Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Rinaldo]

Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.

No, they're not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. 

Protecting the environment = intervention. Ecologists by definition have to lean away from the 'free market über alles' line of thinking.

[Florestan]

You rightist bastard: contributing to global warming!!               

Global warming is a leftist hoax, so there.  ;

[Gurn Blanston]

Global warming is a leftist hoax, so there.  ;

I know, I started it!    

[Florestan]

No, they're not:

Okay.

Protecting the environment = intervention. Ecologists by definition have to lean away from the 'free market über alles' line of thinking.

I was refering more to LGBTABCDEFGetcetcetc, abortion-at-ones-own-ease, dead-white-European-males, rape culture and the likes than laissez-faire, which never happened anywhere, btw. 

I´m not against protecting the environment. I´m against using the protection of the environment as a tool to promote other issues that have got nothing at all to do with it.

[NorthNYMark]

Although I´m not a libertarian stricto sensu (and I doubt the three gentlemen you mentioned are, too), I am mostly in agreement with them, my frequent polemics with Todd notwithstanding. 

Lefties and righties are all the same --- they all pledge their allegiance to an ideology; they differ only in their choice of the respective ideology. 

Sort of like libertarians or Catholics, then! 

[Gurn Blanston]

Okay.

I´m not against protecting the environment. I´m against using the protection of the environment as a tool to promote other issues that have got nothing at all to do with it.

What, politics don't make strange bedfellows in Romania?  Of course, over here, being environmentally concerned automatically makes you a godless fu**ing commie, so you have that to deal with. You will end up lumped in with the transgender abortionists whether you are  one or not if you just like trees, fish or birds (as something other than targets, that is). So you might as well make the most of it.

[NorthNYMark]

I´m not saying "It can never happen!". Shit happens everytime and everywhere. But if the only criterion for assessing the necessity / utility of a certain technology had been just how risky it was, then we would have still dwelled in caves, with no fire-heating at all, let alone bow-and-arrows hunting.

We must decide: do we want cheap power and heating? Are we willing to take the risks associated with them? Do the advantages outbalance the risks? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes --- but of course YMMV.

As you said above, I think we are substantially in agreement here.  However, what you described is what I would call a risk-benefit assessment, and I think people should be able to come to different conclusions from you or me about where they are willing to draw that line without being labeled "anti-science" or "intellectually dishonest."  Most anti-nuclear power arguments I have heard are not anti-science at all, but interpret the science as suggesting, perhaps even demanding, a need to proceed with extreme caution. They feel that those who are in favor of nuclear plants haven't taken the science seriously enough. It's actually what I would call a "lower-case-c conservative" position--they understand and accept the science, and aren't willing to accept the risks associated with certain courses of action. 

[Todd]

Most anti-nuclear power arguments I have heard are not anti-science at all, but interpret the science as suggesting, perhaps even demanding, a need to proceed with extreme caution.

This sentence is confusing.  Are you saying that anti-nuclear advocates recognize that there is scientific validity to nuclear power, and that nuclear power can be safely generated, provided it is done properly - ie, with extreme caution - but that such advocates reject nuclear power anyway?  If so, how would the rejection not be anti-science?  The implication is that the level of risk could never be low enough for anti-nuclear activists.

[NorthNYMark]

This sentence is confusing.  Are you saying that anti-nuclear advocates recognize that there is scientific validity to nuclear power, and that nuclear power can be safely generated, provided it is done properly - ie, with extreme caution - but that such advocates reject nuclear power anyway?  If so, how would the rejection not be anti-science?  The implication is that the level of risk could never be low enough for anti-nuclear activists.

I thought that was answered by another poster--the key may be "provided it is done properly."  The anti-nuclear folks I know (who may or may not be representative of the larger category) keep up  with the science, and would be thrilled if they were convinced that a foolproof way to implement nuclear power in this country had been devised.  I can't speak to what the sticking points are, as it it is well outside my area of expertise,  but now that I think of it, many of the people I am thinking of are scientists themselves (as they are the ones most likely to follow the debates closely enough to have strong opinions on the subject). Often, they think that nuclear power is necessary to survive in the future, but are very concerned that we have not yet reached the point where we could "do it properly."

[Todd]

The anti-nuclear folks I know (who may or may not be representative of the larger category) keep up  with the science, and would be thrilled if they were convinced that a foolproof way to implement nuclear power in this country had been devised.

