Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Is Wrong: Climate Change Does Not Necessarily Entail Progressive Policies

"Hot or cold, cooling or freezing, global egalitarian measures are required."

|

TedCruz
businessinsider

A remarkably interesting NPR interview with Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) by Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep explores the candidate's views on climate change. It becomes clear that Cruz chiefly questions the strength of the evidence for man-made climate change because he is worried about the policies that he believes acceptance of climate change implies. Still, the senator is quite correct to point out that climate change is being used to justify the expansion of the size, scope, and power of government. In fact, prominent progressives are not at all shy about forthrightly endorsing this goal.

For example, in her screed This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate left-wing activist Naomi Klein proclaims, "Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war." She then gleefully asserts that progressive values and policies are "currently being vindicated, rather than refuted, by the laws of nature."

In the NPR interview, Cruz recalled the brief global cooling scare from the 1970s and noted correctly that some of the same researchers who were worried about that problem later offered the same set of solutions when global warming became the dominant concern.

Indeed, it turns out that Klein is far from being the first left-winger to use climate as an excuse to advocate massive political and economic schemes that aim to reorganize human civilization. A good example of this is the 1976 book The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival, co-authored by left-leaning climatologist Stephen Schneider. In that book Schneider writes, "I have cited many examples of recent climate variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling effect has set in – perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age – and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling."

To be fair, Schneider does also note that other researchers are worried about possible future man-made global warming. To handle the problems that would arise from whatever climate change that might happen, Schneider outlines his "Genesis Strategy," which amounts to a vast scheme of international centralized control of energy, population, and food production. Schneider later became one of the leading climatological voices warning about the dangers of man-made global warming for which he advocated more or less the same sort of policies as a solution. "Hot or cold, cooling or freezing, global egalitarian measures are required," quipped University of California, Berkeley political scientist Aaron Wildavsky in his co-authored 1997 book, But Is It True?  

Cruz made the same point, "Whatever happens, suddenly these scientists, who are receiving government grants to keep researching this, and these politicians — and, interestingly enough, the solution they are proposing for climate change — massive government control of the economy in every aspect of our lives—is exactly the same solution they proposed for global warming, it's exactly the same solution they proposed for global cooling."

Then Inskeep aptly asked, "Aren't — aren't you the mirror image of that, though? You're working backward from the consequence that you don't want: too much government control, and so you question the science?" Cruz denied that is what he is doing. Nevertheless, it does seem that both Cruz and Klein do oddly share the belief that Progressive policies are necessarily entailed if global warming is happening.

Of course, this is wrong. Scientific facts to do not tell people what specific policies should be adopted to deal with them.

Inskeep and Cruz eventually circle around to the real solution to whatever problems might be posed by future climate change – innovation. "I fully expect in 100 years or maybe 50 years or maybe even 10 or 20 years — I mean, change can be very rapid — that we will move to different energy sources than we are using today," said Cruz. "I also trust that the innovation that will drive that will come from the American free-enterprise system. It will come from innovators putting capital at work."

That's right. As I argue in my book, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century:

It is unfortunately the case that government meddling on a global scale has massively distorted energy markets through pervasive subsidies, mandates, and price controls. The result is retarded innovation in the technologies of energy generation. A big first step toward renovating our energy supply systems would be to eliminate those impediments to understanding the real comparative benefits and costs of the production and use of energy. Ultimately, the better and far more effective way to ameliorate and avert future climate change is to mobilize human ingenuity through market processes to drive down the costs of no-carbon energy sources. Despite the constraints on innovation caused by government interference, notable advances in no-carbon energy generation technologies have already been made, ranging from innovative nuclear reactor designs to more efficient and cheaper solar panels. New technologies and wealth produced by human creativity will spark a vast environmental renewal in this century.

Finally, I want to call out Cruz' citing of Ludwig von Mises' insightful analysis of bureaucratic failure.

Go here to read the whole Cruz NPR interview.

NEXT: The Middle Class Is Shrinking! Because They're Getting Rich!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A positive Ted Cruz post spoiled by a click bait headline.

    1. Yeah, once I read it, it seemed like Cruz was mostly right.

      1. Cruz IS mostly right and the only way Bailey claimed he was wrong, highlighted where Bailey misunderstood Cruz’s point.
        Cruz wants an evolution into new kinds of energy production because that is what humans do – we come up with new ways when the old ones become obsolete – not because what we are doing, now, is altering the massive expanse that is our atmosphere.
        Bailey, throwing in a shameless plug for his book, seems to think Cruz agrees with his hypothesis that the way we produce energy is changing something man has no control over – the climate.

    2. Maybe Nick wouldn’t let him post the article if it didn’t have something bad to say about Cruz.

      1. That’s a pretty good picture of Ted compared to most.

    3. This is so true. Cruz deserves a whole lot more respect from supposed libertarians than he is getting. I would go as far as to say he is the only candidate who stands a chance at winning AND working for the right things. With a little support I believe Cruz would automatically reflect a bit more appreciation for the libertarian “moment.” He is smart enough to get it. His refusal to trash Trump is an appropriately not-so-subtle testament to his character and honesty. And by contrast, that alone would highlight the wickedness that is Hillary Clinton.

  2. How long in a to the death cage match would Klien last vs Coulter?

    I would pay large to see it on PPV.

    1. And the winner is……. Gene!

    2. I’ve never paid for or even viewed a PPV, but I would pay for this one.

  3. Scientific facts to do not tell people what specific policies should be adopted to deal with them

    It isn’t a scientific ‘fact’ until at least you can get an accurate prediction, progtard.

  4. I’m pretty sure the free market environmental solutions aren’t getting much traction at the Paris climate change conference, or anywhere else for that matter.

    1. Of course not. Markets can’t be trusted to come up with the correct solution. Only politicians can do that.

      1. Indeed, this problem can only be solved by TOP. MEN.

    2. “Free market solutions” tend to be a lot harder for bureaucrats and politicians to use to increase their power and/ or enrich their buddies through corruption and graft. So naturally they’d be a tough sell for the shitheads at the Paris conference.

  5. She then gleefully asserts that progressive values and policies are “currently being vindicated, rather than refuted, by the laws of nature.”

    Hahaha. Oh Naomi Klein.

    1. I’m sure she cashes her check$ for the carbon refugees.

      I wonder what color of Tesla she picked out for herself?

    2. *rummages around looking for shocked face*

    3. I have heard that shit before from a guy named Lysenko.

  6. Perhaps Ron could tell us exactly how scientific the IPCC SPM is? Exactly how much gray literature is required to make a report unscientific? Or exactly how scientific is Karl et al.?

  7. Ron, I think you are missing the point here.

    Have you looked into the allegations in The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert? Have you looked into the misconduct exposed in the Climate Gate email leaks, and the utter failure of the scientific institutions to acknowledge any misconduct at all, let alone to confront it? Have you read Judith Curry’s numerous memoranda on the Lysenkoist rot that pervades the climate science institutions? Do you follow Steven McIntrye’s lone struggle to open data and methods to scrutiny in the landmark papers that ‘prove’ we are in an unprecedented time, and the utter incompetence and fraud that repeatedly manifests itself when they are subjected to the barest scrutiny?

