Skip to main content

The Washington Post has decided to pollute itself with a ragingly unhinged rant against climate action by Republican political hack Ed Rogers. It's a case study of right-wing climate change denialism, and maybe much more:
“The Prudent Rationals” would be comprised of those whose attitudes comport with something like the following: They are generally respectful of the scientific community and are eager to listen to mainstream scientists and researchers. They want to hear from legitimate experts who acknowledge the variables, the uncertainties and, importantly, the mistakes and errors of climate science so far. This group could support a prudent plan to produce measurable benefits, but only if the plan were truly global in scope and the cost seemed to be proportional to the outcome. The “Prudent Rationals” believe it is reasonable to accept that there are consequences for continually pumping gases into the atmosphere. And it seems right that one generation should leave the planet better than they found it for the next generation. But we need to be realistic about technical science and political science. If we can’t act globally to limit these gases, we should be focusing on local pollution, not on plans that unilaterally wreck our economy and impoverish millions – if not billions – for nothing.
First of all, when someone takes the time to self-identify as a "Prudent Rational," you can be pretty sure that they're trying to create an artificial bias in their favor, a self-created appeal to authority that has nothing to do with the strength of their arguments. The final sentence is the real tell. Rogers pretends to suggest a course of action while actually attempting to poison the well against taking any action. Which plans would wreck our economy and impoverish millions? The most comprehensive analysis ever attempted of the economic impacts of climate change concluded, in 2006:
Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.


Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.
And a year ago, the lead author of that analysis warned:
Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then.
And Rogers continues with his ostensibly prudent ostensible rationality:
The “alarmists” and the “deniers” aren’t really the problem.
No, the problem is people like Rogers who dishonestly label those who pay attention to the scientists "alarmists," and attempt to create a false equivalency with the anti-science deniers.
The problem is that many reasonable voters find it hard to know whom to believe.
Unless they pay attention to the scientists. This isn't about politics, it's about science. The reason people find it hard to know what to believe is because of the dangerous disinformation and misinformation about climate consistently spewed in traditional media sources such as the Washington Post.
They are turned off by the hypocrisy of Al Gore and the Learjet liberals, the money-grabbing tactics of the third-world-victim industry and the members of the traditional American left who want to raise everyone’s power bill to enforce a lifestyle they find acceptable, all in exchange for nothing.

If you consider such consequences as hundreds of millions of climate refugees, the extinction of 15-40 percent of all species, the loss of 5-20 percent of global GDP, and the worst market failure ever to be nothing. If you consider what the head of the U.S. Pacific Fleet calls the biggest long-term security threat in the region to be nothing. If you consider threats to the global food supply and water supply and sanitation to be nothing. But once again, Rogers reveals himself with gratuitous swipes at his perceived political enemies, Al Gore and "Learjet liberals." Once again, Rogers is changing the subject from the science to his seething political disdain.

You don’t have to buy into the suspiciously precise claim by the Democrats that “there is a 97 percent consensus among scientific experts that humans are causing global warming” blah blah blah to believe there is sufficient cause for the world to take prudent collective action in an effort to avoid pollution-induced problems.
Suspiciously precise only to someone with a political agenda that has nothing to do with the actual science. That 97 percent consensus doesn't come from Democrats or politics, it comes from a detailed analysis of 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics "global climate change" or "global warming," including invited input from the authors of the studies.

Rogers continues in the same vein, transparently lashing out politically while ignoring the science. His point isn't to be rational or prudent, it is to change the terms of climate change denial. He pretends to acknowledge that there is a problem, while ignoring and blithely dismissing the science, focusing his real emotional energy on his petty political hatreds. The bottom line is that he advocates doing nothing. It would be clever if it weren't so obvious.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:42 AM PST.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  it's all about eliminating the Free Radicals, not (7+ / 0-)

    the prudent rationals so that we can have Semi-Socialism™

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:53:09 AM PST

  •  Ed Rogers is a #savvy insider! don't you know? (10+ / 0-)

    Seriously, Ed Rogers has been hacking away for years now from his perch in the Washington Post, once Jennifer Rubin made it legit. When he's not hacking away on climate change, he's hacking away on HCR. It's pathetic for a major media establishment.

    ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

    by NoFortunateSon on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 09:58:38 AM PST

    •  Ed Rogers bio (0+ / 0-)
      Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, and a veteran of the White House and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which he founded with former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour in 1991. Rogers has been involved with numerous Republican political campaigns, including the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In the first Bush White House, he reported to chief of staff John Sununu. In the Reagan White House, he worked in the office of political affairs.

      I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

      by Just Bob on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 06:59:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All I needed to read in that bio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rabrock, kirnerpilstime

        was that he is chairman of a lobbying firm.  In other words, it is his job to lie.  I just picture Aaron Eckhart's character from "Thank You for Smoking."  His attempt to rebrand denialism reminds me of the change from "creationism" to "intelligent design."

  •  'Dishonest" + WaPo. But I Repeat Myself nt (4+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:08:46 AM PST

  •  VP Gore is a problem (0+ / 0-)

    If he really believed that climate change is such a horrific problem, why not set an example and telecommute to the many climate change conferences he headlines?

    If Tom Steyer (hedge fund guy w/ 1.5B in net worth, recently announced that he will help elect Dems who are concerned about global warming) really believed that climate change is a problem, why does he raise grass-fed cattle?

    Then you have a certain Oligarch who claims to be concerned about the environment, but is simultaneously spearheading a venture that will enable fellow oligarchs to embark upon a carbon-emitting joyride into subspace.

    The message?

    The struggling soccer-mom should pay significantly more for fuel (whether it be via a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade).  But the Oligarchs won't be impacted at all.

    Do as I say, not as I do.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

    by PatriciaVa on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:13:14 AM PST

    •  who cares? (10+ / 0-)

      it's not about gore or steyer. get it?

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:23:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think VP Gore is the problem? (11+ / 0-)

      He was among the first to really elevate the debate that the rest of the media/ruling class wanted to ignore.

      "Pay more for fuel" -- really?  The most insightful policies would involve paying back fuel taxes equitably, so that average or median users get back their tax payment (and high users would get back less and low users more).  People would have a strong incentive to conserve, to get back more than their tax, but average users wouldn't lose money.

      Struggling soccer Mom my ass. Put a bike path and a sidewalk in your damned suburb and let the kids get around under their own power. If people choose to be surrounded and ruled by danger car enviro because they're too ascared to live near poor people or whatever, then too bleeping bad.

      Fossil fuel establishment needs to get used to the idea that their oily crap need to remain sequestered, and blaming the messenger for being unsaintly or whatever is just a cheap dodge.

    •  shocking... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, RichM, millwood

      that PatriciaVa has a comment opposed to the premise of a climate change diary here at DKos!

      Oh, wait.

      No it's not. It is EXACTLY what she does.
      Every. Single. Time.

      Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

      by LaughingPlanet on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:48:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is shocking is that so many Dems, with... (0+ / 0-)

        ..inequality being as profound as it was in 1929, don't have a problem exacerbating it via Regressive Energy Taxes.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

        by PatriciaVa on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:52:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ah yes... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RichM, millwood

          The thread-jack topic you can't resist raising...EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

          So you are fine with untold M/Billions languishing in poverty due to climate upheaval in the near future so long as "soccer moms" do not pay a few cents more for fuel?

          Seriously. Answer the question. Your climate action denial straw man wears no clothes, to mix metaphors.

          Global warming & smoking cigarettes = Nothing to worry about? Those who deny climate science are ignorant, evil or worse. Google Fred Singer.

          by LaughingPlanet on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:06:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There are ways to design a carbon tax (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RichM, wader

          so as to keep it from being regressive.

          "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

          by jrooth on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:11:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We've come to a consensus that the 99% have.. (0+ / 0-)

            ..been left behind.

            Can you design a carbon tax that will ensure that 99% of households will not experience a net increase in taxes.

            Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

            by PatriciaVa on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:14:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a ridiculous standard. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis, LaughingPlanet, wader

              Sure the bulk of increased wealth is going to the top 1% (or even the top 0.1%) but that doesn't mean there isn't another 5% or 10% or maybe even 20% who are doing well enough that they can choose to stick with their carbon-heavy lifestyle at some marginal increase in cost - or they could choose to improve their efficiency and garner a tax benefit.

              Freedom of choice and all that.

              "Turns out I'm really good at killing people." - President Obama

              by jrooth on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:45:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  has it ever been (0+ / 0-)


                Has any country put a carbon tax in place and achieved a reduction in carbon use?

