aim of making switch to renewables faster? Should that be studied by appropriate people? (I am not sure if your 'Yeeesss' was accepting that or perhaps with reservations or perhaps enthusiastically or ...)crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-21006927568656607702017-11-22T23:29:40.913+00:002017-11-22T23:29:40.913+00:00I thought I had mentioned I was a CA recently but ...I thought I had mentioned I was a CA recently but I have no particular reason why I would expect you to remember.<br /><br />I said natural monopoly not actually a monopoly. i.e. if unregulated it would tend to get lots of takeovers until it was a monopoly or close to it. I think the previous discussion on this may have been when I mentioned I was a CA to have some argument from authority in dismissing your opposing view. Anyway I have given my views on that don't see much point discussing it further.<br /><br />>> ...invested by portfolio managers who will if allowed chase the fast buck.<br /><br />>"allowed"? By whom? <br /><br />Funds are placed in fund managers care with instructions to follow a certain risk profile. If that risk profile is adventurous then the fund managers can invest in risky assets and take risks to try to outperform the market. If the risk profile specified by the investors is cautious, do you think the fund managers should be allowed to do lots of short term trading? So basically 'allowed' by the people who place funds into their care though it may well be their financial advisors in many cases.<br /><br />> coerced into doing your will<br />No I don't believe I was suggesting that and you will be happy to hear I agree with you that that wouldn't be desirable.<br /><br />>> pushing investments in right direction<br />>I'm still not sure what you mean by this. ... you have $X to spend on new capacity<br /><br />You have a choice: spend minimum amount $X on cheapest forms of new generation and only retire those plants coming to the end of their economic lives. Or you can spend $X plus $Y and retire not only ff plants coming to the end of their lives but also some more old inefficient plants that are not quite yet at the end of their economic lives. Choice 1 eventually achieves the aim but at the slowest possible speed. The larger the $Y figure the faster the transition happens. Now if you happen to think that 40 years is a short enough time to do the transition then you want to set $Y to be fairly small or nil and use the spare investments to do other more exciting things. Whereas if you are more cautious and think that for caution sake we should do the transition faster, Y>0 looks more attractive even though it means missing out on some more exciting investments.<br /><br />> isn't very helpful in determining if the interventions under discussion are indeed useful or not<br /><br />Well at least I am providing some discussion on some of the issues I see and I don't really see it as my fault if you are not comprehending some of the basics resulting in further obvious explanation above. I am not yet at the stage of discussing tiny details but am just briefly and broadly indicating some problem areas where I think there is scope for improvement. I would accept that I am very unlikely to be the right person for defining the details. If you are not understanding this then we probably aren't having a very productive discussion.crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-21947850268175986592017-11-22T20:37:16.572+00:002017-11-22T20:37:16.572+00:00How am I to know that you're a CA? Your commen...How am I to know that you're a CA? Your comments aren't obviously boring :-). Whether being a CA makes you inside or outside the investment field I have no idea.<br /><br />> electric market as a natural monopoly <br /><br />With 6+ suppliers and an easy means to switch? You're right: that doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.<br /><br />> Actually I fully agree, <br /><br />Good...<br /><br />> ...invested by portfolio managers who will if allowed chase the fast buck.<br /><br />"allowed"? By whom? If your idea is that they should be coerced into doing your will, then I think you're on the wrong track.<br /><br />> pushing investments in right direction<br /><br />I'm still not sure what you mean by this. If the assertion is that renewables are cheaper than FF, then why wouldn't people just build renewables? This is still your point originally labelled (1). The point about lower return becomes irrelevant; you have $X to spend on new capacity, if you get more Watts per $ from renewables, you'd build that.<br /><br />>> "things like arbitrary govt interference, which always puts off investors"<br />>Govt action is not always negative interference, there is also useful interventions.<br /><br />Agreed. But saying "there is also useful intervention" isn't very helpful in determining if the interventions under discussion are indeed useful or not. *arbitrary* interventions are bad, because they confuse people; because they make it clear to investors that there is no stability, because the govt may just make another arbitrary choice next year.<br /><br />I notice that you very carefully avoid commenting on the price caps.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-3574169047809771442017-11-22T16:02:05.162+00:002017-11-22T16:02:05.162+00:00So being a Chartered Accountant makes me an outsid...So being a Chartered Accountant makes me an outsider to the investment field? Ummm. well maybe, but sorry I think that applies far more to you and most people than to me and others with my sort of qualifications. (Your refusal to recognise electric market as a natural monopoly does not fill me with confidence in your financial views.)