Chris Hayes On Why So Many Conservatives Deny The Climate Problem: They Hate The Solution

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/14/2467371/msnbc-chris-hayes-on-conserv...
By Joe Romm on August 14, 2013 at 4:54 pm

On Friday (8 pm ET), MSNBC is airing Chris Hayes’s climate documentary, “The Politics of Power.”

On Thursday (1 pm ET), Chris Hayes is hosting a Google+ Hangout on the politics of climate change — with me, Andy Revkin, Kate Sheppard and a couple of others. You can watch it here.

I’ve had a chance to preview the special, and it is a solid piece of work that covers everything from the science to the solutions to the deniers to the politics. In a sane world, it would be a yawner, the umpteenth climate special aired on TV. But in the world we live in, a one-hour TV special devoted solely to global warming is as hard to find as a climate scientist at a Tea Party Convention.

Kudos to MSNBC for running this. Hayes is still the only major TV journalist who routinely devotes a significant amount of air time to telling the truth about global warming.

Speaking of which, on Monday’s All In show, Hayes had a good segment on “The Republican allure of climate change denialism.”

He makes the point that I have argued for the past decade, “the real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science” is they can’t stand the solution.

Hayes plays an excerpt from remarks by hard-core denier Rep. Dana “dinosaur flatulence” Rohrabacher (R-CA):

    ROHRABACHER: Just so you’ll know, global warming is a total fraud. The federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives. That’s what their game plan is. It’s step by step by step more and bigger control over our lives by higher levels of government. And global warming is simply that strategy in spades.

    HAYES: Now, the whole “global warming is a liberal conspiracy” line is understandably a big hit among the conservative base, but in delivering that line, Congressman Rohrabacher tips his hand to the reasoning behind his global warming denialism, which basically goes like this: If global warming is real, then the government would need to intervene to fix it, but we don’t like government intervention. Therefore, global warming cannot be real.

    That’s it. That is the logic behind the pervasive view on climate change on the right: We don’t like the solutions to this problem, so we officially declare this not to be a problem.

This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.

Hayes then talks with Samuel Thernstrom, who served on George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality. It is pretty painful to watch Thernstrom push the old Frank Luntz playbook — “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah” — which Bush himself turned into a mantra.

For you Millennials out there, Luntz’s infamous (and still must-read) 2002 “Straight Talk” memo on climate change messaging was designed for conservatives who want to sound like they care about global warming even as they twist the knife in deeper:

    Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.

More than a decade later, the playbook is exactly the same! Basically, as Hayes shows, we progressives can talk about global warming as much as we want as long as we don’t propose anything that might actually solve the problem in a timely fashion. In this view, any climate proposal other than long-long-long-term research and development is automatically just a big government power grab. Of course, conservatives oppose increasing the budget for clean energy R&D, too, but who are we to get hung up on a foolish consistency? It’s not like the health and well-being of billions of people are at stake.

This is just the old breakthrough-technology canard, which has been debunked umpteen times (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“). See also “Study Confirms Optimal Climate Strategy: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, R&D, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy” (but not in that order).

As then NY Times columnist Andy Revkin explained about one denier conference a few years ago, “The one thing all the attendees seem to share is a deep dislike for mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases.” What unites these people is their desire to delay or stop action to cut GHGs, not any one particular view on the climate.

It is nearly impossible to win an argument with a conservative or libertarian who hates government-led action. Yes, you can try to point out all the great things the government has done (the Internet, anyone?) and try to point out that they invariably support government-led action for military security, and, of course, government subsidies and regulations to promote energy security, at least as it applies to the oil industry and nuclear energy pork.

[continued ...]

The solution is to transition to new technology.  Many of the Energy companies are already taking steps in that direction.

Don't forget that the Renewable Energy Target was introduced by the Howard Government.

The renewable energy generation in Australia is currently running at around 13-15%.

Arnie Gundersen is no nuclear expert. He's an anti-nuclear campaigner who frequently blows things out of all proportion. 