    What Cruz is attacking isn’t the science, it’s the institutions that claim to be doing science, when in fact they are engaged in a very corrosive form of religious proselyting. And the fact that they repeatedly come to the same prescription regardless of the starting point is a very big signal as to the religious nature of these institutions.

    1. Who needs science when you’ve got consensus?

      1. I agree. Add me to your consensus.

    2. You can’t convince the true believers that they’re just faith-based religious converts, tarran. Because they have faith. And once someone has faith…well, that’s it.

      1. At the risk of raising the “Cosmotarianzzzz who wants invitations to cocktailzzzz” flag, I am pretty disappointed that Ron has stayed away from what should be red meat for any journalist who wants to combine investigatory journalism with science journalism.

        1. Ron Bailey could be the Robby Soave of Environmental Rape Science!

        2. Where and when are all these damned cocktail parties you guys keeping talking about. Can’t y’all get me an invitation to one sometime?

          1. I refuse to believe a Climate Conference was held in Paris and no drinks were served.

            1. I read a little ditty the other day where someone counted the caron out put for the first big dinner eaten y the elite inner circle. The 150 so called wworld leaders.

              The dinner was rated a Michelin 3 star and the carbon count was uuuuuge for one meal. The writer estimated how many starving Africans the same $ could have fed.

            2. m.c: So far, all I have had is two glasses of mediocre red wine that I had to pay for myself.

              1. Oh, the indignity of it all!

                Seriously, though – thanks, Ron, for your reporting on this.

          2. It’s not cocktail parties. It’s cock-tail parties. Bring a bear costume.

    3. t: Assume that the alarmists are right – that does not imply that centralized management of the climate is the solution. My reading of Cruz’ responses in this interview is that he basically accepts that premise.

      1. that does not imply that centralized management of the climate is the solution.

        Of course it doesn’t. However, you’re going to have a hard time convincing anybody short of radicals like us that you’re correct.

      2. Where? I’ve read the whole thing, and granted I only had two cups of coffee so far, but all he’s saying is that alarmists are the ones demanding government solutions, because government solutions come first, and the problem they are applied to is found as needed.
        He also does not believe the warming is catastrophic and real (satellite data doesn’t show it, ocean data is adjusted – these are his arguments, I’m not making a value judgement on their truth). Then interviewer accuses him of being the same as his opponents, because obviously he doesn’t want government solution and thus he denies warming.
        So when pressed to grant possibility of warming being a problem, his response is that solution will be found in free market, not in government policy. Seems fairly consistent.
        Essentially he’s saying that, whatever theoretical perfect world of people of Good Will blah blah, right here and now, giving into CAGW propaganda means giving into the government solutions, because the people pushing it are not interested in some kind of compromise. And I don’t think he’s wrong, or Bjorn Lomborg would be guest of honor in Paris.

      3. Assume that the alarmists are right

        Why? So far they’ve been very wrong. They’ve been off on carbon sensitivity by a factor of at least 2. They have predicted positive feedbacks that have turned out to be negative, and they’ve turned a blind eye to blatant scientific fraud.

        that does not imply that centralized management of the climate is the solution.

        I guess if the Nazi anthropologists were right, that didn’t necessarily imply that Jews needed to be exterminated, either. That didn’t mean the guys warning about the threat Nazism posed to jews were being idiots.

        My reading of Cruz’ responses in this interview is that he basically accepts that premise.

        I see, Cruz is guilty of a lack of imagination. In this he is in the same boat as Al Gore, President Obama, Dr Hansen, the president of the UN General Assembly etc.

        1. You know who else brought Nazi anthropology into the conversation?

          1. Some asshole named Godwin?

        2. “I see, Cruz is guilty of a lack of imagination. In this he is in the same boat as Al Gore, President Obama, Dr Hansen, the president of the UN General Assembly etc.”

          In fairness, I think this is exactly Ron’s point.

      4. Ron I can assure you that Ted Cruz does not believe that centralized management of the climate is the answer to a phoney problem no matter how hard someone may try and read that into his words.

        Ted Cruz does not believe that central planning is the answer for much of anything. Did you not read where he was talking about free market inovation in your own post

        How does that translate into centralized management of climate by anyone’s level of reading comprehension ?

        1. O: My interpretation is that he fears that if global warming turns out to be a problem, then he believes that politics of central planning will be ineluctable.

        2. Except Ted Cruz loves central planning when it comes military spending or keeping them immigrants out.

          1. CMW: Yes, there is that.

          2. Yes, those two items are explicitly purview of the federal government per the Constitution, you fucking naysaying nihilist numbskull.

            1. I’m just fascinate by the idea of non-central planning of military procurement. Would it be something like Flames of War? Each company commander gets a spreadsheet with point values (M1A1 – 10 pts. M113 – 2 pts. Bradley – 5 pts. Infantry Platoon, 2 squads – 4 pts etc.) and tailor build his company to his own spec?

              1. Well you sort of described the military formations of yore, which have given way to the modern professional army for efficiency reasons. It’s “central planning” in the sense that the military itself is centrally planned collective security, but procurement within the organization itself (how many tanks to buy etc) is not central planning. Don’t me wrong, military procurement is atrociously wasteful and at times downright deadly to the servicemen. But it’s not per se “central planning” for a single organization to procure things for itself.

                My office recently bought a bunch of staplers and paper clips. One person, myself, made the decisions regarding the quality and quantity of these items. I didn’t consult my secretary beyond being advised of what she needs. In order for my purchase of staplers and paper clips to constitute “central planning”, I’d be deciding on the quality and quantity of staplers for all the offices in town. I know it’s all semantics but meh…

                1. “Don’t me wrong, military procurement is atrociously wasteful and at times downright deadly to the servicemen. But it’s not per se “central planning” for a single organization to procure things for itself.”

                  According to this definition, the Soviet Union government did not practice central planning, because it was a single organization procuring things for itself. This renders the concept of central planning rather meaningless, wouldn’t you say?

            2. Dariush gets +1 for insult of the week lol

              1. “Dariush gets +1 for insult of the week lol”

                Tittilated by a tawdry tautogram tapinosis, are you?

            3. “Yes, those two items are explicitly purview of the federal government per the Constitution, you fucking naysaying nihilist numbskull.”

              So? So was slavery. The Constitution is not exactly a libertarian document. What is your point? If it is in the Constitution, the government can spend as much as it wants?

              Someone also asked about non-central planning of military procurement. I believe everything is better handled by the market, including defense services. Subscribers can determine how much they want to spend on defense. I would personally spend a lot less than is taken from me by taxes, and most people would as well. Just remember that any arguments claiming that people would under-spend for defense can also be (and historically were) used to justify the Social Security system, by claiming that people will under-spend for retirement. Under-spend based on whose criteria? Is someone claiming to know better what your needs are?

    4. t: Yes – I do read and follow the analyses by all the folks you cite. And yes, ideology pervades the climate change issue from top to bottom.

      1. I do read and follow the analyses by all the folks you cite.

        This leads me to ask why your articles seem almost entirely uncontaminated by references to the fraud and misconduct you would read of in those places?

        Am I wrong, and I am ignorant of your coverage of those controversies?