<br /><br />>" there is actually a lot of money out there chasing safe and moderately profitable investments."<br /><br />Actually I fully agree, but it mainly tends to get pooled and invested by portfolio managers who will if allowed chase the fast buck. Yes there is plenty where the risk is set as cautious so they are not allowed to chase the fast buck. But it certainly hasn't been the job of the portfolio manager to avoid climate risk. Don't think they should chase that, if it is to the detriment of the fund holders but that possibly leaves the aim of faster switch by pushing investments in right direction to practically no-one other than people willing to accept lower investment return by going for ethical investments with higher management charges. While the investments we might want to encourage might be able to meet the needs of the investors in cautious funds, it typically isn't very liquid. <br /><br />>"things like arbitrary govt interference, which always puts off investors"<br />Govt action is not always negative interference, there is also useful interventions.<br /><br />Flip flopping policy like high fed in tariffs which lasted at too high a level for too long then cliff edge removals doesn't make for a good environment for investing.<br /><br />Despite this I think there is a useful role for good government 'intervention'. A ready market in sales of shares of wind and solar farms to make them more liquid if needed together with appropriate framework for disclosures that would make them easy to be valued appropriately, might be some good interventions.<br /><br />Financial Advisors charge a fortune, I am sure there should be ways of providing cheap (mainly online?) advice to ensure people looking for cautious investment don't put too much money into illiquid assets or inappropriately risky investment or other such mistakes. Very very mild encouragement towards putting some into renewables investments allowing some cautious investor money to flow into renewables and reduced financial advisors fees for investing the remaining lower amount of investment elsewhere should be possible. I can see risks with trying to set up something like that, so maybe it wouldn't work successfully. Nevertheless, I see lots of scope for good govt intervention.<br /><br />Not all govt action is negative interference.<br />crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-71663141121260792272017-11-22T12:32:42.836+00:002017-11-22T12:32:42.836+00:00Incidentally, while we're on renewables, I sha...Incidentally, while we're on renewables, I shall put up a plug for Science of Doom: <a href="https://scienceofdoom.com" rel="nofollow">https://scienceofdoom.com</a>.<br /><br />> I think we should be viewing/discussing the problem as capital investment problems<br /><br />Yeeesss... the problem here is you risk the "dumb America" fallacy (<a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/dumb-america/" rel="nofollow">https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/dumb-america/</a>) wherein you an outsider to a field patiently explain to people within the field things they have already thought about. In this case the field is investment. I think your foundational assertions are wrong: there is actually a lot of money out there chasing safe and moderately profitable investments.<br /><br />The kind of problem you need to worry about there are things like arbitrary govt interference, which always puts off investors. Will the idiot Tories follow Labour's idiot idea and cap electricity tariffs? One hopes not. But they shouldn't even be talking about it.<br /><br />William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-4831333802534512222017-11-21T23:27:57.343+00:002017-11-21T23:27:57.343+00:00Yes, I would agree a touch early to declare victor...Yes, I would agree a touch early to declare victory. We want battery prices to fall further and further falls in renewables cost can only be good increasing the incentives for earlier switch.<br /><br />I think we should be viewing/discussing the problem as capital investment problems:<br /><br />1. Getting funds invested in these low return but safe long term renewables investment when capital markets tend to move cash to places where a fast buck can be made.<br /><br />2. Investing in smart grid needed, if grid companies own ff generation they are not going to want to make investments in grid that cause their other assets to be wiped out.<br /><br />Pigouvian taxes would increase the benefits of the switch and possibly make the transition faster. However if you run into problem 2 above, pigouvian taxes might not resolve that issue and just be a distraction from the real problem(s). <br /><br />Lazard study seems to be a widely used study. Of course, you can find prices like 1.79C/KWh which is only 36% of the $50/MWh for utility scale solar PV. <br /><br />electrek.co/2017/11/08/chilean-solar-down-26-as-important-as-saudi-arabia-at-1-79¢-kwh/<br /><br />But the lowest price is bound to lower than an average price, so the message here seems to be that the falls in prices are continuing.<br /><br />AFAICS, the rhetoric ought to change to addressing the capital investment problems.crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-61830003341249184822017-11-21T20:30:29.102+00:002017-11-21T20:30:29.102+00:00The Lazard study is interesting. I wonder how accu...The Lazard study is interesting. I wonder how accurate the numbers are? I find myself suspicious about the cheapness of biomass. And it is interesting to see how much cheaper large-scale PV is than house-scale; another pointer to the madness of the subsidy regime.