Conservatives and climate change

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...saying that a professor has received research grants is somehow evidence that professor’s work should not be trusted is just bizarre.

Two points here.
1. I agree. While motivations matter, the argument should stand on its merits. Same for people who receive funding from oil companies, tobacco companies, firearms manufacturers, or public sector unions.
2. I did not make this point as a criticism of Mann, but of the Penn State investigation. Mann says "__X__" (whatever). Their "Mann is respected by other climate scientists and well-funded by the NSF" neither supports nor disputes __X__.

 

[Furcifer]

Nopey.

Lomiller said something you didn't understand.

Nobody should be able to understand it, it's incorrect and as a result doesn't make sense. It's symptomatic of the inconsistency inherent in the debate due to the incursion of politics in science.

 

[Furcifer]

You supposition was that when the earth is faced with a warming influence cloud formation will occur in such a way to counteract that warming. In this type of situation it doesn’t matter what the warming influence is.

Nonsense. As I said, there's a host of other factors involved in the formation of clouds.

Uncertainly and determinism in chaotic systems are unrelated, and Einstein’s famously incorrect statement that “god does not play dice” is referring to something else again.

lol, and I was referring to something else yet again. That seems to have been lost on you.

 

[BenBurch]

Okay.

Now that's brilliant.

A huge problem measured in dollars isn't an economic problem.

Economics is a matter of economic activity. You produce a good or service and you receive payment for it in kind or with specie.

Government debt is not paid off by producing a good or service but by adjusting spending and taxes. And adjusting spending and taxes is a political problem, and one you Republicans seem content to allow to fester when you have control of the government. It is only when you have failed so badly that you lost control that you care about it. If you ever get control again, we won't hear about the issue for years.

 

[AlBell]

Economics is a matter of economic activity. You produce a good or service and you receive payment for it in kind or with specie.

agreed

Government debt is not paid off by producing a good or service but by adjusting spending and taxes. And adjusting spending and taxes is a political problem, and one you Republicans seem content to allow to fester when you have control of the government. It is only when you have failed so badly that you lost control that you care about it. If you ever get control again, we won't hear about the issue for years.

IIRC, Dems controlled house, senate, and admin for 2+ yrs, and did nothing other than spend like drunken sailors ... that and provide the widely hated Obamacare.

Plank meet Mote.

 

[mike3]

This could be an explanation but then if this is the cause to be in support of global warming then we must also acknowledge that large corporate interests play a huge role in ignoring climate change. Either way each position is a sort of paradox if we view climate change from this perspective.

At any rate, I was more of saying why do we care if climate change actually happens? Seeing as most of us won't do anything to change. The world will most likely rot and heat up. I'm in favor of doing nothing and watching billions of people die so that humans can learn a painful lesson in responsibility.

If we were to do something, then we'd be taking responsibility. And doing something is what I advocate. So I can't and will never agree with you.

 

[Corsair 115]

IIRC, Dems controlled house, senate, and admin for 2+ yrs, and did nothing other than spend like drunken sailors...

I suggest you take a look at Republican rhetoric in regards to debt and deficits, and then examine the actual results over the last thirty years. Fiscal responsibility by Republican administrations in the White House? Not even close. The evidence on this is abundant and clear. Significant growth in debt held by the public (see Table F-1 on this page on the CBO web site) occurred when Republican administrations in the White House.

The myth that a Republican administration is fiscally responsible is busted.

Now, of course, in the words of the investment firms, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. And maybe, just maybe, the Republicans really mean it this time. But given their track record, one should be taking their claims of being prudent fiscal managers in waiting with a huge grain of salt.

 

[BenBurch]

agreed


IIRC, Dems controlled house, senate, and admin for 2+ yrs, and did nothing other than spend like drunken sailors ... that and provide the widely hated Obamacare.

Plank meet Mote.

Oh, there are 50 years of blame to spread around.

No doubts here.

I was addressing the implication that somehow Republicans (who gave us a trillion dollar war debt) are paragons of virtue, or that this is somehow an economic matter.

 

[mhaze]

Economics is a matter of economic activity. You produce a good or service and you receive payment for it in kind or with specie.

Government debt is not paid off by producing a good or service but by adjusting spending and taxes. And adjusting spending and taxes is a political problem, and one you Republicans seem content to allow to fester when you have control of the government. It is only when you have failed so badly that you lost control that you care about it. If you ever get control again, we won't hear about the issue for years.

Ah, the fine art of struggling to make things said by Brothers in the Faith truey!

Definition of Economics
( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

Remember, every thing you say is being recorded on the Internet. And you've just claimed that the 16T debt (and climbing) isn't part of "economics".

Keynes would disagree with you.
Hyack would disagree with you.
Friedman would disagree with you.
Austrians would just laugh at you.

I got the book out from the library, years ago. There's another part where he quotes adam smith to make the point that if something is not profitable for individuals or a small group of individuals but is profitable for society at large, it is a place for government to step in. The above quote I took from wikipedia.....

"...In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function."

And I've proposed some things that were pure free market....I've suggested others, too, for those who adhere to "Green" ideas...that they should pursue free market solutions and get off the silly "Big Government will Save Us" train.

 

[mhaze]

If you think "greeniness" is a bad thing, then why did you try to convince everyone to skip the science so that you could discuss the policies of preventing a problem that you don't even believe exists?

Not everyone thinks that the solutions to all our problems can be safely left in the hands of private companies.

Why? Because as I noted, there is a moderated thread for that on JREF. Because those are the rules here.

....if we can't demonstrate that is possible to invest and grow our way to a sustainable carbon free economy, then we will never get anyone else to join in correcting this issue. ....