        Or are they not worthy of your attention?

        Or are they the subject of another writer’s beat?

        1. You gotta buy the book for that.

        2. t: I generally try to steer clear of trying to analyze the motivations of contestants in this arena. But see my 2009 article on climategate, and temperature record chicanery and climate study freakout.

          1. You make that claim on this thread?

            1. “Nevertheless, it does seem that both Cruz and Klein do oddly share the belief that Progressive policies are necessarily entailed if global warming is happening.”

            2. MR: Well, most of the time, anyway.

          2. Then what is this article about?

          3. I generally try to steer clear of trying to analyze the motivations of contestants in this arena.

            I am appalled. Reporting on fraud and misconduct is not “analyzing motivations”. That implication strikes me as an insult to your readers.

            1. t: There may be some fraud and misconduct, but as best as I can tell a great deal confirmation bias is involved. And I would never insult my readers.

            2. Because motivations are impossible to prove. That’s a dead-end at best and a sticky trap at worst. Now, saying that a person’s actions are consistent with a certain goal is another thing. So, regardless of what the alarmists actually believe, it is demonstrable that their actions are consistent with people engaged in rent-seeking behavior and redistribution of wealth.

              1. Just keep attacking their bad math. Everything ultimately comes down to the math.

          4. Here’s the thing though: the Naomi Kleins are making an argument that goes like A implies B implies C. Some of those arguments might actually be correct. I wouldn’t buy this one: “current emissions levels are going to quickly lead to the extinction of our species, and central planning can keep that from happening,” even if I bought premise A. But I would buy “current emissions levels are going to quickly lead to the extinction of our species, and the market can’t save us from that,” if I bought the initial premise. If I believed that “current emissions levels are going to quickly lead to the extinction of our species,” or even a milder version of that premise, I would conclude that we are well and truly fucked, cause we’re not going to see big emissions cuts in the short term, whether we try to achieve them through central planning or we let the market work its magic.

            The thing isthat to defeat an argument of the form “A implies B, and A is true” you can either show that A does not imply B, or you can show that A does not imply B. In some cases it might make tactical sense to argue as if you thought that A implied B if your argument against the truth of A is strong enough to head the whole thing off at the pass. Why make the argument more complicated by debating both propositions, when showing just one to be false is sufficient?

            1. Err- I mean “You can either show that A does not imply B, or you can show that A is false.”

    5. What Cruz is attacking isn’t the science, it’s the institutions that claim to be doing science, when in fact they are engaged in a very corrosive form of religious proselyting.

      Exactly. I don’t know what Ronald is talking about. Cruz implicitly called government subsidized research suspect and mentioned that the conclusions drawn from that body of research are almost invariably tied to government power expanding and individual liberty diminishing. He didn’t deny the validity of science in general. Ron arguing that there is little or no distinction on that point is exactly what the Church of the Holy Alarmists do to shout down skeptics.

  8. Does he always look like he’s about to Boehner?

    1. He keeps getting puppies, warm wiggling puppies, and they keep dying.

      1. Maybe he should stop eating them.

        “I like the mustard kind.”

  9. I like this Cruz guy. A definite 2nd choice. I don’t think there is a third choice in that field.

    1. Too smarmy for me. He’s always got that douchey smirk on his punchable face.

      1. He could stand to get the inner ends of each eyebrow lowered. Huge difference.

      2. You have to admit that he has better hair than Trump if we are going to grade him by serious measures.

        1. if we are going to grade him by serious measures

          What’ll kill his chances, beyond the ‘smarmy’ and ‘his face looks like a Madame Tussaud’s figure that melted’ observations, is his 5 foot 8 inch height. As a rule of thumb, Americans like their politicians, and especially their Presidents, tall. Last one near Cruz’s height was Carter, at 5 foot 9&1/2. You’ve got to go back to McKinley, at 5 foot 7, to find a shorter President. They don’t have to be basketball tall—W was 5-11 and a half—but 5-8’s pretty short. Rand Paul’s 5-8 too, FWIW.

          Still the best two candidates by a long shot, but there you go.

          1. If they end up running against Hillary or Sanders, either would like look a giant – physically and intellectually.

            1. Especially Cruz and especially intellectually. The man is sharp – probably giftedly so. That is in large part why many don’t like him. As they say: it’s one thing to be the smartest person in the room, but it’s quite another for everyone in the room to be reminded of it.

      3. But it would be an effective tool against our rivals and enemies.

  10. I know Reason is trapped in 1968 and is desperately afraid of the Military Industrial Complex, but I’d suggest reading the rest of Eisenhower’s final address–the part about the scientific-technological elite.

    1. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

      From Eisenhower’s farewell speech

      (my italics)

      1. Funny. Ike’s brother was a university president.

        1. I bet they had a really awkward Thanksgiving dinner that year.

  11. But what do Donald Trump and The Millennials (great name for a band) think?

  12. “Inskeep and Cruz eventually circle around to the real solution”

    Include yourself Ron. I don’t see you offering any real solution, just a load of vague promises that a non-government solution lies just around the corner. The solutions that actually exist today which you routinely promote such as the construction of a 1000 nuclear power plants or the sequestration of tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 are totally reliant on government involvement. I know of no free market where there is a demand for sequestered CO2.

    1. m: Actually, the construction of nuclear power plants is being impeded by vastly excessive government regulation.

      1. It’s impeded mostly by liability laws and secondly by a sclerotic NRC.

        1. Libertarians have certainly changed their tune since 2003 when this Cato piece was published.

          “The decline of nuclear power is a result of several factors: the Three Mile Island disaster heightened public safety fears and citizen opposition to the siting of plants in their neighborhoods grew. But nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.”

          Nice to see that Libertarians have the ability to change their minds and are now ready to accept the governmental embrace of the nuclear industry. They’ve also apparently come to understand the process by which carbon sequestration will make everyone on the planet rich and fully employed. Both great leaps forward by Libertarians. I just hope it’s not panic over global warming that has precipitated this change of heart.

          1. More from Cato’s heretics:

            “In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations ? termed “show stoppers” ? without which the industry would grind to a halt. These “show stoppers” include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident ? leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents.

            But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher. In light of this resounding cold shoulder from Wall Street, the federal government is opening the treasury wider than ever before.”

            1. m: Cato is evaluating current designs. Much safer designs which produce much less long-lived waste would be insurable I suspect. Traveling wave reactors would actually burn nuclear waste as their fuel. Maybe they won’t pan out, but let’s get the NRC out of the way and let some entrepreneurs try it.

              1. So even with the nuclear business, what actually exists is inadequate but a solution lies just around the corner. Lucky we have a truly free market solution like carbon sequestration to fall back on.

                ” Much safer designs which produce much less long-lived waste would be insurable I suspect.”

                That’s probably why you’re in the writing business rather than the insuring business.

                1. Carbon sequestration makes as much economic sense as your typical post.

                  1. “Carbon sequestration makes as much economic sense as your typical post.”

                    Since when do any of Ron’s solutions have to make economic sense? It’s all about providing electricity to the poor of the world regardless of cost.

                    1. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 5:43PM|#
                      “It’s all about providing electricity to the poor of the world regardless of cost.”

                      Lie. Not surprising.