                The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

                by GideonAB on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 04:37:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I wonder who (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  was the first guy to eat a snail?  Ooh!  It's never been tried so let's starve.

                  Right winger math is usually messed up.  We can't raise taxes because the 99% have missed out on 20 years of growth?

                  Well, the bottom 90% of the top 1% hasn't done so well either.  Gosh! We just can't do anything without crossing a red line.  Guess we'll just have to let the earth poach.

                  "Our problem is not that the glass is half empty or half full, but that the 1% claims that it is their glass." ---Stolen from a post on Daily Kos

                  by jestbill on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 06:34:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I don't know of any nation that has, but (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Garthhh, jrooth, JeffW
                  Has any country put a carbon tax in place and achieved a reduction in carbon use?
                  the Canadian province of British Columbia has a carbon tax, and has achieved a noticeable reduction in carbon emissions compared to all the other Canadian provinces.  BC isn't a country, but it's bigger and has more people than some small countries.  

                  "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." -- Sen Carl Schurz 1872

                  by Calamity Jean on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 03:24:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We tried here in Australia (0+ / 0-)

                    Didn't go so well with resistance from the far right.
                    Efforts to tax the mining companies more effectively didn't have the dividends anticipated either for some reason, I haven't looked too carefully into what happened yet, so many other issues happening locally.
                    Now those asses are in power.

                    I wish I had stocks in aluminium these days. All that foil would be a great investment opportunity.

                    by Ceri Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 08:57:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Should we just tolerate the Oil Oligopoly? (0+ / 0-)

              This argument supposes that the oligopoly will be here forever, and there is nothing we can do to mitigate the harm. I think we need real competition, so that people will have ways to save money. That in itself might not boost all poor people, but it will improve the real business climate: most companies don't have a stake in high oil company profits, but are hurt by high energy prices; so breaking the oligopoly helps them, too.

              Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

              by Judge Moonbox on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 07:23:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  nothing is anywhere as regressive (8+ / 0-)

          as climate change is going to be

        •  What you forget, PatriciaVa is this: (8+ / 0-)

          We ALREADY have what is effectively a regressive tax boosting inequality - it's called externalized costs. The carbon fuel industry reaps huge profits from filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases - and everyone else has to pay for the damage those gases are causing. Their profits come out of our pockets - and not just at the gas pump.

          They impose huge costs on everyone else while they take in the profits - and it goes beyond CO2 induced climate change. It's pollution fouling water supplies for hundreds of thousands of people - chemical and coal-ash spills. It's increased healthcare costs for people living downwind from coal-fired power plants, or next to highways with diesel truck fumes, or in seaport towns subject to the smoke particles from all those container ships. It's the battle for water for fracking in drought-stricken areas, and the risk to ground water supplies. It's about using eminent domain to take people's land, so that a pipeline can be built to carry the dirtiest tar-sands oil.

          But as a banner carrier for Robert Rubin (going by your sig line), a man  who did far more than his share to make that inequality possible, I have to wonder if you really understand who the oligarchs are, and how centrism is playing out for them.

          "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

          by xaxnar on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:17:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm... (0+ / 0-)

      Ed, I'm curious as to why you would choose a female name for your sock puppet.  I think you missed the point of this diary ENTIRELY.

      “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck (Disputed)

      by RichM on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 11:27:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This diary concentrates on public misinformation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      about climate change, which impacts public perception and could affect how strongly they try to influence their representatives and/or alter their vote choices, over time.

      The more than common folks learn about environmental extremes coming mostly from business owners as the primary culprits - and, that climate change is a dangerous path we're all on, together - the more enabled they can be to vote for candidates who represent economic fairness.  

      Because, it's a lack of economic fairness which has enabled massive polluters to begin degrading the spaces where common folks live, through unfair entitlements to pollute, tax breaks only available to the more wealthy, etc.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:18:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  grass fed beef? (4+ / 0-)

      They have a radically lower carbon footprint than traditional beef production.

      but hey, if it's o.k. to kill the planet if you are poor, right?  You get a free pass on fucking things up for everyone!

    •  Criticism of Al Gore conveys the insinuation... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ... that change is only possible if the prosperous make major sacrifices when in fact, change will result from everyone - many millions of us - sharing relatively small sacrifices.

