• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Scientists Are Not Experts in Economics

atheist4thecaus said:
No, many people on the Left are not just shutting down conversation on the science of climate change, they are shutting down all aspects of that conversation. When I bring up the economic side, I'm often preached to about the importance of solving global warming and told there is no room for debate on this because it is settled. And as someone else mentioned, there is a lot within Climate Science that is not decided. If the Science is settled, why are articles like these being published: Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests | The Independent

Also, you mock my usage of the term "the Left" but you say nothing about my usage of the term "the Right". I don't use these terms disparagingly, merely to recognize who I'm talking about in general in a simple way that makes sense. It's merely a term of convenience. As I've said before, while I may not pass the purity test of many on the Left, I consider myself to be more left than right, hence my "slightly liberal" tag.



My tech gadgets don't last me as long or cost me as much as solar panels, and many of them don't have competition. I'm not a fan of your analogy. A lot of people buy hybrid vehicles for non-economic reasons. They know they are paying more and they don't care. In cases where it is actually economically better to buy a hybrid, that only shows that the natural market will gear towards renewables the more economically feasible they become without forcing them on people. Furthermore, hybrids show exactly why a diversity of energy is a good idea. It is an example of a diversity of energy. Hybrids wouldn't exist if fossil fuels were banned. We'd have electric cars, which have their limitations. Battery costs are a huge problem, and the distance one can travel is a problem, too. The power of the vehicle is a problem. Where I worked with a construction company, there was an electric- and gas-powered forklift. We couldn't use the electric forklift for half of the things we needed to use because it wasn't powerful enough.

Your idea is to take off subsidies for the most cost-effective and pragmatic form of vehicle energy and put that money towards R&D of renewables with no short-term effect, and in the mean time, your policy will destroy our economic well-being, cause massive inflation, will raise the costs of all goods in society, and it will harm the poor the most. So then when food skyrockets, the government will have to raise minimum wage, welfare programs, etc. and that will create even more inflation. Then you'll see companies firing people by the masses and replace them with robots, creating higher unemployment, a huge burden on insurance companies, and a huge burden on the government yet again. Your policy would quite literally lead to massive hardship in this country, and a recession if not a depression. Or, we could keep the subsidies, continue to develop alternatives, and then introduce them to the economy as they become economically viable, with actual economic gain rather than economic hardship. Funny how your morals don't care about the poor people you would be harming.
Click to expand...

Thank you for trying to bring some reason to the discussion!
One of my issues with the entire AGW thing, is I think they have not identified the correct problem.
Our problem is energy not CO2. If we solve the energy problem, reduced CO2 emissions will simply be a by product.
Solar and wind energy lack density and duty cycle, I.E. they are not available when you need them or in the quantity needed.
To make them viable, we need some form of energy storage that allows the energy to be accumulated in an energy dense container.
Nature does this with hydrocarbons.
As we add the alternative cyclic energy sources to the power grid, we will start to see massive supply swings, seasonal surpluses,
where the supply exceeds demands for many hours a day.
I can see the refineries storing these surpluses to liquid fuels for their supply chains.
To do this they will need massive amounts of carbon, from atmospheric CO2.
The fuels produced would be carbon neutral, whose burning will add no CO2 to the atmosphere.
While small companies (and the Navy) are known to be working on this, the large oil companies also have a history of research.
I think around $90 a barrel oil, the efficiency of the process and the price of wholesale electricity,
will be the point where the man made fuels will be the most profitable choice for the refineries.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, they are claiming CO2 is the largest problem. That is not settled.
Click to expand...
No, dude. it's settled.

There is really no doubt that, at this time, CO2 is the largest human influence on the atmosphere. Not only is it one of the largest emissions, it also stays in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, depending on how it is sequestered.

There are other factors, like methane or deforestation, which play a part. But CO2 is the big one. This is not about "faith," it's not about politics, it's not about partisanship, it is simply the overwhelming conclusion of the science.
 
Threegoofs said:
You seem to think that scientists don’t know this.