                2. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 2:33PM|#
                  “So even with the nuclear business, what actually exists is inadequate but a solution lies just around the corner. Lucky we have a truly free market solution like carbon sequestration to fall back on.”

                  Shitbag, are you predicting massive starvation in India unless we trust some free market solution right around the corner?
                  How often do you have to be caught lying and missing your predictions before you give it up?
                  Oh, right. Lefty imbeciles never do.

              2. You’ve been hanging around Gates too much. TWR isn’t the answer.

              3. Oil was around $27 per barrel in 2003. It has since gone as high as
                $100 and is currently around $40.

                1. “Oil was around $27 per barrel in 2003. It has since gone as high as
                  $100 and is currently around $40.”

                  Let them eat yellowcake.

            2. The repository is hardly an issue Cato should be hanging their hat on. The long term storage of nuclear waste was already prepaid by wholesalers and customers. The fact that your precious government cronies like Harry Reid reneged on the deal after collecting the money argues the exact opposite. And the fact that the trial lawyers have been able to suck off the lifeblood of the country and drive irrational liability claims more than compensates for Price Anderson.

              1. Just ramp up coal power and mining again.

            3. And I would add that many nuclear leases are being extend for 20 or more years which refutes the Cato capital argument, not to mention the inflated initial capital costs due to…yup, government safety regulations.

              BTW, on a per kWh basis nuclear energy has killed one tenth as many ppl as rooftop solar and a quarter as many as wind. It is the safest energy source we have, so explain the reasons for irrational liability exposure.

              1. Liability for a nuclear reactor popping off and rendering tens or hundreds of miles of area unlivable for 30+ years is different than the liability of a wind generator falling on someone’s head.

                I agree with you about nuclear energy being far safer than many alternatives, btw. However when we are talking about liability insurance, the liability of a critical reactor failure is orders of magnitude more expensive than a critical solar farm/wind farm failure.

              2. “And I would add that many nuclear leases are being extend for 20 or more years”

                You’re not thinking this through clearly. Your obfuscating use of the passive voice isn’t helping you. It is the government that is extending these leases. The next government may extend these leases a few more years or they may only promise to do so but end up cancelling them. Taking the government’s word on anything is extremely risky as your own example of the repository indicates. Who is going to risk billions of dollars on a government’s sayso? A sayso that can be reversed for any reason in a number of different venues at any time. You thought it through yet? Who is going to take that risk? A crony. Someone who is tight with those who control the flow of government money.

                As for the scandalously low nuclear fatality rates, I blame yup, government safety regulations.

                1. “As for the scandalously low nuclear fatality rates, I blame yup, government safety regulations.”

                  Ukrainian citizens thank you, you fucking imbecile.

                2. “As for the scandalously low nuclear fatality rates, I blame yup, government safety regulations.”

                  If only bureaucrats had a free hand at regulating automobiles. We could close in on zero fatalities. Of course cars would be scarce due to the cost and lots more people would be killed in bicycle and scooter mishaps but we’d all be able to look at our stellar achievement and pat ourselves on the back.

                  1. “If only bureaucrats had a free hand at regulating automobiles.”

                    Who needs bureaucrats when you’ve got cronies. Cronies regulate themselves. You can’t get any freer than that.

          2. I don’t think saying “In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.” is the same thing as saying “nuclear power is good as long as it’s a creature of the government.”

            Leaving aside your profound ignorance about libertarianism, economics and government policy, you really only need basic reading comprehension to see that was not an endorsement of government provided nuclear energy. But you don’t even have that.

            1. I don’t think saying “In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.” is the same thing as saying “nuclear power is good as long as it’s a creature of the government.”

              Do go on… I urge you to reflect a little more and tell us what else it is not the same as. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll hit upon something relevant.

              1. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 2:24PM|#
                “Do go on..”

                Do fuck off.

      2. If only government were to step back and let the nuclear industry take care of its potential liabilities like any other industry. Or maybe government should get out of the waste repository business and let the mafia dump all the waste into the oceans as god intended. Any idea, Ron, how I could get it on this excessive-burden-of-government-regulation action? Sure sounds like a sweet deal.

        1. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 12:49PM|#
          “If only government were to step back and let the nuclear industry take care of its potential liabilities like any other industry.”

          If only you weren’t so full of lies, misdirection, false dichotomies and dishonesty in general, you might be worth a crap.
          Right now, no.

          1. Strike hi. Down! Let the hate flow through you. Let your anger give you power.

        2. Tell us again the one about how the Khmer Rouge didn’t really mean to kill all those Cambodians. It was just a big accident, must’ve been the wrong people in charge again.

          1. Maybe say something about how Mao’s health care reforms made up for the ~75 million deaths he caused, while you’re at it.

            1. “Maybe say something about how Mao’s health care reforms made up for the ~75 million deaths he caused, while you’re at it.”

              I’ve already done my fill of requests for one day. Ask me again some other day. If you have anything to ask me about nuclear power or CO2 sequestration, go ahead.

              1. It was less of a request and more just a snarky reminder of the time you tried to defend Mao on the basis of his health care reforms – sure, he killed millions of human beings, but made sure the survivors had broad access to traditional Chinese remedies!

                Now, here’s a request: how about you go get pegged in a room, supper chunks?

                1. “the trial lawyers…”

              2. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 2:17PM|#
                “Ask me again some other day”

                Aw, run out of lies already, asshole?

          2. “Tell us again the one about how the Khmer Rouge didn’t really mean to kill all those Cambodians”

            The Khmer Rouge were incompetant bunglers as well as ruthless killers. Is that really so hard to accept? You should read more about them and that period of history. It’s worth the effort, I promise.

            1. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 2:12PM|#
              “The Khmer Rouge were incompetant bunglers as well as ruthless killers.”

              Cite missing, asshole.

        3. It’s epically comical that there’s only two choices proffered, totalitarian control, or anarchy.

    2. mtrueman|12.10.15 @ 12:14PM|#
      “…I know of no free market where there is a demand for sequestered CO2.”

      We’ll add that to the list.

      1. It is called the timber industry.

  13. progressive values and policies are “currently being vindicated, rather than refuted, by the laws of nature.”

    I daresay Naomi could not name one “law of nature”, much less show how it vindicates progressivism.

    1. Pfft, easy

      -All history is an expression of struggle of class against class
      -All class struggle leads to more freedom
      -Next stage in class struggle is the proletariat turning on the (CAGW-denying) bourgeoisie

      Three Laws of Nature, right there.

    2. No, but she sure can spread the derp.
      http://www.democracynow.org/20…..te_deal_as

      1. She spreads the what?! Oh…”D-erp”….how disappointing…

  14. “Nevertheless, it does seem that both Cruz and Klein do oddly share the belief that Progressive policies are necessarily entailed if global warming is happening.”

    Talk about a false equivalency. What’s next, atheism is a religion because it isn’t one? Cruz simply and very correctly has pointed out that the boiler-plate Marxist solutions proposed to combat global-whatever are wrong. He isn’t saying that progressive policies are tied to climate stuff, he is saying that they aren’t, and that the left is wrong to tie them. The second part of the article proves that the point of the first part is wrong by immediately pointing out how Cruz does NOT think progressivism is necessarily tied to climate concerns by explaining his belief that it is innovation and capitalism, not progressivism, that will best answer those concerns. Implying that Cruz and Klein are similar in that they are complete opposites is asinine.