      The critics want to frighten the middle-class voter into thinking that the climate nazis are coming to take his SUV and force him to commute to work on a bus full of "other" people.

      This appeals to the right-wing perception that liberals are all "levelers" (or less politely, "communists").

      The best response to the critics of Al Gore is to ask them what they have against rich people... while they're trying to figure out an answer to that, remind them that we're not asking anyone to stop using energy - only to stop wasting it.

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
      he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

      by jjohnjj on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 06:52:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you disagree with argument that Liberals (0+ / 0-)

        want guaranteed outcomes? Read some of the diaries on inequality.

        This appeals to the right-wing perception that liberals are all "levelers" (or less politely, "communists").

        New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

        by AlexDrew on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 03:55:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Does your sig line suggest... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That Tea Party blogs have clout and credibility?
          Because... I think not.

          Never trust anyone who considers "bleeding heart" to be an insult.

          by jayfrenchstudios on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 03:00:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a reminder of how Dems take us for granted (0+ / 0-)

            Schumer had zero fear of saying that out loud. Do you think McConnell or Boehner would say that about Demint or Rand Paul?

            New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

            by AlexDrew on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 03:41:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Rogers' piece is absurd on its face (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, unfangus, David54

    Ed Rogers is a professional.  He gets paid to do the job he does - and he has done it well enough, long enough, that he gets paid quite well.  If he was giving it away for free, that would be sign of desperation, something no Villager can afford to broadcast.  I have no idea what, if anything, the Post pays for an op-ed piece, but you can be sure that was not the payday for which he worked. There's something else happening here.

    Instead, it seems to me that the usual climate change deniers are losing their grip.  Mother nature bats last, and this last year, she hit a triple.  We've had super storms, droughts, and a polar vortex that combined make it hard for anyone to ignore the fact that all those climate scientists are on to something.  So, the interests funding climate change denial need to switch - which is where Ed Rogers gets a look.  If a call for "prudence" works as well as the casting of doubt has for the past several decades, Ed Rogers and those of his ilk will be making a whole lot of pitches.

    But, the politics of this is changing.  For one thing, the reality of changing climate is increasingly hard to ignore, and it is changing increasingly rapidly.  That is bad news indeed for those actually trying to do something about it, but it makes the politics of denial more difficult.  For another thing, to the extent that policy is set in an auction, there are bidders on the climate change affirmation side now.  If it is true that policy debates are settled on the side of big business, that tide has turned.  I am hopeful that the comedic nature of the Rogers appeal will be highlighted since is it absurd on its face.  

    •  But what job is he being paid to do? (5+ / 0-)
      Ed Rogers is a professional.  He gets paid to do the job he does - and he has done it well enough, long enough, that he gets paid quite well.
      Because it doesn't appear to be "honestly reporting the news and informing people"

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:47:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he gets paid (9+ / 0-)

        to spew gop propaganda in major media.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 10:48:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Waiter, what is that fly doing in my soup? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        twigg, YucatanMan, jrooth

        From his bio: "Ed Rogers is the Chairman of the BGR Group. He founded the firm with former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour in 1991.

        BGR is the premier government relations, strategic consulting, public relations, mergers and acquisitions, and investment firm with offices in Washington D.C. and London. http:&xC5;"

        Honestly reporting the news and informing people is the furthest thing from Mr. Rogers' real job.  In fact, if he actually did those things, both his clients and the Washington Post would quickly find someone else.

      •  With the weird weather and the "polar vortex" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and the costs of that weird weather mounting, he's out there trying to make the "fall-back" argument that even if you think there's a problem there's nothing we can do because it would take global action and anything we do as a country will just hurt us economically and not fix the problem.

        He's wrong, but as "climate denialism because God" starts to slip, they'll come up with more and more "fall back " arguments.

        I commented below about "What every President should know about energy efficiency". The case has been made that the US could lead the developing economies (India, China) into energy efficiency and that would have more impact on global warming than if we went to 100% electric vehicles in the US.
        That would also be good for our economy and create jobs.

