Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[Beerina]

Yes, such destruction of modern technological society is a possible consequence of totalitarian micromanagement of individuals lifestyle including carbon emissions, as well as a consequence of the control over industry such as crazed global warmers want.

Oh, and you got it wrong. Pre Industrial pretty much does imply dark ages, here and there. Right now, we've only got one in North Korea, last time I looked. A couple decades ago, we had them in the communist block countries of Russia and China. So we're doing considerably better than yesterday, but that doesn't mean tomorrow retains those positives.

I pity humanity when North Korea emerges from the dark ages of government oppression, because then there will not be an example of how government can be as bad as the worst of disasters.

 

[Corsair 115]

Me? Thanks, I'll go for later.

By that logic, then you must be unconcerned with the U.S. budget deficit. After all, that problem won't really require payment until much later.

I'm sure it is. Nothing gets past peer review that doesn't have the OMG! SkyIsFalling! front and center.

How wonderful of you to dismiss an entire report with the mere wave of a hand. Now trying actually reading it.

Did they bother to look for off-setting positive effects?

Why don't you read it for yourself? It's quite detailed and lays out the projected climatic effects and the likely economic impact arising from such changes.

At any rate, how much are you willing to cough up--today--for 50-year-forward hypotheticals?

Do you take the same position vis-a-vis the U.S. budget deficit? Is there any definitive proof of what will absolutely happen should the United States choose not to address its budget situation?

 

[DC]

The US, Mongolia, Australia, North Africa...

non of them have a running solution.

 

[Corsair 115]

Let's consider two reactions to a problem, the existence of which is supported by copious evidence. The first reaction goes like this:

"We are facing a significant problem. Here are the currently proposed solutions."
"I don't like any of those proposed solutions. They are not practical for a variety of reasons. Go back to the drawing board and come up with better solutions to deal with the problem."

The other reaction goes like this:

""We are facing a significant problem. Here are the currently proposed solutions."
"I don't like any of those proposed solutions. But rather than tell you to come up with better solutions, I'm just going to say the problem doesn't exist at all."

Which reaction is reasonable?

 

[tyr_13]

non of them have a running solution.

Because they don't have the nuclear plants yet to justify it. Besides the US does have a good solution that could be in use right quick.

Do you have a better solution?

 

[varwoche]

the accusations tend to come in the form of drive-bys ... Though clearly Al Gore, the favorite piñata of GW pseudo-skeptics, is part of they.

Speaking of drive-bys and piñatas, you've taken a couple of whacks at the APS AlBell, but trying to learn specifically what your gripe is proving to be quite elusive.

Here's a novel concept: How about quoting the text you take issue with, and explaining why you take issue?

 

[AlBell]

By that logic, then you must be unconcerned with the U.S. budget deficit. After all, that problem won't really require payment until much later.

The budget deficit is real by any measure.

How wonderful of you to dismiss an entire report with the mere wave of a hand. Now trying actually reading it.


Why don't you read it for yourself? It's quite detailed and lays out the projected climatic effects and the likely economic impact arising from such changes.

I don't usually base my decisions on science fiction.

Do you take the same position vis-a-vis the U.S. budget deficit? Is there any definitive proof of what will absolutely happen should the United States choose not to address its budget situation?

Nope.

 

[Beerina]

Let's consider two reactions to a problem, the existence of which is supported by copious evidence. The first reaction goes like this:

"We are facing a significant problem. Here are the currently proposed solutions."
"I don't like any of those proposed solutions. They are not practical for a variety of reasons. Go back to the drawing board and come up with better solutions to deal with the problem."

The other reaction goes like this:

""We are facing a significant problem. Here are the currently proposed solutions."
"I don't like any of those proposed solutions. But rather than tell you to come up with better solutions, I'm just going to say the problem doesn't exist at all."

Which reaction is reasonable?

"We're not really facing a significant problem. However, it is being used as memetic rationale for intrusive, massive government takeover of industry, something it could not achieve with discredited, class warfare social policy."

"So the best policy may be to actually do nothing, given the clear and obvious detriment to actual measures of human wellbeing that massive government intervention in the economy causes?"

"Correct."



Now how about you all go away. No, not here. Here is not away. Go away.

 

[Beerina]

Note: I do not "deny" global warming -- I simply note that, as a problem (seas raising over 100-300 years) are not as severe as claimed by any means, while simultaneously noting the well-documented problems that government control over the economy causes, which is curiously neglected by those foaming at the mouth for massive government regulation.

 

[Upchurch]

Note: I do not "deny" global warming -- I simply note that, as a problem (seas raising over 100-300 years) are not as severe as claimed by any means, while simultaneously noting the well-documented problems that government control over the economy causes, which is curiously neglected by those foaming at the mouth for massive government regulation.