    1. Except that Cruz thinks public policy should be based on science. Just like the global warming alarmists do.

      1. Yes, much better to base policies on feelings.

        1. There’s a theory that your policy should be based only on principles (NAP, class struggle, supremacy of birth, will of God, Objectivism) and should never be affected by practical considerations. I’m not a fan of it, but it is legitimate way to look at things. At the very least, it will have a virtue of consistency, which is no small thing.

          1. When the policy issue is an issue of science , science should be factored in to the details of policy even if the policy is guided by principal..

            1. No. The only thing necessary to factor in is, “Fuck off, slaver.”

              1. You’r calling me a slaver

                That’s funny.

                It is also the most ignorant post I have ever read here at Reason.

            2. Suppose there is an asteroid heading for the Earth. From scientific knowledge, we know that we can build a tremendously expensive asteroid deflection device. That is the limit of science’s input. The part where we decide how to pay for it is where we invoke philosophy and principles.

          2. And exactly what is the basis of NAP? To say that a policy shouldn’t be based on the surrounding phyiscal reality sure sounds like a religion.

            1. And exactly what is the basis of NAP?

              Logical consistency in human interaction. I’m not saying the NAP works in all times and places, it just works everywhere outside of extremely implausible lifeboat scenarios. Which is more than you can say for just about any other ethical *systems/*principles/*axioms.

              *depending on how you prefer to categorize the NAP

              1. Plenty of religious dogma fits that criterion. Arguing that the only thing that matters is NAP is no different than arguing that God exists. It’s a stated belief system. But to say that something which exists in the phyiscal world is completely irrelevant based on my personal belief system (gravity exists no matter how much I want to believe it doesn’t), seems like a wholely irrational position.

                1. rationality is merely another dogma.

                  Also, most belief systems exist in the gray areas of the physical world, to where you can’t just logically or scientifically disprove someone’s dogma.

                  1. I guess it elephants all the way down.

                2. Yes it’s true that you don’t get struck by lightning when you rob a little old lady. Or that you don’t immediately have an heart attack and die after you commit a rape, robbery, assault or whatever. However, it’s clear that all of those things are outside of the range of acceptable human interaction.

                  Defining those crimes is certainly the province of philosophy and ethics, but it’s undeniable that those behaviors are not exactly conducive to the survival of humanity on the whole. For if everyone, or even large minorities exclusively rapes, robs, assaults and murders in their interactions with other people, the human species would die. Whereas if the NAP was lived by everyone, the species would gain tremendously. The only ethical assumption being made by invoking the NAP’s validity is that the survival of the species is better than extinction, i.e. that nihilism is not good.

    2. OM: Progressives don’t question the science because they believe it supports their policies. So evidently does Cruz, so he questions the science. Whatever either Progressives or Cruz believe about climate science, its findings do not mandate any particular set of policies.

      1. Why do you say that he questions the science because of the policies? That was what interviewer implied. What Cruz says is:

        OK. You are incorrect, actually. The scientists don’t say there’s global warming now. They’re shifted their theory a third time, because here’s the problem: The scientific evidence doesn’t support global warming.

        For the last 18 years, the satellite data ? we have satellites that, that monitor the atmosphere ? the computer models on which all of these apocalyptic predictions were based show that we should have seen dramatic warming over the last 18 years. The satellites that actually measure the temperature showed no significant warming whatsoever.

        He claims to not question the science. He claims that science is currently showing that there is no warming. He’s questioning the scientists who ignore and/or manipulate the data, and their analysis which only allows for massive government action as a response.

      2. I don’t like you so I look into the basis and find your foundation to be false != I don’t believe your science only or even because I don’t like you.

  15. ‘You’re denying the science’

    I will start punching people if I keep hearing that crap.

    1. You’re denying the science.

      1. Done.

        My blind neighbor had it coming anyway.

        1. Quit staring at me!

        2. Are you sure he’s blind, or are you just denying the science?

        3. My thoughts and prayers are with your blind neighbor.

          (take THAT, Crusty Juggler!)

      2. What is being denied? You are confusing disagreeing with your over the top rhetoric as denial of science.

    2. You’re denying the science that goes into denying the science.

      1. I deny that. I am a denier and I deny that, so I deny that, thus proving it. (If I catch my own tail I will be a very happy puppy indeed.)

  16. Cruz and Klein believe that climate policy should be based on things they want to do anyway, regardless of climate policy. Pretty much the same as everybody else.

    1. Klein is just a Canadian loud mouth’d shnook without a shred of deep thoughts. She’s no Jack Handey.

      1. a Canadian loud mouth’d shnook without a shred of deep thoughts

        Hmm… sounds familiar…

        1. You done?

          1. (I didn’t mean you, of course. You don’t claim to bless us with deep thoughts)

            1. Middling thoughts. That’s as good as you’ll get!

        2. Cytotoxic?

          1. Man. I’m not sure who comes off worse in that comparison.

            1. Cytotoxic, easily. He just trolls H&R for fun.

              Klein has made a mountain of money (a million? more?) out of her screeds.

              Libertarian verdict: Klein over Cytotoxic, by three orhpans and a monocle.

        3. Oh, God, thanks for reminding me he’s in charge!

  17. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    …H. L. Mencken

  18. Here’s what you get from a government dedicated to helping the population:
    In CA (and quite a bit of the west), we have recurring droughts. The last ‘big’ one happened the last time moonbeam was guv.; 30+ years.
    Given he was in office during a drought, and that he’s held various offices since then and has had the ability to affect gov’t activities even if not in office, (IOWs, he’s been a representative of CA gov’t), and given that he wants and trusts the gov’t to ‘fix things’ for the people and given that CA population has just about doubled since then, why of course ‘the government’ in ‘fixing things for the people’ has doubled the water storage capacity, right? I mean, we’re to trust the government to fix things for us!
    In that 30 years, there has been exactly *zero* increase in water storage for the state of California. We’re told to ‘conserve’ and offered various hair shirt solutions.
    I rest my case.

    1. It’s cause we need every penny we can spare to go to the medium speed choo choo train that will save us from the Global Warming.

    2. In fact, there have been numerous attempts to reduce water storage, perhaps most famous is the continued cry to “restore” Hetch Hetchy.

  19. “It becomes clear that Cruz chiefly questions the strength of the evidence for man-made climate change because he is worried about the policies that he believes acceptance of climate change implies.”

    ‘Because the only proposals on the table are authoritarian and socialist’ is the very best reason to reject the data.

    The reason people are so passionate about opposing the scientific consensus on climate change is because the data is being used to support public policies that will negatively impact their standard of living. That’s the reason why legions of Republican and Democrat trolls all over the internet aren’t yelling at each other about string theory or some other scientific question every day–they’re yelling at each other about climate change.

    The lesson to learn from this is not that climate change deniers are obtuse and uneducated.

    The lesson to learn from this is that if environmentalists really want to do something about climate change, they will need to come up with proposals that aren’t authoritarian and socialist.