        Furthermore, if we pro-actively start planning a response to climate change, we can, again, stimulate new sectors of our economy, and reduce the consequences of catastrophic weather. That would also create jobs.
        Basically, he's only looking out for the oil companies.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:40:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes--fossil fuel firms have more political power (0+ / 0-)

          than President and Congress.  And fossil fuel firms demand to be able to sell their fossil fuel reserves at a GOOD price  (i. e. a HIGH price).  We stand a much better chance of saving our farms from global warming if we make up our minds that it will cost $2 trillion a year every year for at least the next 60 years--$1 trillion/year for harnessing renewable energy for both the United States and the rest of the world and $1 trillion/year for buying fossil fuel reserves as mineral rights to placate the fossil fuel firms.

    •  4 Color Map Theorem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, Pescadero Bill

      A lot of the criticism of Climate Change sounds like the critics think that if they find ONE counterexample, one map that requires 5 colors, that means we don't have to do anything about it.

      I think we should tell them to treat it as a generalized Pascal's Wager.

      Blaise Pascal argued that if we believe in God and there is no God, we are in no worse position for it after we die. But if there is a God and we believe their isn't; we suffer eternal damnation.
      I won't endorse a view that God is like a teacher who rewards His pets and flunks better students who don't flatter Him.

      I do think we can generalize on the concept of wagering based on which wrong answer would be worse. If we move against global warming and there is none, that would mean the Oil Oligopoly won't have so much money. The air would be less polluted and the city streets less congested. Petrodictators wouldn't profit from high energy prices, etc.

      However, if the anthropogenic climate change is for real and we ignore it, sea levels will rise, inundating coast lines, with the attendant loss of value on billions--maybe trillions worth of seashore development. Storms get fiercer as El Nino becomes El Hombre.

      Climate change deniers must expect that they'll die soon; and that nothing after that matters.

      Freedom's just another word for not enough to eat. --Paul Krugman's characterization of conservative attitudes.

      by Judge Moonbox on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 07:56:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time and the Argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If we spent as much time on doing things that EVERYONE can agree on which mitigate or adapt to climate change (or whatever we want to call it) and weather emergencies as we do on arguing about the existence or non-existence of climate change (or whatever we want to call it), we'd be a whole hell of a lot better off.

    Climate change is moot.  Solar IS Civil Defense.  More energy efficiency means more money left in your pocket and less waste throughout the system.  

    I know how people love to butt heads but it tends to result only in headaches.  We should shift our perspective a few inches and begin to find places of agreement wherever we can so that we can start saving resources, lives, and ecosystems.

  •  The biggest problem for Global Warming denial (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, jrooth

    and for Yes, Global Warming, But We Can't Do Anything About It Ed Rogers is that the markets that they profess to love so much have spoken. Coal for generating electricity is going down. Even Goldman Sachs, no den of tree-huggers, is advising against it as an investment. Coal export terminals, too.

    The weird thing, to me, is that there are trillions of dollars to be made in renewable energy, but that these people would rather be remembered as the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century. Although Chevron and BP say they are trying to make the switch.

    T. Boone Pickens, also not a tree-hugger, has pleaded with Congress to create the appropriate regulatory environment to build the smart grid needed to get wind power from the Dakotas to other markets, so that he and others can put billions of dollars into installing turbines there. Here is another example from Texas.

    New power lines will make Texas the world's 5th-largest wind power producer

    As CREZ neared completion last year, ERCOT officials witnessed an unprecedented surge in new wind farm proposals from West Texas and the Panhandle, where the new lines have opened millions of acres for potential development. Roughly 25,000 MW of wind energy projects are currently under study by the agency, Searcy said, and ERCOT has completed interconnection agreements for 7,500 MW of new wind power.

    When all of that new generation comes online in 2016, West Texas should send nearly 16,000 MW of power to the grid, as much wind energy as the current combined output of the next three largest wind-producing states -- California, Iowa and Illinois.

    And as other resources -- including those from the Texas coastal zone -- come online, Texas by the end of the decade should be the fifth largest wind energy producer in the world, trailing only China, the United States as a whole, Germany and Spain, according to figures from the World Wind Energy Association.

    Beyond bragging rights, the surge in Texas wind power should also improve the state's electric reliability…

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:10:14 PM PST

  •  America is supposed to lead. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    We should get out in front of this and lead the technology that will get us past this.