Anyone who accepts the science will naturally conclude that action is needed now. Economists included.
Click to expand...

Well...only if it's profitable apparently.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
No, many people on the Left are not just shutting down conversation on the science of climate change, they are shutting down all aspects of that conversation. When I bring up the economic side, I'm often preached to about the importance of solving global warming and told there is no room for debate on this because it is settled. And as someone else mentioned, there is a lot within Climate Science that is not decided. If the Science is settled, why are articles like these being published: Global warming may be occurring more slowly than previously thought, study suggests | The Independent

Also, you mock my usage of the term "the Left" but you say nothing about my usage of the term "the Right". I don't use these terms disparagingly, merely to recognize who I'm talking about in general in a simple way that makes sense. It's merely a term of convenience. As I've said before, while I may not pass the purity test of many on the Left, I consider myself to be more left than right, hence my "slightly liberal" tag.



My tech gadgets don't last me as long or cost me as much as solar panels, and many of them don't have competition. I'm not a fan of your analogy. A lot of people buy hybrid vehicles for non-economic reasons. They know they are paying more and they don't care. In cases where it is actually economically better to buy a hybrid, that only shows that the natural market will gear towards renewables the more economically feasible they become without forcing them on people. Furthermore, hybrids show exactly why a diversity of energy is a good idea. It is an example of a diversity of energy. Hybrids wouldn't exist if fossil fuels were banned. We'd have electric cars, which have their limitations. Battery costs are a huge problem, and the distance one can travel is a problem, too. The power of the vehicle is a problem. Where I worked with a construction company, there was an electric- and gas-powered forklift. We couldn't use the electric forklift for half of the things we needed to use because it wasn't powerful enough.

Your idea is to take off subsidies for the most cost-effective and pragmatic form of vehicle energy and put that money towards R&D of renewables with no short-term effect, and in the mean time, your policy will destroy our economic well-being, cause massive inflation, will raise the costs of all goods in society, and it will harm the poor the most. So then when food skyrockets, the government will have to raise minimum wage, welfare programs, etc. and that will create even more inflation. Then you'll see companies firing people by the masses and replace them with robots, creating higher unemployment, a huge burden on insurance companies, and a huge burden on the government yet again. Your policy would quite literally lead to massive hardship in this country, and a recession if not a depression. Or, we could keep the subsidies, continue to develop alternatives, and then introduce them to the economy as they become economically viable, with actual economic gain rather than economic hardship. Funny how your morals don't care about the poor people you would be harming.
Click to expand...

When 100's of companies are competing in the solar panel market the cost of solar panels or whatever alternative form of energy we come up with will come down.

Funny how you seem to be pimping for the petroleum industry - next are you going to start advocating for "clean coal"? I didn't realize the Koch brothers were employing the Russian-style troll farm on political discussion boards.
 
lurchadams said:
When 100's of companies are competing in the solar panel market the cost of solar panels or whatever alternative form of energy we come up with will come down.

Funny how you seem to be pimping for the petroleum industry - next are you going to start advocating for "clean coal"? I didn't realize the Koch brothers were employing the Russian-style troll farm on political discussion boards.
Click to expand...

Clean coal vs Dirty coal is a bit of misnomer because clean coal refers to how the coal is burned, not how it is collected. Basically, all coal today is clean coal, but the major difference is now between Black coal and Brown coal (Brown coal is worse).

As to the heart of your post, I agree that competition will help drive prices down to an extent. Prices can still only be driven down to the point where companies are still profitable, though, and until demand goes up, over-competition can actually drive prices up. Another thing to consider is that if we mandate that people use solar panels, then the solar panels will go up in price since solar becomes something you have to have. A mandate actually removes competition since solar companies are not just in competition with each other, but also with companies in other forms of energy.

EDIT: I found some updated information: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/3/16846860/tesla-2017-deliveries-model-3-production

So it turns out that production really started ramping up for the Model 3's towards the end of the year. "Tesla also said in its news release that 2,425 Model 3s were made in the fourth quarter (793 of those made in the last seven days of the quarter), about ten times as many as were produced in the third quarter at its Fremont, California facility."

