Are Global Warming Skeptics criminals?
I was wrong. I thought the whole man made Global Warming issue had been thoroughly fisked and dissected. I thought the hockey stick had been reduced to splinters.
How was I to know that things would get goofy on an unimagined scale? How goofy you ask? There is now a call to try Global Warming Skeptics for War Crimes. Or should that be “thought crimes”? Welcome to the far left extremist world of 1984. Leo Rosten once wrote, “Extremists think ”communication” means agreeing with them. ” And what if you don’t?
Far left extremists say you should be arrested and tried. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts wrote, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Roberts has called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry”.
Okay, Roberts is a full blown nutcase. No way anyone respectable could believe in arresting people for thought crimes. Right?
Er. Not exactly.
Pulitzer Prize winning author Ellen Goodman writes, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
Dennis Prager writes, “the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does. If you don’t believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted.”
I wonder if the ACLU will step in to defend the First Amendment? Or will they step in to prosecute “the bastards”?
February 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I had a feeling that the people pushing the phrase “global warming deniers” had an agenda. I actually did a bit of research trying to track down the origin, but no luck.
However, there sure seems to be a boatload of “useful idiots” that have incorporated that little slogan of propaganda into their personal lexicon.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
What, the American Civilian Liberals Union?
February 14th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Without knowing more, I’d guess that Ellen Goodman’s equation of global warming deniers to holocaust deniers is not so much about casting holocaust deniers as evil as it is to dramatize the lunacy of denying overwhelming evidence accepted by the vast majority of the mainstream scientific community.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
However denying “overwhelming evidence accepted by the vasat majority of the mainstream scientific community” show the world was round, not flat…
February 14th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Hugger, is the vast majority of scientific consensus scientific or political?
Analytically there are many problems with both the theory and the consensus. In science there are no deniers. There is no such thing as deniers in science. There are however skeptics. Skeptics in science are not criminals. The attempt to “criminalize” skeptical thought should be a red flag to all thinking people. Why would the “thought crime” idea be proposed if the man made Global Warming theory was a slam dunk?
Welcome to the Skeptics corner:
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
Study: Glacier melting can be variable
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.
Experts question theory on global warming
February 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
We’re probably on an overall global warming trend. We most assuredly are experiencing one at least in the short term. I’m pretty sure that the “vast majority of the mainstream scientific community” agree with that too. I do not agree with the notion that the present warming trend is indisputably 100% manmade. I am unsure if the “vast majority of the mainstream scientific community” swallow that notion too.
Speaking of buzzwords, “vast majority” and “overwhelming consensus” have been bouncing around the olde green-scam-enviro-echo-chamber for quite a while too.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
You can question the theory of gravity, throw eggs at string theory (do it sometime, it’s remarkably fun), and shake around relativity to see what drops out. It’s not only accepted, you can get grants for this sorta stuff.
But do so little as touch politically applied science — even to apply the widely accepted results in a strange way — and there will be much gnashing of teeth.
One example outside global warming would be smoking. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you, right? It’s a matter of how bad. For example, the cancer risk for pipe smokers is around 1.25-1.89 (1.64 seems the most accurate analysis), not statistically significant. Bring this up, however, and anyone on the smoking cessation team will try to strip your flesh from your bones — smoking is bad, and they have to stop it; pointing out a form of smoking that isn’t particularly bad is anathema. The “dose doesn’t make poison” folk are even worse.
Science doesn’t have denialists. It has people willing to debate. Even the very theories about the earth around us, things that were observed and obvious for decades if not centuries, can be shown to be wrong. Classical mechanics has a massive amount of evidence behind it, but without skeptics we’d have never recognized that it was based on a flawed understanding of the universe.
That scientists who claim their default state to be skepticism would advocate courts for skeptics… ugh, doesn’t bode well.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
An amazing far left liberal reply on the KnoxViews website. Commenter Steve will not come over to Say Uncle, cooties or some such concern, but you have to read his ideas on freedom of speech. Unbelievable.
Steve (aka WhitesCreek) on freedom of speech:
February 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Global warming is not a theory. It’s a shorthand term for a body of predictions made by applying climate theory to the question of whether air pollution can alter climate. The scientific consensus is that, yes, our pollution can impact climate and has already caused discernible effects.
The difference between the way this issue is discussed among scientists and the way it is discussed among the general public is more depressing than some of the worst-case scenarios. If people are not curious enough to get informed and ask questions before pinning themselves to a political stance, we deserve to have agricultural production shift northward into Canada.
If you actually care to understand this issue, the first step is to stop thinking about the Earth getting hotter and start thinking about there being more energy in the atmosphere.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
February 14th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Ellen Goodman is respectable? When did that happen??????
February 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Isn’t it interesting how the Left clings to the issue strictly as a means of finally justifying their socialism? Since all other attempts at rationalizing a justification for socialism have failed miserably, THIS time they think they really have something: Why, we’ll all freaking DIE if we don’t go full-on Marxist right freaking now!
I want to hear from a Global Warming as Caused by Man adherent who is not a flaming socialist, and who advocates only free-market solutions to this impending Apocalypse. If there be one on the whole planet, I might (just might) be convinced that anyone really believes the GWACBM theory, rather than latching onto it for purely political reasons.
Anyone?
On a similar note: If Florida is going to be under water soon, I want to know how many people are investing their own money in real estate just inside AlGore’s predicted inundation zones. They’d make billions in selling the newly formed seaside property, you know.
Any takers? I thought not. Anyone selling their soon-to-be-inundated shoreline property because they believe it will be worthless soon? I thought not. What better proof do you need that no one really believes their own jive? Where’s AlGore putting his money? Just more movies?
February 14th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Anyone that has any training or education in science understands the problem at hand. There is no such thing as a denier in science. Deniers exist in religion not in science.
There is a consensus from scientists about man made Global Warming. We do not know if this consensus is scientific or political. Considering how higher education has been infiltrated by far left liberal dogma this supposed consensus should and must be questioned on both scientific and political grounds.
The new cry for punishment of thought crimes should raise a red flag to any thinking person. This is hysteria. The game afoot is to declare any one that questions the orthodoxy of Global Warming as a person suffering from cognitive dissonance or just a simpleton liar or a liar for big oil and other members of the “denier industry”.
I do not understand extremists be they far left or far right. However, Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD does and has written extensively on the issue.
The Psychodynamics of the Radical Liberal Mind
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD
February 14th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
A. if air pollution is having a measurable effect on the climate, that effect would be to cool the earth, not warm it. Look at the three year climatological cycles following every significant volcanic eruption. The pollution in the air reflected much sunlight back into space and filtered some from particle to particle preventing that heat energy from reaching earth. This has happened without fail. Every time. So if global warming is so dangerous, we all owe a debt of gratitude to anyone polluting the atmosphere and slowing down the heating of earth, if you believe the warming to be harmful.
B. Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a management tool that means we are all too chickenshit to claim a position so we will fart around till we see what everyone else will agree to and we will too. As such, it isn’t even a good management tool.
C. Consensus does not exist in the scientific community as to the cause of global warming. The science does show that we are warmer than we were in recent history,but not as warm as we were in the 13th century. That is provable. Yet there is not consensus either in whether this will be a bad thing. Remember, Greenland used to actually be green and was settled by Danish agriculturists. (farmers for you spittle flecked liberals)
D. Another probable fact is that the Atlantic Ocean at one time was frozen almost completely over as far south as Spain. This was so long ago that scientific discovery established this fact because there is no historical record. Most likely meaning before man was even on earth. Yet the entire globe warmed up without us.
E. No climatological model yet devised has ever been able to verify the past that we know has happened, and that we have recorded, with the exception of one. If with all their consensus these so-called researchers can’t determine what we know happened, how the Hell do we trust them to predict the future? Predicting the past is much easier and they can’t do that. The exception is when the known temperatures of the earth over a period of time are graphed alongside the known strength of the output of our sun. Every drop rise and fall and levelling is mirrored from one graph to the other. Fact, with some variations for catastrophic events such as large volcanic eruptions. Which is also measurable as to its blocking effect of the sun’s rays.
F. These consenters (consensus signatories) are the same people in some cases, and the same institutes, research facilities, etc., in the other cases, that were warning us from 40 to 30 years ago that life as we knew it on earth was going to be irrevocably changed if not eradicated due to the coming ICE AGE. Yeah, when that didn’t happen, they needed another ride or the grant money was going to dry up.
Until A through F can be refuted in their entireties no “man causes global warming hysterical screecher” should be given an audience anywhere. If they are too lazy or too intellectually limited to do the work, don’t try to get me on board with the “everybody does it” crap. That is kindergarten stuff. I’m too old and too intelligent for it. Try it out on the very young or the very limited or the very insecure that need to “belong”.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:57 am
straightarrow, you identify yourself as a global cooling adherent in A then dismiss global cooling adherents as idiots in F. Thank you, drive through.
Lyle, most emissions-reduction schemes I know of are market-based solutions. I’m not really sure what the socialist solution is, but since you’re so familiar with it, perhaps you can educate me. If you have somehow missed the market approaches to reducing emissions, that says more about you than anything. Also, no one is buying future beachfront property because it is impossible to predict where sea level will stabilize or how long it will take before the whims of thermal expansion and glacial melt are sated.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Alan Caruba wrote a very interesting article “Global Warming? Journalism? Don’t Make Me Laugh!” where he writes:
February 15th, 2007 at 11:17 am
#9:
I thought the whole man made Global Warming issue had been thoroughly fisked and dissected. I thought the hockey stick had been reduced to splinters.
Thanks for the laugh. That’s the funniest paragraph I’ve read in a long time. The problem here is that the “fiskings” you cite have themselves been thoroughly fisked, but you have neither the intellectual integrity nor the balls to acknowledge and address that fact directly. Instead, as with most obfuscators, you change the subject and move on.
And you lecture concerning the difference between science and religion, without ever bothering to note that real scientists consider all of the evidence rather than just cherry-picking those few shreds of evidence that back your POV, while ignoring those who don’t. Someone who truly believed in the methods of science would not ignore the fact that the “fisking” of the hockey stick turns out to be bullshit, and that even when the minor errors in the original hockey stick report are corrected, the conclusion of the report still stands. But do you do that? No, you continue to report that the hockey stick has been “shredded,” ignoring pretty much everything that has happened since the original critique of that report came out (because pretty much everything since has vindicated the original report’s conclusions over the critiques). So who’s interested in science, and who in some sort of “religion?”