    I listened to speeches online from the Artur Rosenfeld Symposium on Energy Efficiency  at U C Davis, a couple years ago, spec. "What every President should know about energy efficiency.
    It was available online from UCTV, I haven't checked recently.
    They made the point that innovation in energy efficiency could do more globally to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, etc. than if the US completely converted to electric cars.
    US can lead these innovations, and China and India will adopt the innovations, because it's in their own best interests.
    At any rate, Rogers is one of the worst assholes in the gop. Shut him up and you significantly reduce gas emissions.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:27:52 PM PST

  •  Another once important newspaper... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, FishOutofWater not worth the paper it's printed on. A home for hacks, on staff or invited.  They should just merge it with the Washington Times and call it the Washington Post Times. Then it could get out of the news business altogether and just handicap horse races.  

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

    by voicemail on Fri Feb 28, 2014 at 12:41:39 PM PST

  •  I have the perfect idea as a prudent irrational (3+ / 0-)

    Every polluter over a  certain standard needs to erect a bubble around their factory that no longer socializes their pollution. Preferably, the CEO is forced to live in the bubbled factory on site, since their pollution doesn't cause much harm.

  •  When was the last time (3+ / 0-)

    anyone identified himself as an Imprudent Irrational?

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho

    by DocDawg on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 04:15:50 PM PST

  •  Hey Jeff Bezos! WaPo is a hangout for climate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, The grouch

    deniers and that's a problem.

  •  Pass this around... (4+ / 0-)

    10 million scallops recently died off of the coast of Vancouver.

    The water is very acidic and the scallops cannot adjust to it. Why is it acidic you say? The water is too warm.

  •  Wording that is the best I've heard in a long.. (4+ / 0-)

    ..while to pin down the GOP:

    [GOP]..create an artificial bias in their favor, a self-created appeal to authority that has nothing to do with the strength of their arguments.
    ..[GOP climate change denial argument]..isn't to be rational or prudent, it is to change the terms..

    [GOP].. pretends to acknowledge that there is a problem, while ignoring and blithely dismissing the science, focusing his its real emotional energy on his its petty political hatreds

     - LL

    And this from Rogers/republicans when it comes to dealing with actual facts is a perfect example:
    ..suspiciously precise claim by the Democrats
    facts = suspiciously accurate claims - rotflmao - if it wasn't such destructive behavior by the RWNJ's

    Thx Laurence Lewis for telling it so well

    Although clever isn't how I would label these corpo-sycophants. Lying, shilling; pretty mundane stuff at this point  

  •  The 2 Costs (4+ / 0-)

    Cost of Action vs. Inaction:

    Cost of Action could be a recession/depression, assuming that spending money on innovation and businesses, for the 1st time in history, has no stimulative effect on the economy, and that cleaning the air for the 1st time in history has no health benefits whatsoever.

    Cost of Inaction will include loss of potable water and food sources, global resource wars, global depression and the mass die off of species, humans among them.

    Only a madman would tout inaction as a viable choice.

  •  Total hack job (4+ / 0-)

    Rogers should have paid the WaPo for the privilege of running that piece of demagoguery. That wasn't intended to spark debate - it was intended to close minds.

    His two main points seem to be the ones Republicans always fall back on: freedom-hating liberals are always wrong, and doing anything would cost too much money.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 04:50:56 PM PST

    •  SNORT! The scientific posse in this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, Eric Nelson, Calamity Jean

      country has known about climate change since the 1960s. As did a lot of us citizens, young and old. Back then the hysteria was over the Ozone Layer. The pollution was tearing serious holes in that layer. The worldwide reaction lowered the tearing drastically.

      Now this which is 100% worse. Plus, all the corruption produced by the you-know-what at the top of the cosmic sewer. Glad my shelf life won't be much longer.

      Through thoughts, words and actions, we live the truth we know. -- L. Spencer

      by orlbucfan on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:30:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  banning CFCs was easy (0+ / 0-)

        They just came up with different refrigerants. And that one specific problem was solved.

        But climate change is a whole lot bigger, a whole lot tougher. And, in the very short term, results in less profit for existing mega-industries. Preparing for a lower-carbon economy requires a good deal of capital expenditures -- new processes, new supply lines, new products. While it's a net positive in the long term, innovation is not good for quarterly balance sheets.

        The next quarterly report is the only thing that matters to Wall Street. And what matters to Wall Street is what matters to the GOP.

