Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Conservative vs. Progressive: Global Climate Change

—

by

James A. Bacon
in , ,

climate_changeKiller Bs. In an unprecedented move, two prominent Virginia blogs, Bacon’s Rebellion and BlueVirginia, have agreed to cooperate in a structured debate over a series of possible programs designed to combat global climate change. The programs were selected based on two major criteria – they had to be applicable to Virginia and they had to encompass actions that could conceivably start in 2014.  The blogmasters from both blogs have agreed to post the articles verbatim on their blogs. This introductory article is designed to explain the “rules of the road”.Picking sides.

  A few regular contributors from both blogs have been divided up into “conservative” and “progressive” teams.  The division into teams was based on political outlook not “home blog”.  Here are the teams:

Conservative – Jim Bacon (BaconsRebellion) and Don Rippert (Bacon’s Rebellion)

Progressive – Lowell Feld (Blue Virginia), kindler (Blue Virginia) and Peter Galuszka (Bacon’s Rebellion)

No hitting below the belt. In order to foster a constructive debate all participants have stipulated certain things.  They are:

  • The Earth is warming.  All participants accept the consensus of leading scientists that the Earth is warming.
  • Humans cause a substantial amount of the warming. While there may be disagreement on the relative role of humanity in causing global warming there is agreement that humans are a cause of global warming.
  • The speed with which the Earth will warm is not known with precision.
  • The impact of the warming Earth on human civilization is not known with precision.

Marquess of Queensberry. 

The rules are simple.  A series of policies that may, or may not, be effective in combating global climate change have been selected.  Each potential policy is applicable to Virginia. Each policy could conceivably be part of a law enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia in the upcoming 2014 session.  A blog article will be written for each possible policy.  The blog article will have the following three sections:

  • Factual description.  A neutral party has written a description of the potential policy with relevant facts.  Both the conservative team and the progressive team have reviewed and accepted the factual description of the possible policy.
  • Conservative viewpoint(s).  A conservative perspective on the policy written by one or more authors from the conservative team.
  • Progressive viewpoint(s).  A progressive perspective on the policy written by one or more of the authors from the progressive team.

Just some facts, ma’am. 

All authors have been encouraged to document their assumed costs and benefits of the potential policy in as quantitative terms as possible.  However, it must be recognized that a strict quantitative cost or benefit may not be possible in all circumstances.

Let the games begin.  The first potential policy initiative is … Virginia should adopt a strong (mandatory) Renewal Portfolio Standards as opposed to the weak (voluntary) Renewal Portfolio Standards currently in place.

See you at the next blog posting for the first policy debate!

-D.J. Rippert
Bacon’s Rebellion      

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “Conservative vs. Progressive: Global Climate Change”

  1. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Jim Bacon stipulated this?

    “The Earth is warming. All participants accept the consensus of leading scientists that the Earth is warming.

    Humans cause a substantial amount of the warming. While there may be disagreement on the relative role of humanity in causing global warming there is agreement that humans are a cause of global warming.”

    hmmmph.. somehow I thought I had understood different…

    well..good… !!

    and looking forward to the “debate” …

    but I would ask for one topic:

    Should Virginia do an inventory of it’s coastal areas and develop maps that show what happens with various higher (hypothetical) ocean level scenarios along with costs to fix? Can we quantify in terms of dollars what would be catastrophic to the Virginia budget?

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Don’t get too excited, Larry…. read my comment below!

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I am delighted for Bacon’s Rebellion to participate in this debate. All too often, partisans of the left and right talk only to others of like mind. It is critical in our polarized society that we engage in a civilized exchange of views. The topic of Global Warming and what to do about it is as emotional and polarizing as any. I am also pleased to partner with BlueVirginia on this project. Lowell Feld and the blogger who goes by “Kindler” are articulate, well-informed proponents of the liberal-progressive viewpoint. Many thanks to Don Rippert for organizing the event.

    In his description of the debate, Don lists a number of points that we agree to stipulate in order to avoid getting sidetracked about the reality/nonreality of Global Warming. I agree with the stipulations as written, but with provisos.

    The earth is warming — yes, the planet is on a long-term warming trend; temperatures have increased about one degree Centigrade over the past century. However, the increase has plateaued over the past 15 years or so. Whether that represents a temporary hiatus or an end to the warming trend is at this time unknowable.

    Humans cause a substantial amount of the warming — it is scientifically indisputable that increased CO2 levels have a mild greenhouse gas effect that works to raise temperatures. However, that is not the issue in the Global Warming debates. One question is whether that minor effect is amplified by feedbacks in the climate system. I am agnostic on that issue. Another question is whether human impacts on climate are outweighed by natural variability. I am inclined to think, but could be persuaded otherwise as more data comes in, that the human impact is relatively minor — not “substantial.”