Furthermore, the Model S and X's have had hundreds of thousands of deliveries. "Tesla announced Wednesday it delivered 101,312 Model S and Model X cars in 2017, a 33 percent rise over its 2016 figures. For the fourth quarter, Tesla reported 29,870 cars delivered. The Model S led with 15,200 finding customers, followed by the Model X at 13,120."
 
Last edited:
atheist4thecaus said:
As I mentioned earlier, just as climate scientists are not economists, economists are not climate scientists. Sure, some economists have weighed in on climate science policy, but there is far from any consensus on what to do.
Click to expand...
Odd, it kinda seems like there's a consensus

http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf


there are other issues such as competing values. For instance, the biggest problem with eliminating coal worldwide is that this will take away energy from the poorest people in the poorest nations.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are lots of people aware of these kinds of issues. Climate scientists, economists, policy makers are working on this. There is a lot of awareness -- especially with developing nations -- that big industrialized countries like the US, France, Germany etc have produced the lion's share of climate impacts, and that some of the costs of mitigating future damage will fall on less affluent and less developed nations. That's the whole point of having big multinational agreements like Kyoto and Paris, and the Green Climate Fund. That's why the UN holds climate conferences, why India and China are pushing for sustainable energy, and so on.


Republicans are perfectly happy to take on renewable energy when it is economically viable. That's just starting to happen, but to expect this to scale nationwide at this point would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yes, unless... it isn't.

Again: The piece you're missing is that improvements in this kind of technology is not a series of huge jumps; it's incremental, and each wave of purchases or installations tends to provide funding for further improvements.


I don't know what conversations you have had previously. I have no idea why you think you're so important that a random person on the Internet should already know what conversations another random person on the Internet had in their history. The interesting thing is that you claim to have had the economic discussion on climate change and yet that's not what you are giving me here.
Click to expand...
AFAIK we've never debated. I am only working with what you've given us here, which appears to be an uninformed post decrying that the experts are uninformed (when that is not really the case). As such, I can only conclude that you haven't spent much (if any) time looking into the issue. If you had done so, you should have quickly found that there is already years of work and discussion on these very issues, including at international conferences, international organizations, media outlets and so on.


We don't need economists to get on board with an official document or anything like that, we need conversation to enter the public consciousness to a great extent on economics.
Click to expand...
I guess, but... in many ways, that's a lost cause. We already have millions of Americans who rely on half-baked misinterpretations of Econ 101. (James Kwak discusses this in his book on "Economism", https://www.amazon.com/Economism-Bad-Economics-Rise-Inequality/dp/1101871199).

The real problem in the US is not that climate scientists lack formal training in economics or PR. It's that:

The US is a huge polluter, and its political system has become corrupted by entrenched corporate interests. Fossil fuel companies are more than willing to throw millions of dollars at elected officials, so they can keep making profits while pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate change is still a politicized, polarized and partisan issue. That is slowly changing, as the impacts pile up. Regardless, more than enough Republican elected officials are willing to keep collecting donations, and toss snowballs in the Capitol Building.

This can't be changed by scientists or economists. Ultimately, the American public has to wake up, and tell its elected officials to get its act in gear, and there is no magic bullet that can change everyone's minds all at once.
 
Visbek said:
Odd, it kinda seems like there's a consensus

http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf



Actually, there are lots of people aware of these kinds of issues. Climate scientists, economists, policy makers are working on this. There is a lot of awareness -- especially with developing nations -- that big industrialized countries like the US, France, Germany etc have produced the lion's share of climate impacts, and that some of the costs of mitigating future damage will fall on less affluent and less developed nations. That's the whole point of having big multinational agreements like Kyoto and Paris, and the Green Climate Fund. That's why the UN holds climate conferences, why India and China are pushing for sustainable energy, and so on.



Yes, unless... it isn't.

Again: The piece you're missing is that improvements in this kind of technology is not a series of huge jumps; it's incremental, and each wave of purchases or installations tends to provide funding for further improvements.