Then these arguments against nuclear power basically move into at least the ascientific realm.  A word like "foolproof" is just a nice-sounding way of taking what amounts to an absolutist position.  Foolproof basically equates with either no risk or a level of risk that cannot be obtained.  Nuclear power, like anything else, involves risk management, which you mentioned earlier, and as assuredly as there may be small-c conservatives who don't take risk seriously enough, there are people on the other side who will hold that any level of risk is too high. 

[Pat B]

As I mentioned above, the only really prominent political figures who have embraced the idea (that I am aware of) are Michelle Bachmann and Rand Paul.  If it were really a mainly left-wing movement, one would think that democrats would find it to their advantage to embrace it--but as far as I know, none have. Again, just anecdotally, among my social media circle, it is generally perceived as a Fox News driven issue. This may not be entirely accurate, but anti-vax is most certainly not something that has been embraced by the left in any public way in the way it has by the right.

A quick google indicated the recent anti-vax (not just anti-mandate) U.S. Representatives include:
Bill Posey (R-FL)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Dan Burton (R-IN, since retired)
Dave Weldon (R-FL, since retired, replaced by Posey)

With Darrell Issa (R-CA) flirting with it.

Mother Jones, talkingpointsmemo, vox, huffingtonpost, and thinkprogress are all pro-vaccine as far as I can tell.

Frankly it's a fringe issue among politicians and the general public.

Whereas here in Texas, our new Lt. Gov (historically regarded as the most powerful politician in the state), Dan Patrick, said this:

"Our children must really be confused. We want them to go to school on Sunday and we teach them about Jesus Christ and then they go to school on Monday—they can't pray they can't learn about creationism. They must really be confused. When it comes to creationism, not only should it be taught, it should be triumphed, it should be heralded."

At least one U.S. Senator (Daines) and a couple of Republican Presidential candidates (Santorum, Jindal) have also explicitly supported teaching Creationism in school. Granted, those two candidates are longshots, but if RFK, Jr. counts as a prominent liberal then surely all of Patrick, Daines, Santorum, and Jindal are prominent conservatives.

[Pat B]

I thought that was answered by another poster--the key may be "provided it is done properly."  The anti-nuclear folks I know (who may or may not be representative of the larger category) keep up  with the science, and would be thrilled if they were convinced that a foolproof way to implement nuclear power in this country had been devised.  I can't speak to what the sticking points are, as it it is well outside my area of expertise,  but now that I think of it, many of the people I am thinking of are scientists themselves (as they are the ones most likely to follow the debates closely enough to have strong opinions on the subject). Often, they think that nuclear power is necessary to survive in the future, but are very concerned that we have not yet reached the point where we could "do it properly."

I'm with Todd on this. "Foolproof" is an impossible standard that is not met by any form of energy conversion. Nuclear is relatively safe, but when something goes wrong, it's bigger news. Many more people die of coal-related causes, but they do so one at a time. There's no story there.

Sort of like how when 7 people die in a train crash, it's national news with a Congressional inquiry, but automotive deaths in the U.S. are around 30,000 annually, and hardly anybody talks about that.

[NorthNYMark]

Then these arguments against nuclear power basically move into at least the ascientific realm.  A word like "foolproof" is just a nice-sounding way of taking what amounts to an absolutist position.  Foolproof basically equates with either no risk or a level of risk that cannot be obtained.  Nuclear power, like anything else, involves risk management, which you mentioned earlier, and as assuredly as there may be small-c conservatives who don't take risk seriously enough, there are people on the other side who will hold that any level of risk is too high.

Yes, but I see no reason to take your personal assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to be pro-science and that of someone who disagrees with you as anti-science.  The scientists who take the position I described might consider your acceptance of these particular risks to be in denial of the science on the possible consequences. I am not personally taking a position on which side is right, but I think it's self-serving for a nuclear power advocate to assume its critics are anti-science, just as it would be for them to make that assumption of you. Equating a particular use of a particular technology, on a particular timeable, with "science" tout court is the fallacy I'm seeing here.  I could be wrong on this, but I've hardly seen this  as a situation of nearly all the physicists on the one side, pitted against activists and politicians on the other--if that is, in fact, the case, I'll grant your point.  But it seems to me simply an issue of intense controversy among scientists, among politicians, among competing economic interests, etc., where no one side can claim the sole imprimatur of "science."