The main effects of Fukushima have been social and economic rather than radiological.  Refugees from the area are shunned by Japanese society as somehow being unclean or contaminated.  They have major problems being accepted socially.

There is local contamination of fish stocks, but outside the immediate area, there is very little risk.

On Tony Abbot, the Liberals policy on Climate change acknowledges that climate change is real, and includes the following:

Quote:


He has turned around from his 2009 statement that "climate change is crap".

I don't think the ALP's track record up to now has been glowing either. Eventually governments all over the world will have to take some very expensive direct action because the major powers have missed the boat.

The fact remains that the most effective scheme to date has been the RET scheme, sad though that may be.

I don't think that the ALP offers any clear advantage on the environment.  It comes down to which party has the best fiscal policy.  Enormous deficits are not really compatible with  environmental initiatives.

EnD Of dIsCUssiOn!!



That' so progressive, Mother-in-law!!

QUICK GLOBAL WARMING WILL DESTROY YOU & YOUR CHILDREN.

We have to create a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market so that you and your children will be safe once more.

After we create this $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market it will become safe to once more send up manmade CO2 emissions, as many as we can.

That's global warming.

Ajax wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 11:41am:


I agree that there are hidden agendas by some on the left of politics, but the problem itself is real.

Ajax wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:

It seems that the vast majority of the best qualified don't agree with you.

Ajax wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:12pm:


The problem lies in the implications for humanity of an increase in temperature of anything up to 8 degrees by 2100.

When you say "Our history" meaning the history of mankind, then you are wrong. The CO2 levels are at currently at their highest for 3 million years at which time there were no homo sapiens.

At that time temperatures were about 8 degrees higher than today and sea levels were about 8 metres higher.  The Pliocene period is the subject of considerable study at the moment, because it provides a good analog for what is to come as a result of AGW (albeit at a much higher rate of change).

muso wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:45am:


I told you computer simulated models are nothing but sh!t.

How can you listen to their predictions??

They haven't got anything right thus far...why believe their projections in a 100 years.

Quote:


Are you saying that mammals have never existed while the CO2 content has been much higher than today???



What makes those bubbles rise to the top in your beer glass..????

What do you exhale..........???????

Is it pollution.............??????????

Quote:


So...what....????

Today we have some of the lowest temperatures EVER and

We have some of the lowest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere...!!!

Do you really think you can keep it there....???

Or that its all due to manmade emissions...???

This is why the religion of AGW will soon die out....!!

Talk about blinkers.

lol, ajax doesn't know what the word pre-historic means!



Oh bugger me: I'm going to be drowning in bourbon and coke very soon I'm sure!   

muso wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:31pm:
By calling it a religion, you grant climate science denial unwarranted dignity. Given the tiny minority who cling to its beliefs and the risks inherent in those beliefs, cult is a more appropriate description.

miketrees wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 3:36am:


So am I. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.  We can still reduce the impact.

miketrees wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 3:36am:

I am sure the vast majority of conservatives do accept the overwhelming evidence that AGW is a serious problem.

And of course - ignorance of this matter and denial does live on both sides of the political fence (Hi, Greggery Peccary) - but generally, the handful of remaining deniers still around are only those loyal Bolt and Jones followers, who call themselves "conservatives" - because that is what Bolt and Jonesy tell them they are.

Quote:


Who is saying that it will destroy life as we know it today?

Usually if you're addressing a point that somebody made, you should provide a link to where they made that point.

Quote:


It's just the sun is it? Nothing to do with the distribution of continents or the impact of large meteoroids? - or ocean circulation patterns?

Sound like you need to do some reading.

Google "Volcanic winter."

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Lol, this dood is from the farm- straight out must've brung some mull to the big smoke and thought he'd make some friends by talking loud and getting beat up a few times just for the laughs...