And of course, even your justification for why this global warming “conspiracy” is being “foisted upon us” is a moving target. It’s for research grants. No, wait, it’s anti-capitalist. No, wait, it’s anti-freedom. No, wait, it’s to destroy Porsche’s competitive advantage. Yeah, the overwhelming majority of American scientists, not to mention the world’s scientists, are authoritarian commies who are interested in nothing more than getting their grubby little mitts on research grants, and have determined that the best way to do so is to perpetuate a conspiracy that goes against pretty much all current government policy. Right. I’m just waiting for the part where the Illuminati show up and take everything over.
As to the “war crimes” bit that spawned this rant, being honestly skeptical of global warming science shouldn’t be a crime, but I don’t think anyone’s seriously suggesting that it ought to be. What should be criminal is intentionally obfuscating well-founded science for personal, political, and commercial gain, which is what the overwhelming majority of global warming “skeptics” seem to be doing. (And, by the way, I’d feel the same way about it if the tables were turned. If you’re right, and the Illuminati show up and demonstrate that not only is global warming BS, but that the people who sold global warming knew it was BS when they were selling it, then there ought to be criminal action against them…)
February 15th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I don’t really have the energy or time to rehash this again with you folks, but I’ll simply point you to what actual climatologists say. http://www.realclimate.org
Sure, there are plenty of nutjobs pushing a weird agenda with AGW as the lever to move their version of the earth.
Doesn’t change the science (which, as per usual…you guys have wrong).
If Hitler said the sky was blue…that wouldn’t make it red.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Oh, and FWIW…you can be a skeptical person and still accept the fact that most actual scientists in a certain field actually do believe something…and that if you’re not actually trained in that field…regurgitating somebody else’s editorial that suggests that scientists in said field (which you yourself aren’t qualified in) don’t know what they’re talking about but YOU have it all figured out just isn’t a compelling argument.
Very few of you probably spend a lot of time telling physicists they’re full of bunk when they posit gravitons and chase down obscure subatomic particles and try to measure dark matter in distant galaxies…because it doesn’t have a political angle.
GW deniers (and yes, that is what you are) are suggesting that GW is a political agenda…but they themselves don’t have a political agenda. Hypocrites all.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am
If I don’t deny the current global warming trend, but I’m skeptical about the source, am I still a Global Warming Denier, Sebastian-PGP?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I’ll readily admit I’m skeptical based on the fact that I’ve never in my life seen a weatherman that could accurately predict what was going to a couple hours from now, let alone what might happen decades from now.
If that makes me a GW denier, so be it. But it has nothing to do with politics.
You come here and demean others who provide outside links, calling them hypocrites, then proceed to do the very same yourself.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. Hypocrite.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
What should be criminal is intentionally obfuscating well-founded science for personal, political, and commercial gain, which is what the overwhelming majority of global warming “skeptics” seem to be doing.
You read it here folks. tgirsch advocates thought crime prosecution. If someone “seems” to be obfuscating (disagreeing) for any reason well-founded science then they should be tried as a criminal.
How do we know it is well-founded? Because tgirsch says so.
All hail tgirsch the omnipotent.
How did you end up like this?
February 15th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Steps in converting us skeptics to sign up on something like the Kyoto Protocol
1. We need good data that the current warming trend is significantly human-made, and exactly what percentage the human-made part is. If there’s a significant portion of the warming trend not person-made, could we, by limiting human emissions, actually counteract that natural warming trend? I’d hate to limit emissions to stone age levels and then find out that we’re still getting warmer due to a hotter sun, odd sunspot cycle or other means beyond our control.
2. We need good data on exactly how much CO2 emissions needs to be limited, and exactly what effect is expected by limiting those. That means we need an exact number (i.e. No more that xx tones of CO2 may be emitted by the citizens of the earth per year. This exact amount has been carefully calculated to stop global warming, and reverse the effects so far by xx% percent a year. when we reach our global warming reversal goals, we can then emit xx additional tons of CO2 per year)
3. Is Kyoto a “good first step” or is it a total solution to all our global warming problems?
4. Realize that the treaty, as written, lets emerging economies emit while being a hardship on the rich countries of the world. Assuage our fears that this treaty is based on real science and is not just a way to punish successful economies.
5. Let me hear and analyze your plan to stay under xx tons of CO2 per year. I ‘d like to see how we’re gonna pull it off without us all going back to substinence farming and riding around on donkeys and elephants instead of cars.
6. Bonus points for figuring out that any substantial cut in co2 emissions without drastically affecting everyones quality of life is gonna have to involve a nuclear power plant in just about everyone’s backyard. Please outline your plans to bring about society’s acceptance of those facts to a nation that hasn’t built a new nuclear power plant in almost 30 years.
7. Since it very well be back to the stone age or building new pebble bed reactors, I’d like to hear your thoughts on recycling nuclear waste. Many nations (e.g. France) do it out of shear necessity, but the US never has because we want to set an example to the rest of the world. (Breeder reactors make this dandy stuff called plutonium, which, by the way, is way easier to make atomic bombs out of than uranium)
February 15th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Many Americans would balk at a Kyoto style agreement, even if they believed in warming, just because nations like China might get a pass. It has to be inclusive or it stands no chance.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Today, by chance, the Google Ads on Say Uncle are about Global Warming.
I clicked this one, and it is very amusing. Senator Barbara Boxer of Crazy Cali wants you to pick how you want to be taxed on Global Warming.
You might say, “It’s not like that man, she cares about the planet”. You might say this little stunt is about finding “answers”. You might not see anything about a tax, but it’s there. If you know how to read hippie.
Nope. Ms. Boxer cannot wait to put a carbon tax on you, the American consumer. To save the planet for future generations you know. It’s about the children. Years from now.
Hippies, what can you do with hippies? Pay attention to them. Because if you don’t they will come for both your freedoms and your checkbook. It is what they do.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
JustDoIt:
I’ll readily admit I’m skeptical based on the fact that I’ve never in my life seen a weatherman that could accurately predict what was going to a couple hours from now, let alone what might happen decades from now.
That’s because you haven’t stopped to think that weather and climate aren’t the same thing. The former is influenced by the latter, but that’s it. I don’t need to know what the weather will be like in Phoenix tomorrow to tell you that Phoenix has an arid climate; nor do I need to know Puerto Rico’s weather forecast to tell you that its climate is tropical. In the same vein, rain in Phoenix no more debunks its arid status than a record cold day in New York does for global warming theory.
Make sense?
#9:
That’s funny, I don’t recall using the word “seems,” nor do I recall suggesting that we throw out due process of law or reasonable doubt standards. See, you had to interject all of that because it’s the only way your “point” would work. That wasn’t even a good straw man. And you expect people to take you seriously on anything else? Puh-lease.
In case any of you are as dumb (or as intellectually dishonest — take your pick) as #9, what I advocate isn’t the prosecution of “thought crimes.” I advocate the prosecution of fraud, which is precisely what I’m accusing the prominent AGW-deniers of engaging in. Does that spell it out clearly enough? (Hell, I even went as far as to say that if it turns out to be the AGW-believers who are the frauds, as #9 seems to allege, then they should be prosecuted. Apparently, fraud shouldn’t be a crime at all. We should let the invisible hand of the market work it out, or something…)
SM:
Pretty much everything you ask for is out there, but it’s actively attacked and obfuscated by people who have political objections. As for the emerging economy exceptions, I’d be just fine with doing away with them. They were put there not to “punish” successful large economies, but to assuage fears that smaller economies would be destroyed by the expense of implementing the changes — a legitimate fear, in my book. Larger economies can afford such changes. Emerging ones might not be able to.
#9 (again):
Your last comment is probably the most honest one you’ve made so far. Here you make it clear that your objection to AGW is purely political, rather than pretending it has anything to do with science.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Breaking News:
Al Gore for President.
Cue the Fleetwood Mac song.
Don’t stop believing in new taxes,
Don’t stop caring about the planet,
Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.
Why not think about times to come,
And not about the things that youve done,
If your life was bad to you,
Just think what tomorrow will do.
Vote for Captain Planet,
He’ll save the day.
Chorus
Dont stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Dont stop, itll soon be here,
Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.
All I want is to see you smile,
If it takes just a little while,
I know you dont believe that its true,
I never meant any harm to you.
Dont stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Dont stop, itll soon be here,
Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Wonder if the Gore Effect will permit those concerts to happen?
February 15th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Straight out of Wikipedia:
“In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today’s climate change.
“However, critics of Kyoto argue that China, India, and other developing countries will soon be the top contributors to greenhouse gases. Also, without Kyoto restrictions on these countries, industries in developed countries will be driven towards these non-restricted countries, thus there is no net reduction in carbon.”
You got some serious convincing to do, seeing at the Montreal Protocol
did the same exact damn thing, except with CFCs instead. CFC production had to go in a screeching halt, while other countries could make as much of the deadly stuff as they wanted.
As written, we could be forced to drastically curtail our emissions, yet China may be emitting as much as we do in a few years. That’s a raw deal for the US, and it explains why much of the developing nations are so gung-ho about it.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
GW is an amalgamation of good science, not so good science, hysterical exaggerations, and politically-motivated jumping to conclusions.
The good science part: There does seem to be an overall warming trend if you measure from anytime in the 1800’s to the present, although there’s also a lot of random variation in the data, questionable data, and even some places that seem to be experiencing a cooling trend. There seems to be an increase in global CO2 levels (with the same cautions about the data), for which we know of no likely cause except human activity. There is a known and well-proven mechanism by which increased CO2 can cause increased temperatures. However, the CO2 increase by itself accounts for far less warming than they think is occurring (or than is worth worrying about). They have to include unproven positive feedback effects (multipliers) in their computer models to get anything like a match to the data. Or perhaps they just aren’t including the real driving factors…
The not so good science: The hockey stick, based on just a few data points around the globe, and showing a trend from 1000AD to 1700 that’s utterly at odds with European and Greenland history and archeology. Either their few datapoints are anomalous, or almost everything from Greenland to Poland was anomalous. Similarly, the claim that it’s warmer now than anytime in the last 1,000 years ignores what historians know about Greenland and much of Europe. There is no doubt that the average ground temperature measurements have increased since 1850, and not much that the increase sped up since the 1970’s, but that doesn’t prove anything except that they know how to pick unusually cold eras for starting points. Finally, they ignore conflicting data. Ground temperature measurements give spotty coverage, and the stations that have kept good records over long periods tend to have cities growing up around them – which increases the temperature locally by as much as several degrees. There are a very few well-maintained rural weather stations that have remained working and rural for a long time , and not all of these show an overall warming trend.