<br /><br />But anyway: if renewables are cheaper, excellent. Argument over, nothing to worry about, they will take over of themselves.<br /><br />Does this mean that we don't now need govt intervention, in the shape of Pigouvian taxes i.e. carbon taxes? Possibly; it would be good if so. But as I said before, it seems a touch early to declare victory.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-80219096104187229792017-11-21T17:09:51.299+00:002017-11-21T17:09:51.299+00:00>>So are you going to change your stance fro...>>So are you going to change your stance from 'Carbon Tax now' moah regulation to renewables are becoming cheaper so we don't need moah regulation?<br /><br />>I have no plans to do that; at the moment I think it would be a bad idea.<br /><br />https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/<br /><br />"As LCOE values for alternative energy technologies continue to decline, in some scenarios the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear. This is expected to lead to ongoing and significant deployment of alternative energy capacity."<br /><br />Bad idea because renewables are not becoming cheaper, or is it the politics of saying we want a world where energy is cheaper because you do not have to pay for the fuel, is in some way not a good political message to try to spread, or...?crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-68682249466335247952017-11-02T17:10:07.043+00:002017-11-02T17:10:07.043+00:00>>"So are you going to change your stan...>>"So are you going to change your stance from 'Carbon Tax now' moah regulation to renewables are becoming cheaper so we don't need moah regulation?"<br /><br />Blogger William Connolley said...<br />>"I have no plans to do that; at the moment I think it would be a bad idea."<br /><br />I think it is sensible to emphasise that "renewables are becoming cheaper" and "we want a better world where power is cheaper because we don't have to pay for fuel" and "we want to get to this better place quicker (it is going to happen anyway)." and "the issue is now about channelling investment money to the right places".<br /><br />so<br /><br />https://www.lazard.com/media/450347/final-chart-2.jpg<br /><br />from<br />https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/<br /><br />crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-69907814324190897682017-10-22T21:37:36.698+00:002017-10-22T21:37:36.698+00:00WC: But to allow your enthusiasm to overrun into l...<a href="" rel="nofollow">WC</a>: <i>But to allow your enthusiasm to overrun into lying that it is their official policy is denial unacceptable. </i><br /><br />What does the GOP's 'official' policy have to do with price of tea in China? The party's platform is presumed to be window dressing for the commercial agendas of their financial supporters. Reality ensues from their <i>actual</i> policies.<br /><br />Bear in mind that the first word in 'oafishal' is 'oaf'.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-73933284165091685432017-10-21T17:19:18.162+00:002017-10-21T17:19:18.162+00:00"We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If t..."We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you may be able to find it on the EPA Web Archive or the January 19, 2017 Web Snapshot."Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-48236772527396990062017-10-21T17:12:14.146+00:002017-10-21T17:12:14.146+00:00Taking the citizenry as a herd of sheep, there'...Taking the citizenry as a herd of sheep, there's two ways to profit from owning the herd: butchering or shearing.<br />That's the difference between our two political parties, or rather, between the groups of moguls who pay for them.<br />Short term profit, or long term profitability -- choose one.<br />https://www.google.com/search?q=coal+ash+radioactiveHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-45054159496480729802017-10-21T04:56:15.724+00:002017-10-21T04:56:15.724+00:00I find it ironic that you write: "This is qui...I find it ironic that you write: "<i>This is quite simply a lie. You may strongly dislike the GOPs position on GW, and you may well think it unwise, unscientific, unthinking, and un-many-other-things; I certainly do. But to allow your enthusiasm to overrun into lying that it is their official policy is denial unacceptable. </i><br /><br />1) Prof. Rubin said in footnote [3]: Climate change denial is the official position of the Republican Party. Neither the 2012 nor 2016 platforms ever mention "global warming". Indeed, the 2012 platform never even mentions 'climate change,' but the 2016 platform does several times.<br /><br />Here are all the relevant quotes I could find in either document:<br />2012: We Believe In America, Republican Party platform)<br /><br />[page 19] "We also call on Congress to take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations that will harm the nation’s economy and threaten millions of jobs over the next quarter century."<br /><br /><br />'Coal' is mentioned 9 times total - eight times in one paragraph that includes this sentence:<br />"We will end the EPA’s war on coal and encourage the increased safe development in all regions of the nation’s coal resources, the jobs it produces, and the affordable, reliable energy that it provides for America. Further, we oppose any and all cap and trade legislation."