    Yesterday, I outlined one of my own proposals I’ve been talking about here for years. It’s no surprise that Ted Cruz can’t think of a libertarian and capitalist solution since he is not a libertarian capitalist. If we want to see libertarian capitalist solutions to climate change, then we libertarian capitalists will need to come up with them ourselves.

  20. Because the “science” is being manufactured to justify the statist solutions, it isn’t science at all.

    1. I use science to justify libertarian and capitalist solutions. Does that mean the science isn’t science at all?

    2. “Manufactured” is a bit strong. You might want to use “massaged” instead.

  21. First, the “cooling” thing is a myth, it isn’t true:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/do…..BAMS2370.1

    Cruz is wrong. Our greenhouse gas emissions from our burning of fossil fuels is the cause of this climate change event. He has absolutely nothing to support his argument. Nada. Deniers have nothing to support their argument.

    There’s something wrong with deniers. They simply don’t like environmentalism as it posits that humans have obligations greater than to themselves. It’s that simple. Deniers want others to absorb the costs of their behavior. However, free markets have never solved a problem, ever. Competent people and political will solve problems.

    Then there’s the fact that government’s basic function is to protect people through law. Unfortunately, this was the intention of the Founding Fathers as seen in the Declaration of Independence:

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

    As no one has the right to harm, the US government has the obligation to reduce the harm that we cause the environment and others as a consequence of our use of fossil fuels. As the economy is a figment of the human mind, we can change it to be sustainable but we can’t change physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has increased the average global temperature and is having drastic effects on the environment.

    1. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

      Oh god, a William Conolly paper!!!!! Whgy am I not surprised to find a pack of lies has that mendacious shit in its list of authors?!?

      Meanwhile in the real world (and I’m old enough to remember the 70’s and the fears that our science teachers were pouring into our ears about coming ice ages), this was happening.

      Jeff, as a rule, I leave superstitious religious buffoons like you alone. I recognize that your superstitious beliefs arise aout of some deep, primitive psychological need, and I am unlikely to shake you from your faith.

      But, I plead for you to leave the rest of us alone! I don’t want my daughter to live in the horrible dystopia you seek to construct for her. Pick a nice spot at a latitude you believe will be just the right temperature for you in your golden years, and build yourself a wonderful life there. But please, just leave us out of your apocalyptic millennial fantasies.

      1. But, I plead for you to leave the rest of us alone!

        Dammit, tarran, you know that’s not going to happen. Evangelical progs can’t help themselves. They have to do something. They must save us from ourselves! And by “doing something,” they usually mean “shouting loudly until the government gets men with guns to do something.” How can you be so hostile towards someone with such good intentions?

      2. Meanwhile in the real world (and I’m old enough to remember the 70’s and the fears that our science teachers were pouring into our ears about coming ice ages), this was happening.

        Not only was it happening, for real. What JeffB describes as a ‘myth’ in the 70s isn’t/wasn’t a myth any more than most of the rest of the climate mythology and isn’t exactly relevant to what Cruz was saying.

        If a few crackpots in the 70s said the government had to establish a global spy network to crackdown on lizardmen and, in the intervening 40 yrs., changed their mind and agreed with the majority that the real problem was mole people and that the government should undertake massive mining campaigns to wipe them out. The issue that Cruz is addressing isn’t lizard men or mole people or whether the crackpots represented ‘state-of-the-art’ at the time, it’s that widely recognized crackpots from two decades ago switch narratives and doubled-down on the same brand of stupid ideas but, because they have the right narrative, are suddenly regarded as something other than nutjobs.

      3. Seeing William Connolley’s name reminded me of one of the greatest moments on the Internet.

        LAdies and gentlemen, if you read nothing else today, I beg you to read this. You will be enterteined beyond measure.

        The Scorning of William Connolley

        [Connolley] was never particularly significant in the self-declared pantheon of climate demigods, more like their technical gopher despatched as required to cobble together various bits of HTML for them. In his Wikipedia heyday, he built up a small but dedicated following of fanboys but since Wiki banned him and nobody sane reads his blogging attempts, he’s of late been at a loose end, cruising around the skeptic blogosphere, trolling for all he’s worth and generally leaving a terrible stench behind him.

        As it happens, I’ve a personal score to settle with him, and one I never thought I’d get the chance to do but this looked to be a heaven-sent opportunity, if I could just play it right. Picking an appropriate way would undoubtedly come down to making use on his own rather inflated idea of his importance in the general scheme of things climatic, but in just the right way. He’s used to swimming around in a little pond of mutual fishy admirers and as far as I’m aware has never had a good kicking, so I laced up my steel-toed boots and thought about an appropriate bait to fix on the hook.

        1. Whoa. Epic. Thanks, t.

        2. So trueman is a sock?

      4. Yes – I went to grade school in the 70’s, and I definitely remember the “new Ice Age is coming” bullshit.

      5. Epic smackdown, t. Well-done. But, yeah, trying to educate the drive-by trolls is a massive waste of time.

      6. Yeah, I seem to remember a cover story in Time on that particular subject.

    2. Fuck off, slaver.

    3. “They simply don’t like environmentalism as it posits that humans have obligations greater than to themselves.”

      Please take your religion…………..
      and stuff it.
      I have NO obligation to anything other than myself.

      1. Amazingly, we established systems of enforcing “obligations greater than to themselves” called contract law and common law. You know, the systems that the enviro-socialist movement has worked for decades to dismantle.

        1. kbolino|12.10.15 @ 1:39PM|#
          “Amazingly, we established systems of enforcing “obligations greater than to themselves” called contract law and common law.”

          Contract law commits me to ‘obligations greater than me’? Cite missing.

      2. yet i am betting this guy uses energy produced by fossil fuels. It is cool for him to harm others though.

    4. “As no one has the right to harm, the US government has the obligation to reduce the harm that we cause the environment and others as a consequence of our use of fossil fuels”

      I’ll bet you think there’s some logic-y stuff buried in that line of bullshit, right?

    5. “They simply don’t like environmentalism as it posits that humans have obligations greater than to themselves. It’s that simple. Deniers want others to absorb the costs of their behavior.”

      THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

    6. “Deniers have nothing to support their argument.”

      You’re having the wrong argument.

      If the reason “deniers” won’t accept the scientific consensus is because they’re afraid of sacrificing their standard of living, then why don’t you address that?

      Pounding the table on quantitative science in the face of quality of life objections is irrational.

      Please tell us how much GDP per capita the average American will need to sacrifice before our efforts have the very first impact on climate change, and then tell us how long we’ll need to keeping making those sacrifices in our standard of living before the problem is resolved.

      If people’s objections to the scientific consensus really have to do with the answers to those two questions about economics and their standard of living, then if the environment goes to hell because people won’t accept the science, it won’t be the fault of climate change “deniers”. It will be the fault of those who want to implement solutions to climate change having failed to address the concerns of average Americans.

      1. Spot on, Ken.

      2. That’s some effective Troll-B-Gone there, Ken. I could hear the “whomp” of the air closing in as the troll disapparated. They will never admit that. Because they don’t want to admit how draconian their solution actually is. Plus, what if they get what they want and the climate stubbornly refuses to cooperate? We know they won’t say they tried and were wrong; they’ll just double down until we’re all shivering naked in caves living on 1,000 calories per day provided there’s not a drought or a crop failure or something.