    The speed with which the earth will warm is not known with precision — I totally agree. Indeed, if natural variability is the driving force behind climate change, there is a distinct possibility that the earth may cool in the future. I don’t pretend to know whether that will happen or not.

    The impact of warming earth on civilization is not known with precision — I totally agree. Indeed, I believe that the “warmists” emphasize the negatives and underplay potential positives, such as the contribution of higher atmospheric CO2 levels to plant growth and drought resistance. A warming earth may be a net negative to the ecology and humanity, but that case remains unproven.

    I have laid out my views on the Global Warming controversy in essay-length detail here. It’s an excellent summary of how I think about the larger issues that we have agreed to set aside in this debate.

    Despite all those reservations, I think it is worth holding the debate on how to address Global Warming here in Virginia. I acknowledge that not everyone shares my lack of urgency about the need to curtail CO2 emissions. There is enormous momentum in our society to “do something.” If we are to combat Global Warming, let us at least do so in the most cost-effective way possible.

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the latter two points I agree with. The difference is the “insurance” issue.

    If you don’t know but you know things are changing – why would you essentially gamble that there would be no impacts, therefor nothing needs to be done? The other side says why do things that are expensive and harm productivity without much more than a belief?

    but the earlier parts about temperature – I refer to this chart:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif

    and note that if you look at the actual data – it’s up and down through 5-20 year cycles .. so yes.. we could be in one of those down cycles right now – but to ignore the longer trend is just denying known data OR accusing NASA and NOAA as being a willing part of a global conspiracy to “spook” people into spending more money on bogus science.. and the narrative goes much further downhill from there.. getting into things like liberals wanting to “punish” capitalism, etc, etc..

    and that’s part of the problem because the “mild” deniers stand shoulder to shoulder with the wacko bird conspiracy loons.. they all group up together herd-like and you know this because of the denier websites they reference rather than the NASA and NOAA websites that if you mention they will either ignore or claim the NASA and NOAA are in on the conspiracy also.

    When you have Virginia refusing to do even an inventory of susceptible lands and it’s Attorney General trying to charge academicians with fraudulent use of state money – you know that civilized discussion is a real challenge…

    and to that end – I heartily welcome this dual debate.. and I vote for the 2 pro and 2 con format… but will certainly abide by whatever rules are decided.

    Oh.. and I hope to hear Jim Bacon say that he does believe the NOAA and NASA data at some point or admit he does not… one way or the other. no skulking around.. fess up!

  4. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    I remain agnostic on the global warming issue. Unwilling to say humans cannot be affecting the climate, but not trusting those seeking public money or power. http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time-magazine-swings-both-ways/

    I don’t trust Wall Street, Beltway Bandits or professors seeking public grant money.

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    I trust NASA and NOAA.. I do not believe they falsify data nor do they have hidden agendas…

    I believe it’s not impossible, not beyond the realm of possibility that Global Warming could result in exceptionally expensive damages like we saw with Sandy ruining subway tunnels.. and the like.

    I think it’s nutty to positively absolutely believe positively nothing bad could happen as a result of global warming.

    I equate this to someone saying they donj’t need seat belts or air bags and that they are horribly expensive and do no good anyhow.

    or perhaps closer to climate – people saying that our reaction to the Ozone Holes was stupid and wasteful and we should have done nothing.

    The thing that has changed in the last few years – is we’ve become anti-science.

    we now doubt science … we believe that scientists are dishonest, lie and if they are liberals will attempt to mislead us … give us bad climate data… etc…not just one or two bad actors.. nope… it’s a worldwide conspiracy that involves unscrupulous charlatans around the world.

    so we have the same folks who deny evolution, believe in creationism.. believe Obama came from Kenya .. also believing that scientists are lying SOBs…

    am I lying?

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Regarding NASA and NOAA, it’s a not question of thinking anyone is “lying” or “falsifying data.” By casting the issue in those terms, you are trying to delegitimize opposing viewpoints.

      It is possible to question NOAA’s methodology for calculating average temperatures without accusing them of lying of falsifying data. Think about it. We have sensors that measure land temperatures all over the planet, but we don’t have sensors every square meter, so we have to make assumptions about how representative those sensors are for the (often) thousands of square miles around them. We also have to adjust for the “heat island” effect. Meanwhile, we have sensors measuring temperatures for low-altitude atmosphere and high-altitude atmosphere, and we have sensors for measuring sea temperatures. Figuring out how to weight those readings is a complex statistical question. And your methodology for determining the “average” can have a significant impact on the outcome.

      The methodology employed by NOAA has been subject to criticism. From my primitive understanding of the debate, NOAA has made some controversial decisions regarding (a) how to adjust for the heat island effect (which everyone agrees is real) and (b) which temperature-monitoring stations to include in the database and how to extrapolate their readings over surrounding areas.

      Are you willing to assert that NOAA is 100% free of institutional biases? On what basis?