<br />=============================================================<br /><br />2016: We Believe In America, Republican Party platform)<br /><br />[page 22] Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate. <br /><br />[page 26] His [Obama's] media admirers portray his personal commitments — whether on climate change, Iranian weapons, or other matters — as done deals. They are not, and a new Republican executive will work with the Congress to reestablish constitutional order in America’s foreign relations. All international executive agreements and political arrangements entered into by the current [Obama] Administration must be deemed null and void as mere expressions of the current president’s [President Obama's] preferences.<br /><br />[page 42] We will no longer tolerate a President whose rules of engagement put our own troops in harm’s way or commanders who tell their soldiers that their first duty is to fight climate change.<br /><br />"The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, <b>clean</b>, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource."<br /><br />Of course the question may come down to, what does Prof. Rubin mean by 'climate change denial'? That the GOP denies climate change is happening? Or that it accepts that it's happening, but not caused by anthropogenic sources? Or that it accepts that it's happening, accepts that humans are the cause, but denies it's a problem?<br /><br />So, I'm curious - what is the GOP's position on GW that you so dislike? I don't see a single statement defining one, so one must take the totality of what they say to form one's own idea of what that position is. To me, and obviously to professor Rubin, they simply deny there's a problem. If they believed otherwise they would have addressed it directly.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-71198188064868185112017-10-21T02:36:16.004+00:002017-10-21T02:36:16.004+00:00Is it a big deniable secret whose money is funding...Is it a big deniable secret whose money is funding this particular policy?<br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?q="dark+money"+koch+climate+RepublicanHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-50291824719501090222017-10-20T21:31:46.951+00:002017-10-20T21:31:46.951+00:00I agree it is logically possible to distinguish 1 ...I agree it is logically possible to distinguish 1 and 2. But the paper doesn't; so even on your interpretation we're left guessing.<br /><br />As for "hippie punching"; I think that's just lazy talk. Answer the criticism substantively; don't just try to evade it by using pejorative terms to describe it.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-26672704661750262982017-10-20T14:46:25.384+00:002017-10-20T14:46:25.384+00:00Returning to my original point and the core point ...Returning to my original point and the core point of this post...<br /><br />> “They adopt attitudes based on friends, family, respected pols”<br /><br />I fully agree. It’s why we need to give a voice to “Nasty” people that also agree with the science. Like you. But most of them are too busy hippie punching (and blaming “Nice” people for the inaction of “Nasty” people) to do any good. Like you.<br /><br /><br />> " And, conversely, how they see those issues presented by their "enemies".<br /><br />Again, I agree. Which is why blaming “Nice” people for the failure to sell climate change action in “Nasty” people-friendly ways is short-sighted. It would be better to get “Nasty” people (that agree with the science) to sell climate change action in “Nasty” people-friendly ways.<br /><br />In practical (but US-centric) terms, it would likely be more impactful to have republicans listen to the Climate Leadership Council talk about the “Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” then to blame Sheldon Whitehouse for not packaging his climate change action plan in more free-market friendly ways.<br /><br />But hippie punching is easier.<br />rconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16326865827447986073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-50159278418423178442017-10-20T14:19:31.575+00:002017-10-20T14:19:31.575+00:00WC,
Read harder.
I hope you know there’s a diffe...WC,<br /><br />Read harder.<br /><br />I hope you know there’s a difference between:<br />(1) The official GOP platform explicitly states “we deny climate change”, and,<br />(2) “Climate change denial is the official position of the Republican Party”<br /><br />The first, which no one claimed or is defending, is false and could rightly be said to be a lie. All I said was that it was obvious that “we deny climate change” would not exist in any party’s official platform.<br /><br />The second, which is the statement in question, is an interpretation of the position, *that actually requires that you read the platform* and interpret the position to determine its accuracy. When the platform include statements on “rejecting the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement” and “oppos[ing] any carbon tax”, it certainly suggests that emission reduction inaction is the official position of the Republican Party. It could also be suggested that promoting emission reduction inaction is synonymous with climate change denial. It also could be suggested that is too much of a stretch. Both are interpretations of the position. Neither are “lies”.<br /><br />So it is not contradictory to say that the platform would not say “we deny climate change” but that the comment “Climate change denial is the official position of the Republican Party” is not a “lie”. It certainly doesn’t “prove what [you] said correct”.