Conservatives and climate change

[AlBell]

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.

Now if we could just find a case where deficit spending actually worked as people like you believe it does. Unfortunately the end is more often hyperinflation rather than economic growth and increased tax receipts that reduce the deficit.

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.

It is to me, and I suspect will be moreso to our kids & grandkids, much moreso to them than AGW hysteria.

 

[johnny karate]

Since no part of the plan I proposed required new government funding, I'm not sure how you get to your above stated conclusions.

Oops...

New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.

I can understand why you lie about what other people say, but when you lie about what you say, it gives the appearance that not even you buy the crap your slinging.

But, somehow in your world, independant companies drilling and processing shale oil, making methanol and selling it for automotive use, and nuclear plants built through private bond issues government oppressing dissent and footing the bill for infrastructure, somhow that's totalitarian and sucking at big gove.

ftfy

well, whatever...

Whatever indeed.

 

[Trakar]

Now if we could just find a case where deficit spending actually worked as people like you believe it does. Unfortunately the end is more often hyperinflation rather than economic growth and increased tax receipts that reduce the deficit.

I'm perfectly willing to engage in a serious discussion of the issue, and present supporting evidences and explanations, but such is not going to work if the default response depends upon hyperpartisan political rhetoric rather than rational discussion.

It is to me, and I suspect will be moreso to our kids & grandkids, much moreso to them than AGW hysteria.

Not even making it through your challenge post without resorting to irrational, hyperbolic rhetoric and unsubstantiated speculation does not bode well for the future of such a discussion.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Act like a conspiracy theorist and consistently present conspiracy theories to support and argue for your perspective of subject material, and it is both rational and legitimate to properly characterize the nature of your arguments and behavior. I am talking policy, you are the one attempting to refute fact and policy discussion with tales of unsubstantiated and unsupported conspiracy.

Neutral readers may assess. Trakar called Climate Audit a "pseudoscience blog" and refused to supply a link to any post at Climate Audit in support of that characterization. Neutral readers may assess whether or not McIntyre and others have, subsequent to the release of the UEA/CRU emails, established a conspiracy to evade FOI requests and to undermine the peer review process. Looks like a big "Yes" to me.

BTW - surely you recognize the hypocrisy of attacking my "style" in the same three sentence span where you are trying to take the high ground of keeping a discussion off "personalities," and in a thread where you have spent the last 19 pages impugning and personally attacking Science¹, climatologists², climate advocates³, and most individual participants⁴ in this thread --- or do you really believe you should not be held to the same standards you wish others to adhere to⁵?

1. Nowhere. I question certain conclusions, not the process we call "science".
2. That's some climatologists.
3. Who isn't? What's the alternative to climate? Advocating climate is like advocating gravity, but more so. One can escape gravity, but even interstelar space has "climate" (Today's forecast same as yesterday's: 3^oK., 0 torr, 0 chance of precipitation).
4. Where? Certainly not in Trakar's terms.
5. Where have I called participants ignorant, delusional, disingenuous (that's the gone-to-college way to call someone "liar", folks) hypocrites? I have not done so.

 

[uke2se]

Your argument demonstrates how AGW theory proponents argue. Thanks.

What? That we are able to read and reason?

I said nothing about how grants work.

No, you didn't, but you went on about how Mann was able to procure research grants as if it was some sort of massive revenue for the University.

What is the relevance to Mann's status to the accusations that he withheld data from critics,

He didn't.

conspired to delete emails among his allies

He didn't.

and so shield them from FOI requests,

Frivolous FOI requests.

and, with his friends, contorted the peer review process?

He didn't.

These points have all been refuted time and time again ever since the - what is it now - fourth independent review exhonerating Mann and his collegues.

The only relevance Mann's status could have to the matter is the extent to which that status enabled this behavior.

His status enabled the behaviour of producing good hard science published in respected peer-reviewed magazines. Nothing. Else.

Please take the time to stop reading WhatsUpHisButt.org and read some actual science for once.

 

[uke2se]

eta: For the record, I don't think anything criminal happened. I think it's a case of "Boys will be boys", but it should give everyone pause to consider that maybe people are getting caught up in the media attention, and maybe that's creating some bias.

How magnanimous of you. Personally, I don't think anything criminal happened either, nor do I think it's a case of "Boys will be boys". I think its a case of witch hunt by an empowered science denier and that nothing untoward will ever be found, and the only effect this charade will have is to take up Dr Mann's precious time and energy that could serve the rest of us better by continuing to produce good science.

Oh, and it will probably skyrocket the district attorney's standing among his peers at the Birch society and other think tanks.

 

[mike3]

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.

Still doesn't make any sense. You want people to do nothing, so they'll "hurt" and learn to do something. Instead of just doing something. And if you want blood, just get a Nuclear war and the human population reduced to 10,000 and back to the Stone Age.

 

[Trakar]

Neutral readers may assess.

So far as there is no attempt to qualify whether a reader is an informed and neutral reader, by whether they agree or disagree with the term "pseudoscientific" in regards to McIntyre's blog, I have no problem allowing such readers to make up their own minds about such blogs.

