Comments on: The True Art of Misdirection (otherwise known as the Republican campaign against Cap & Trade) http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-true-art-of-misdirection-otherwise-known-as-the-republican-campaign-against-cap-trade/ Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:40:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-true-art-of-misdirection-otherwise-known-as-the-republican-campaign-against-cap-trade/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Rich Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:31:10 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=101#comment-74 I believe I came acroos his essay somewhere a few months ago. State of Fear is on my list, just haven't gotten to it yet. Its too bad Chricton passed away, he was a very eloquent voice of reason and will be sorely missed. I believe I came acroos his essay somewhere a few months ago. State of Fear is on my list, just haven’t gotten to it yet. Its too bad Chricton passed away, he was a very eloquent voice of reason and will be sorely missed.

]]> By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-true-art-of-misdirection-otherwise-known-as-the-republican-campaign-against-cap-trade/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Chris Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:59:50 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=101#comment-73 Well, that is the point, they cannot argue it because no one is really paying attention to the science anymore. You cannot argue against politicized science as a politician when the majority of the world has signed onto the premise of what you are arguing against, it would be career suicide. I recommend reading Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Following the Novel (which is a good read btw) he has an essay of the evil's of politicized science, including a look at the euginics movement of the early twentieth century. Also, there are podcasts of a series of debates called 'Intelligence Squared' that include several arguments for and against Climate Change that are excellent, including one in which Michael Crichton makes a case against the redirection of resources to 'fix' it. Well, that is the point, they cannot argue it because no one is really paying attention to the science anymore. You cannot argue against politicized science as a politician when the majority of the world has signed onto the premise of what you are arguing against, it would be career suicide.

I recommend reading Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. Following the Novel (which is a good read btw) he has an essay of the evil’s of politicized science, including a look at the euginics movement of the early twentieth century. Also, there are podcasts of a series of debates called ‘Intelligence Squared’ that include several arguments for and against Climate Change that are excellent, including one in which Michael Crichton makes a case against the redirection of resources to ‘fix’ it.

]]> By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-true-art-of-misdirection-otherwise-known-as-the-republican-campaign-against-cap-trade/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Rich Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:32:35 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=101#comment-71 Chris, Points taken. I think I read a little more into the overall tone of your climate change argument than maybe I should have. Yes, it would have been nice if the Republicans could have opposed this bill on the scientific issue alone but you know as well as I do that would have been a failure. Rich Chris,

Points taken. I think I read a little more into the overall tone of your climate change argument than maybe I should have. Yes, it would have been nice if the Republicans could have opposed this bill on the scientific issue alone but you know as well as I do that would have been a failure.

Rich

]]> By: Chris http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-true-art-of-misdirection-otherwise-known-as-the-republican-campaign-against-cap-trade/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Chris Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:59:23 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=101#comment-69 1. You bring up a point I was hoping someone would. As a result of increasing regulation from earlier amendments from 1970 when the CAA was originally inacted through 1977, the real innovation towards FGD systems took off. Prior to that all you had was the initial attempt instituted in Britain in the 30's (which was scrapped during the war), which meant you had very little to start from. So, from 1978 to 1990, great strides were made, the newer technologies that lead from the Wellman-Lord process in the late 70s, to the use of vertical sprayers and ash pumps in the late 80s. The point is, the technology was advancing but the problem wasn't getting better. The 1977 limits pushed the technology and innovation, it set a target for industry, that industry stepped up to meet, and when it was clear that there was still much work to do, the bar was raised. The drop in cost of the technology did not occur overnight, and the target levels weren't listed as a fixed thing but remained in motion. Add to that that most western states (with California leading the charge) set standards that exceeded the federal guidelines. Add to that greater distribution of PBR coal which has drastically lower concentrations of sulfur and you get the desired results. In this case regulation pushed the innovation, though I will admit, this is not usually the case. 2. It is almost as if what I said actually went right over your head. The reasons for the restrictions on CO2 are because the majority of the world has bought into climate change and the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are believed to be the cause. The fight against these regulations is because Republicans haven't bought into climate change. I have not stated that CO2 causes climate change, and I specifically stated that, "Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue." And yet here we are Rich, arguing about climate change. This fight is about a perceived problem, not necessarily about a real one, kind of like Y2K. Do you know how much money was spent to fix that little error? It will be just a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to fix this one, hence Republican opposition. 1. You bring up a point I was hoping someone would. As a result of increasing regulation from earlier amendments from 1970 when the CAA was originally inacted through 1977, the real innovation towards FGD systems took off. Prior to that all you had was the initial attempt instituted in Britain in the 30′s (which was scrapped during the war), which meant you had very little to start from. So, from 1978 to 1990, great strides were made, the newer technologies that lead from the Wellman-Lord process in the late 70s, to the use of vertical sprayers and ash pumps in the late 80s.

The point is, the technology was advancing but the problem wasn’t getting better. The 1977 limits pushed the technology and innovation, it set a target for industry, that industry stepped up to meet, and when it was clear that there was still much work to do, the bar was raised. The drop in cost of the technology did not occur overnight, and the target levels weren’t listed as a fixed thing but remained in motion. Add to that that most western states (with California leading the charge) set standards that exceeded the federal guidelines. Add to that greater distribution of PBR coal which has drastically lower concentrations of sulfur and you get the desired results. In this case regulation pushed the innovation, though I will admit, this is not usually the case.

2. It is almost as if what I said actually went right over your head. The reasons for the restrictions on CO2 are because the majority of the world has bought into climate change and the fact that man-made CO2 emissions are believed to be the cause. The fight against these regulations is because Republicans haven’t bought into climate change.

I have not stated that CO2 causes climate change, and I specifically stated that, “Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue.” And yet here we are Rich, arguing about climate change. This fight is about a perceived problem, not necessarily about a real one, kind of like Y2K. Do you know how much money was spent to fix that little error? It will be just a drop in the bucket compared to what it will cost to fix this one, hence Republican opposition.

]]> By: Rich http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-true-art-of-misdirection-otherwise-known-as-the-republican-campaign-against-cap-trade/comment-page-1/#comment-66 Rich Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:01:55 +0000 http://spotonpolitics.com/blog/?p=101#comment-66 Chris, I have a few issues with that post and I am sure you already know what they are and are prepared with response. 1) Your claim that the EPA's Acid Rain Program is what resulted in the large scale reduction in SO2 emissions and thus acid rain is only part of the story. You failed to mention that the reduction in emissions also strangely correlates with the affordability of Flue-gas Desulfurization technology. 2) How can you possibly make the claim that CO2 emissions have any effect on climate change? There is no scientific evidence to back up that claim. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that the global temperature variations we are seeing now are perfectly normal and expected. The only increase directly related to CO2 is Al Gores net worth. Rich Chris,

I have a few issues with that post and I am sure you already know what they are and are prepared with response.

1) Your claim that the EPA’s Acid Rain Program is what resulted in the large scale reduction in SO2 emissions and thus acid rain is only part of the story. You failed to mention that the reduction in emissions also strangely correlates with the affordability of Flue-gas Desulfurization technology.

2) How can you possibly make the claim that CO2 emissions have any effect on climate change? There is no scientific evidence to back up that claim. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that the global temperature variations we are seeing now are perfectly normal and expected. The only increase directly related to CO2 is Al Gores net worth.

Rich

]]>