A better global average is a series of satellite infrared measurements of atmospheric temperature. These take measurements on an evenly spaced grid covering all of Earth, including oceans and unpopulated land. They also take measurements at several different altitudes, so averages of these readings should truly give the average of all the air around Earth. These first became possible in the 1970’s. Even though the 1970’s were unusually cold (colder in ground level measurements than it had been since before 1950, and cold enough that hysterics were yammering about an ice age), the satellite infrared data isn’t showing much warming.
Hysterical Exaggeration: For example, the Al Gore film with higher temperatures than most scientists predict, ten times the sea level rise, and an accelerated timescale. It’s like getting hit in the head with an acorn and yelling, “The sky is falling.”
Jumping to conclusions: Mainly that western governments regulating fossil fuel usage could be an effective solution to GW, let alone that it’s an optimal solution. China is building a new coal-burning power plant big enough to power San Diego every ten days. They are also working hard at getting their huge population off of bicycles and into gasoline-burning cars. Any 1st world government that cut back hard enough on energy usage to reduce the total CO2 emissions by 1/100th of what the Chinese are adding would soon be lynched by a mob of cold, hungry, out of work citizens. Aside from all of us dying, there’s only one way the western world can make a big enough difference to matter: convert all fixed electric usage to nuclear power, and follow that up by beefing up the distribution grids, building even more nuke plants, and selling power cheap enough that it becomes smart to convert heating and anything else that can be easily converted to electricity. That would be enabled mainly by government getting out of the way of technology and the free market rather than by more socialism. Rather than look at this, the watermelons would rather look at tiny little nibbles (Kyoto, wind power-but not in their backyard), and pie-in-the-sky dreams (hydrogen-powered cars), while trying to sneak more socialism in as environmental regulation.
There quite likely is a real problem here, but it’s far less severe and arriving far more slowly than Gore and company claim. If you’ve got money, you’ll be able to handle it. The watermelons want to impoverish you with government-mandated solutions that won’t actually stop the problem coming.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Oh yea, I read about that. The “overwhelming consensus” of scientists everywhere say that we can only have xx tons of CO2 per year to prevent any further global warming, the problem being whenever those scientists try to publish that magic number on their free MySpace page, there’s a DDoS attack perpetuated by Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum.
Seriously, I argue this tack all the time, and no one can give me straight answers. Is the Kyoto Protocol gonna solve all our problems or is it just the first wave of green-scam legislation, each tightening the screw on our economy? (Perhaps it’s the 1968 gun control act of the environmental movement, and we’ll forever need to have tighter restrictions?)
How much CO2, in tons, can the world safely emit? Simple Question.
And why can I never get the pro-Kyoto people to talk about nuclear power? It’s probably because the worst of the greens go well past NIMBY and straight into BANANA territory.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Okay tgirsch the omnipotent, explain what you meant when you wrote this:
What should be criminal is intentionally obfuscating well-founded science for personal, political, and commercial gain, which is what the overwhelming majority of global warming “skeptics” seem to be doing.
The word “seem” is clearly present. How is it not clear that you suggest thought crime prosecution? You say it should be a criminal offense to be a denier, which you code as intentionally obfuscating well-founded science. Which is asinine on it’s face. Again, who should make the decision of what obfuscating is?
tgirsch the omnipotent? Some other hippies? George Soros? Al “Running for President” Gore?
You wrote it, you explain it.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
GW is either bunk or a welcome trend that I am looking to quicken. I’m freezing my ass off down here.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I’ve been plowing for days. I’m tired as hell. I’ll argue with you bastards when it warms up
.
My truck rules.
Too bad that pesky GW crap means more precipitation, ie more SNOW. So I don’t think it’s gonna help us too much.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
straightarrow, you identify yourself as a global cooling adherent in A then dismiss global cooling adherents as idiots in F. Thank you, drive through.
This is for persimmon who has a whole lot of fundamental, emphasis on mental, problems reading for comprehension.
I never said a thing about being a global cooling adherent. In fact, if you could read you would see where I said that the science shows the earth is warming in relation to recent years. That was in C. Although it is not as hot as has been recorded 600 to 700 years ago. I also pointed out that it is far warmer than when the Atlantic was frozen as far south as Spain. I also pointed out that Greenland at one time was actually green. A sentient being could gather from the totality of what I wrote that these things go in natural cycles. And were doing so long before man had the ability to have an effect.
As for the global cooling adherents, I did point out that they are the same people that are now global warming adherents. I didn’t say I was one of them.
Back to A the slowing of global heating does not equate to global cooling. Can you really not read and comprehend any better than that. Please don’t drive on through. In fact, don’t drive at all until you can read road signs.
Next time you want to respond to me, accurately describe my position or refrain. Otherwise it is irksome to me and insulting to you.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
5. Let me hear and analyze your plan to stay under xx tons of CO2 per year. I ‘d like to see how we’re gonna pull it off without us all going back to substinence farming and riding around on donkeys and elephants instead of cars.
SM, I know this is politically incorrect, but we could kill the entire populations of India (including breakaway Pakistan) and China. Not only would that rid the world of more that half the CO2 producers (humans), but it would also stop their burgeoning industrial pollution.
Would that make tgirsch happy? I would think so. It would mean we are no longer skeptics and about global warning being human caused and that we had taken positive proactive steps to stop it.
This is not a xenophobic, ethnic, racist, or economic proposal. The only reason for choosing the two countries is humane. Such an action would destroy only two societies, three if you count Pakistan as separate. Yet, approximately half the world’s population would no longer be emitting CO2, nor would their livestock, vehicles, or factories. It is the only humane thing to do, is it not?
Should we not prosecute any who disagree with this plan as deniers or obfuscators of the seriousness of global warming. Anyone attempting to stop this plan would obviously be tacitly admitting to fraud in proclaiming human causation of global warming to be serious enough to require drastic action.
There, I think we have satisfied all tgirsch’s requirements, and met all his measures of agreement.
Does the above sound outlandish? So did the Final Solution. But it became reality by listening to hysterics and punishing skeptics. Hang in there tgirsch, you have the makings.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
persimmon:
Name one group or company that went out and invested their very own money to provide relief in the way of reduced carbon emission that is NOT also loudly advocating government restrictions and/or incentives, i.e. more socialism. Just one. And therein you will have found the one small group of three or four people, in all the world, who actually believe this, rather than simply latching onto it as a political leverage point.
If we can’t predict future inundation zones, why did AlGore predict future inundation zones? Secondly, fine, we can’t predict them (then AlGore is a phony) but if its real, why then is no one’s property value going down on account of this obvious, impending, proven, factual, inevitable flooding of current coastal areas?
My point, and I submit that it is obvious, is that some of the loudest and most vitriolic proponents of the theory are the exact same people who are doing nothing in the way of preparing for it using their own finances. Except for a few Prius owners who want to show us how cool and pious they are, no one appears to be investing or divesting, that is to say **putting their capital at risk** in anticipation of the coming doom.
You should then start your own cult and trick people into giving you their money so you can “fight global warming”. Our society is ripe for that– all we need is another Jim Jones. Maybe that would be AlGore.
I’ll supply the cool-aid.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Sebastian-PGP:
You write: “Very few of you probably spend a lot of time telling physicists they’re full of bunk when they posit gravitons and chase down obscure subatomic particles…”
No, because they’re not dividing up along political lines and demanding that more and more Liberty be sacrificed due to the latest research on gravitons or subatomic particles.
Knowledge is one thing. Power is another. Money is another. Liberty is another. Let a scientist inform me on his latest theories regarding the nature of the universe and I’ll welcome it. Let him tell me I must submit to his political will, because he is so much smarter and responsible than I, and that I cannot be trusted with making my own decisions, and I will get out my AR-15.
Also, how many of these pure-as-the-driven-snow “scientists” get their funding, and their paychecks, from the same government that they’re trying to further empower with their dire predictions?
How many of these public-funded scientists would be funded to higher and higher levels if all they had to say was, “Things are fine– nothing to worry about here.”
Hmmmm?
And how many of the current crop of GW scare-mongers are wanting to restrict the worst polluters around the globe– the Chinese, the Russians, et al, i.e all the communist and socialist, dictatorships seem to be getting a free pass. What does that tell us? I know what it tells me: The GW scare mangers are socialists who think they finally have a way to bring down the mighty U.S. of A. in a way that’s new and different, and powerfully compelling. What could be better than an end-of-the-world scenario?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:44 am
McCain hitches his train to Global Warming.
Global Warming has been sexed up.
Global Warming porn.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
[...] SayUncle » Are Global Warming Skeptics criminals? Dennis Prager writes, “the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history — the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does. If you don’t believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted.†[...]
February 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Standard Mischief:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone suggest that full implementation of Kyoto would completely solve the problem. And whether you view this as an “economic screw” to be “tightened” is going to depend upon whether you think the actions are really necessary. Assume, just for the sake of argument, that the scientists are absolutely right about global warming and the role of human carbon use. If not something like Kyoto, how do you suggest we correct the problem?
#9:
Dude, I’ve met fourth graders with a better command of the English language than you have. Let’s try to use small words, so you can keep up. AGW deniers “seem” to me to be committing fraud. If they are (and it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are), then they ought to be prosecuted. No “omniscience” necessary. Once again, you assume that I’m saying they should be locked up no questions asked, without due process, etc. Claims I’ve never made. You can’t win this argument without making shit up, so that’s what you do. Constantly. And you still get your ass kicked. Towel off, dude, you’re done.
straightarrow:
Jesus, is that really the best you can do? Kill everyone in India and China and that will solve the problem and make me happy? Hardly. Your suggested solution is as unimaginative as it is asinine, and that you could think for a moment that killing 2.5 billion people would make me “happy” is simply insulting. If you’re not going to take the question seriously, don’t take it at all.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
straightarrow:
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think this is in any way out of line: Fuck you.
If you’re the type of person that would compare someone who follows the best science and suggests efficiency and reduced consumption, with someone who would engage in ethnic cleansing, then that’s by far the nicest thing I have to say to you. You’re a piece of shit, and not worth my time.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
February 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
(Let’s try that again)
tgirsch Says:
I’ve still yet to see someone say we need to keep our greenhouse gas emissions below xx tons a year. Until I get that most critical piece of info, I cannot engineer a solution. Without that critical bit of information, we’re just running blind, making possibly stupid, uneconomic blundering token efforts.