Trakar called Climate Audit a "pseudoscience blog" and refused to supply a link to any post at Climate Audit in support of that characterization.

The blog was created to promote and defend the pseudoscientific arguments of its owner and primary author, Stephen McIntyre. As such, every post on that blog represents a pseudoscientific argument and exemplifies that label.
(btw - the framing of your responses as though there are hordes of fawning readers hanging on your words may stroke your own ego, but they are quite assuredly as unnecessary as they are tiresome. You may reply to me, or at me, but the rhetorical flourishes of talking about me as though to some imagined jury you seek to impress is merely reinforcing an apparent and obvious disconnect from reality).

Neutral readers may assess whether or not McIntyre and others have, subsequent to the release of the UEA/CRU emails, established a conspiracy to evade FOI requests and to undermine the peer review process. Looks like a big "Yes" to me... (snip of circular arguments, redefinitions and attempted hornswaggling)

Then you seem to ignore issues of compelling evidences and objective findings in favor of some more subjectively preferred measuring stick for assessing such issues, as nothing you have supplied in this exchange equates to such compelling and objective support for your personal opinions of the issue

 

[DC]

i don't think ClimateAudit is "pseudoscientific", therefor it would have to atleast try to look scientifc, and they don't, it's just is a blog.

 

[Furcifer]

How magnanimous of you. Personally, I don't think anything criminal happened either, nor do I think it's a case of "Boys will be boys". I think its a case of witch hunt by an empowered science denier and that nothing untoward will ever be found, and the only effect this charade will have is to take up Dr Mann's precious time and energy that could serve the rest of us better by continuing to produce good science.

Oh, and it will probably skyrocket the district attorney's standing among his peers at the Birch society and other think tanks.

I don't think you read enough of them if you actually believe that.

Saying it's a "witch hunt" is complete rubbish, nor was it conducted by an "empowered science denier". It might have been spurned on by the "denial machine" as some like to call it, but there was enough there for some legitimate regulating and scientific bodies to have to sit down and go through them to see what exactly was going on. Further, had they surfaced sooner there would have been some serious consequences for the "shenanigans" they were playing. In the end there was a legitimate concern for the lack of transparency.

It doesn't do anyone any good to sit here and try to defer blame (although trying to martyr Mann is endlessly amusing) Be a Mann, own up.

 

[JudeBrando]

Your argument demonstrates how AGW theory proponents argue. Thanks. I said nothing about how grants work. What is the relevance to Mann's status to the accusations that he withheld data from critics, conspired to delete emails among his allies and so shield them from FOI requests, and, with his friends, contorted the peer review process? The only relevance Mann's status could have to the matter is the extent to which that status enabled this behavior.

Indeed. He is still a widely-respected and defended con-man

among those who insist on seeing any problems herein as of "Conservatives and climate change"

and not of the non-skeptical, easily-manipulated, liberal, progressive, leftist lemmings and the epic scam that is the now and most-recently so-called climate change crisis.

 

[JudeBrando]

Does anybody know what the greatest "greenhouse gas" is? Anybody?

 

[JudeBrando]

yeah you reality deniers...

Climate changeophobic?

Keep playing word games. It's what leftists do. Part of their never-ending propaganda where truth is always second to agenda.

 

[JudeBrando]

Oh catsmate1... aren't you supposed to post a link to the abortion/breast cancer thread by now?...

 

[bit_pattern]

Does anybody know what the greatest "greenhouse gas" is? Anybody?

H20 but H20 is has a very short life cycle and the only way you can increase the level of H20 in the atmosphere is to change the temperature, if you were to add more H20 to the atmosphere with a giant spritzer bottle then it would fall harmlessly back to Earth within a few days. So that means H20 levels are a function of temperature, not an agent thereof; a feedback not a forcing. Wheras CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere over hundreds of years because the total life cycle is much longer, hence why CO2 is the "biggest temperature control knob in history," as Richard Alley puts it.

 

[JudeBrando]

intersting that you did not whine when mhaze uses words like Ecofascist and other nonsense.

What nonsense? What better possible description for merely using any pretense of environmental alarmism to dictate government and business policy influencing if not determining impacts on the lives of everyone as a result?

It is definitional truth.

 

[JudeBrando]

H20 but H20 is has a very short life cycle and the only way you can increase the level of H20 in the atmosphere is to change the temperature, so that means H20 levels are a function of temperature, a feedback not a forcing. Wheras CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere over hundreds of years because the total life cycle is much longer, hence why CO2 is the "biggest temperature control knob in history," as Richard Alley puts it.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct! You are right.

Evaporation. Condensation. Water vapor. Clouds. Shade. Rain. Cooling. Oh whatever shall we do?!

Man, despite the profound arrogance of some of them, is not a threat to the magnificently self-correcting mechanisms of creation.

 

[JudeBrando]

What you seem to desire as a solution to a non-problem...

Absolute total and complete projection and obliviousness thereof.

 

[JudeBrando]

"Useful idiots."

 

[JudeBrando]

"Useful idiots."

Enjoy the tune.