Go right ahead, form a little cult and do your thing. Don't try to impose your ideas on others.

 

[L.Y.S.]

If we were to do something, then we'd be taking responsibility. And doing something is what I advocate. So I can't and will never agree with you.

Don't agree with me, my statement was an insight into human behavior. Humans learn nothing less through pain. This has been proven time and time again. A massive die off may be the lesson humanity needs to learn to be responsible; warning people to get active surely isn't working.

 

[JudeBrando]

At any rate, I was more of saying why do we care if climate change actually happens? Seeing as most of us won't do anything to change. The world will most likely rot and heat up. I'm in favor of doing nothing and watching billions of people die so that humans can learn a painful lesson in responsibility.

Please explain how you consider it to even possibly be a reasonable consideration and conclusion that billions will die.

 

[BenBurch]

Please explain how you consider it to even possibly be a reasonable consideration and conclusion that billions will die.

Well, we are near the limit of food the earth can produce for us, and agricultural lands are losing fertility.

Anything that takes away arable land is going to starve people.

How many? Depends on how much those who have food are willing to deprive themselves so that others will not starve.

 

[mhaze]

Please explain how you consider it to even possibly be a reasonable consideration and conclusion that billions will die.

Well,think about what this guy says...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54

Me? I'm stocking up on survival supplies, stuff that's tradable for bandaids, bullets, beans.

I'm stocking up on barbecue sauce.

Don't agree with me, my statement was an insight into human behavior. Humans learn nothing less through pain. This has been proven time and time again. A massive die off may be the lesson humanity needs to learn to be responsible; warning people to get active surely isn't working.

I GOT A GREAT IDEA!

We'll write a book and call it "THE POPULATION BOMB".

We'll describe how billions will die.

Wait...

....It's symptomatic of the inconsistency inherent in the debate due to the incursion of politics in science.

You hear the joke about the airplane? It flew right over their heads.

 

[Trakar]

Okay.

Now that's brilliant.

A huge problem measured in dollars isn't an economic problem.

Your political perspectives perceive it as a problem (for the time being), economics doesn't consider deficit spending in a recession to be a problem, in fact, economics recommends deficit spending as one of the primary solutions to recession. This is funded by the sale of bonds which are you seem to feel is a good financial tool, and is based on the confidence that the US economy will recover and prosper and future tax receipts will likewise swell and cover these bonds when they mature.

Regardless, at the current cumulative level, no, the annual budget deficit is not a major issue or problem, this isn't saying that annual budget deficits should continue indefinitely, nor that there are not points where such could become an issue of concern and potential problem. It is simply inaccurate, however, to insist that it is, today, a great and worrisome problem.

 

[lomiller]

Nonsense. As I said, there's a host of other factors involved in the formation of clouds.

So?

 

[lomiller]

Two points here.
1. I agree. While motivations matter, the argument should stand on its merits. Same for people who receive funding from oil companies, tobacco companies, firearms manufacturers, or public sector unions.

Don't try to equate research grants that result in peer reviewed papers with advertising money that results in "studies" by think tanks or industry advocacy groups.

 

[johnny karate]

Hmm....I guess yes, anti-nuclear power zealots people that respect the Constitution and believe in freedom of speech would see my plan in that light.

ftfy

In fact, I proposed expansion not just of nuclear, but of conventional drilling, soil shale development, particularly Utah and Colorado, large scale methanol use for vehicles, and throttling down of unprofitable "green" energy sources.

Yes, we can't have those "unprofitable" green energy sources mucking up the works in your glorious free market of government intervention and funding.

So there's a lot in my plan for a lot of various people to not like.

There sure is. The trampling of the Constitution and science-denying hypocrisy are two good places to start.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Pretty soon you'll realize that the math which is required is "NOT easy".

I think it was Einstein that said "Make things as simple as you can, but no simpler than they are"

[eta]
Oh my! I didn't realize this was a 19-page thread already! I'm sure my point has already been better argued. My apologies!
[/eta]

It's actually very simple, conceptually.

There are three fundamental ways to alter the Earth's energy balance:

1. Change solar output
2. Change the average distance* between the Earth and Sun
3. Change the atmosphere

It's very obvious that atmospheric greenhouse gasses have major impacts on Earth's climate; we're not the moon! If you want to see how climate looks when no atmosphere exists to scatter incoming shortwave radiation and absorb outgoing longwave radiation, look at the moon. The greenhouse effect is very well established. It is the default consequence that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will increase the greenhouse effect, and it's well supported by simply and complex modeling alike, as well as millions of years of paleoclimate data.

For any fence sitters and/or lurkers, it should be noted that mhaze's conclusions are at odds with essentially all of Earth science. Really. Pick up any intro to Earth science text book published in the last couple decades, and anthropogenic climate change will be addressed. It's literally text book stuff. Almost zero peer-reviewed research supports mhaze's conclusions. About a month ago I attended the massive AGU fall meeting (10,000+ Earth scientists from around the globe!) and mhaze's views were predictably absent. Rather, numerous oral and poster sessions were dedicated to climate change and its impacts on the biosphere, the hydrological cycle, and water, food, and energy security.

*More complex than simple distance, but it's a fine way to imagine it for these purposes...

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Don't try to equate research grants that result in peer reviewed papers with advertising money that results in "studies" by think tanks or industry advocacy groups.

What does any supposed difference have to do with my point? If RJ Reynolds pays me to say "2+2=4", does that mean NOT(2+2=4)? If the NSF supported a study that concludes that the world is facing another Ice Age (I'm sure Steven Schneider got grant money), does that mean that we should furiously burn coal? The argument stands or falls on its merits.