From the AP:
Cool your home, warm the planet. When more than two dozen countries undertook in 1989 to fix the ozone hole over Antarctica, they began replacing chloroflourocarbons in refrigerators, air conditioners and hair spray.
But they had little idea that using other gases that contain chlorine or fluorine instead also would contribute greatly to global warming.
CFCs destroy ozone, the atmospheric layer that helps protect against the sun’s most harmful rays, and trap the earth’s heat, contributing to a rise in average surface temperatures.
In theory, the ban should have helped both problems. But the countries that first signed the Montreal Protocol 17 years ago failed to recognize that CFC users would seek out the cheapest available alternative.
The chemicals that replaced CFCs are better for the ozone layer, but do little to help global warming. These chemicals, too, act as a reflective layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse.
That effect is at odds with the intent of a second treaty, drawn up in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 by the same countries behind the Montreal pact. In fact, the volume of greenhouse gases created as a result of the Montreal agreement’s phaseout of CFCs is two times to three times the amount of global-warming carbon dioxide the Kyoto agreement is supposed to eliminate.
This unintended consequence now haunts the nations that signed both U.N. treaties.
The biggest problem with nanny-state projects tends to be that they are propelled by ideology and fail to consider the law of unintended consequences—which is why it is essential to have a clear understanding of what precisely it is you’re hoping to correct before you charge in to correct it with nothing but advocacy science and emotionalism in your scabbard.
With global warming, the question has always been how much is human agency responsible for a rise in global temperature, and does it make sense to try to “correct” something so massive as global temperature trends the significance or frequency of which we still don’t really understand.
Because rushing to do so without taking into consideration the innumerable contingencies of such an effort means you risk tilting at (environmentally friendly, but heavily subsidized and aesthetically egregious) windmills—and once that happens, you begin to lose your credibility for the sake of your zeal and haste.
(h/t Bill Krause)
… and not even the biggest problem with Kyoto. One immanent critique is that it didn’t include China, India and Brazil. It was a pollution relocation treaty at best.
Imagine that! People that have something taken away from them will actually seek a cheap, viable alternative?! Who could have ever thunk o’ that?
I mean, do-gooder nanny state invasions of middle eastern countries can be made to work. Why not climate treaties?
Why, the first time I read this post, did the example of DDT leap to mind? DDT baaaad/ungood/double plus ungood = banned. DDT banned = lots and lots of the “other” dying of malaria.
Intentions = good. Results = Road to Hell gets new asphalt.
Small things like facts seem to get in the way of telephone poles…
Man, comedy *and* truthiness gold.
Aw hell!!
We just can’t win can we. For me, I am just gonna burn cowshit to warm my house this winter.
Has an original idea ever invaded your mind, or do you just regurgitate reactionary leftist talking points?
Boring reactionary leftist talking points.
tw: can I take a club to this idiot?
Jeff:
But, because Earth’s weather fluctuations are too dynamic to model with computers, much less tease out the effects of one species’ economy from the millions of other contributors, Kyoto’s advocates decided to just skip that question. Instead, they gambled that a media-created “scientific consensus” would silence GW’s skeptics.
In junior high school science class we all saw the simplistic “Green House Gas” experiment. Two closed systems (glass bells) sat on a waxed base, each had a light-bulb and a thermometer in it. One contained regular atmospheric gases, and the other contained CO2. The CO2 “geenhouse” heated more quickly than the other closed system, and it took longer to cool.
The problem is…GW activists equate this junior-high level experiment with the earth’s massive, dynamic carbon-cycle. That High schools students make this mistake can be forgiven. But that global transnational politicians continue to make it only suggests there are other, non-environmental motives behind it.
-Steve
Hory crap..
I’m gonna cutnpaste this to Huffpo immediately.
Strangley enough that gives me a thrill these days…
Am I sick in some indescribable way?
TODD,
I saw plenty of Afghans burning goat and camel shite… Just think of yourself as being a proggressive (progg) in extreme soldiarity with the “Other”!
or solidarity – however you wish to spell it…
Look, I am a supporter of the GWOT, and the Iraq War, if one chooses to decouple them. I don’t think that anyone could (sanely) deny that wars have unintended consequences, even if we win them. War is a great big state action, and as such, it will always suffer from the clusterfuckedness that big state actions suffer from. Recognition of this is hardly a) a denial that wars are occasionally necessary nor b) a repudiation of the fact that wars and interstates are things that government needs to handle, (while acknowledging the clusterfuckery involved…)
Sometimes, the turd has to be picked up, and wasting time looking for the clean end won’t help. I’m not wholly convinced that climate change is a turd that we have to pick up yet, but if we do, expect it to fuck even more stuff up.
Todd,
Goat and camel shite. Those could come in real handy in the bunker.
Proggpellant. That’s what it is.
actus, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Ironic detachment is not a foreign policy. Neither is “Existential blamelessness through snark.”