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        NOAA and NASA are scientists..

        when you say: ” subject to criticism”, i.e. is NOAA and NASA doing correct, good science or are they not?

        who is saying they are not? What are their credentials?

        how many scientists in the world believe that NOAA and NASA are doing correct science?

        what percentage of legitimate credentialed scientists dispute NOAA and NASA?

        when you look at their temperature chart that goes back to 1880:

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

        who in the scientific community says NASA has an incorrect chart?

        re: ” Are you willing to assert that NOAA is 100% free of institutional biases? On what basis?”

        a question back at you. do you think the people that run NASA – would knowingly engage in institutional bias if other scientists in the world accused them of such?

        the question is – do you trust consensus science? do you trust 98% of the scientists – around the world – who say that NASA charts are valid?

        why would you:

        1. be able to justify doubts that are coming from people who are not scientists and clear critics? why do you trust them?

        2. why would you be willing to bet the farm – that science you doubt is
        so wrong that we need to do nothing?

        3. – do you allow for “insurance” ?

        4. – do you think what we did with the ozone holes was based on bad science or “insurance”, i.e. better to be safe than sorry?

  6. accurate Avatar
    accurate

    Not fair Jim –
    Rule –
    Humans cause a substantial amount of the warming. While there may be disagreement on the relative role of humanity in causing global warming there is agreement that humans are a cause of global warming.

    Sorta like saying let’s have a discussion about if God is real, and one rule is that God doesn’t exist. Let the debate begin.

    See, I doubt that mankind has that much of an effect. Why did we go through a warming period centuries ago, when Greenland WAS a green land, but we weren’t releasing CO2. Why was the Sahara once a lush forest, but since then has been a desert – again long before mankind was releasing CO2. I maintain that if all mankind was wiped off the earth there would still be climate change. If we went back to living in caves and our only emissions were fires to try to keep warm, we’d still have global climate change, we just aren’t that big a factor.

    Do I trust scientists? Within limits – I lived not far (67 miles) away from Mt St Helens when it blew in 1980. Scientists had all sorts of theories as to how long it would take to recover. They had all sorts of computer models as to what and which vegetation and animals would survive and come back first and how long it would take (most computer models and experts said it would take hundreds of years). Not so, they were pathetically wrong. Here is a link to a National Geographic article on it.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0513_050513_mountsthelens.html

    The scientists have finally gotten honest about Mt St Helens, mostly because the evidence stares them straight in the face. So too, all the noise about global climate change; what has caused it, what it will create – sorry I’m a major skeptic.

    So again, we’ll start this is God real discussion with the ground rule in place that God doesn’t exist. Should be a lively discussion.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Yes, I do think that stipulation regarding “substantial” human influence over climate change stacked the debt, though not to the extent that your amusing analogy would suggest. That’s why I added my proviso in the comments:

      It is scientifically indisputable that increased CO2 levels have a mild greenhouse gas effect that works to raise temperatures. However, that is not the issue in the Global Warming debates. One question is whether that minor effect is amplified by feedbacks in the climate system. I am agnostic on that issue. Another question is whether human impacts on climate are outweighed by natural variability. I am inclined to think, but could be persuaded otherwise as more data comes in, that the human impact is relatively minor — not “substantial.”

  7. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” It is scientifically indisputable that increased CO2 levels have a mild greenhouse gas effect that works to raise temperatures. ”

    this is the kind of quixotic viewpoint from skeptics where they are apparently very sure of some things and very skeptical of other things – but all of it totally subjective and not rooted in authoritative sources but rather an assemblage of various critics with varying opinions… with real scientists relegated to opinions of no more substance than critics whose only scientific background is “what they read”.

    You can see how folks like this think that MOOC is going to change the world!

    it’s like you can become the equal of a PHD with 40 years of experience by reading a few web pages that are the musings of folks who doubt science to start with.

    this is how you get folks who deny global warming.. deny evolution.. and deny the birthplace of Obama….

    we’re not talking Joe the Plumber here. we’re talking elected representatives to Congress!

    I do not believe all scientists and I’m reminded of thing like Cold Fusion and even Edison who went around electrocuting animals to prove how dangerous AC current was…

    there are LOTs of charlatans posing as scientists..no question..

    but on GW.. we’re talking about a strong consensus of scientists around the world.. to the point where the critics even open claim a global conspiracy to explain the strong consensus.

    these are, by the way, the same scientists who warned of the ozone holes not that long ago.

    Now if we had the scientific community split on the issue – that would be another story – but we have concurrence in the high 90% range and while science has been wrong before… I do not believe that my background and knowledge can be made equal to hundreds of PHDS by reading a few Drudge Report “exposes”.

    It is folly to bet the farm that science is totally wrong and zero impacts will occur.

    we have more and more folks who actually also question the need for – the prudence of insurance.. whether it be for science or pensions or health care or anything… “insurance” has become an enemy of productivity and efficiency now days – apparently.

Leave a Reply

Read More