<br /><br />Note, also, that the articles statement says “position” not “platform”, which is a bit looser and makes statements and actions by party relevant. So let’s look at a few statements by senior Republicans:<br /><br />“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese…” – Donald Trump, Republican President<br />“We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data.” – Lamar Smith, Republican chairman of the committee of science, space and technology<br />“Climate change is not science. It’s religion.” – Ted Cruz, Republican chairman of subcommittee on science and space<br />“So no, I would not agree that [CO2] is a primary contributor to the, to the global warming that we see.” – Scott Pruitt, Republican head of the EPA<br />A list of comments by the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/2016-republicans-climate-change_us_5654fd44e4b072e9d1c11291<br /><br />So, to recap,<br />- The republican president, head of the committee of science, space and technology and head of the EPA have all made explicit statements denying the realities of climate change science,<br />- The official GOP platform rejects the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and opposes any carbon tax, and,<br />- The GOP has primarily voted against climate change actions and, once in power, dismantled past climate change actions.<br /><br />So when the words, actions and official platform of a party all suggest the party rejects climate science, I would say that it is fair to interpret that “Climate change denial is the official position of the Republican Party”. Even if you disagree with the interpretation, to call it a “lie” is simply not accurate.<br />rconnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16326865827447986073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-67740180606898362322017-10-20T11:28:50.303+00:002017-10-20T11:28:50.303+00:00Note that you've misinterpreted what I claimed...<i>Note that you've misinterpreted what I claimed to be correct about. I was claiming to be correct that it was not necessary to read the GOP manifesto in order to know the "denial" claim was false.</i><br /><br />Ahh, okay.<br /><br />...and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38146641034290205862017-10-20T10:08:42.441+00:002017-10-20T10:08:42.441+00:00WMC> and prove what I said correct.
Wotts> ...WMC> and prove what I said correct.<br /><br />Wotts> I don't this is quite correct<br /><br />Note that you've misinterpreted what I claimed to be correct about. I was claiming to be correct that it was not necessary to read the GOP manifesto in order to know the "denial" claim was false.<br /><br />> Essentially, yes<br /><br />Fair enough. So: we're agreed it is a falsehood, the only question is whether it is a lie or not; in the sense of whether it is a deliberate falsehood, or merely a reflection of bias in the writer. My opinion is that it is a lie, as-in deliberate; but lacking the ability to read this person's mind, I admit I cannot tell for sure. William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-39418646821045620972017-10-20T09:48:41.550+00:002017-10-20T09:48:41.550+00:00yet you're prepared to let slide clearly false...<i><br />yet you're prepared to let slide clearly false statements in what is nominally a high-quality published paper being recommended by experienced climatologist(s). <br /></i><br />I've already said it's wrong. Not quite sure what else you're expecting from me. I don't really know in what way I'm letting it slide (are you expecting some kind of formal complaint from me to the journal?)<br /><br /><i><br />Is it that, although the statement is clearly false, you think it unimportant?<br /></i><br />As others have already pointed out, it does appear as though the position of the GOP is essentially climate denial, even if that isn't their official position. I haven't, however, read the paper and my intent isn't to defend it. I generally agree with your suggestion that we should aim to correctly represent the positions that other people hold. <br /><br /><i><br />You're expecting absolute accuracy from me, in a blog,<br /></i><br />Essentially, yes. If your message is to be extremely careful as to how one represents other people's positions, I don't think you get to excuse your slips simply because it's a blog, especially given that you appear to be targetting this at your readers, not the authors of the paper that you're criticising. <br /><br />To be clear, I'm all in favour of giving the benefit of the doubt and being willing to understand what people are actually trying to say, rather than interpreting what they've said in the most pedantic way possible. You're the one appearing to argue for the latter, in which case you probably should aim to be careful in what you say. I do realise that the somewhat relaxed way in which you present things is part of your charm. It, however, starts to lose its charm when it seems that you expect more from others than you expect from yourself....and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-44315636651586638712017-10-20T09:32:32.438+00:002017-10-20T09:32:32.438+00:00I'm a bit puzzled here. You're expecting a...I'm a bit puzzled here. You're expecting absolute accuracy from me, in a blog, but yet you're prepared to let slide clearly false statements in what is nominally a high-quality published paper being recommended by experienced climatologist(s). Is it that, although the statement is clearly false, you think it unimportant? I don't think it is unimportant. I think it is very revealing of the attitude of the writer. If you're asserting that it's accidental, then that's possible, but only in a way makes it worse: the same unconscious bias will be present throughout the paper.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com