Good for you for being the transcendent man existing on a plane beyond the reach of hypocrisy. But clearly the rest of us are simply insufficiently evolved to process your revealed wisdom.
It’s almost worth voting for the biggest leftist nutbag on the ballot come November to watch you disappear from the Internet—rather than, say, having to deign to stand for something.
And this is in no way a concession that there was anything substantive in your comment itself to which someone should respond. I’m just unburdening myself of a little of the philosophical nausea I feel whenever I see you pen one of your glib little koans. I apologize to the group, I condemn myself thoroughly, and I’ll be off to bed now.
The thing about closely-coupled chaotic systems? They don’t really have controlling inputs – everything in the system plays a part in the overall dynamic equilibrium.
It is therefore not “controllable” by humans in any serious way, shape or form, and it’s a serious mistake to even try.
The Greeks called it “hubris”, but I prefer to avoid greek.
Climate treaties that work as well as invasions? Thats lefty? ok.
Look, all I ask is that our climate treaties be as considered and well thought out and consequentially intendend as the rest of our government’s policy. Is that so much to ask? I don’t think so. Take your negativity elsewhere.
Czarmangis—Well, yeh, but in a good way.
Major John—Is burning all that manure what’s responsible for the “Cloud of Death” over the Indian Ocean?
TW—“than” as in, “Does choking to death on cowshit methane hurt more than choking to death on CO2?”
Ah, I see, snark as policy.
I bet you believe in the Post Office, too.
tw: I sense a growing doubt as to the telephone pole’s intelligence.
I use it. And it works.
Greenland used to be green, centuries ago – in days when even the most rabid Greenpeacer would have to admit there were no automobiles.
Nobody has proven that human activity has a significant impact on climate. Some of the more agressive computer models that “predict” the dreaded hockey-stick effect suffer from the fact that they don’t predict current conditions when fed with historical data. In old fashioned computer terms, garbage in, garbage out.
The Kyoto signatories admit that the effect of meeting their CO2 reduction goals would be negligible. Finally, even the signatories admit that they are NOT going to meet even those (meaningless) goals.
Finally, on a more selfish note, I live in Syracuse. A five degree rise in the average temperature would be an improvement!
Let me see what’s missing here…oh yes–perpetual Cat 5 hurricanes.
There’s a lesson there in attempting a time series analyis with ONE freakin’ time period.
Having said that–anyone that has flown over the PRC has seen the layer of coal soot over the entire country at about 25,000 feet. Kyoto was just a bad idea done badly. If we aren’t going to include an economy of over a billion people that is growing at 10% a year then who should we include?
P.S.: Actus, as always…you fill in the rest.
Its average global temperature. No guarantee that anyone’s local temp will rise. Probably, given changes in climate, in many places it will fall.
I know one place where the temperature will fall precipitously when Actass is on topic.
Ol’ Zarqawi will be ice-skating.
We have many millenia of experience with war and it’s unintended consequences, bad and good. We have zero experience affecting the global climate through directed human activity.
I don’t care much for the way we got the first experience nor how we sometimes use it, but until we have quite a lot more experience, evidence, data, and actual science about climate change and any human causal abilities, I think the hubris of the Kyoto Treaty, its backers, the climate modelers, and the know-nothings such as the telephone pole is pretty damn dangerous.
Being obstructionist and contrarian doesn’t take much, if any, thought, so some have easier jobs than those who actually attempt to improve things.
TW: such snark gives me a pain.
I didn’t say work, idiot, I said believe in it.
tw: soon the telephone pole will have a clue.
I don’t think this is our old actus… I detect an edginess, an in-your-face bluntness that we haven’t seen before…
I’ll admit it, I’m kinda scared.
Does anyone else notice a change in Actup since his reappearance?
Don’t get me wrong, his posts are still mostly crap, but doesn’t he seem to project it with more…ummmm…confidence? Aggressiveness even?
Somehow, I feel it fits his progg sensibilities better.
Just an observation, I hope no cats died in making it.
So it would be unfair to expect our climate treaties to be as good as our wars. Ok. I can deal with that.
I put things in the post box. And I believe they’ll come out at their destination. And they do.
Sometime last summer the WSJ ran a piece on how fedex cooperates with law enforcement. The lesson was that the post office better protects your privacy than the private carriers, because of laws regulating the post office.
Hey JDM, we are on the same page(from a Stephen King book, perhaps!).
<chortle>
Come again, nannyist? Because our whored government is so expert at thinking shit out well.
Here you go, actuse. Your own well-thought handbook on GW:
1. Is the globe warming?
2. If yes to #1, is this an actual problem?
2. If yes to #2, is it due to manmade effects?
3. If yes to #3, can it be reversed by man?
4. If yes to #4, at a cost that doesn’t extinct the species?
If you’re “well thought out”, you’ll never make it past about 1.5, tops. If you’re a kneejerk hysteric there’s a solid five in your future.
Oops:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191826.o0mynclv.html
lee: I think we’re just more sensitive to evil than the rest these bozos…
heh.