By the way, by "small c conservatives," I meant conservatism in the most abstract sense, detached from any partisan political implications, which I understand to be concerned  with protection from potential danger and caution in relation to change.  I'm saying that the anti-nuke position is conservative in this sense, though not in the political one.  They are conservative (in a non-political sense) about moving forward with something they see as extremely risky if not done perfectly.

[NorthNYMark]

I'm with Todd on this. "Foolproof" is an impossible standard that is not met by any form of energy conversion. Nuclear is relatively safe, but when something goes wrong, it's bigger news. Many more people die of coal-related causes, but they do so one at a time. There's no story there.

Sort of like how when 7 people die in a train crash, it's national news with a Congressional inquiry, but automotive deaths in the U.S. are around 30,000 annually, and hardly anybody talks about that.

Good points.  What you are saying probably comes closest to describing my own personal position, but to continue defending what I believe to be a reasonable (and not in any way anti-scientific) counter position, I believe the concerns about nuclear accidents involve potential contamination on a much larger, more long-lasting, and perhaps less controllable scale, than those of other forms of energy extraction (and actually, it seems to me that a lot of anti-nuclear folks are also anti-coal, but that a different debate). There is a sense among some that the full impact of a really serious accident may not be understood by some on the pro-nuclear side, who they see as being in denial or at least engaged in wishful thinking, both that we won't manage to screw it up in a major way, and that the impact won't be devastating. They seem to think the point Florestan made earlier--that if we always used that standard of caution, we'd still be living in caves--fails to understand the nuclear science involved.  They feel that the damage possible is on a completely different scale from that of any previous type of technology. And frankly, I find it hard to come up with examples to support that (rhetorical) claim about living in caves--how would inventions like the printing press, reinforced concrete, or the steam engine be seen as posing risks equivalent to nuclear disasters?

[Ken B]

Is the sarcasm necessary?  I admitted that it was my perception based only on anecdotal experience; I am certainly  open to changing it.  I had no idea about RFK, Jr. I just looked it up.  Why is this not as well known as the Michelle Bachmann incident?  Possibly "liberal media bias"--but I suspect it's more likely due to the fact that he's not currently running for president, as I believe she was at the time she made her comments.  On the other hand, it sounds like he is more deeply committed to the position than she ever seemed to be.

I felt that pointing out RFK Jr was involved in this was a bit like pointing out FDR was involved in the New Deal. My error.

Bachmann is in no sense prominent except as she was made so briefly by the media looking for an easy ( very easy) target, and she saw a chance for her 15 minutes.  In a poll of Tea Partiers for instance, with whom is she is often misleadingly cast, she placed dead last in a straw poll. She is a religious and social conservative, and a fanatic on abortion. (She couldn't even do well in her own state when she ran for publicity president. )These are not tea party issues.

[Ken B]

A quick google indicated the recent anti-vax (not just anti-mandate) U.S. Representatives include:
Bill Posey (R-FL)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Dan Burton (R-IN, since retired)
Dave Weldon (R-FL, since retired, replaced by Posey)

With Darrell Issa (R-CA) flirting with it.

Mother Jones, talkingpointsmemo, vox, huffingtonpost, and thinkprogress are all pro-vaccine as far as I can tell.

Frankly it's a fringe issue among politicians and the general public.

Whereas here in Texas, our new Lt. Gov (historically regarded as the most powerful politician in the state), Dan Patrick, said this:

"Our children must really be confused. We want them to go to school on Sunday and we teach them about Jesus Christ and then they go to school on Monday—they can't pray they can't learn about creationism. They must really be confused. When it comes to creationism, not only should it be taught, it should be triumphed, it should be heralded."

At least one U.S. Senator (Daines) and a couple of Republican Presidential candidates (Santorum, Jindal) have also explicitly supported teaching Creationism in school. Granted, those two candidates are longshots, but if RFK, Jr. counts as a prominent liberal then surely all of Patrick, Daines, Santorum, and Jindal are prominent conservatives.

Over the past few years HuffPo has been a hotbed of antivax. They may have reformed more recently.