 

Go farm boys, yeh: NOW THEY SMOKE CRACK,..............OOOOOPS!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 5:33pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:


This is an amazing revelation. Which computer model is saying that there is a hot spot, and which computer model is saying there will be a runaway greenhouse effect?

Quote:


Once again. Listen carefully this time. What you are saying is that the initial warming following glaciation is not caused by rising CO2 levels. Yes, we know. Nobody is claiming any different.   The initial warming is caused by changes to the Earth's orbit which increases the solar irradiance. Any increase in forcing will result in a temperature rise.  Milankovich cycles?  Ring a bell? 


Quote:


Do you really want to go there after your demonstration of your arithmetic skills. With those arithmetic skills you could be .... OK, you're Anthony Watts aren't you? Own up.


Quote:


Please translate from Gibberish to English. 

Quote:


And we are very much looking forward to that one.

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:


Your kidding right, this was the centre piece of the IPCC and the rest of the nutters that are trying to scare us into paying for the air we breath.

Quote:


Correct but you forgot to add, as the sun warms the Earth then more CO2 starts to get released into our atmosphere due to the temperature rise.

CO2 has never controlled temperature here on Earth not when we had 20 times the amount we have today or now with man throwing up a very small percentage of the total CO2 in our atmosphere.


Quote:


Are you serious are you buying this nutjob that claims the Australian terrain soaked up 10000km3 of rainwater that's why oceans fell by 7mm.

Please..................????

You are an educated person how can you believe this garbage................wake up dude.

Quote:


Well if we're all doomed because man is throwing up some miniscule amount of CO2 compared to nature which by the way is plant food and the earth's vegetation will thrive on it.

Don't you think every country could have taken direct action.

Like for example employing the latest technology in feeding and capturing.

Front end..start by using gas fired boilers this reduces CO2 emissions by up to 25%.

At the back end use latets technology in capturing CO2,

1. Fabric Filter Bags
2. Electrostatic precipitators,
3. Scrubbers
4. Carbon sequestration

Like in 2002 the government legislated to reduce the sulphur content in diesel from 10% to 6%.

It just passed the law and the corporation to their disappointment in having to spend money for no return complied.

Did we need to go to the stock exchange for that too..????

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

No.  Sea levels have not been dropping.
Sea levels are rising.
This is because the earth is warming

As you have already been shown from the article discussed on other threads:

Although there are daily, seasonal and annual variations, sea levels worldwide have been creeping up by 3mm a year on average, as a consequence of ocean warming and glacial melting....

Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters per year

In 2010-11 there was a drop of 7mm in sea levels, due apparently in part to the floods in Australia in those years.

10,000m3 fell on Australia - but no one has claimed that "she soaked it all up" as you claim.  What has been demonstrated to you on several occaisions is that it would only take one quarter of that volume to lower sea levels by 7mm.  Sone 2500km3

Seriously - you really need to start paying attention to what is written and stop telling lies.

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:


The main factor here is that there is definite evidence of surface warming.  The hotspot doesn't confirm whether the surface warming is due to CO2 forcing or Solar forcing. In fact any warming should result in the same characteristic warming of the upper troposphere.  It's not the test that you think it is for CO2 warming.

The other important factor is that the charts in the IPCC paper refer to longterm equilibrium data. The period of study was too short and there was too much natural noise to get a good measurement.

The problem seems to be overconfidence in results, not accounting for El Nino events and taking the reading over too short a time scale. Fortunately there were other  papers that actually accounted for the El Nino events in this short period of time.

Here is one of them:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/abstract

Quote:

Quote:



Now show me the bit where they talk about a runaway Greenhouse effect. I can't seem to find it. (Maybe because it isn't there)


You don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas????

Talk to the LWIR spectra: 

(That's one of those indisputable facts)

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 7:28pm:


Well Well you do have a brain after all, good to see.

Being educated doesn't necessarily put a brain in your head.

Here it is,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html


Quote:


CO2 is a greenhouse gas I have never disputed that.

