Mitt Romney Adopts Denialism

I will give you till Friday.

 

I understand his comment: If people were totally ignorant (i.e. zero knowledge) we'd all believe in religion and Spidy and I would either believe the same thing (therefore not having this conversation) or we'd be having the different conversation of my god vs. your god.

Of course, we can still have the my god vs. your god conversation, since he believes in the false god of Christianity and I know that the real creator of the universe is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I know the FSM is the real god because there's a beer volcano in heaven.

 

Another logical answer but not the right answer. I will give you a point or two for trying to think it through.

 

...I don't see how he can keep changing positions, and win the election. He should have said he believes AGW/CO2 link but solution is longer term.

 

I am to the point that I don't care who the next pres is as long as it isn't obama. We just can't affort another four years of his giveaways.

 

As opposed to the previous cliff hanging of the previous administration? My how short is your memory? Do you actually remember the economic climate of the fall of '08? Jeeze!

I am not a rah, rah! Obama apologist by any stretch, but looking at the alternatives being offered by the current crop makes the choice pretty easy,, whether we are talking about the economy,,, or the environment!

The current crop of GoP candidates would be hard press to agree that gravity is a universal concept!

Icarus

 

I'm trying to go into this with an open mind. Haven't heard of any other potential Dem's. Wait and see, I guess. Right now it is just a bunch of political BS. If we could only stick to the issues.

 

One person's 'issue' is another person's bs. The whole political process is a distraction.

 

I thought 'alternate reality' meant something different from the one we're in.

Big government and big business feed off each other, and they both feed on us.

 

When you double efficiency you cut cost by one-half and potentially double profit. Denialism continues poor efficiency, keeps cost high and keeps a lid on profits, while ensuring a low probability of long term sustainability. In this respect all GOP candidates are "liberals" who continue to substitute oil for knowledge who can only think "least cost, first use" (short term). True conservatives think and act "least cost, end use (long term).

Why not just become more efficient, decrease cost and apply the knowledge?!

 

The public has a very short memory.

Gravity is just a theory.

 

Hey bush won twice, then again he didn't deny global warming. Would it have made a difference in policies? I don't know. Clinton won twice but seemed to have policies that increased ghg.

This is an easy one, and in that piece about how cap and trade would have helped some big poluters. Say you have a 50 year old coal plant that is paid for and grandfathered. The cost of a new plant that puts out less harmfull polutants and puts out 60% more energy for the same coal and co2 costs much more than simply wasting the coal. If you are the utility do get rid of the plant. Then since that old plant can not load follow like a new cc natural gas plant, you can't easily add wind. Now does it make sense why those big polluters don't want to become more efficient. As a country this is bad policy, but if you are the one profiting you are going to pay for lobbyists and buy your congressman.

Because special interests keep the profits, while us normal citizens and those of other countries pay the costs.

 

So true! The great weaknesses of American democracy are the role of money in elections and the corruption of politicians. The courts have ruled that freedom of speech means that candidates and their supporters can spend all the money they can gather to promote their election, and that monopolistic mass media can take sides both overtly in editorial commentary and in subtle ways such as choosing which stories to report on.

The result is that while we are de jure a democracy, we are de facto ruled by corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals.

 

Re: Clinton/Gore - I know/agree with you. At that time, I actually wrote a letter to Al Gore saying I thought we were trying to stop AGW (I was protesting a project). Now the Clinton Foundation basically supports Al Gore's AGW position. For kicks I was trying to find my old letter and Gore's response, but it was perfunctory.

 

Anecdotally, I am not sure we don't become more efficient because there is too much profit in waste. I think as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" People (consumers who really drive these things) are too caught up in the first cost, not the total cost of their choices. For example, a HiEf appliance might cost 20% more up front, and one rationalized buying the cheaper one. The cost difference between a Prius and the competition up front sends many to the cheaper alternative, even when the life cycle cost is likely to be less. Prius' have become mainstream because they are somewhat cost competitive and Toyota has done a good job marketing it.

People are reluctant to do a thorough job of making their homes more efficient because of the large upfront cost that won't likely be recouped in a sale, especially a sale that may come sooner than later. Why would I spend $15,000 up grading my house systems if it is only going to save me $1500/year if I am going to sell in 5?

A great example is solar panels (and indeed solar hot water that pays off even faster!) In many places, PV may take 10-15 years to "pay off" irrespective of tax credits and utility rebates, so people are unwilling or unable to come up with the money. Quite frankly, when we are talking about energy waste, it is cheaper to waste it because we don't pay it's true cost up front, than it is to conserve it. The counter to that is that energy prices will almost certainly rise going forward, and I contend rise alot.

I think that is should be a matter of public policy that we price energy closer to it's real value, use tax policy to encourage conservation and discourage waste. It really is not very hard to do when it gets down to it.

As I have stated too often on these boards, that we live quite nicely consuming ~ 1/4 as much energy as the US averge. We don't do without, we don't live in a cave, we just don't waste any more than we can possibly avoid wasting.

Icarus

 

Most rational people see that the AGW scare is a hoax. While I don't think Romney is anything more than another elitist politician, it's nice to know he's coming to his senses regarding the wamist hoax.

Cheers!

 

This is just normal electoral calculation.

Mitt has never had more than 25% of primary votes. They must have decided they can get a few % votes by changing position - but the problem is this also reinforces the perception that Romney keeps changing position.

I doubt this will increase his poll numbers.

 

what's the connection? they both watch Faux news?? :noidea:

 

At Least with his Trillion It was spent here in the USA

The Bush - GOP Trillion was spent on a war that should never have been.