AFAIK we've never debated. I am only working with what you've given us here, which appears to be an uninformed post decrying that the experts are uninformed (when that is not really the case). As such, I can only conclude that you haven't spent much (if any) time looking into the issue. If you had done so, you should have quickly found that there is already years of work and discussion on these very issues, including at international conferences, international organizations, media outlets and so on.



I guess, but... in many ways, that's a lost cause. We already have millions of Americans who rely on half-baked misinterpretations of Econ 101. (James Kwak discusses this in his book on "Economism", https://www.amazon.com/Economism-Bad-Economics-Rise-Inequality/dp/1101871199).

The real problem in the US is not that climate scientists lack formal training in economics or PR. It's that:

The US is a huge polluter, and its political system has become corrupted by entrenched corporate interests. Fossil fuel companies are more than willing to throw millions of dollars at elected officials, so they can keep making profits while pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate change is still a politicized, polarized and partisan issue. That is slowly changing, as the impacts pile up. Regardless, more than enough Republican elected officials are willing to keep collecting donations, and toss snowballs in the Capitol Building.

This can't be changed by scientists or economists. Ultimately, the American public has to wake up, and tell its elected officials to get its act in gear, and there is no magic bullet that can change everyone's minds all at once.
Click to expand...

Amazing. You strawman me and then have the gall to call me uninformed. If you think there is consensus on what policies should be implemented to solve climate change, tell me what they are, because your link didn't explain that consensus. It merely explained things like there is a consensus global warming is harming the economy. Well, that's not a policy solution.

Oh, and you are one of those pretentious people that attacks the average American as if you are so much smarter than everybody else. Get out of here with that crap.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
Amazing. You strawman me and then have the gall to call me uninformed. If you think there is consensus on what policies should be implemented to solve climate change, tell me what they are, because your link didn't explain that consensus. It merely explained things like there is a consensus global warming is harming the economy. Well, that's not a policy solution.

Oh, and you are one of those pretentious people that attacks the average American as if you are so much smarter than everybody else. Get out of here with that crap.
Click to expand...

If you're on the right side of the facts, then there's no need for you to react like this. Just let the facts speak for themselves.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
Amazing. You strawman me and then have the gall to call me uninformed. If you think there is consensus on what policies should be implemented to solve climate change, tell me what they are, because your link didn't explain that consensus. It merely explained things like there is a consensus global warming is harming the economy. Well, that's not a policy solution.

Oh, and you are one of those pretentious people that attacks the average American as if you are so much smarter than everybody else. Get out of here with that crap.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can read this and get back to us.

Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change


I find it odd that you don’t seem to take into account the rapidly rising costs of delaying action. If we did this 20 years ago, it wouldn’t be as big of an issue. If we wait 20 years from now to deal with it, the cost is substantially higher.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you can read this and get back to us.

Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change


I find it odd that you don’t seem to take into account the rapidly rising costs of delaying action. If we did this 20 years ago, it wouldn’t be as big of an issue. If we wait 20 years from now to deal with it, the cost is substantially higher.
Click to expand...

Even conservatives know that deferred maintenance and deferred transitioning to new technology are bad things. Why, then, do they want to defer our shift to a green economy?
 
Phys251 said:
If you're on the right side of the facts, then there's no need for you to react like this. Just let the facts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

I will react how I want to react, not based on "need". If you read my post again, you should see the facts I posted about how the link cited didn't actually have a consensus on policy. If someone is going to insult me for no reason, I'm going to dish it back. I find it very interesting that you jump in and criticize my reaction rather than responding to the other poster that insulted me for no reason. Congratulations, now I'm not only skeptical of her motives, I'm now skeptical of yours.
 
Phys251 said:
If you're on the right side of the facts, then there's no need for you to react like this. Just let the facts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
You mean facts like that while CO2 levels have been increasing steadily,
the energy imbalance has been fairly stable for 16 years.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpr...-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png?w=640
ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png

The Science of AGW requires that there be an upward .5 Wm-2 change over that period.
I guess it is a little difficult to spot.
 