If that magic little bit of info wasn’t so effectively suppressed by the capitalistic military-petrochemical complex I’d know if we could skate on just combining trips, lowering the thermostat, and ruling out large planes for Air Force One, Two, and Three.
Actually there’s a range of solutions, but I’m loathe to talk about them to someone who won’t chat about how they feel about atoms for peace.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
tgirsch, on straightarrow:
Look tgirsch, it was merely a “modest proposal” type deal. Although I don’t approve of the methods, clearly what straightarrow was doing was just twisting around the tactics of those who would coin the phrase “Global Warming Deniers” or talk about “climate Nuremberg trials”.
If skirting Godwin’s Law law is OK for some people, it’s OK for everyone.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hmm, maybe I should implement a No Global Warming rule?
February 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
why thank you Standard Mischief, it would appear neither of them are as smart as they believe themselves to be. I would add that one of my points that seemed so far over their heads as to not even be suspected is that granting that kind of power to any political structure could just as easily go where I posted as has happened before, despite the naysayers that said it would not.
Another thing that has so far not been challenged is this idea of consensus. There is no consensus among scientists on this issue. There are many highly qualified scientists that are not in the “human causation of global warming catastrophe” camp. Just because someone agrees with one’s political ideas doesn’t make him a preeminent scientist.
I had intended to answer them, but since I see some here have realized the ludicrousness of my supposed solution and recognized it for what it was, the logical extension of their illogical politics, and the emotional hysteria of those that would bend us to their will using false science I have decided not to answer them. As Mark Twain, I believe, said, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into”. So I won’t waste any more time on them. I am satisfied that some understood and despair of those that didn’t.
They’re just getting their tickets punched to show they’re good little minions.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
This just in.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Global warming is real. All the rest is conjecture and theory at this point, with the better science, so far, unable to show a provable relationship between human activity and global warming.
No too many people deny global warning. After all without it there would still be glaciers as far south as southern Illinois. Those glaciers have been gone since before the existence of man. Is that our fault too?
Then again, sea fossils have been found as far north as central Kansas, from when it was a really different climatological era, again, long before man’s appearance on the planet. Is that also our fault?
We need a Hell of a lot more answers before we go and do things that may or may not help, but will almost cerainly degrade life for humans on the planet.
I just don’t understand why wanting know what you are doing and why is cause for all the screeching in the fearful.
Anybody remember the hole in the ozone layer? Anybody know how ozone forms? Anybody know what got blamed for it? And does anybody know which corporation manipulated the environmentalists to make such a big deal over it because their patent had expired and they needed to again corner the market?
I would bet most here can’t answer those quesitons off the top of their heads and point out all the false beliefs that had to be peddled to make a huge profit for certain parties. Spend a few days and research it. Then come back and tell me we are above being manipulated into a panic for less than altruistic reasons.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Just a caution here, both R-12 and R-134a, have been around for quite some time. The reason why royalty free R-134a had not been used in the past was because their were not any suitable lubricating oils available. I believe Dupont filed a patent on their oil, and then used FUD to keep everyone else’s refrigerant formulas off the market. This would allow Dupont to generate a royalty stream. To this day, only R-134a is available OTC at auto parts stores in small “blow-off” sized cans. Any other refrigerant formula requires a licence and useally the purchace of a bulk tank.
Remember when I mentioned that Kyoto looked like huge tax to the rest of the world? You know, just like the R-12 overnight ban part of the Montreal protocol? Well it turns out that R-134a is a potent greenhouse gas. So while we were all faced with the choice of paying hundreds of dollars for a few ounces of patent free chemicals, buying freon smuggled in via Mexico (or perhaps paying full recycled prices for smuggled freon), or dumping hundreds of dollars on a R-134a conversion that (go google this) probably would self-destruct right after it got out of warranty, Meanwhile, in the less developed countries of the world, everyone was switching over to hydrocarbon refrigerants.
While there was tremendous FUD to keep hydrocarbon refrigerants off the market here in the US, it turns out that hydrocarbons are even more efficient than R-12, where R-134a is less efficient than R-12.
Here’s an article by Greenpeace no less, extolling the virtues of hydrocarbon refrigerants. They showcase a “green fridge” that’s the size of a small dorm refrigerator, but uses the equivalent of the working fluid in two cigarette lighters. That’s not a realistic fire hazard.
So R-134a is, again, a potent greenhouse gas, and I fully expect that it will be banned as soon as those special lubricants all work their way out of patent and into the public domain. Then we’re all have to expensively convert again. But hey, we’re one of rich countries of the world, so we can afford the green-scam.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:50 am
More on Greenpeace:
(emphasis mine) You know, it’s pretty wierd that I’m quoting Greenpeace to make a point.
Damn, and you paid a mint to convert to HFC-134a, or perhaps you just bought a whole freaking new car because you could not get the AC fixed cheaply enough. Now theyre telling you that your AC is evil evil evil, and it’s going to have to be fixed again!
Anyone else up for another round of Electro-magnetic Golf?
February 17th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
SM, I should have known you would know.
Some people paid as much as $800.00 dollars for a convesion to R-134A that only actually costs less that $1.50, yes, that’s right. My mechanic son converted his for the price of two small seals, well he had some compressor lube, so I guess the cost would be a very few dollars more. Anyway it took us about 30 minutes and no money to speak of and we just recently did it on an old vehicle we own, that had the old system for which we can no longer get freon. It didn’t cost but a very few bucks.
And we didn’t do one bit of good for the environment.
By the way, ozone is a product of sunlight on water vapor. Guess what isn’t available in any large quantity when the ozone hole would enlarge.
I don’t think another panicked response is called for, does that make me a criminal because I would prefer to wait for the science? I suppose in the eyes of some it does.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
My understanding is that one should spring extra for the barrier hoses, replace the seals with the newfangled butyl nitrate ones, replace the acclumulator/drier/sightglass thingy and flush all the old mineral oil out before taking a gamble with either the PAG or the POE stuff.
The system used to be purged by flushing the whole system with R-11, but that’s not allowed. Some people use straight liquid propane, venting the stuff a distance away. I understand that’s only needed when the compressor dies and leaves bits of metal inside the system.
Then, of course you need the EPA mandated new screw-on adapters. I, however, don’t do this for a living, so I would defer to the proper mechanic.
Or, you could break federal law, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of finds and bad juju, and use your own proprietary mixture of hydrocarbon. I’ve read that a certain mixture of iso-butane and propane has almost the exact same pressure curve of R-12. In other words, they sell this stuff for about five bucks a can. Not legal in the USA, but widely used overseas. Is it backpacking fuel, or is it refrigerant? The feds say fuel. Getting a side can tap might be a bit tough though.
They also sell a drop in R-12 replacement made of the very same propane (R290) and isobutane (R600a) overseas.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
EPA advice on retrofits to R-134a that is substantaly different than my advice given above
February 18th, 2007 at 12:19 am
You’re right that the fill and bleed connections need changed and the system needs purged and you need two new o-ring seals, very small ones and they don’t cost much.
I don’t do it for a living either, I was as surprised as you when my son showed me how simple and inexpensive it was to change over. No hoses needed to be changed.
BTW. R-12 wasn’t flammable. R-134A is, they may tell you it is not. but if your a/c system gets ruptured in a crash and there is a spark or fire your vehicle will go up in flames. Just think about how many big trucks now burn that wouldn’t have used to catch fire in a crash due to the difficulty of lighting the particular fuel they use. That is something I do know about. Diesel truck fires were almost unheard of no matter how bad the crash. No more.
So, yeah, I think I am opposed to following the hysterical down another false path. The last time we did, the whole damn world lost. Of course, that seems to be the mantra of the loonies, “Well we are getting all the wrong results, we need to do it more until our predictions come true.” DUH!
Doesn’t the definition of insanity go something like this? The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing always expecting different results.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
#9:
Err, that’s relevant how? What the general public believes and what qualified experts (or even just reasonably well-informed people) think are not the same thing, nor even necessarily related. A sizable chunk of the population still believes Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, too…
SM:
If you could point out to me where I’ve ever compared global warming deniers to holocaust deniers, maybe I could see the point. I’ve always drawn a correlation between AGW deniers and evolution deniers. When people choose to attack me, I tend to take it more seriously when they attack positions I’ve already taken.
As to your other proposal, you’re saying that unless we have an exact figure, it doesn’t do any good to do anything, even if we do know that less is better and more is worse? That’s silly. I’m sorry, but your quest for a magic number seems a lot like a red herring to me, if not a trap. (If the number gets revised, deniers will shout “Aha, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” as deniers always do when the theories they reject are refined.)
straightarrow:
Gee, I’m sorry I got offended when you said the 2.5 billion murders/executions would make me happy. I don’t know what I could have been thinking! (I mean, besides “what a fuckhead,” but I digress…)
the logical extension of their illogical politics
Logical, my ass. In fact, if the whole point of stopping global warming is to save people (namely, future people), killing billions to achieve this end would be completely illogical. No, you weren’t trying to make any sort of logical argument. You were going for shock value, logic and reason be damned. In that much, you succeeded. Too bad the straw man you constructed was so poorly assembled.
Another thing that has so far not been challenged is this idea of consensus. There is no consensus among scientists on this issue. There are many highly qualified scientists that are not in the “human causation of global warming catastrophe” camp. Just because someone agrees with one’s political ideas doesn’t make him a preeminent scientist.
I do not think “consensus” means what you think it means. For that matter, I’m not entirely sure that the terms “many” or “highly-qualified” mean what you think they mean, either. The existence of a very small minority that dissents does not invalidate consensus. If even 60% of qualified experts have staked a position, that’s consensus. If 80% have, that’s broad consensus. If 90-95% have, as in this case, that’s overwhelming consensus.
Sure you can find two or three Richard Lindzens out there, claiming it’s all crap (and whose positions have been whittled away at over the past couple of decades). But then you can find a few biologists who claim evolution is crap, too. That doesn’t mean anybody has any good reason to take them seriously.
Anybody remember the hole in the ozone layer?
What, you mean the problem that started to reverse itself when people finally listened to the science — science which corporate interests long fought to obfuscate — and drastically reduced CFC use? Yeah, umm, color me confused as to why you’d bring that up in this context.
(And, of course, people who disparage the whole ozone-hole thing still aren’t entirely forthright, intentionally glossing over the important difference between ozone in the upper atmosphere and ozone near the surface, for example…)
Now theyre telling you that your AC is evil evil evil, and it’s going to have to be fixed again!
Wait a minute, I thought they were anti-capitalist! Now they’re conspiring to create new markets, encouraging people to line other people’s pockets by spending more money on unnecessary stuff? That sound like capitalism in its purist form. So which is it? Are they pinko-commie anti-capitalists, or capitalistic opportunists? You can’t have it both ways, you know…
February 18th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
arrow, the problem is not my reading comprehension. Your point A is a tidy synopsis of the rationale used to justify the global cooling predictions. So, no, you did not explicitly declare yourself a global cooling adherent; you just perfectly echoed their exact argument. The fact that you don’t realize you are doing this proves my point: you don’t know what you’re talking about. Thank you, drive through.
Lyle, you never explained what these socialist solutions are that have you so worked up, and your demand that I name someone who has invested their own money but isn’t bitching and isn’t a Prius owner or whatever the hell you are asking for, that one I readily admit I do not comprehend. Best I can tell, you have your own private definition of socialism, so I don’t think I can help you there.
As to the beachfront property, I didn’t say inundation can’t be predicted. That’s easy, actually. I said no one knows when and at what level sea level might stabilize. If you knew sea level were going to rise 3.64 feet and stay there, you could buy future beachfront land. If you don’t know how much it will rise and whether it will keep rising or recede, how are you going to identify your future beachfront parcels?
mischief, since you want to know exactly how much CO2 the atmosphere can absorb, I presume you favor some centralized, shared-emissions cap rather than a market-based solution. Maybe you and Lyle can work out the definition of socialism together and get back to us.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
mischief, since you want to know exactly how much CO2 the atmosphere can absorb, I presume you favor some centralized, shared-emissions cap rather than a market-based solution. Maybe you and Lyle can work out the definition of socialism together and get back to us.
Okay, that is funny. You duck me over on KnoxViews and come over here to call people socialist.
The ultimate pot kettle story of all time.
I will ask you here, explain carbon emission credits and why they are not a scam?
February 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
You didn’t understand the explanation the first time, and nothing in your responses suggests that you are even trying to understand. Your goals are destructive, not constructive. Throughout this whole conversation, you’ve never asked me what I believe. You keep asking me to explain other shit you think I believe. You are tiresome and sad.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Your goals are destructive, not constructive.
I submit that carbon emission credits are destructive. It is clear you choose not to discuss the matter. You gave a text book definition of carbon emission credits, not what I asked you about. You keep referring to the “Nelle” question which was so broad as to be unanswerable. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of.
You are supposed to be the uber debater.
Frame your three example economic question in a framework it can be answered and I will, if you will answer my question about carbon emission credits.
Consider it a barter.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
tgirsch and persimmon it is not my fault you two are stupid. I didn’t have a damn thing to do with it. It is not my fault you are hysterical, I suppose I did have something to do with that. You were challenged to think and you couldn’t.
I am going to Mark Twain you. You simply are too damn dumb to waste any more time on. Neither of you have offered any data to support your position, though others have shown the lack of data necessary to make a definitive decision about what is really happening, what is causing it, and what should or could be done about it, if anything.
You have managed to rant and rave like hysterical inmates of an asylum about all the deficiencies of all who disagree with you, not about global warming, but about the control of people you advocate as a sacrifice to your point of view.
Oh and CFC’s don’t get in the upper atmosphere, they are too heavy. That is provable, but as you are too stupid to understand the China proposition for what it was I have no choice but to assume you would rather have your complaint than actually do anything beneficia or to think critically about any topic.
After all, how can you feel superior to people smarter than you? Yeah, that definitely means me. And most others here. I know that’s got to chap your ass, but it’s still true.
I can’t begin to tell you how little respect I have for either of you. Tgirsch, not to put too fine a point on it, but you are a fucking moron. Your absolute incomprehension of the point about the China scenario show you to be very strictly intellectually limited. Probably not your fault. It is your fault that you think we should pretend to be as limited.
Now you know where I stand. You have exhausted my patience for the handicapped at the moment.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Asking you this question IS an attempt to explain emissions credits to you, so here it is, rephrased and bartered:
What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?
February 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
tgirsch Says:
I’ll take that one, since the “evil evil evil” comment was actually mine. Seems that Greenpeace have been big fans of hydrocarbon refrigerants for a while. I agree with them on this point, the HC refrigerants are safe and effective.
Although I’m a strong supporter of the capitalist system, there is a trend to create a need where perhaps there wasn’t one. Examples included redesigning cars, clothing and other items and advertising so everyone knows you’ve got last year’s model. I can ignore all this. What I do object to is for the corporate personhood thingys use the federal government to create a business model. R-134a is not the best or only solution, but SNAP regulations kept other cheap, safe, drop-in hydrocarbon solutions off the market. I now do give Greenpeace credit for pushing for hydrocarbon solutions here in the US. However, It looks like Du Pont et al. did a better lobbying job.
R-134a was adopted, knowing it was a potent greenhouse gas. That gives all of them an excuse to push the “newest thing” CO2 as working fluid AC. Meanwhile, those hydrocarbon refrigerants are still being blocked by FUD. I’m only blaming Greenpeace a bit here, they could have shouted a bit louder.
Still, Greenpeace went along with the Montreal Protocol that let countries like Mexico make R-12 while us rich people in the states had to either convert to something crappy or buy a new car. I mean, they were catching people smuggling freon across the border! The phase-over could have been done a bit better.
You are not the only person who has said the buzz words ” global warming deniers”. Read the linked article for this post.
If there’s an “overwhelming consensus” or a “vast majority” of scientists that agree, then their ought to be some ballpark figures out there. Although I’m sure the science behind the greenhouse effect is sound, I’m not sure what percent of that effect is causing our current warming trend. I’m not sure there is a consensus out there either.
Oh, and how again (it’s a trap!) do you feel about nuclear power?
February 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I want exact numbers because all this global warming stuff is suppose to be based on science, not voodoo. And they don’t have to be “exact” as much as “based on real, peer reviewed numbers”
February 19th, 2007 at 1:15 am
SM, you are not asking for science, you are asking for predictions. Scientific predictions are inexact and typically given as range estimates. Climate scientists can estimate what they think might be sustainable levels of emissions. They can estimate how much CO2 the planet can absorb, but that estimate depends on knowing things like how much of the planet is forested and how healthy the oceans are. These things change.
Climate science includes carbon cycles, water cycles, oxygen production and consumption, all sorts of incredible complexity. The science part is knowing how CO2 reacts with seawater and pine forests and deciduous forests. It’s knowing how methane is stored in permafrost and how much water evaporates from the oceans each day. How much CO2 we can generate without worrying about screwing things up is a metascience. We can make informed guesses. Skepticism is appropriate, but claiming that our pollution is negligible or that we are helpless to change is not skepticism, it is a counterclaim that demands data and support just like claims of rising temperatures do.
I am aware of scientists skeptical of predictions based on climate science, but I’m not aware of any scientists trying to show that we can generate billions of tons of greenhouse gases with no concern at all over what it might do to our health and the health of our world.
Climate change is a risk we face. A cursory glance at geological history gives ample proof that climate changes often. We can not control solar variation or volcanic eruptions, but we can control how much we pollute the very air we breathe and the oceans and forests and soils from which we hope to feed ourselves. We know volcanoes can perturb the climate, and the sad fact is our current emissions are as voluminous as a major eruption, but distributed rather than concentrated. We don’t know exactly what impact this might have, but the people trying hardest to figure that out think we are increasing the energy in the atmosphere, which will lead to rising temperatures, swelling seas, stronger storms and more variable weather.
There is no free market at work here. The major producers of emissions are utilities that almost always have local monopolies. TVA is a major carbon emitter. We ALREADY HAVE energy socialism. We treat the air we breathe like a giant socialist dump.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:22 am
SM, I must congratulate you for your generous spirit. I have tried to emulate people such as yourself who can remain civil under extremely trying circumstances. I jus can’t seem to manage it when dealing with the intentionally stupid. There are so many people in the world who have no access to knowledge and/or do not have the personal ability to take advantage of such knowledge. There are people who simply do not have the raw intelligence to develop into critical thinkers. I have never ending tolerance and compassion for these people. I just can’t abide the self-inflicted stupidity forever, after a while I just write them off as parasites on the body social.
I really do admire your restraint and generous spirit. Though, I must tell you that your reasoned responses to their hysterics will not move them or make them think. Their opinion isn’t about the issue, it’s about their need to feel morally superior. That’s emotional. Nothing wrong with emotion, unless one replaces knowledge and reason with it.
I think Galileo had some problem with people just like that. He was a denier of earth’s universal centrism, which everyone knew was the absolute truth, based on the same kind of science we are seeing from the group of agreement. I love the way consensus no longer means all are on board. Or does it still mean that, and those who don’t consent are deemed nonexistent so that only those in agreement are counted, thus gaining consensus?
Anyway, you have more patience than do I.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am
based on the same kind of science we are seeing from the group of agreement
Hmmm, what has happened since science last believed the Sun revolves around the Earth? Telescopes were invented, calculus was invented, the Periodic table was devised, classical physics was discovered, quantum physics was discovered, evolution was discovered, computers were invented, statistical analysis was invented, the laws of thermodynamics and electromagnetism were discovered, genetics was discovered, we’ve been to the moon and launched probes to the far reaches of our solar system.
Yes, you’re right. It’s the same kind of science. Forgive my meager presence before your intellectual giance.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I am aware of scientists skeptical of predictions based on climate science, but I’m not aware of any scientists trying to show that we can generate billions of tons of greenhouse gases with no concern at all over what it might do to our health and the health of our world.
You’re mixing issues again. How many people want air pollution? You make it sound like people want Global Warming and a coal fired plant on every block.
Global Warming is another socialist Utopian wet dream to transfer wealth. Just a scam. Why do social democrats want a World Tax like a carbon tax? Do you really think a world wide bureaucracy will help anything? Of course once there is a carbon tax how about a World Wide income tax or a World Wide tax on assets? That is the end game. You won’t admit it but it is clear to anyone.
There really is no end to the compassion of people like persimmon when they get their hands on other peoples money.
When asked for proof you explain proof is not required because there is consensus. When asked for solutions you extol carbon credits and carbon taxes. The simple solutions are scrubbers on smokestacks and increased CAFE standards. Yet that is not appealing. What’s wrong, can’t tax people with simple solutions?
China and India would be exempt or would pay much lower carbon taxes to be fair. Poor people will have the government pay their carbon taxes. As always the middle class will pay for Global warming. Of course the smart people will live in New Urbanists Utopias to avoid these taxes because they are smart. Real smart.
The evil SUV suburban crowd will pay through the shorts for vandalizing this precious planet with their noxious fumes. And the very rich, take it all. Those bastards will really pay. Unless of course they are Al Gore or George Soros. Gore will make millions from books and lecture tours.
It won’t take long for conservationists and real environmentatlist to get wise to the real end game of the Global Warming scam. When they do will they support carbon credits and carbon taxes? No, they will seek real solutions like scrubbers on smokestacks and increased CAFE standards.
Captain Planet has until the 2008 election to pander this con game. This one has a short half life. Global Warming is far left politics. The scientific debate continues. Skeptics are welcome and needed.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:13 am
straightarrow Says:
Well my patience is wearing thin. I may give up after the next non-responce.
persimmon Says:
The problem here is that you admit that the scientific data isn’t all there, but you are 100% sure that the current warming trend is man-made. Even though the Sun is getting hotter, even if there is hard science proving global climate change in the past that could not possibly be from human activities.
And all I’m asking for is some consensus, some ballpark figure on how much greenhouse gas emissions we need to stick to. So I can tell if the plan is at all reasonable.
And BTW, what exactly is your (it’s a trap!) feelings about nuclear power?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Trying to define my position for me again, asshole? I believe I asked you a question:
What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?
February 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am
mischief, the above comment was directed at the digit, not you, although you are doing it too. I have never said I am 100% sure about anything related to this issue. I’m not. I’ve said just the opposite, actually.
What is this “global climate change in the past that could not possibly be from human activities” crap? If someone were arguing that humans are the only thing that can change the climate, that might be a relevant point, but who could possibly be stupid enough to make that claim? All sorts of natural events have altered the climate. No one sane disputes that.
As far as whether an emissions-reduction plan is reasonable, I would contend that a plan with a discrete goal like you want is NOT reasonable. A reasonable plan is one that puts market forces to work on reducing emissions and lets the market decide the rate of reduction and how far to go.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:31 am
persimmon it is your turn to supply some bona fide support for your position. I am speaking out of school here, because this really for SM to do. However, since he has debated you honestly and intelligently and you have refuse to do either, I think it is you who is the asshole.
What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?
Your question above is beyond stupid. You have proven to be a moral vacuum. That a bad combination, stupid and amoral.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:53 am
What’s the matter, arrow? Can’t defend your “same kind of science” remark?
supply some bona fide support for your position
Do you even know what my position is? Niner and SM keep rephrasing my argument so it means the opposite of what I say and asking me to defend things I don’t believe. I see little point in offering further support for my position to an audience that won’t even allow me my own thoughts.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am
What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?
persimmon keeps asking this question but I do not understand it. It is so broad I do not know where to start. I don’t know if it is a clever debating trick or a genuine question.
What do mean you by “market failures”? I know what markets are. I know what market failures are.
The original question was “describe three types of market failures”. I took the intent of this to be that I did not understand enough about economics to be able to have a discussion.
I thought that persimmon was using these old tricks. Looks like this one, 9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.
It seems that persimmon is means testing people, if you don’t meet his high standards he will not debate with you. Except in my case he has to raise the bar to absurdly high levels. In the end of course all that is left is personal insults.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
You might be interested to see the other end games of the Global Warming crowd. David Suzuki is one of Al Gore’s main consultants.
He has some ideas you need to know about.
For video info on Suzuki look here, here, and here. The last two are a dissecting of Al Gore’s new movie “An Inconvenient Truth”.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Niner, it’s a simple question. You claim to know what market failures are, so you shouldn’t have any trouble identifying which market failures are pertinent to this discussion.
I don’t understand where you are coming from or why you have so much trouble understanding what I say. Even when I agree with you, you continue to argue. I have no idea how to end the miscommunication other than by asking you questions so I can figure out where the disconnect is. If you will not answer the question, I can only assume that miscommunication is your intended goal.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Okay, I’ll give it a try. I am guessing as to what you want here.
Three types of market failures: Monopoly, Oligopoly, and Cartel.
How is “market failure” related to either carbon credits or carbon taxes? persimmon I believe will make the case that the current market conditions are a “market failure” now because they do not efficiently allocate goods and services since there is not a tax for “bad behavior”.
I get the idea. I do not however agree with this contention. It depends on who is the decider.
Who is the authority whether coal fired power plants or gasoline fueled automobiles efficiently allocate goods and services? Number9 or Al Gore? Al Gore will tell you that since there is NO carbon tax that the allocation of goods and services are not efficient. Number9 will tell you that you cannot tax you way to prosperity.
I believe persimmon will say that government mandates for higher CAFE standards and scrubbers on smokestacks are an indirect tax because those costs are passed on to the customer.
The problem is this, you see that taxing “bad behavior” is good economics. I question who is it that gets to define “bad behavior”. Again the collectivist viewpoint is much different than the individualist viewpoint. And before you start, the individualist viewpoint does not automatically mean Libertarian. Conservatives also can take the individualist viewpoint.
If I want to fly to Sandestin instead drive how is that “bad behavior”?
February 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Still trying to define my position for me, I see. You are completely wrong in your guess.
You didn’t really answer the question either. You reverted back to the “name three types of market failure” question. Forget that. I want to know which market failures are pertinent to emissions. The three things you listed are really just variations on the same failure, a lack of competition. You don’t explain how a lack of competition pertinent to emissions.
I could guess as to why you think it’s pertinent, and since I agree, at least in part, I could probably guess without being an asshole about it, but I won’t. I’ll let you tell me why you think a lack of competition leads to higher emissions (or how more competition could reduce emissions).
I will, however, point out that there are more important market failures relevant to emissions, so in addition to explaining how lack of competition is relevant, please identify another market failure and explain why it is relevant.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Meanwhile on another blog in another universe. Someone calls for the moderators. “Foul, I calling foul on that one”.
persimmon is using “competition” [actually the lack of competition] as a validation of carbon credits and carbon taxes.
Nice try. You telegraphed the punch. I have a lot of liberal friends. I saw this coming long before you made your play.
It is an interesting gambit. I could make a case for it. It doesn’t really hold water but it is rather brilliant as a diversion. You do know the tricks. You must have been hell back in the old days.
So we have covered science, faith, superstition, religion, and now economics.
What next persimmon? How about numerology? Heh, that was a good one.
You’ve just been digitized.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
persimmon is using “competition” [actually the lack of competition] as a validation of carbon credits and carbon taxes.
You’re still wrong, and you are obviously afraid of a real conversation.
Are you refusing to answer the question because you are afraid you’ll look foolish or because you are afraid you might learn something?
February 19th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
You’re still wrong, and you are obviously afraid of a real conversation. Are you refusing to answer the question because you are afraid you’ll look foolish or because you are afraid you might learn something?
I can meet you halfway, or try to guess. I have never been afraid to learn. Teach me.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Teach me.
Fine, but I’m still trying to figure out what it is you don’t understand. That was the whole point of asking you questions. What do I need to teach you?
February 19th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
SM:
You are not the only person who has said the buzz words ” global warming deniers”.
Here you may have a point. I was largely ignorant of that connotation, although I still fail to see how, even if I were aiming for that connotation, that would justify accusing me of being happy with the idea of killing 2.5 billion.
Meanwhile, you might suggest an alternate term for me to use. Some term I can use to equate people who deny AGW with those who deny, say, evolution, or more generally, well-established science which they find politically inconvenient. “Shitheads” springs to mind, but that’s both too generalized and too crude.
how again (it’s a trap!) do you feel about nuclear power?
It could be a great solution if we could ever solve the radioactive waste problem. But that’s a giant “if.” And I do mean giant. (There’s also the startup time / cost issue that makes it a less-ideal solution than some proponents would lead you to believe.)
I want exact numbers because all this global warming stuff is suppose to be based on science, not voodoo.
As persimmon points out, science doesn’t always lead to exact numbers. We can estimate the age of the planet, for example, but we can’t give an exact figure. But even in the absence of a ballpark figure, I don’t see how “less is better, more is worse” necessarily equates to “voodoo.”
straightarrow:
it is not my fault you two are stupid.
Says the guy who doesn’t even know what “consensus” means…
Oh and CFC’s don’t get in the upper atmosphere, they are too heavy.
Apparently, the EPA didn’t get that memo… Although I will admit my use of the term “upper atmosphere” was not as precise as it could have been.
Tgirsch, not to put too fine a point on it, but you are a fucking moron.
Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Your absolute incomprehension of the point about the China scenario show you to be very strictly intellectually limited.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that a guy who can’t even properly conjugate a verb just called me a “fucking moron,” I frankly don’t care about the merits of the “China scenario.” Did you, or did you not, say that killing off the entire populations of China and India would “make tgirsch happy?” Why, yes, you did:
I don’t think I was the least bit out of line in taking extreme offense at that. I’m even willing to send up the Xrlq-signal on that one. He agrees with me on almost nothing, and is more than happy to smack me down when he thinks I’m out of line, but has on at least one occasion seconded a “fuck you” that I’ve issued — and I don’t issue them very often.
I jus can’t seem to manage it when dealing with the intentionally stupid.
You also can’t seem to manage to spell (or type) “just.” *ducks* Seriously, though, when you’re accusing people of rampant stupidity, a wee bit of proofreading might be in order.
I think Galileo had some problem with people just like that.
Well, except that Galileo was fighting a religious consensus more than a scientific one. Further, Galileo changed the prevailing view by building a compelling case and convincing his peers, not by whining about the fact that his peers didn’t agree with him. In fact, this has been the case with pretty much every scientific revolution. The prevailing view changed because the new paradigm was superior based on its merits. Just because the prevailing view has been wrong in the past doesn’t mean that it’s wrong now. And just because some minority viewpoints have become the prominent ones in the past doesn’t mean that all current minority positions have merit. Science is a meritocracy. If AGW critics are right, they will build a more and more compelling case, and will eventually have consensus on their side. As it is, the more evidence we get, the less compelling their critiques become.
I love the way consensus no longer means all are on board.
I wasn’t aware that it ever meant that in a scientific context. But do carry on with your straw man, if that’s how you have to play it…
#9:
Global Warming is another socialist Utopian wet dream to transfer wealth.
Oooh, I’ll add that to my ever-growing list of “#9’s Posited Motivations for the Global Warming Conspiracy!” (Apparently, these Utopian socialists want to transfer wealth from the masses to corporations who make new air conditioning equipment, new cars, etc., which sounds a lot more like capitalism than socialism to me, but I digress…)
There really is no end to the compassion of people like persimmon when they get their hands on other peoples money.
Exactly what did he or I ever say that would imply that we would exempt ourselves from any new taxes and/or requirements? I can’t speak to persimmon’s income bracket, but I can about guarantee you that just about any proposed tax hike I’d support would hit me harder (in terms of absolute dollars) than the average Joe. So if I’m sacrificing more than most under my own proposed solution, how is this a case of me being generous with “other people’s money?”
I thought that persimmon was using these old tricks. Looks like this one, 9. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.
Were you addressing that to straightarrow? Because it’s a perfect description of the majority of his comments…
February 19th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
SM:
As a starting point for the conversation, let’s say that we need to effect at least a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions in the developed world. I’m not endorsing that specific number or the methodology by which it was reached, but you seem to want some sort of hard figure as a starting point for the conversation, so let’s start there.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
What’s the matter, arrow? Can’t defend your “same kind of science” remark?
supply some bona fide support for your position
Do you even know what my position is? Niner and SM keep rephrasing my argument so it means the opposite of what I say and asking me to defend things I don’t believe. I see little point in offering further support for my position to an audience that won’t even allow me my own thoughts.
Another non-response.
As for tgirsch, you have to be a committee. One person can’t be as damn dumb as you are on your own. Tell ya what genius here’s a freebie, One person can’t possibly be as damn dumb as you are on you’re own. Happy now? Got your apostrophe and the e. And another cogent argument for, well cogent by you’re (another freebie).
I congratulate you. Your best argument so far has been a critique of my typing abilities. You’re improving.
There is no difference between your (feed the ego, you’re) position and the position of the persecutors of Galileo. By the way, you don’t know your (oops! you’re, feel better?) history either. Galileo didn’t prevail in his lifetime. Your position at the moment is religion. It is based on faith. Faith is believing in something you can’t prove and committing yourself (do you feel good yet? should I have said you’reself?) to unquestioning obedience to the teachings of that faith with the concomitant fealty to its pageantry and rituals.
You haven’t supplied anything to suggest your (dammit, did it again, I forget how weak you are, sorry for that here it is, you’re, feel better yet?) belief is anything but faith based. GWB would love you. He has a whole program on faith based initiative.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Wow, I’ve pissed off straightarrow enough to get him to bold 2/3 of his comments. Impressive. Won’t be long now before his head explodes.
There is no difference between your … position and the position of the persecutors of Galileo.
Well, other than the fact that I’m not accusing anyone of heresy, or threatening anyone at all with execution, or suggesting we lock anyone up for expressing an unpopular opinion, or even have the power to do any of that if I wanted to (which I don’t). But apart from that, yeah, I guess I’m exactly like Galileo’s oppressors.
Galileo didn’t prevail in his lifetime.
And this invalidates anything I’ve said about him exactly… how? It’s a testament to the strength of his observations that they stood long after he died. In science, it’s about the facts and evidence, not about the person.
You haven’t supplied anything to suggest your … belief is anything but faith based.
Shit, man, there’s reams of the stuff. Head on over to realclimate.org, or pick up just about any issue of Scientific American or New Scientist. It’s the stuff that attempts to refute AGW that’s difficult to find in any sort of reputable journal. (And by “reputable,” I don’t mean “only those magazines that support AGW,” as I’ve been accused of in the past; no, I mean magazines that are respected for the merits of their scientific content across the spectrum of scientific topics.)
Of course, I do think it’s humorous that you berate me for my lack of substantive content, when the vast majority of your comments involve some mix of personal insults and lousy analogies.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:47 am
You are so weak it’s laughable. By the way take your own advice and do a little proofreading or do you not know the difference between bold and italic?
I’m not pissed, I’m making fun of you. Once again you have proven too dim to know what is going on.
You did get the response about Galileo correct, only problem is you missed the point. Do I have explain everything to you? I will, if you ask nicely, tell you what point you missed. Though, I suspect you actually did take my meaning, but you must ignore it or expose your ( ‘e, just put these where you want) dishonesty in the debate. However,as stated if you really missed the point I will explain it to you. You now , must choose, are you stupid or evil? You can’t be that far off base without one applying.
There were reams of stuff about why the earth was the center of the universe, with just as much substance. And those reams appeared in the only reputable writings of the times.
I and others made plenty of substantive remarks about why we think we (as in mankind and science) don’t really know what is happening yet. We made many substantive remarks showing what we are experiencing now is neither unique nor necessarily man caused. Though all of us thoughtful people allowed for that possibility we have asked to see more evidence than “because I say so”. We have asked for substantive input on how the conclusions were reached, how the severity of the problem for the future was determined, and could we really be effective in doing anything about it if it is shown we are not the cause.
You nor your ( ‘e, here don’t want you to feel bad) colleague in moral superiority answered with anything more substantive than “because I said so, and anybody who doesn’t agree is evil.” (paraphrased) Sorry, guy, you started the berating to avoid replying to serious alternate possibilities forwarded by others, even as you admitted there was no scienctifically quantifiable or qualitative evidence you could show.
You started the crap flinging, even though nobody here denied the possibility of your scenario being correct, we just denied that anybody at this point in time knows for sure with anything approaching science. As has been pointed out they haven’t even been able to get one of their models to recreate what we know is historical fact. Yet you demand we accept their ability to accurately predict the future with causation for it.
Where did you answer that? Go back and look, I think you might be embarrassed, naww, I take that back. You haven’t the character to be embarrassed for your non-answers complete with indictment of all who don’t believe with the religious fervor you do.
Oh yeah, the EPA got that memo. But it wasn’t politically acceptable to point out that the hole in the ozone layer was at high altitude far beyond the ability for CFC’s to reach. Nor was it politically feasible to note that periods of lessened sunshine means periods of lessened ozone production since sunshine is a necessary element in the production of ozone.
Where was your answer to those simple questions? Oh yeah, it was in the snide remark about the EPA must not have gotten that memo. That has been your tactic through this whole issue. Yet you expect respect. Sorry. Not here. I have never liked liars, cheats, weaklings and circular debaters. None of them can be trusted. Ergo, my response to you has been, in the last half of this discussion about you. What did you expect, you wouldn’t let it be about global warming and its possible causes? With you, it had to be about those rotten denier bastards.
I wonder about your humanity also. You seem to be the only one that took the China thing seriously. I certainly didn’t, and I don’t recall anyone else doing so either. Do you have some internal guilty knowledge? Do you need to talk to a professional about it? That seems awfully Freudian to me.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Potato, potahto.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Xrlq:
So science and religion are equal in merit? The fact the overwhelming majority of Christians agree that Jesus rose from the dead is equal in merit to the fact that the majority of qualified biologists think that evolution is real? This surprises me, coming from you. But I notice no comment on the relative merits of the “fuck you” issuance. Did you miss it, or did you choose not to respond?
straightarrow:
There were reams of stuff about why the earth was the center of the universe, with just as much substance.
See, you’re wrong about the “just as much substance” part, which is a pretty important thing to be wrong about. But again, it’s you who misses the point. Galileo’s observations were ultimately recognized as correct on their merits. They were accepted because they worked better that the pre-existing wisdom, and could be objectively demonstrated to be superior. Those who reject AGW cannot say the same about their evidence as compared to the evidence in favor of AGW. In science, if you build a better, more convincing case, you’ll win the debate. If you don’t, you won’t. It’s really that simple. The anti-AGW scientists have failed to build a more convincing case. (And as has been pointed out many times before, the fame and fortune in science comes not from accepting the status quo, but from refuting it. So there’s plenty of incentive for scientists to try to disprove the prevailing wisdom, contrary to the idea that it’s some sort of far-reaching conspiracy of misinformation.)
I and others made plenty of substantive remarks about why we think we (as in mankind and science) don’t really know what is happening yet.
No, not really. You have chosen to focus on what we don’t know, to the exclusion of what we do. Counter to #9’s protestations, the “hockey stick” has not been debunked; it has been vindicated. And there is a demonstrable correlation between human-generated carbon emissions and the amount of warming we’ve experienced. Does this mean that human action is the only thing that can cause warming? Of course not, but nobody ever said that it was. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, or is it not? Clearly, it is. Are we producing CO2 at a record rate, or are we not? Clearly, we are. To argue that there is no impact from this, or that any such impact is negligible, is to ignore the facts of the case.
I could cite plenty of sources in all of this, but I expect you’d simply dismiss them as part of the “global warming conspiracy,” so I won’t bother.
Sorry, guy, you started the berating to avoid replying to serious alternate possibilities forwarded by others
I guess I didn’t realize that the genocide of the Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis was a “serious alternate possibility.” My bad.
Finally, I think it’s quite humorous that you lecture me about a failure to provide sources or citations or “because I say so” when you haven’t provided even one source or citation to anything you’ve stated here. I just scrolled back and looked at all of your comments, and I found zero links, zero source attributions. Maybe I missed one, and you can help me out. You say (and later repeat) that it has been “proved” that CFCs are too heavy to reach the ozone layer, but the only way you provide for us to verify that is by accepting your say-so on the subject. (I did a quick google on CFCs the other day, which is where I came up with the EPA link, among others, and found nothing to support your contention.) So from where I sit, I think you should heed the old advice about people in glass houses.
Persimmon:
I want to take a crack at your question about market failures. Not sure whether this is what you’re getting at, but markets suck at accurately reflecting true costs, especially when externalities are involved and/or there are long-term costs that are not immediately apparent. Cleanup costs at superfund sites are a fine example of this. These costs should have been factored into the original costs of the manufacturing processes that caused the pollution, but they were not. “The market” decided that pollution was cheaper than clean operation, and others got to pick up the tab on the cleanup.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
You still missed the point. You are irremedially intentionally stupid. I am through with you.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
TGirsch: no, real science and religion are not even close in merit. But real science relies on data, not “consensus,” as an argument. Once the focus of the argument shifts from the data itself to the perception (real or imagined) that a lot of Really Smart People believe X and therefore, you should, too, it ceases to be science and becomes religion under another name.
No, I’m not saying we should pay no attention at all to consensus. I’m just saying we shouldn”t use appeals to consensus as though it were a substantive argument in favor of the theory advanced. We should believe evolution because the overwhelming majority of the data points that way. We shouldn’t believe it because all the big boys do.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Xrlq, the real science of climate does not include predictions of the future. You are right about that. The real science includes things like evaporation of water and other chemicals from the ocean, forest respiration, thermal mass, tides and solar output. Real climate science attempts to discover and explain how the million things that contribute to weather and atmospheric composition function and interact.
We have directly observed and can indirectly observe through geological records many times in Earth’s history where atmospheric disruptions caused ice ages or mass extinctions. A big volcano 75,000 years ago nearly wiped out humans. The ash layer from the eruption has been known to geology for centuries and appears nearly worldwide. Geneticists recently discovered a bottleneck in human genomics dating to the same age.
Climate scientists have examined in detail how the present climate works. They have looked at the impacts of volcanic eruptions, comet strikes and other cataclysms in the geologic record. Our historical knowledge tells us that current human pollution is comparable to volcanic eruptions and significant geological events, particularly as they accumulate year after year. Because people are concerned about the huge amount of air pollution we generate, climate scientists have been forced to study what might happen in the future if we keep spewing smoke and heat like it makes no difference at all.
The consensus is that it will make a difference, and you can even see it happening already.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:32 am
Once the focus of the argument shifts from the data itself to the perception (real or imagined) that a lot of Really Smart People believe X and therefore, you should, too, it ceases to be science and becomes religion under another name.
Perfect.
A big volcano 75,000 years ago nearly wiped out humans. The ash layer from the eruption has been known to geology for centuries and appears nearly worldwide. Geneticists recently discovered a bottleneck in human genomics dating to the same age.
And what was the bottleneck? Ash, a virus, a plague? That is an extrapolation not a certainty. You are defining junk science.
Disturbing.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:03 am
You are defining junk science.
You are defining dumbass. I don’t give a shit whether you believe the data-proven genetic bottleneck 75,000 years ago is unrelated to the blatant ash layer in soil and rocks worldwide dating from the same time. All I am saying is Earth’s climate has changed drastically because of atmospheric disturbances in the past. Climate change will not be easy on our health or economy, and the risk is worth considering even at much lower thresholds of proof than we now have.
You know this. You are just scared to talk about addressing that risk, so you lamely pretend there is no risk.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:53 am
Xrlq:
No, I’m not saying we should pay no attention at all to consensus. I’m just saying we shouldn”t use appeals to consensus as though it were a substantive argument in favor of the theory advanced.
I don’t disagree with you here. Scientific consensus is by no means the be-all and end-all, but generally speaking, it is a good shorthand way for people who are not experts in a particular field to get a feel for where the data actually does point. I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that nobody here is a qualified climatologist. So by and large, we’re forced to rely upon the expertise of others who are. We can check their data for ourselves (to the extent that we can understand it), but that’s about as far as it goes.
In other words, I’m not suggesting that we should agree with the scientific consensus simply because it’s the consensus. We should agree with it in part because it’s the consensus, but also because the data seem to support that consensus, and because over time the consensus and its supporting data have grown stronger, and because those who reject the consensus have failed to provide compelling reasons for others to do so. Indeed, their case, at least among the laity, generally consists of repeating oft-discredited claims (”The hockey stick has been discredited!” — it has not), transparent misconceptions (”How can they accurately predict climate if they can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather?” — weather and climate are not the same thing), etc. Among the pros, it isn’t much better. Lindzen, for example, seems to be fighting a war of attrition, without ever cluing us in on how many concessions he’ll have to make before he admits his overarching theories are wrong. The case he argues today isn’t much different than what he was arguing ten years ago, except that as he’s done this, the case for AGW has gotten considerably stronger.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:54 am
straightarrow:
I am through with you.
Hooray!
February 21st, 2007 at 9:43 am
You are defining dumbass.
All I am saying is Earth’s climate has changed drastically because of atmospheric disturbances in the past. Climate change will not be easy on our health or economy, and the risk is worth considering even at much lower thresholds of proof than we now have.
You know this. You are just scared to talk about addressing that risk, so you lamely pretend there is no risk.
So after I have proposed coal gasification, solar energy, conservation, compact fluorescent bulbs, scrubbers on coal fired plants, and increased CAFE standards yet somehow I am defining dumbass?
Let me help you. I am more concerned about energy independence than I am the junk science of Al Gore’s Global Warming. I encourage some of the ideas to combat Global Warming because they make sense for the economic security of the United States. An example would be to grow food locally instead of in Mexico.
We are more at risk to continue to be reliant on Middle Eastern oil than we are at risk due to Global Warming. I understand the actual risks. That is why I take my time to converse with people like you who have emotionally assigned a risk factor to Global Warming that is higher than all other risks.
This Global Warming hysteria is the greatest assault on science in the history of the human race. Science must have a firewall from the politics of hysteria. You have proved nothing other than your inability to understand scientific method.
Gore may deserve the Oscar. He does not deserve the Nobel Prize. He may get it but he does not deserve it. Now Gore is getting honorary Phds. When does this religion stop being a religion and morph into a cult?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Saying “coal gasification is good” does nothing. Electricity generators building new power plants continue to opt for the old technology instead of gasification. How do you propose getting them to actually adopt gasification?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Saying “coal gasification is good” does nothing. Electricity generators building new power plants continue to opt for the old technology instead of gasification. How do you propose getting them to actually adopt gasification?
True. Several thoughts, none of them easy. I would suggest that the Global Warming movement hedge its bet. Lobby for government action to create a prototype Coal Gas electrical plant. The carbon sequestration aspect of coal gasification should be very appealing.
The big problem is the mining aspect. A large segment of the Global Warming movement is anti-mining and anti-drilling. You may not like what I will say next, that endangers our national security. We have to be energy sufficient. We should be able to do so and be good stewards to our air and water.
This country needs a Manhattan Project for energy. But everyone hates big energy. We know that socializing big energy will never happen. So the problem is what can be done and what the people will except.
Why the government has not started a 5 square mile solar energy power plant in the desert west is beyond me. Why there is no large scale Coal Gas plant is beyond me.
This is why people are tired of the shrill eco-freaks. I am more concerned about our national security than I am mining for coal or drilling for oil. But I do not support strip mines or wild cat oil companies destroying the land.
We cannot conserve our way out of this problem. We need new ideas and mutual cooperation. I don’t see it happening. The far left extreme liberal segment of American society is becoming more mainstream. The far right extreme Conservatives are part of the problem also.
To answer your question, the people are a big part of the problem. The media a bigger part of the problem.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
There are already prototype gasification plants and even a few commercial facilities. It’s an established technology. It is not being adopted because of market failure (not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested). Curing that failure will lead to adoption of gasification.
Do you understand what the externalities are in the electricity production market? (That’s not a yes/no question, explain your answer)
February 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
There are already prototype gasification plants and even a few commercial facilities. It’s an established technology. It is not being adopted because of market failure (not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested).
What market failure? The mining aspect? Or something else? Cost per kilowatt?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
EXTERNALITIES. Jesus, it’s spelled right out in that post. How can you even be asking that question? You claim to know what market failures are, but you seem bewildered by the topic. Which is it? Can you identify externalities in the electricity production market or not?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
You claim to know what market failures are, but you seem bewildered by the topic. Which is it? Can you identify externalities in the electricity production market or not?
I am amused by this tactic. I am sure you understand that there are many interpretations of market failures. I can guess since you will not give me any information, but then you will accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I am not bewildered by the topic, just your gamesmanship.
Which interpretation of market failure is causing Coal Gas to be a failure? I am smart but cannot read minds. But I can guess, is that the game you wish to play? Let’s continue the game, I am intrigued.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Which interpretation of market failure is causing Coal Gas to be a failure?
EXTERNALITIES. If you don’t know what externalities are, just say so. I’m trying to respect your knowledge on this issue, but you won’t come off the starting line.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I know what externalities are.
I think I was confused when you wrote, “(not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested”. I read that and thought externalities were excluded.
Okay reset the clock, I will go with externalities.
I questioned if coal mining was a concern. To some people that would be an negative externality. However, carbon sequestration would be a positive externality.
Be forewarned, I do poorly in these types of discussions in some cases. Myers Briggs NT. If for example you are a Myers Briggs SF I will irritate you. I sometimes connect dots that are not there from your perspective. It doesn’t mean I am trying to outsmart you or be a smart-ass, I process information in a different manner. I suspect this is part of the problem.
Carry on.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I think I was confused when you wrote, “(not a lack of competition, externalities, as tgirsch suggested”
I have to admit, I was confused by this as well. What I think persimmon meant there was “not a lack of competition, but externalities, as tgirsch suggested.” The implicit-but-untyped “but” makes it make more sense.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
I have to admit, I was confused by this as well. What I think persimmon meant there was “not a lack of competition, but externalities, as tgirsch suggested.” The implicit-but-untyped “but” makes it make more sense.
I agree. I just did not understand. I think we are back on track now.
It is an interesting question and I am curious where persimmon wants to go with it. I think the greatest externality is probably lobbyist. Without Federal Government mandates and funding I do not know how alternative energy projects can get off the ground. You would think that solar would have more support, but maybe it is the energy producers themselves that do not want to see solar power plants move forward.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I would expect wind and wave power to get more support than solar, because they can generate more energy in less space. But I think we need to heavily incent the incorporation of renewable energy, including solar, as well as efficiency, in new construction (for example).
As to externalities, I’m not sure lobbyists qualify. I’m thinking that the most important externality is simply the increase in costs that will be incurred, more or less across the spectrum, by our current “cheap energy” practices. If global warming predictions come true, then things like farming, indoor climate control, transportation, etc., become considerably more expensive than they are today. We’re currently engaged in practices that are not sustainable, so that the true cost of what we’re doing is obscured and deferred until later. And, worse, the total cost becomes higher (given the whole ounce of prevention today vs. pound of cure tomorrow thing).
Even if you set aside the global warming aspects for a moment, we’re still not reflecting the true cost of energy, because we’re dealing with a finite resource. It’s cheap now — much cheaper than finding a viable alternative — because it’s currently plentiful. But it won’t always be. Today’s cost only take into account short-term supply and demand. Long-term supply and demand are not part of the equation, and they need to be.