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

Quote:


Good try, but no cigar. Nobody is claiming that there will be a runaway greenhouse effect. The only people who claim that the IPCC are saying that, are the denialists.

Some astronomers have speculated that in a couple of billion years the Earth could develop a runaway greenhouse effect, but it certainly has nothing to do with climatology. 
Quote:



Quote:

sigh

Greenhouse gases cause warming.

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

Oh dear.  How many times must you be told?

There has been warming since 1998.
It is unequivocal
Indisputable.

It is the warming since 1998 that has caused the arctic ice cap to decrease
It is the warming since 1998 that has caused global glacial mass balance to decrease.
It is the warming since 1998 that has caused sea levels to rise

I know that a tabloid journalist in the Daily Mail told you different - but guess what.  He is wrong.

Doesn't it bother you that everything you write is demonstrably wrong?

You can't add up.
You cant understand what you read
You tell lies.

Why do you do this?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:29pm:


No there has not.

Open your eyes dude FFS.


Quote:

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:35pm:


Getting a bit desperate there. Christopher Monckton? He's a graduate in Classical History (By Jove) and a journalist. Apart from that he makes a tidy sum from talking nonsense to gullible Americans and Australians.  He claims that he's a member of the British House of Lords.

Lord help us.


http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

Quote:


I think you can spot the nonsense in just about anything Monckton writes yourself. (He makes stuff up dude. He photoshops graphs and switches the axes) 

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 3:09pm:


You keep saying the same things regardless of the fact that they have been demonstrated to be wrong. 

That isn't skepticism. That's repetition of your articles of faith.

Very pious.

Quote:


DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS?

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, or so it seems.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:47pm:

When it's convincingly established that the majority of the best qualified say there's no risk, I'll stop worrying.

muso wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:


what about this....?????...its in every thread where you deleted mine..???

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

muso wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:



It's like a runaway train with greenhouse effect substituted for train.

I was thinking of this Runaway Train.

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:20am:

The vast majority of the best qualified say otherwise, it seems.

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:20am:


This has been demonstrated to be false and you didn't even comment on the data. 

Quote:


Not a runaway greenhouse effect, but then nobody is saying that it is.
Quote:


That's how you appear. You're making a fool of yourself.

Now do some Googling and tell me what a runaway Greenhouse effect is. I won't do it because you are obviously not paying attention.

Last warning. Maybe you want to be a martyr for your religion, but if you continue to spam by posting the same thing over and over, you will be given a holiday.

Ajax wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:57am:
Ajax, did you forget to take your medication? 

muso wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:


Thanks for that muso.

Everything the IPCC have predicted thus far from their computer circulation models has been proven wrong or exaggerated.

Their is no hot spot.......!!!!

The oceans are rising in concert with the earth's cycle of cold and warm climate.

Their is no correlation between CO2 & temperature.

The melting north pole - this process started a couple of hundred years ago, man's miniscule amount of CO2 emissions didn't start this phenomenon.

With all the above and the political nature of the IPCC to persuade people that AGW is real, its no wonder people are turning their heads at the AGW religion.

Hopefully more leaders around the world will follow Abbotts lead and toss the AGW hypothesis in the trash can where it belongs.

muso wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:43pm:


On the contrary its greenies you should be worried about.

They place animals and plants ahead of humans...!!!!!

muso wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:


Do you have a short hand list of the worries of AGW?
I'm going to assume; Ocean levels, ocean acidification, extreme weather events, compounded warming rather than runaway?

Does the IPCC or anyone who proposes AGW, have a list of any net potential positives of c02 increases? (for example increased greening of the earth and or increased precipitation helping crop yields/plants that absorb c02)

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:55pm:


Yes and yes. It's in the AR4 Working Group II report. 



This diagram summarises the risks. It's from AR4. I'm a bit suss about the leaked AR5. It's a little bit big to post directly on the forum:

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig3-6.jpg

This refers to the Working Group II Report for further details. Here is the link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/img/books/ar4-wg2.gif