      3. Its because they are afraid to tell you how much it will cost and how small the effect will be.

      4. Why assume that inaction will be automatically economically more productive? Responding to climate change will require massive industrial mobilization. Who says we have to sacrifice anything? It’s a common and fallacious sleight-of-hand to imply that burning fossil fuels indefinitely is some kind of economic and living-standard peak that can only be diminished by evil solar panels. Not to mention the ridiculousness of lecturing about standard of living while coastal residents see their cities fall into the ocean.

        The American Republican party and their legions of idiot followers is the only political force in the world that denies the science, and as a political force they have some measure of power to prevent action, and have done so for many years. But they’re blameless–it’s actually the sane people who are to blame. What convenient bullshit.

        1. Tony|12.10.15 @ 4:57PM|#
          “Why assume that inaction will be automatically economically more productive?”

          BEAT on that strawman, Tony! You’re so good at it.
          Now, did you wish to make a point, or just once again demonstrate your stupidity?

        2. What is you proposal to bring about massive industrial mobilization, how will it be paid for and what affect if at all will it have?

        3. When will the coastal cities fall into the ocean? Where has this happened? What are your proposals and how would they abate this?

          Solar panels account for 0.4% of the grid and wind at 4.4%. There is also the fact they dont work when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Would be interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion that you can maintain the standard of living without fossil fuels?

          1. I think you meant they don’t work when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. That necessitates building and maintaining fossil fuel powered backups. That’s also part of why solar and wind are not competitive with fossil fuels.

      5. The penchant of ‘those who want to implement solutions to climate change’ for jetting off to places like Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro and Paris to tell the rest of the world how to live between bites of filet mignon doesn’t help their cause much, either.

        A lot of people get really irked at Hollywood celebrities, politicians and six-figure salaried government employees telling them they need to make more sacrifices to save the planet.

      6. Please tell us how much GDP per capita the average American will need to sacrifice before our efforts have the very first impact on climate change, and then tell us how long we’ll need to keeping making those sacrifices in our standard of living before the problem is resolved.

        Oh, that’s an easy one: The problem will be resolved when the average American’s standard of living has dropped to the level of the crappiest third world shit hole. Poor peasants are much easier to rule – they know their proper place.

    7. “As the economy is a figment of the human mind, we can change it to be sustainable but we can’t change physics.”

      The economy is a figment of the human mind?

      That statement is amazing.

      We were all talking yesterday about when scientists come to imagine they’re a priesthood and that they can make authoritative qualitative judgements for other people–better than individuals can for themselves.

      The economy is individuals making choices that include personal preferences. People are not a figment of the human mind. They exist regardless of whether you believe in them. Ethics is about respecting their right to make choices for themselves. Rape is immoral because the victim’s right to make a choice wasn’t respected.

      If it doesn’t freak you out as immoral and scary that you’re reducing people and their personal preferences to “economy” and then “a figment of the mind”, then please at least understand that it’s factually incorrect.

      The economy is people making choices, and people are very real. And “science” cannot justify imposing your personal preferences on other people. If that can be justified, it has to come from philosophy or ethics or some other rational discipline that is definitely not science.

      Can a personal preference for sacrifice, poverty, and polar bears be falsified?

    8. Let’s see here…..JeffB…AmSoc…flip…flip hey there’s Bo wonder what happened to him ? ….D E F…flip flip….G H I ok here are the Js

      *slips JeffB into the Nutcase Troll File between AmSoc and Tony.. closes NutCase Troll File *

      * stares out over the water wondering……. if people like JeffB who are so gulible to believe people who fake data, hide data, alter data and have failed in every prediction they ever made…….. also believe in wife’s claim of fidelity when she gets pregnant even though he is tested infertile ? *

    9. Hilarious!

    10. j: I actually have read Schneider’s The Genesis Strategy (1976) and he was indeed worried about global cooling. Did you not read the quotation from him – “warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling effect has set in” – that I included in the post?

    11. Competent people

      AKA Top. Men.

    12. What are these drastic effects on the environment? Can you point to specific examples and how you have discerned they are due to fossil fuels?

      What are the solutions you are proposing? How have you determined they will have any effect to prevent said harm? Would you say that fossil fuel use needs to be stopped today?

      Also wondering if you use electricity, drive a car, ride in a plane etc? Otherwise by your own post you are harming others

  22. It should also be noted that there are two distinct problems here.

    Problem 1) Greenhouse gas emissions, from fossil fuel sources, especially, are causing climate change.

    Some of you may think that isn’t really a problem. Even if it isn’t a problem, there is still Problem 2 to consider.

    Problem 2) Our politicians may implement authoritarian and socialist “solutions” to climate change with the support of swing voters.

    Again, it is important to understand that Problem 2 is a serious problem regardless of whether Problem 1 is a real problem at all.

    I’m here to tell you that denying the scientific consensus gets us exactly where we are right now with Problem 2–which is the leaders of the world making making policy in Paris without any serious consideration for the concerns of libertarian capitalists.

    1. By your very same argument; Problem 2 exists and will exist regardless of Problem 1. This was part of Cruz’s point and a bit of a loophole in Bailey’s argument.

      The ACA does *nothing* to actually increase the amount of available medical care. Net Neutrality does *nothing* to actually increase anyone’s internet speeds. The TSA and NSA spying programs have, multiple times over and in a variety of ways, demonstrated that they do not prevent terrorism.

      Problem 1 may be a problem, it may not. Why acquiesce on problem 1 when the problem and your acquiescence are irrelevant (unless it’s to establish dominance and/or a pattern of behavior).

      1. Pounding the table that Problem 1 doesn’t exist may exacerbate Problem 2.

        And so long as the solutions to Problem 2 are libertarian and capitalist, whether Problem 1 is real is a moot point.

        1. If those who are pounding the table about Problem #1 were willing to accept a libertarian and capitalist solution then we wouldn’t have a Problem #1.

        2. Ceding the ground on problem 1 will DEFINITELY make peoblem 2 worse. It’s stunning that you believe otherwise.

          1. Ceding the ground on problem 1 will DEFINITELY make peoblem 2 worse.

            It’s the trolley car problem and/or AI Box, the only way you effect a socialist/authoritarian solution is by resolving that you have a dilemma about whether to kill the fat guy or not.

            In my experience, the overwhelming majority of ‘deniers’ are/were more than willing to put the cart before the horse (and let someone else kill the fat guy) on problems 1 and 2. It isn’t until the resolutions to problem 2 are laid out as various combinations of ridiculously onerous, ridiculously authoritarian, and ridiculously impractical that they retreat to “How sure are you that problem 1 is really that bad?”

            1. The motives for questioning the science are irrelevant. The burden of proof is on the claimants. The fact that they finally made some falsifiable (and falsified) predictions are all that matters.

          2. “Ceding the ground on problem 1 will DEFINITELY make peoblem 2 worse.”

            Does it work that way with anything else?

            Do you really think that people would support taking drastic measures to fight global warming more if instead of objecting to there being a problem at all, we emphasized the sacrifices we’ll have to make in our standard of living in order to stop it–using the authoritarian and socialist policies the watermelons are proposing?