        I'll always be UID:180, even if Markos tries to pry it away.

        by N in Seattle on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 06:38:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  But this dude has totally given away the code. (4+ / 0-)

    It's cost. A "cost proportional to the outcome." And it's just so ... global ... that our poor efforts will be for naught.

    So no news here. The ostriches have it right. Let's look the other way.

    That's been the argument all long, but it's been surrounded by other kinds of denial. And each year, the efforts will cost ... more. Thanks for your insight, Ed!

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:30:24 PM PST

  •  Here's something I hate. (4+ / 0-)

    I worry about Republican voter suppression and gerrymandering. I'm concerned about LGBT rights, and racial inequality, corporate personhood, and so many other things.

    None of that, absolutely none, means shit if we don't address climate change. What will matter then is food and water, whether the oceans are going to go tits up and leave the world nearly devoid of life for thousands of years.

    Even if i were crazy enough to buy into all the other crap the conservative universe puts forward, that alone would disqualify them from having a voice in our governance. How in the world can you ignore reality so completely? And the easy answer, that their paychecks depend on it, fills me with a level of contempt that cannot be measured.

  •  Will anyone call him out on his strawman (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Calamity Jean

    arguments? A purportedly 'serious' journalist should be ashamed to use such an anti-intellectual device...oh wait, he's GOP.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

    by JWK on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 05:43:32 PM PST

  •  The Pudent Rationals? (3+ / 0-)

    Pretty sure I saw them open for Vanilla Fudge.

    I'll tell you right out, I am a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk. - Kasper Gutman

    by rasbobbo on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 06:44:09 PM PST

  •  Roger's BGR lobbying group (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    helped vacuum up $300 million in DOE funds for the Kemper coal fired power plant under construction in  Mississippi.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 08:19:47 PM PST

  •  Just watched this little video (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    on Crooks & Liars before switching to DK. It makes sense to me.

  •  WaPo's nickname (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    (well deserved) is "Fox on Fifteenth St."

    ...there is NOTHING--absolute nothing--half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats. - Ratty

    by John Q on Sat Mar 01, 2014 at 10:15:31 PM PST

  •  'This isn't about politics, it's about science.' (0+ / 0-)

    Exactly. And until people realize this, meaningful change cannot begin. But 'science-deniers' retreat to political talking points, then to religion, and finally they shut down entirely.

    In this case, the sword that we wield is forged from logic and reason - and they provide nothing to strike at.

  •  We fail to hold them to this quetion... (0+ / 0-)

    What if you are wrong?  And we could also ask them what if they are right?  Should we go on polluting anyway?  These guys ought to be strung up in the town square for all to enjoy!

  •  Ed Rogers must be some fine, upstanding (0+ / 0-)

    Christian citizen, or I'll be damned to hell for all of eternity!

  •  That is a very, very well crafted screed... (0+ / 0-)

    I have a hard time believing Ed Rogers just tossed that off based on his own casual musings. It seems very finely crafted to zero in on a very specific audience.

    It is exactly this kind of targeted propaganda that is so effective. He is targeting a specific demographic. While he does that, one of his allies targets another slice of deniers with a totally different argument.

    A lot of carefully thought out psychological buttons are getting pushed in that piece. It is very sophisticated.

    It's evil.

  •  Doing nothing is always an option.... (0+ / 0-)

    However, it does not come without risk.  Assuming things are getting worse...which is pretty obvious, the question is simply can we do anything.  We are likely not the only cause, but we are aggravating things.  Anything we can do would only improve the situation.  It's likely a big part of the reason some other countries aren't responding is because we aren't.  Thanks to Bush II we gave up any claim to moral leadership, so we can't very well play that card...and in any case we haven't got the guts to do it anyway.  Sad...but nonetheless true.

  •  97% is actually low (0+ / 0-)

    97% is the consensus among scientists and what they personally believe, not the actual data.  Among the 12000 climate change documents published, I believe it was around 30 that disputed that man-made climate change was occurring.  Turns out that the scientists disputing climate change don't tend to publish many papers.

  •  "Prudent Rationals"??!! (0+ / 0-)

    I would ask you at this juncture to think about the most reckless, least rational individual you have ever met.  I'm willing to bet a week's pay that the person you are thinking of considers him- or herself to be both prudent and rational.  As an example that we are ALL far too familiar with, I'd simply point to the most recent ex-President.

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:37:07 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site