Are you also familiar with the well documented problems a lack of government control over the economy causes? A completely free market, left to its own devices is going to do what is best for itself, not what is best for everyone.

The trick is to find a happy medium.

 

[Trakar]

I pity humanity when North Korea emerges from the dark ages of government oppression, because then there will not be an example of how government can be as bad as the worst of disasters.

you have a pretty limited sense of how bad disasters can be and most often are.

 

[Trakar]

"We're not really facing a significant problem. However, it is being used as memetic rationale for intrusive, massive government takeover of industry, something it could not achieve with discredited, class warfare social policy."

"So the best policy may be to actually do nothing, given the clear and obvious detriment to actual measures of human wellbeing that massive government intervention in the economy causes?"

"Correct."



Now how about you all go away. No, not here. Here is not away. Go away.

So which is worse, those who yell fire in a crowded theater, or those who bar the doors and force others back into their seats as smoke fills the room?

 

[Trakar]

Note: I do not "deny" global warming -- I simply note that, as a problem (seas raising over 100-300 years) are not as severe as claimed by any means, while simultaneously noting the well-documented problems that government control over the economy causes, which is curiously neglected by those foaming at the mouth for massive government regulation.

Brought to you by the same politico wonks that thought deregulating wall street, the banks and the oil and coal industries were good ideas, and social security, medicare, public education, fire departments, police departments, and national parks are bad ideas.

 

[Trakar]

Are you also familiar with the well documented problems a lack of government control over the economy causes? A completely free market, left to its own devices is going to do what is best for itself, not what is best for everyone.

The trick is to find a happy medium.

Chuckles the ghost whisperer?!


Seriously, the only thing economics is really unambiguous about, is that the pure forms of any of the three main economics systems (capitalism, communism and socialism) are unworkable and demonstrable failures in the real world. Flexible mixed economies that are balanced (which is where I think you were going) seem to work best, but that "flexible" part is essential to meeting and dealing with the eccentric wobbles inherent to these systems.

 

[Unabogie]

Chuckles the ghost whisperer?!


Seriously, the only thing economics is really unambiguous about, is that the pure forms of any of the three main economics systems (capitalism, communism and socialism) are unworkable and demonstrable failures in the real world. Flexible mixed economies that are balanced (which is where I think you were going) seem to work best, but that "flexible" part is essential to meeting and dealing with the eccentric wobbles inherent to these systems.

This.

It seems like such a simple concept. Being rigid leads to making decisions based on philosophy and not results. Smart politics is like science: as much as possible, it should strive for truth and experimentation. It should test assumptions and challenge its most cherished beliefs. Instead, we have folks like Palin and Michael Moore who say that the only correct politics is one that loudly asserts "core beliefs". How about success rate as a better measure? How about going back to using metrics like GDP, average wages, unemployment rates, stock market success, life expectancy, graduation rates and rates of college education and pay less attention to whether or not something is "free market" or "socialist"?

Sports analogy: the zone defense is a great tool, and gives you lots of success, until the other team drives the lane or passes into the post. If you can't switch up the scheme during the game, you'll lose. Flexibility and nimbleness are assets in any endeavor.

 

[AlBell]

Flexibility and nimbleness are assets in any endeavor.

The one thing all forms of govt lack, and that the invisible hand doesn't lack.

Every attempt to regulate markets contains the unintended consequences reasons it will fail just as soon as the MBA's come up with ways to enrich themselves and their employers based on the new regulations.

 

[Trakar]

The one thing all forms of govt lack, and that the invisible hand doesn't lack.

Every attempt to regulate markets contains the unintended consequences reasons it will fail just as soon as the MBA's come up with ways to enrich themselves and their employers based on the new regulations.

That's why we have politicians, to constantly juggle the system so that regulations and benefits stay one step ahead of those seeking to game the system at the expense of others. Regulations aren't the problem, greed is.

 

[AlBell]

No, that isn't why politicians exist; they exist because they like power and the perks that go with it. And let me know when you've penciled in "greed disappeared today" and I'll tell you you're wrong.

By the time govt regulators sense a problem it's all over but the shouting.

 

[Trakar]

No, that isn't why politicians exist; they exist because they like power and the perks that go with it. And let me know when you've penciled in "greed disappeared today" and I'll tell you you're wrong.

By the time govt regulators sense a problem it's all over but the shouting.

Then you are obviously part of the problem, electing politicians without a clear and proper understanding of their role and fitness to carry out that role.

 

[AlBell]

ROFL. You think you're not?