Santorum: Democrats are anti-science

[BigSkyBob]

The title of this thread is completely bogus.

Santorum said,

 "When it comes to the management of the Earth, they are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology, and using the resources we have to be able to make sure that we have a quality of life in this country and (that we) maintain a good and stable environment,"

The title should read,

Santorum: "Democratic management of the Earth is anti-Science."

I would cite Democratic attitudes toward nuclear power, hydraulic fracking, and the Keystone pipeline as evidence for Santorum's contention.

[BigSkyBob]

Nuclear power and Keystone XL can be argued, the former moreso than the latter, but not even people who support hydraulic fracking bother to argue that it 'maintain a good and stable environment'.

That was a neat trick to reverse the burden of proof. That hydraulic fracking produces oil that would not otherwise be recoverable is sufficient reason to use it absent any extenuating circumstances. The opponent's claims to extenuating circumstances are often more pseudo-science than anything else.

[BigSkyBob]

First off note, I might not be a climate scientists, but I do have an advanced physics degree. I hope that minimally qualifies me to discuss the prevalent scientific consensus as I actually know what scientific consensus is. That said, Ricky doesn't understand what scientific consensus is.

The general argument he and other Republicans have been trying to make for some time now is that climate science is a conspiracy of some sort, and that we should be using science and technology to get more energy resources because its always good. And its always good as it means cheep energy to maintain or grow the standard of living.

The scientific consensus by the super majority who actually study the environment (as opposed to the tiny minority who are paid to pretend they do) is that man made pollutants are increasing global temperatures and are going to lead to long term problems for everyone on the planet.

1) You haven't even stated the position correctly. Global temperatures have increased in the last Century. The global warming theory is that man-made pollution has caused most/all of the rise, not some of the rise [as opposed to natural fluxuations in solar output, or volcanic activity.]

2) The second part about "leading to long term problems for everyone on the planet" isn't a very scientific viewpoint at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope, the folks who blame increases in solar output have their data points showing recent increases in solar output. Volcanists have their data points showing natural variations of CO2 levels. Their data points can be confirmed as well.

When solar output starts to wane, yet, temperatures continue to increase, CO2 level cease to rise, but, global temperatures continue to increase, CO2 continues to increase but temperatures fall, or volcanic activity ceases but temperature rise, science will have a better understanding of the cause(s) of global warming.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether tar-sand oil ends up being piped to Oklahoma and Texas, and burned in American gas tanks, or piped to British Columbia, and burned in Chinese gas tanks isn't going to matter. It is going to happen, like it or not. It can't be "avoided."

Regardless of whether, or not, tar-sand petroleum is "energy efficient," it is economically viable. A pipeline is going to be built for that reason.

What the average American wants to know from "science" is whether, or not, it is safe to pipe across the plain states? When "science" starts to involve itself in the political questions, rather than the scientific questions, it is being politicized.

[BigSkyBob]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

2) You are equivocating on the meaning of the word "efficiency." Caculating "energy in/ energy out" is, basically, an engineering question. Calculating the "efficiency" of extracting tar sand oil is, basically, an economic calculation. Calculating the political desirability of extracting tar sand oil is, basically, the combination of the economic calculation with a consideration of the opportunity costs, third party effects, etc. The engineering question about EI/EO shouldn't even be a teriary consideration for politicians.

[BigSkyBob]

I really don't understand where exactly BS Bob gets off arguing for efficiency being an inherently 'political' concern, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now.

1) You are writing in bizarre slang that is nearly incomprehensible.

What? How on Earth is what I am using 'slang'? I'm genuinely baffled as to how any native speaker of English could possibly consider the post you're quoting 'slang'.

"Gets off" is slang. Your use of "gets off" is non-standard given the usual informal rules for slang. If I had to guess what you were trying to say, I'd guess something like, "Where does Bob derive the authority to argue...." But, that was just my guess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of these types of 'efficiency' are connected in case of the tar sands. The economic efficiency is based partially on the engineering efficiency, since engineering has to be done by people, using money. Incidental benefits and detriments are likewise not inherently political concepts, although they certainly can be.
[/quote]

The bottom line is that if the Canadians weren't making money at today's oil prices, they wouldn't mine/leach oil from the sands of Northern Alberta.

Even if extracting that oil had a negative energy return, it would merely mean that tar sand oil is the most economically efficient means of converting more abundant energy sources such as coal, and natural gas into the more scare hydrocarbon chains.

Again, such calculations are economic calculations. This is the beauty of the price mechanism. Tar sands are only going to be exploited if prices remain relatively high. If natural gas becomes more abundant the price mechanism will tell us whether it is better to convert it to oil by extracting tar sand oil and driving our cars, or scraping our current fleet of a hundred million vehicles, building replacement natural-gas powered vehicles, and building a distribution network to the service stations that will fill those vehicles.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am curious by what is meant by "opportunity costs" in this context, which typically refers to that which is precluded by virtue of doing something.  Can you further explain what you mean by use of that term here BigSkyBob?  Thanks.

Joke: Man asked, What does a candy bar cost?" He answers, "60 cents." Economist asked same question answers, "What you would have otherwise would have done with the money, a little tooth decay, and some addition weight that was presumably unwanted."

I have no illusions about the giant tailing piles that will be left behind. It is a political question as to whether, or not, Canadians want the oil mined. Their political choice was for the oil, and the money and jobs it brought. It is the choice I would have supported.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with your claim is that the actual range of estimates is much larger.
See this paper:

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

There, estimates run as high as 24.2 - 121 GtCpa.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

The is 7.8 GtCpa for all carbon-based energy use. The rest of the 35 GtCpa are due to other human activities such as deforestation. That fact isn't mention because it points out the futility of cap-and-trade, or carbon taxes schemes as a means of significantly changing carbon dioxide emissions.

The reasons why the guestimates are called in question is presented in this paper.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-7778-1.pdf

The hysteria about "global warming" are belied by the historical record:



As you can see, global temperatures and CO2 levels are at lows, and natural variations of temperatures are 10 degrees Celsius. The-sky-is-falling hysteria is simply not justified by the facts.