            I don’t.

            If and when someone shows people how much it will cost them and for how long, they’ll either reject the watermelon proposals entirely, or they’ll look to capitalists for market friendly solutions.

            I also feel like we’re in pre-Iraq War mode again, when many of my fellow libertarians based their criticism of the impending Iraq War on the question of whether Saddam Hussein had WMD. My question to them then was, “Aren’t you going to oppose the war even if he does have WMD”? My objections to the Iraq War were strategic, American interest oriented, humanitarian, etc. If we had convinced average Americans that that we shouldn’t invade Iraq because they don’t have WMD, what would we have done if the weapons inspectors have WMD?

            1. Bjorn Lomborg has accepted #1.

              He, and his analyses and proposals are vilified by those who intend to carry out #2.

              This tells us, quite clearly, that no one views #1 as any sort of real issue, that it is #2 that is the actual goal–and always has been.

          3. Point is, even if, for whatever reason, you don’t believe the current data supports that climate change is a problem, do you understand that convincing evidence for climate change could turn up tomorrow, next week, or next year? If and when it does, and you’ve convinced people that they should oppose socialist and authoritarian polices on the basis that climate change isn’t real, doesn’t that imply that if it is real, they should accept socialist and authoritarian policies? If it’s all about denying the consensus based on the current paucity of evidence, what are you going to do if and when they find the evidence?

            My way? It doesn’t matter whether climate change is real or what evidence they find for it. If the solutions on offer are libertarian and capitalist and things we should be doing anyway even if climate change isn’t real, then it doesn’t matter what climate scientists find tomorrow. My answer is still the same.

      2. Those things aren’t there to help. They exist to take a little more off of us…..

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp_jriZDSS8

    2. Have you ever seen a list of voter priorities?

      Despite all the media push, global warming always places last.

      1. There hasn’t been much in the way of serious policy proposals on the table.

        Once those policies are on the table for consideration, and/or once those policies are implemented and people start having to change their behavior because of them–global warming won’t just be an environmental issue anymore. It’ll be an economy issue, and to paraphrase Bill Clinton, the economy is always a top priority for voters.

        Isn’t that the way things worked in Australia?

        The environment was a feel good issue–right up until the moment they implemented the carbon tax. From that moment on, it was an issue about the economy. And average Australian voters cared about it a lot. So much so that they got rid of the carbon tax and the prime minister it rode in on.

  23. Mark Steyn crushing it at Cruz’s hearing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..-ideology/

    Here’s the whole thing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KVTmo2Vxnk

    1. Crushing what? He says that people are mean to climate change deniers and ipso facto climate change is possibly not real and we shouldn’t do anything about it. Was it the accent that confused you into thinking Steyn was saying something of substance?

      1. What do you propose be done? Specific proposal…not puffery.

  24. I’m not a huge fan of Cruz by any means, but he does look like the best choice in either party that actually has some shot at gaining the nomination. He is the only one besides Rand that would have my vote that will prob go to GayJo. The prospect of Hilldog or Trump is depressing.

  25. Bad headline; good write up.

    Ultimately, this is not an issue that I will pay even a modicum of attention to until those proposing solutions are serious about addressing the problem. When your write-up on how the solution will be achieved includes language about how your solution must be “gender responsive” and needs to take into account “indigenous knowledge systems”, I know that you are not serious about solving the problem or bringing the larger part of the world into working to solve the issue. You are interested in scoring points for an ideology supported by, at best, a fairly small minority of citizens in developed countries.

    1. Lest we forget that it is evil White Privilege which is keeping the solar industry from taking off in the US and thus causing all of the global warming caused deaths we never hear about.

      Here is the irrefutable scientific proof:
      http://www.reuters.com/article…..v74x7Ce.97

  26. Of course we’d all be better off if the bottom feeders of oil industry propaganda didn’t decide that “not radically altering the global environment” was a liberal or partisan action. A perfectly rational case can be made that even the most intrusive interventions are in service of conservatism–maintaining what we can of the status quo we’re all accustomed to.

    Sticking your thumb up your asses and waiting for the market gods to do their magic is not inaction or conservative or small-government. Bailey’s right that energy markets are impure and “distorted” by government policy. As if they could be any other way–it’s a basic utility. The dichotomy is not between big-government progressive intervention and laissez-faire market magic. It’s between people who are working, either intentionally or through sheer idiocy, for the short-term profits of a couple of particular industries, and people who actually care about the future of the human species. The reason Republicans are embarrassing morons on this issue is because of their whorish cronyism for big oil. Making the available options out to be describable along the lines of crass American politics in only in service of that whoring.

    1. Gee, Tony, did the strawman give up yet?
      What a fucking ignoramus…

    2. How would you propose getting rid of fossil fuels without hurting others standard of living? What types of energy?

      When can we expect the devastation to occur and what magnitude? Have you determined if your proposal would abate this? You said you care about the future of human species…curious how you know it is a problem. As i am not sure you can even discern the contribution of man at this point due to the very small sample size and natural variation of climate.

      What is market magic exactly?

      1. Market magic is similar to cock magic.

    3. Are you saying the fossil fuel industry exists due the republicans? Cause i am pretty sure those exist cause people like AC, electricity, heat, driving cars etc. And you are the one talking about magic

      Doesn’t Exxon Mobil invest in renewables?

      How are the progressive proposals which are what exactly caring for the future of the human species? Would like to know if whatever those are actually have a positive affect. If they don’t, why do you support them?

    4. Yes, everyone who disagrees with your pseudo-scientific bullshit is a big meanie. Not wonderful caring sorts like you cunt progressives.

  27. If it were an earlier time Tony would be using the same arguments to support Eugenics.

  28. If you believe man can control the climate, you are a dope.

  29. It’s the classic tragedy of the commons. The fossil fuel industry is externalizing their costs. A revenue-neutral carbon tax will let the free market efficiently allocate resources. Get rid of regulations, quotas, restrictions. Just make the carbon industry correctly price its product, then get out of the way.

  30. I keenly read, reread, and reread again the Ronald Bailey column to identify exactly that Ted Cruz said that is wrong as highlighted in the column title. As best as I can figure, in paragraph 7 Bailey recounts the Interviewer (Inskeep) accusing Cruz of arguing against climate change science because he doesn’t want to see government expand … which he records Cruz as denying. Thereupon Bailey simply declares Cruz endorses the false title premise. I don’t get this as a logical progression to this conclusion.

    I’m just a mere mortal. I am proud of an entire career as a scientist (now retired), and took an interest in the first couple IPCC position reports. I judged it as embarrassingly bad science, and am a signatory of the Robinson petition. I felt satisfied that equally angry scientists successfully corrected much of that bad science and fairly well reversed the IPCC. The fight for actual science (the early IPCC positions weren’t actual science) must pass to another generation. I am dismayed that the later IPCC positions have increasingly reinforced the political conclusion that it is man made and not just cyclical nature. I simply do not see this conclusion bore out in the science.

    What I do see is that the IPCC never had an actual scientific justification for UN charter in the first place. The charter (and the current positions) seem much more political than scientific.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.