Threegoofs said:
Maybe you can read this and get back to us.

Fifth Assessment Report - Mitigation of Climate Change


I find it odd that you don’t seem to take into account the rapidly rising costs of delaying action. If we did this 20 years ago, it wouldn’t be as big of an issue. If we wait 20 years from now to deal with it, the cost is substantially higher.
Click to expand...

20 years ago we didn't have the same technology. Solar panels lasted maybe half the life they do now for probably double the cost. We've gone from about 15% efficiency to about 30% efficiency: https://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-efficiency-cost-over-time/ And actually, I was wrong in my double the cost estimate, because according to the article posted, costs were have fallen from $53,000 to $20,000 in a decade.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
I will react how I want to react, not based on "need". If you read my post again, you should see the facts I posted about how the link cited didn't actually have a consensus on policy. If someone is going to insult me for no reason, I'm going to dish it back. I find it very interesting that you jump in and criticize my reaction rather than responding to the other poster that insulted me for no reason. Congratulations, now I'm not only skeptical of her motives, I'm now skeptical of yours.
Click to expand...

That has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. All that matters are the facts, the facts of our warming planet. Whatever "motives" (as you call them) you want to project onto others is entirely on you.
 
longview said:
You mean facts like that while CO2 levels have been increasing steadily,
the energy imbalance has been fairly stable for 16 years.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpr...-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png?w=640
ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png

The Science of AGW requires that there be an upward .5 Wm-2 change over that period.
I guess it is a little difficult to spot.
Click to expand...

You do realize that by far the two most important variables are global CO2 levels and global temperatures, right? Whatever other science-y looking report one wants to present is just a sideshow. (Except possibly for methane levels--those are a bit of a problem, too.)
 
Phys251 said:
That has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. All that matters are the facts, the facts of our warming planet. Whatever "motives" (as you call them) you want to project onto others is entirely on you.
Click to expand...

That's true, so how about you stop trying to control my style and go back to posting those facts you care so much about.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
20 years ago we didn't have the same technology. Solar panels lasted maybe half the life they do now for probably double the cost. We've gone from about 15% efficiency to about 30% efficiency: https://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-efficiency-cost-over-time/ And actually, I was wrong in my double the cost estimate, because according to the article posted, costs were have fallen from $53,000 to $20,000 in a decade.
Click to expand...

Again. Read. Then actually respond with something relevant, rather than the above.
 
atheist4thecaus said:
Stop asking leading questions and make your point.
Click to expand...

The hell? Do you even know how this works? You don't come in here, make a questionable OP, and then refuse to answer basic questions about the topic at hand. That makes your position look weak. Now are you gonna answer my question, or are you going to leave it unanswered?
 
Phys251 said:
You do realize that by far the two most important variables are global CO2 levels and global temperatures, right? Whatever other science-y looking report one wants to present is just a sideshow. (Except possibly for methane levels--those are a bit of a problem, too.)
Click to expand...
You do realize that all of the AGW concept links back to energy imbalance.
If the energy imbalance is weaker than predicted, (and it is) all of the models which used the incorrect
assumed energy imbalance, are in error as well.
In Science, empirical data is still king.
 
longview said:
You do realize that all of the AGW concept links back to energy imbalance.
If the energy imbalance is weaker than predicted, (and it is) all of the models which used the incorrect
assumed energy imbalance, are in error as well.
In Science, empirical data is still king.
Click to expand...

Whatever that is might have a point in there somewhere, but the scientists are pretty convinced about the global temperature trends.
 
Phys251 said:
The hell? Do you even know how this works? You don't come in here, make a questionable OP, and then refuse to answer basic questions about the topic at hand. That makes your position look weak. Now are you gonna answer my question, or are you going to leave it unanswered?
Click to expand...

1) My OP is not questionable. It's actually quite obvious, and even climate scientists will tell you that they aren't experts in how best to solve these problems economically.
2) I've said many times already that I believe in global warming caused by humans, but that really has nothing to do with my OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom