Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 Next
Comments 84001 to 84050:
-
Alexandre at 04:36 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (skeptic) at 02:45 AM on 3 June, 2011 Much of the consequences of emissions is fairly known. I wonder to what extent you are aware of what's known. But are you saying that we can only do something about this when every consequence is exhaustively researched, determined and proven? That's a certain path for inaction. On this rationale, the 19th century English law limiting coal burning (and with its harmful urban smoke) would still be waiting for further research to calculate how many lungs were affected by it, and how many pounds each case would mean. The same for automotive emissions. Sorry, people have to make decisions with limited knowledge. This is always the case. Maybe further discussion would belong to the "It's not bad" thread. -
J. Bob at 04:35 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red @ 213 Amen to your 1st paragraph. -
dana1981 at 04:26 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
by the way, let's please not turn the comments into a nuclear argument, since it's just one relatively minor aspect of the article in question. -
dana1981 at 04:25 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
MattJ - I disagree that we necessarily need nuclear, or at least very much more nuclear. I do think we need to keep the nuclear we have, at least for now, and phase-out fossil fuels first. But we can eventually meet 100% of our energy needs with renewable energy. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:23 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
227, DB, For what it's worth, I knew Clarity in college. She was great to have around when you needed to get things done, but she really wasn't much fun (or rather, she got in the way of having fun -- there are points in my life when I wish she hadn't been around). On opting out... why am I not surprised. He was very comfortable in his own venue, where unscientific declarations and ideological diatribes could continue unchecked, as long as they followed the denial party line. That an environment such as this, and a need to both support what you say, stick to the subject at hand, and avoid the netherworld denial nonsense, would be intractably uncomfortable to him is not a surprise. -
CBDunkerson at 04:15 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
Eric, the way you are using the term 'climate sensitivity', as explained in comment #21 above, is radically different from the standard definition used in most discussions here and regarding climate science in general. Again, most of us take the term 'climate sensitivity' to be the degree of climate feedback to any forcing. That is, whether the planet is accumulating heat due to increased solar output, an enhanced greenhouse effect, or a martian death ray, we can expect this additional heat to be partly offset by negative feedbacks and enhanced by positive feedbacks. The net feedback effect is the 'climate sensitivity'. While there would be some variation in feedbacks based on the type of forcing (e.g. a martian death ray aimed at the Arctic circle would introduce ice-albedo feedbacks faster than otherwise equal warming from increased greenhouse gases would) these variations are comparatively small and generally ignored when discussing the sensitivity of the climate to forcings. Most estimates put short term climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling at a total of about 3 C... 1 C from the CO2 itself and 2 C from feedback effects. Any other forcing which would produce 1 C warming by itself would also be expected to result in about 3 C total warming as the same feedback effects would apply. Thus, applying the usual definitions to your original statement I wouldn't call it 'pro-AGW', 'anti-AGW', OR 'neutral' so much as just 'wrong'. I can sort of follow where you were going based on your definitions of the terms above, but you'd probably be better served following standard usage. -
MattJ at 03:49 AM on 3 June 2011IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News
I notice the clause "no barriers to the use of nuclear energy". But as the article also observes, the Fukushima incident has been a major setback for the use of nuclear energy. It pains me to notice that after some small progress getting environmentalists to accept the need for nuclear, that has been pretty near completely erased due to Fukushima. More precisely, due to TEPCO's total failure to address long-standing safety problems in the way they run their nuclear plants. Still, in the course of following the news during the month after the disaster, I learned of a very interesting alternative in nuclear technology, one I wish the world knew more about: thorium liquid fuel cycles. Apparently, the use of thorium instead of pure uranium or plutonium, and the use of it in liquid form instead of solid, really does make it much safer. No meltdown is possible, for example, because it is already molten; and if the molten fuel escapes, it solidifies instead of providing "China syndrome". But most of the material about it on the web is by industry advocates, so it may be 'colored' by industry optimism. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:24 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
228, Tom Curtis,I do not think I can be clearer than that; and doubt I lacked clarity in either of my previous two posts on this issue.
Your first posts were more than clear, and Eric's gross misrepresentation of your position in his post 197 -- which purposely chose just the right words to make your position seem preposterous -- is a perfect example of very bad behavior, and one that I think requires an apology. In any event, posts such as those teach us with whom we can expect an open and honest discourse in the future, versus those with whom we can expect a tactics-filled waste of time and energy. -
Tom Curtis at 03:13 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic) @225, I do not know the details of the funding of textbook Hansen refers to, so cannot comment. The issue of giving money to Cato per se is irrelevant. Let us assume that all Cato publications have that minimum level of intellectual integrity that the authors believe what they write, and that it fairly represents the subject matter. Then the Cato authors cannot be guilty of crimes against humanity on this basis because clause (b) is false of them. Let us further suppose that the CEO of a fossil fuel corporation knows that climate change is real, and that it will bring about mass deaths. We suppose that they further know that the opinions of the Cato authors are false or misleading, but that they fund them anyway in order to delay action on carbon emissions, thus maximising their short term profits at the expense of hundreds of thousands of premature deaths decades from now. In that case, they are guilty of a crime against humanity by funding Cato, even though the Cato authors are not guilty of any crime by publishing. Let us further suppose there is a third party who funds Cato because, either they believe all that Cato authors write, or they believe some part of it while disagreeing on the issue of climate change, but believe the overall production of Cato is worthwhile. Again they are not guilty of a crime by funding Cato because they do not satisfy clause (b). I do not think I can be clearer than that; and doubt I lacked clarity in either of my previous two posts on this issue. -
Bob Lacatena at 03:10 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
26, Tom, Pretty much agreed. My position was probably presented in too extreme a fashion. Certainly, everyone benefits hugely from the vast transportation infrastructure that has grown in the last 150 years, and you are right, modern societies and populations would not be sustainable without it. But, I would also argue that while all benefit from it, the wealthy benefit disproportionately more, and pay disproportionately less. A transportation tax of any sort (on roads, or on fuels/energy) will ultimately be passed on to the consumer, making all products more expensive. But this will ultimately result in a new, more appropriate balance between more-expensive-to-produce-but-cheaper-to-transport local goods, versus the opposite (which is almost all we have in today's society). It moves some of the easy ability to accumulate wealth out of the hands of a national and international very few, and into more, more local hands. Not a lot, just some. It would also result in the development of cheaper and more sustainable energy sources and transportation systems. So, in the end, my argument is that future fossil fuel taxes and their effect on the economy are really simply righting an injustice that is already inherent in the current system, i.e. that large corporations and a wealthy few benefit disproportionately from a massive, fossil-fuel based infrastructure that is not, in and of itself, as currently fashioned, in the best interests of either society or most people in society. It is already a redistribution of wealth, from the poor and average person to the wealthy. Will prices go up some? Yes. Would a wholesale destruction of the current system badly damage society, and individual wealth at all levels? Obviously, and absolutely. Are either of these valid arguments for leaving the current system in place? Not remotely close. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:59 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
219, MichaelM, You should note that one of the people who has been posting on this very thread falls vehemently into the category you actually named, i.e. he thinks that greenhouse gas theory contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and steadfastly clings to that position in spite of all of the facts (many of which he simply does not properly understand, and so dismisses due to a simple failure/lack of adequate abstract thinking and sufficient background knowledge). *Rolls eyes, stifles a cough, and stumbles off mumbling that there are some people who are just hopelessly lost*Response:[DB] For clarity's sake (and I hope to someday meet the semimythical Clarity & pray she's worth the wait), the individual you refer to has chosen to opt-out of participating in discussions at SkS.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:57 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
Sphaerica @25, I doubt that this is really on topic here, or anywhere else on Skeptical Science, so I will make a few short observations and leave it at that. First, while there is a hidden subsidy of private transport, the subsidy is one in which all, or almost all members of society are substantial beneficiaries. In the simplest terms we know the standard of living of people dependant primarily on local distribution networks, and it is not high. Indeed, it struggles to match that of even pensioners in our society. Typical examples can be found in any Indian or African village. With modern technology, that standard can be lifted to a very comfortable level, but the ready availability of that modern technology depends on the existence of mass markets and cheap transport. Consequently a modern village life style can only be a utopian dream for a wealthy (at least in world terms) few. Further, such a life style cannot sustain anything like our current world population. You probably did not have in mind anything like the level of localisation I am describing, but the point is a general one. Consequently I am certainly not opposed to the hidden subsidy on private transport. I just do not think the need to subsidise public transport is not a reason to invest in it. What is at issue is which is the most efficient subsidy, and that will depend on the particular situation. In general, public transport will yield greater efficiency, but only because as a result of the very visible nature of the subsidy, investment in public transport tends to lag investment in private transport. -
Albatross at 02:45 AM on 3 June 2011Amazon drought: A death spiral? (part 2:climate models)
Don't get too focussed on ENSO. Paleo data form the tropic has shown that when the planet warms the ITCZ shifts and that of course has marked impacts on the rainfall in the tropics. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:45 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
222, apiratelooksat50, Or, more briefly, I have no respect for anyone who takes the time to label themselves a skeptic. If they feel they have to actually justify their stance with labels, then they don't have as justifiable stance, and more importantly, they aren't trying to educate themselves, they're just trying to sway others towards their opinion on matters (because without proper education, it's only opinion, not knowledge). -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:45 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Alexandre, the externalities of GHG are a very broad topic. I am for examining the externalities that include: farming practices and productivity, domestic reforestation, foreign aid priorities, positive and negative contributions to ocean uptake, ongoing emssions (not punitive damages for past emssions), and all other parts of the emission equation. Then we would have to delve into the much stickier issue of the cost (and benefits) of those emissions. Not an easy task in a room full of scientists, never mind in a room full of politicians. Tom (207) thanks for spelling it out in 2 a, b, and c. Those are unfortunately not answered in Hansen's short portion of testimony on that topic. I asked more specifically for 2b and an explanation of the part of Hansen's testimony that you posted. Does "funding textbooks" have some other meaning than "giving money to CATO" and if not, does "giving money to CATO" in conjunction with the "internal state of mind" allegation of 2a constitute a crime against humanity? I agree with the "intentional" part of 2c (they did what they did with the intention to protect their property rights). -
Bob Lacatena at 02:43 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
222, apiratelooksat50,Can you explain this? I think you are saying that a skeptic is automatically a denier.
Pretty much, yes. Or, more specifically, I'm saying that everyone that I've met who labels themselves as a skeptic is in fact a denier. A real skeptic wouldn't for one moment be worried about their label, or arguing a position. They'd be studying and learning, because the amount of knowledge that it takes to move from "skeptic" to "knowing" is vast. But my point is also that it is possible to be in the "knowing" camp (without labeling what it is that you would know) when you have studied enough. Then you are no longer a skeptic, because you believe in whatever the facts point toward. The denier inevitably tries state or imply that there are gray areas, things we don't know, random elements, too much margin for error, etc., etc. But it's all nonsense. We have more than enough knowledge, and more than enough understanding of exactly what the margins of error are. The problem is probably more than a little in the definition of "skeptic." A real skeptic is someone who isn't sure, and so is open minded and trying to learn more. The definition of a skeptic used by deniers, to apply to themselves as individuals, is someone who doesn't believe in what mainstream climate science is saying, but don't themselves have actual knowledge to refute it (or, rather, they think they do, but they've stopped learning themselves short of what they need to have a viable position). The real skeptic is skeptical about the science, and so needs to learn more. The faux skeptic is skeptical about the foggy common man's understanding of the science, and how it was derived by the real scientists, and then stops there and spends all of his time getting angry, absorbing other faux skeptical bits of non-information from other faux skeptics, and then posting comments on blogs to express their personal outrage based on their own ignorant faux skepticism. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:34 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Mods, I reposted my comment 217 to the thread suggested by KR. You may replace it with a {moved to http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm#53074} link if you wish. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:33 AM on 3 June 2011CO2 limits will harm the economy
212, Tom Curtis, (from another thread here),I also find it utterly risible that people claim that public transport is inefficient because it requires subsidies to operate, while completely ignoring that users of private transport never pay the full cost of the roads they use.
That's an excellent point, even as it relates to the redistribution of wealth issue. The beneficiaries of publicly funded interstate highway and rail systems are inevitably the very wealthy. While we may not enjoy the selection as much, people could very, very easily live a good life style using more locally produced goods, which require less roads and rail infrastructure. Certainly, our current society depends on those two, but by far, the beneficiaries are the extremely wealthy who then accumulate more wealth than they otherwise could. So a "fair" tax on roads and rail really should be on a per-use basis (in which case the small, local businessman would be far more competitive, and the consumers would have a better choice, and free market forces would include that hidden expense of long-distance-transportation infrastructure... but the wealthy would never stand for such a thing). -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:33 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica @ 196 You read an awful lot into the words I typed in reply to Tom Curtis. What you wrote tended to ramble and is not typical of most of your writing. "The day I meet an actual skeptic, I'll let you know. Until then, IMO, anyone who thinks they are a skeptic needs to wake up and admit to themselves that they are a denier (yourself included). Until they do so, they are closed to the truth, avoiding the actual facts and science, and fooling themselves by clinging to a belief in what they'd like to be true." Can you explain this? I think you are saying that a skeptic is automatically a denier. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:31 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
209, J. Bob,Humans are late comers to the ball, and while we may know some of the steps (physics), we just may not know it all.
You see, this is the problem in a nutshell. Modern science, and most people here, do in fact know a whole lot more than you know yourself, or think we know. That's the problem, and another flavor of denial. You think there's this gaping hole in our knowledge, and we're conveniently ignoring our ignorance, because you and others like you are not bothering to fill in the gaps in your own understanding of climate physics. So do everyone a favor, instead of responding with an outraged diatribe, stop posting comments, and start reading. Every posted comment is a missed opportunity to learn more, and there is a huge, huge wealth of knowledge (knowledge = things we know) out there to be consumed. You are not a skeptic if you say "we don't know." -
Ganesha at 02:28 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
KR - Sorry, you are correct. I'll repost there and maybe a kindly mod can delete this post and my post @ 215? -
MichaelM at 02:28 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
There is Skeptic and Denier but we are missing the third category: Idiot. When Spencer shows on his web site how global warming works and how it does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics there are still people who cannot grasp basic physics. What's the best method of dealing with that group?Response:[DB] "we are missing the third category: idiot."
Please, let's not go there (but I feel your pain). That somehow "clouds cause ENSO" evokes your perjorative label quite quickly, however.
-
Eric the Red at 02:27 AM on 3 June 2011Database of peer-reviewed papers: classification problematics
CB, The only thing relevent to the climate sensitivity is the total effect attributable to CO2. If the total impact to temperatures attributed to CO2 is 0%, then the climate is insensitivity to CO2, and the climate sensitivity (to CO2) would be 0. If it was 90%, then the climate is very sensitive to CO2, and the climate sensitivity would be high. I chose solar to be the next highest because it was used in the example above. I could have chosen any other forcings and numbers, but the only pertinent value is that associated with CO2. You could determine a separate albedo sensitivity, if you like, but it would not impact the effect of CO2. My intent was to determine at which point a paper ceases to become pro-agw and turn neutral, which is the essential question for which this thread was started. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:27 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
216, KR, Sorry, I just saw your response to where this properly belongs. Agreed. -
Bob Lacatena at 02:26 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
212, Tom Curtis, That's an excellent point, even as it relates to the redistribution of wealth issue. The beneficiaries of publicly funded interstate highway and rail systems are inevitably the very wealthy. While we may not enjoy the selection as much, people could very, very easily live a good life style using more locally produced goods, which require less roads and rail infrastructure. Certainly, our current society depends on those two, but by far, the beneficiaries are the extremely wealthy who then accumulate more wealth than they otherwise could. So a "fair" tax on roads and rail really should be on a per-use basis (in which case the small, local businessman would be far more competitive, and the consumers would have a better choice, and free market forces would include that hidden expense of long-distance-transportation infrastructure... but the wealthy would never stand for such a thing). -
KR at 02:19 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro, Ganesha, Tom Curtis, etc. - Please, can we move the 'taxation' discussions to the CO2 limits will harm the economy thread? They are completely OT when discussing deniers vs. skeptics, which is the current topic. -
Ganesha at 02:13 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro @ 200 Let's make sure we have the facts straight here. You have started by speaking specifically about the US, but have then taken the global financial information for a $370B multinational conglomerate and presented tax information in a way that makes it seem like these are US taxes. US income tax to Exxon: $1.2B Non-US income tax: $21.1B US Sales tax to Exxon: $6.2B Non-US Sales tax: $22.4B See Page F-59 And the Headquarters? $2 million in income tax. Everything is in the subsidiaries, not the parent. -
apiratelooksat50 at 02:07 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
DB @ 192 My comment to #2 was solely to the last phrase. Thanks -
Eric the Red at 02:02 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
J. Bob, I have some to add to your response to Scaddemp on where the energy is coming from. The primary energy source is the sun, with very little attributed from interenal radiation. The energy emitted from the sun has not changed appreciably, however, the amount reaching and absorbed by the surface may. It is not a question of an energy source, rather of an energy filter (clouds) and energy absorber (albedo). The other question that is not being asked is what natural processes (if any) will work to alleviate the additional heat. The most efficient means of removing added heat is to move it to the area which will result in the greatest removal, in our case, the poles. -
Tom Curtis at 01:53 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro Kano, I also find it utterly risible that people claim that public transport is inefficient because it requires subsidies to operate, while completely ignoring that users of private transport never pay the full cost of the roads they use. If you were serious about eliminating public subsidies of transport, you would place the road system up for tender; and only permit its expansion by voluntarily negotiated purchases of land (not state resumption of land). You would then allow the successful tenderer to charge what they liked for use of their roads. Of course, nobody sane would accept any such system. They'ld much rather accept their hidden subsidies and then complain about the inefficiencies of public transport. -
KR at 01:50 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Regarding carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc: might I suggest moving that entire discussion to the CO2 limits will harm the economy thread?Moderator Response: Yes, everybody, please do so. -
Tom Curtis at 01:46 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro Kano @200, the obligation to pay lawful taxes was a condition of purchase of every property in the Western World. Arguing after that purchase that a condition of purchase is "theft" indicates that you entered the contract fraudulently. If you think that you should not need to pay tax, the correct course of action is to explicitly renegotiate your property rights, and good luck with that. In the meantime, protestations that taxation is theft is just an elaborate con game by the well off to shirk their obligations. -
J. Bob at 01:46 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Scaddemp @ 178, You say “How come it looks a lot less terrible complex non-linear if you assume that climate will conform to known physics and is thus a function of total forcings?”. A couple of clarifications might be in order. The first is “knowing” all the physics, and the definition of “forcings”. An example might be the physics of natural convection are “known”, to a high degree. How they might apply in various situations, known & unknown, is another matter. As far as “forcings” go, it could range from a complex model including gas, fluid & thermo dynamics, to a simple constant coefficient linear equation, with a first order lag. So you might want to refine what your term means. Your other question, “If the warming is coming from some natural cycle, then where is that energy coming from ie - how is 1st Law maintained?”. I’m not sure of you phrasing, but there are at least a couple of primary energy sources to the earth, solar & if I remember my geology correctly, internal natural radioactivity. As far as the earth’s surface properties, you might look at it as a energy dance, of many participants, involving conduction, convection, radiation with the land masses, ocean & atmosphere. Some participants may more faster then others, in many patterns. Humans are late comers to the ball, and while we may know some of the steps (physics), we just may not know it all. -
pbjamm at 01:40 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Sphaerica@196 "WUWT is not a good place to start, it's a travesty of misinformation, misrepresentation, conspiracy theories, vitriolic anger, and quite simply time wasting." I disagree with you on this. Not with your accurate description of what is to be found at WUWT but that it is not a good place for the uneducated seeker of knowledge to look for information. People who are genuinely interested in learning will immediately recognize WUWT for what it is and go in search of science. When they discover RC or SkS (perhaps from a WUWT rant) the contrast in tone and content will be shocking. It is then pretty clear who has logic on their side and who has ideology. I know because that is how I got here. -
Tom Curtis at 01:39 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic) @197: 1) I did not argue for property rights with unlimited taxation. The US has quite strict limitations on taxation within the Constitution, and significant restrictions on changing the constitution. But any tax that is a) Constitutional; b) Can pass both houses of Congress; and c) Is not vetoed by the by the President is built into the contract of any property rights in the US. If people purchasing property rights wish thereby to purchase exemption from normal laws, present or future, then they need to negotiate that when they purchase the property. If they do not, then claiming exemption based on faulty philosophy is just an attempt to welsh on their deal. Of course, if they don't like that restriction on their property rights, they can always indulge their libertarian right to sell up and go elsewhere. 2) I did defend the remarks you left out, and quite strenuously. In particular, I quoted them; I indicated their significance; and I defended the basic principle they appealed to. The only thing I did not do was defend Hansen's particular view of the facts, although I did show he had good (but not conclusive) reasons for those views. Your only response to my defence has been a conjured outrage at supposed, but non-existent insults; and now a misrepresentation of the view expressed which amounts to an obvious straw man. Specifically, it is a crime against humanity if you: a) Know that your actions have the forseeable consequence of hundreds of premature deaths; b) and propagate, or pay to be propagated information which you know to be false or misleading; c) with the intention that the false or misleading information will result in no effective action being taken to prevent our actions which will lead to the mass deaths; and d) As a result the deaths eventuate. The bona fides (or lack of them) of the organisations you pay to propagate the information known by you to be false or misleading is irrelevant. What is relevant is the knowledge and motivations of the persons who may have committed a crime, not of other parties. I note that the requirement of (d) is arguable, and I suspect that Hansen would argue that it is not necessary. Some might think that (b) and (c) are unnecessary, but that would only be due to insufficient thought. Manufacturing cars, for example, more or less guarantees a large number of deaths. Society is aware of that cost, and accepts it as being necessary for the health of the society. Therefore GM is not guilty of a crime against humanity just because it manufactures cars. Neither would Exxon be guilty of a crime if it openly refined and sold oil products while being very clear about the future costs. But once you attempt to take the choice to accept the cost away from society by deceiving the people, and/or their representatives, the full moral responsibility of any subsequent deaths become yours. Further, the issue of knowledge of the probable deaths, the false or misleading nature of the information, and the intent to deceive are essential features for the crime to be a crime, for only by making them essential features can free speech be preserved. I will note that if you take a strong libertarian stance on property rights such that society cannot prohibit the refining and sale of oil products, or place any restriction there-on, the issue of deception disappears. Because society cannot choose to prevent the deaths by restricting the property rights, the sole responsibility for the deaths becomes that of the holder of the property rights. Of course, Libertarians, as always will want to eat their cake and keep it to, and logic be dammned. That has always been their way. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:38 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
200, Jigoro Kano, This is wandering way OT (Mods: Where does this discussion belong, if anywhere?), and the moderators will end it very quickly, but breifly:Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft.
Redistribution is a difficult thing to argue about. To take an extreme point of view, who is better served by the trillions that go into defense? The poorest 10%-30% of society really could care less if they are ruled by a healthy democracy or a despotic authoritarian regime. In any case, they are still poor and struggling to live day to day. In contrast, even the very, very wealthy benefit from the U.S. Social Security system, because without it the social structure and economic system of the U.S. is unsteady and unpredictable, and any effects on those who benefit directly from S.S. would ultimately undermine the positions of the wealthy (and funding for S.S. comes most directly from the poor and middle class). So in the end, all of that money spend on national defense really only serves to support anyone who sees an advantage in the current system. Obviously it's something we all want to do (unless you're very poor), but demanding that the costs be distributed evenly is more than unfair, because the benefits of the expense are far from evenly distributed. My point is simply that an argument about redistribution of wealth is a Pandora's Box, and to me in the end it's just another excuse for inaction. It's yet another flavor of denial, although I'll admit that those sentiments are probably the root cause for most cases of denial.Making gas more expensive (carbon tax) will at best make us all poorer...
No. Quite simply, no. There are many aspects of society for which there is no direct cause and effect, such as public education, the common defense, and pollution control. Left to a free market system, every one of those priority initiatives would fail. Similarly, weaning our society from a fossil fuel infrastructure is not going to happen all by itself until the economic pressures are deadly. It's just like social security. It's too late to start saving when you're 60, but it's human nature to do so more often than not. And we have two reasons now that we need to act sooner rather than later: dropping fossil fuel resource availability, and climate change. Making gas more expensive now will force investment in the future at a time that is appropriate, rather than when it's too late. It's far more complex than a mere redistribution of wealth, or perception that making a particular resource more expensive will make everyone more poor (in the short term). -
Alexandre at 01:28 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Jigoro Kano at 01:11 AM on 3 June, 2011 says Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft. What's your suggestion for a mitigation policy? (forgive me if I missed it in some previous post of yours. I did not follow your whole conversation.) -
Alexandre at 01:26 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 3 June, 2011 The variable price of electricity depending of demand is a great idea. FF subsidies are another thing I'm sure we agree to ban. I don't think that alone can balance the externality problem of GHG emissions, though. Good to know you admit the existence of some government. I've had less productive debates in the past. Paraphrasing Einstein, the solution to a problem should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that. -
Bob Lacatena at 01:25 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
197, Eric,And if you insist on making my "out of context" quote into an issue, why don't you defend the remarks that I left out? Do you really believe that funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime against humanity?
Wow. Did you really say that? Do you really not get it? Can you really not see how you've twisted things? Go back and re-read the full Hansen quote, in context. If you need to, underline the parts you think are important. Then re-read what you said at first. Then re-read what you just posted. Can you not see the differences, and the point? Hints: No one ever said or implied anything as ridiculous as "funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime." You are either purposely or foolishly misunderstanding and twisting people's positions. -
Alexandre at 01:21 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red at 22:34 PM on 2 June, 2011 Carbon tax instead of cap-and-trade: I agree. C&T looks beautiful in theory, but it's all too vulnerable corruption. The carbon tax is simpler to understand and enforce. Besides, it's a much clearer price signal to investors of renewables. Never heard of the idea of phasing it out. The idea would be to gradually increase it to garantee the complete phase out of fossil fuels. Unless we find a way to efficiently sequester carbon from the air, much of the coal will have to stay on the ground. I only see it happening if we keep it prohibitive. -
apiratelooksat50 at 01:19 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
DB at 192 My statement in #2 was referring to the last phrase of the referenced paragraph. "starting points" And, thanks, I am in a walking boot and stitches are out. -
Jigoro Kano at 01:11 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Tom Curtis @ 193 Redistributive taxes (money) is most certainly theft. What then is the difference between me as individual redistributing your money to me, or having a third party (the government) do it on my behest. Carbon tax schemes simply facilitate this redistribution. By the way a de facto carbon tax is already in place. Looking at Exxon Mobil 2010 financial statements you will see $28.5 billion was collect as sales tax. Ostensibly, these monies are to cover road and highway maintains. In actuality, 1/3 of those collection support public transportation. So although I do not ride light rail I pay for it. Every public transit system, e v e r y one, in the US loose money every year. The sole occasional exception (twice is the last 13 years) is MTA (NY city transit). And all these transit systems are horribly inefficient. You need only consider the resistive breaking systems and idle waste. Making gas more expensive (carbon tax) will at best make us all poorer, at worst make us poorer and move oil company headquarters...redistributing an industry to a more friendly countries. Likely this move will increase the companies bottom line. Exxon's 2010 profits before income tax...$53 billion. Exxon's 2010 income tax liabilities...$21.5 billion. Exxon's 2010 profits after income tax...$31.3 billion. -
michael sweet at 01:09 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic) I still do not see why you insist that fossill fuel companies should get to pollute the air we all live in for free for ever. This pollution that will eventually kill millions of people should be stopped. The method Hansen has proposed to stop this unabated polluion of the atmosphere is to use a carbon tax. Why do you insist that FF companies should get to pollute my air for free? -
DSL at 01:00 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Actually, it's not Exxon doing the release of the CO2. They simply provide the drug. Like illegal (and legal) drug operations, they'll buy the cops and judges, and they'll hit hard against anyone who threatens their market. But they will not take responsibility for the results of the addiction. After all, drug use is a choice--right? There is one of the core problems for the libertarian philosophy. The culture that normalizes drug use, smoking, and unlimited fossil fuel consumption starts in childhood. When do children become fully responsible ethical/moral agents capable of simplifying the world into a series of contracts? When do they begin thinking beyond mating (the drive that blots out all other concerns), into their long future? If a young adolescent engages in smoking in order to be cool (attract a mate), as I did (and everyone else I know who smokes), did I have the ability to make a rational choice, knowing the consequences? Tobacco companies and addictive drug suppliers depend on young adolescents not having the ability. Children are easy targets. And once the behavior is normalized, it's very difficult to stop. The tremendous growth of the last 150 years is largely based on easy energy and the productive engine of capitalism. Both have been used with very little concern for either the externalities or sustainability. Whose fault is it? Who developed the culture? How is the cultural momentum maintained? When responsibility is subdivided and allowed to be bought and sold like any other commodity, then there is no responsibility. Whose responsibility is it, Eric (skeptic), when your carbon escapes your private space and enters mine? Get it out, or I'll start litigation. You'll have another, more complex lawsuit coming when your carbon redirects a third party's infrared heat and causes me discomfort. Ridiculous? It is, but it all lies on the same slope of private property relations. Garethman, the "right wing" is not "fringe"; it is currently the cultural norm in the U.S.: capitalism and Christianity. I'm not saying everyone wants or believes these features, but they do dominate everyday cultural reproduction. -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric the Red, yes we are different and I agree with you. Alexandre, my ideology is to have the government put the least amount of restriction on market efficiency. For example, I am unable to save money by using less peak power in my not-smart grid despite having lots of energy flexibility, some solar and batteries, etc. The problem is not particularly government but often local governments will run electric monopolies into the ground by preventing rate increases that would allow smart grid or even basic reliable service (in Maryland for example). On the Federal level, almost every Federal energy program is a waste, the Feds should stick to basic research. Many Federal policies work against energy efficiency, for example irradiation of food used mainly to promote long haul shipping. In contrast my local flea market has a ton of wholesome food without any way to spend food stamp money which has to be spent at the large supermarket. Tom, property rights with unlimited taxation are hardly rights. And if you insist on making my "out of context" quote into an issue, why don't you defend the remarks that I left out? Do you really believe that funding an institute that supports liberty is a crime against humanity? If so, I disagree most strongly. If not, please explain if Hansen meant something else. Utahn, the tobacco analogy is too stretched and is now broken. The science and economics promoted by CATO is not the same as denying the tobacco-cancer link, as the paper JMurphy linked above shows (property rights + rigorous analysis = good policy). CBD: very humorous, but that bar would soon go out of business. -
CBDunkerson at 00:35 AM on 3 June 2011Trenberth can't account for the lack of warming
Well, the words before the start of the quotation you give are, "...analysis of model results suggests that...". Basically, they found that 'slowdowns' in upper ocean warming similar to what has been observed recently also show up in many model runs... and when they do the reason is consistently that the heat has been deposited deeper in the oceans. That is suggestive but certainly not definitive. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:30 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
192, apiratelooksat50,On another website...
People being rude and angry on the Internet? What a shock! Who'd have thunk it? So look at a site (like some you have mentioned) where the regulars routinely gang up on and belittle anyone who disagrees with the site's party-line (i.e. WUWT), and treat it as you should when you were the recipient of the vitriol, i.e. get the heck out of there. By contrast, look at a site where the conversation tends towards logical dialogue. Because it is a controversial subject with passionate participants, you must expect a fair degree of frustration and anger to eventually get through. But I would point out that if you read most comment threads (not this one, because the subject is so not-science) you will find that the little, subtle digs and the nastiness tend to come from the deniers, and that the number of purely abusive comments is nothing compared to the threads on Watts' or Nova's sites. [On those sites, when you start to make incontrovertible scientific points, a legion of people descends with nothing more to do than cast aspersions on the commenters themselves.] Most of what you see here is [snip]s and complaints about moderation from deniers who want to be able to unilaterally bypass the comments policy, because they're right so they deserve to get the word out. At the same time, they perceive the gravest personal insults themselves in others' comments (because they literally can't see the difference, they are so blinded by their own anger and personal opinions). Sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on with a complaint about either behavior, or moderation, if you think WUWT is a great place to visit....WUWT and SKS are both good places to start...
WUWT is not a good place to start, it's a travesty of misinformation, misrepresentation, conspiracy theories, vitriolic anger, and quite simply time wasting. Anyone who goes there to do anything but laugh at it is going to come back confused, and anyone who thinks that it is a worthwhile place to go is confused. Go to serious places, and study harder and learn more. The moment you see invective -- accusations of fraud or dishonesty, conspiracy or the word "money," anger at professional scientists for doing their jobs (right or wrong in their conclusions) or the implications of the results -- move on. That's not to say that such invective does not have its place. There are definitely dishonest scientists somewhere in the mix, in my opinion, but what the true skeptic should be doing is to develop the understanding, knowledge and skills to be easily able to identify those personalities themselves, without being told by trumpeting ideologues like certain bloggers or blog commenters.I agree with the denier statement, but that does not and should not cover skeptics.
The day I meet an actual skeptic, I'll let you know. Until then, IMO, anyone who thinks they are a skeptic needs to wake up and admit to themselves that they are a denier (yourself included). Until they do so, they are closed to the truth, avoiding the actual facts and science, and fooling themselves by clinging to a belief in what they'd like to be true. [Actually I have met true skeptics... that would be anyone who believes in climate change now, because they must have been appropriately skeptical, and appropriately open minded, at some time.] The reason that I make those last statements so adamantly is because the science is very, very clear (contrary to denial efforts to portray it otherwise). There are fringe gray areas, where there is room for doubt in degrees, but overall, anyone who actually has studied and understands the science should be very, very afraid. Climate change will not obviously kill anyone in the next decade or two, but our actions are irreversible, and what we do in the next decade or two will almost certainly have dire effects on the lives of our children, grandchildren, and many generations thereafter. If you are able to find convenient reasons not to accept that fact, then you are not a skeptic, and you need to study more. -
CBDunkerson at 00:21 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric (sceptic) wrote: "The paper's argument is that the owner of the establishment owns the air inside of it..." Ownership of air? Good luck with that. "Hey! That's my air you're breathing! There's a $0.25 cent charge per lungfull!" -
michael sweet at 00:13 AM on 3 June 2011The Critical Decade - Part 2: Climate Risks
Ken: JimHansen draws a conclusion from 6 years of Argo dat abecasue that is all the data that is available. As more comes in it will be added and the result will be more robust. When you add the pre-Argo data you get a longer record. As for you wanting to know when China will stop buying coal I agree it may be a while, that depends on the politics. On the other hand, eventually the coal will run out and China will have to stop burning it. It seems to me that you are suggesting that if the time the Faustian bargain comes due is after you are gone you do not care. Some of care about what our children and grandchildren have to deal with. -
Utahn at 00:10 AM on 3 June 2011Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
Eric(skeptic): "Exxon is simply protecting their rights to their property." I have not met many libertarians who go to this extreme, so of course they may not be "true" libertarians. So tobacco companies are within their right to deceive the public in order to protect their property too? The tobacco scientists told their companies the same thing, "we have a problem", and their companies did the same thing with that information. Garethman: "So for every extreme right wing believer, there will be an extreme left wing ideologue, for every barking mad right wing religionist there will be an evangelical atheist." Really? Is there actual evidence of this fact? I would think it depends on the decade or era you are in, the topic being considered, etc... For example, with regard to global warming action, what is the center of belief? Are there more libertarian viewpoints (no regulation of C02) on this issue, or more communist viewpoints (complete government control of C02 emissions)? In my view, the centrist view "some government regulation" exists, but outside the center, far more people take an extremist libertarian view, than take an extremist communist view...
Prev 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 Next