[Ken B]

You are correct. Research/studies/surveys show that there is really not much difference across parties, looking at the country as a whole.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/young-adults-more-likely-to-say-vaccinating-kids-should-be-a-parental-choice/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/09/heres-how-many-americans-are-actually-anti-vaxxers/
http://mic.com/articles/109806/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-anti-vaxxers-isn-t-disease-it-s-politicians

Christie also made some comments similar to Rand, but then back-tracked. In any case, a great majority of national politicians came out in support of vaccination, both Democrats and Republicans.

Ok. This is exactly the sort of nonsense I tried to head off Gurn. The Pew poll is about a policy, not about acceptance or rejection of the science. There are many bad reasons to support "choice" in vaccinations, such as being reflexively pro "choice", or lacking experience, or vicarious experience of elders, about diseases.

Support for abortion does not imply rejection of the science about fetal viability does it? Policy disagreement does not mean ignorance.

[Todd]

Yes, but I see no reason to take your personal assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to be pro-science and that of someone who disagrees with you as anti-science.

In my last post, I used the word ascientific, to differentiate it from anti-scientific.  Anti-scientific anti-nuclear activists and others tend to rely on old-fashioned scare tactics (Chernobyl!!!  Birth defects!!! Unsafe drinking water!!!) and similar tactics, whereas what you described in the post I replied to involved using scientific evidence as the basis for opposing the use of nuclear power, but ultimately coming to an anti-nuclear conclusion based at last in significant part on non-scientific ideas or concerns, in this case a perception of risk, which is clearly informed by things other than statistical probability.

Of course, a big non-scientific reason I am pro-nuclear is that I know the practical reality of electricity generation in the US today, and in other countries, and what that means.  Roughly 20% of total electricity in the US is produced by nuclear power plants.  Going non-nuclear would require a huge investment in other sources of electricity generation, and renewable sources cannot make up the current levels produced by nuclear in any short or medium period of time.  A country like France, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, would have it even worse.  And is it a coincidence that France has one of the lowest per capita carbon emission levels in the developed world?

Nuclear power must be part of the energy mix in the coming decades and centuries.  It should not, cannot become the main source of energy (there literally is not enough uranium to be mined), but if the US as a country, and the world as a whole, wants to move away from excessive reliance on carbon based fuels, other reliable, on-demand forms of electricity generation are needed to augment intermittent forms of electricity (eg, wind, solar).  Nuclear power is actually quite safe, and it can be made safer.  That seems like a laudable goal to me.

[Pat B]

Over the past few years HuffPo has been a hotbed of antivax. They may have reformed more recently.

Could be. I don't frequent that site. I googled it, read a few of the articles (like this), and got the impression that they were pro-vax, but closer to neutral than several of the other sites I mentioned. But my analysis wasn't scientific.

[NorthNYMark]

In my last post, I used the word ascientific, to differentiate it from anti-scientific.  Anti-scientific anti-nuclear activists and others tend to rely on old-fashioned scare tactics (Chernobyl!!!  Birth defects!!! Unsafe drinking water!!!) and similar tactics, whereas what you described in the post I replied to involved using scientific evidence as the basis for opposing the use of nuclear power, but ultimately coming to an anti-nuclear conclusion based at last in significant part on non-scientific ideas or concerns, in this case a perception of risk, which is clearly informed by things other than statistical probability.

Of course, a big non-scientific reason I am pro-nuclear is that I know the practical reality of electricity generation in the US today, and in other countries, and what that means.  Roughly 20% of total electricity in the US is produced by nuclear power plants.  Going non-nuclear would require a huge investment in other sources of electricity generation, and renewable sources cannot make up the current levels produced by nuclear in any short or medium period of time.  A country like France, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, would have it even worse.  And is it a coincidence that France has one of the lowest per capita carbon emission levels in the developed world?

Nuclear power must be part of the energy mix in the coming decades and centuries.  It should not, cannot become the main source of energy (there literally is not enough uranium to be mined), but if the US as a country, and the world as a whole, wants to move away from excessive reliance on carbon based fuels, other reliable, on-demand forms of electricity generation are needed to augment intermittent forms of electricity (eg, wind, solar).  Nuclear power is actually quite safe, and it can be made safer.  That seems like a laudable goal to me.

I won't keep arguing about the first paragraph, and will just leave it at "fair enough."  As to the rest, I agree with pretty much everything you say.