Are Global Warming Skeptics criminals?
I was wrong. I thought the whole man made Global Warming issue had been thoroughly fisked and dissected. I thought the hockey stick had been reduced to splinters.
How was I to know that things would get goofy on an unimagined scale? How goofy you ask? There is now a call to try Global Warming Skeptics for War Crimes. Or should that be “thought crimes”? Welcome to the far left extremist world of 1984. Leo Rosten once wrote, “Extremists think ”communication” means agreeing with them. ” And what if you don’t?
Far left extremists say you should be arrested and tried. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts wrote, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Roberts has called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry”.
Okay, Roberts is a full blown nutcase. No way anyone respectable could believe in arresting people for thought crimes. Right?
Er. Not exactly.
Pulitzer Prize winning author Ellen Goodman writes, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
Dennis Prager writes, “the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does. If you don’t believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted.”
I wonder if the ACLU will step in to defend the First Amendment? Or will they step in to prosecute “the bastards”?
February 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
There are already prototype gasification plants and even a few commercial facilities. It’s an established technology. It is not being adopted because of market failure (not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested).
What market failure? The mining aspect? Or something else? Cost per kilowatt?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
EXTERNALITIES. Jesus, it’s spelled right out in that post. How can you even be asking that question? You claim to know what market failures are, but you seem bewildered by the topic. Which is it? Can you identify externalities in the electricity production market or not?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
You claim to know what market failures are, but you seem bewildered by the topic. Which is it? Can you identify externalities in the electricity production market or not?
I am amused by this tactic. I am sure you understand that there are many interpretations of market failures. I can guess since you will not give me any information, but then you will accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I am not bewildered by the topic, just your gamesmanship.
Which interpretation of market failure is causing Coal Gas to be a failure? I am smart but cannot read minds. But I can guess, is that the game you wish to play? Let’s continue the game, I am intrigued.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Which interpretation of market failure is causing Coal Gas to be a failure?
EXTERNALITIES. If you don’t know what externalities are, just say so. I’m trying to respect your knowledge on this issue, but you won’t come off the starting line.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I know what externalities are.
I think I was confused when you wrote, “(not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested”. I read that and thought externalities were excluded.
Okay reset the clock, I will go with externalities.
I questioned if coal mining was a concern. To some people that would be an negative externality. However, carbon sequestration would be a positive externality.
Be forewarned, I do poorly in these types of discussions in some cases. Myers Briggs NT. If for example you are a Myers Briggs SF I will irritate you. I sometimes connect dots that are not there from your perspective. It doesn’t mean I am trying to outsmart you or be a smart-ass, I process information in a different manner. I suspect this is part of the problem.
Carry on.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I think I was confused when you wrote, “(not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested”
I have to admit, I was confused by this as well. What I think persimmon meant there was “not a lack of competition, but externalities, as tgirsch suggested.” The implicit-but-untyped “but” makes it make more sense.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
I have to admit, I was confused by this as well. What I think persimmon meant there was “not a lack of competition, but externalities, as tgirsch suggested.” The implicit-but-untyped “but” makes it make more sense.
I agree. I just did not understand. I think we are back on track now.
It is an interesting question and I am curious where persimmon wants to go with it. I think the greatest externality is probably lobbyist. Without Federal Government mandates and funding I do not know how alternative energy projects can get off the ground. You would think that solar would have more support, but maybe it is the energy producers themselves that do not want to see solar power plants move forward.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I would expect wind and wave power to get more support than solar, because they can generate more energy in less space. But I think we need to heavily incent the incorporation of renewable energy, including solar, as well as efficiency, in new construction (for example).
As to externalities, I’m not sure lobbyists qualify. I’m thinking that the most important externality is simply the increase in costs that will be incurred, more or less across the spectrum, by our current “cheap energy” practices. If global warming predictions come true, then things like farming, indoor climate control, transportation, etc., become considerably more expensive than they are today. We’re currently engaged in practices that are not sustainable, so that the true cost of what we’re doing is obscured and deferred until later. And, worse, the total cost becomes higher (given the whole ounce of prevention today vs. pound of cure tomorrow thing).
Even if you set aside the global warming aspects for a moment, we’re still not reflecting the true cost of energy, because we’re dealing with a finite resource. It’s cheap now — much cheaper than finding a viable alternative — because it’s currently plentiful. But it won’t always be. Today’s cost only take into account short-term supply and demand. Long-term supply and demand are not part of the equation, and they need to be.