I was talking to a illegal immigrant guy in Asia working for about 11 cents a day harvesting rattan who was looking around what I thought was a rancid slice of hell and he says: “this country is very rich”… I’m at a total loss, so my buddy asks why the guy thinks this place is rich and the immigrant answers “well look at all the dry shit they just leave laying around” I was surrounded by unspeakable wealth I guess… in fact I had some soon to be wealth on my shoe.
Did someone just call regime change a “nanny state” action? Sure. The way the democrats do it…. “stop torturing the cat and swamp arabs… ok, I’ve had enough with the nuclear threats, everyone to their rooms and no more xbox”.
Nanny state. bah
tw: who burns shit in the *house* here in the USA besides democrats?
Look, all I ask is that our climate treaties be as considered and well thought out and consequentially intendend as the rest of our government’s policy. Is that so much to ask? I don’t think so. Take your negativity elsewhere.
Howzabout before we sign any treaties that at least some science be involved.Here’s a hint. If the word ‘consensus’ appears in your scientific study. It ain’t scientific
The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. We’re good, but we’re not that good.
TWwhat No. WOT not just for jews anymore.
Jumpin’ jiminy–there’s a whole flock of nonseqs in the hall asking to be actus’ next stupid point.
So it would be unfair to expect our climate treaties to be as good as our wars.
or to make you as fat as 8 Big Macs a day.
or to sing as well as Paris Hilton.
or to be as nuanced as French Mideast policy.
It would be easier, actus, if you just cooked up some standard contrarian boilerplate. Carpal tunnel and all that, you know…
I think you misnumbered, but I don’t htink we need that number 2 if the number 3 is yes.
Why not? you prefer non-consensus?
Unbelievable.
So let’s erect these giant tin foil reflectors in Venus’ orbit because we’re like so all about what’s best for Mom Earth. AND we’ll refreeze the Martian caps to boot.
We’ll straighten that shit right out.
[Wait. Why the hell did I just bother replying?]
Consensus. Building proud bread-throwing, earth-cooling mobs since the Romans.
Well, if its hurting us, and we can fix it, it’s not necessary that it be because of us. We often change our environment in order to make it better for us, and the changes we’re making are to undo natural things, not man-made things.
Not enough to cover a tenth the cost of the cure, unfortunately for your pet hysteria…
And we cannot.
Next.
See, you know I’m a bot because I dont react to ‘if’ statements as if they were at issue.
You planning to cool a half-billion square kilometers (70% of it water-covered) covering a mass of 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, actus?
And what about Mars?
FEAR the telephone pole.
Ok, wait a minute.
Actus shows up and then Verc?
Kinda freakin out here.
No, you’re a moron. Proven like UPS, right on time, everyday.
Mating calls and all…
…why are you still here?
Oh—that wasn’t the question you were asking, was it?
Between you and I, I find passive measures re domicle temperature control to be more reliable and cheaper than active measures.
IOW, good architectural design and the right construction materials trump central heating and airconditioning anytime.
6Gun, you know the meaning of ‘if.’ All that I said was that human cause does not matter, IF humans can fix it. Thats it. Like jeff has said in the past, when words lose their meanings, discussion becomes impossible.
IF humans can fix it.
Name one thing humans have ‘fixed’.
TW: bad
Is rhetoric not useful in your universe, actuse?
To restate question two:IF it’s actually a problem. Mankind is probably better off with the world a couple degrees warmer, than a couple degrees cooler. If the proggs actually COULD affect the climite, and plunged us into an ice age, I’d be PISSED!
Well, it used to take a long time to get to san francisco from the east coast. But we have been able to alter things we find in nature in order to drive there or fly there faster than in the 19th century.
Out of curiousity, where was actus during that whole “Frisch” incident? Did he circle the wagons and fight the good fight with the rest of Jeff’s regulars or did he just kind of go silent until it was over?
I said she was so wrong as to make me think she was nuts.
Do you know anything at all about thermodynamics on a global scale, actus? This isn’t your transcontinental Corvair trip we’re talking about here.
If you could fart AIDA, you’d be on America’s Funniest Home Videos.
That kind of If?
tw: does this guy have a forebrain?
Are you proposing that we intentional fuck up the natural climate cycle, actus?
I don’t understand this advocation of yours to apparently intentionally “undo natural things”. Isn’t that what has got your boy Al Gore’s panties in such a wad? That our selfish hedonism has screwed up the natural proggression?
Oh, boy. THIS should be good…
That wouldn’t sound like we were fixing it. But perhaps the climate would welcome us as liberators.
Beyond some physics? no. But thats why I use the word “if.” You know what that word means right?
Like when I say “if I lose in court, I’ll blame the opposing lawyer.” That doesn’t mean I lost in court. Its a conditional.
I’m sorry, are we fucking fixing something again?
I’ll give you one thing, actard, you sure lie pretty.
Law?
Lie about what? the meaning of the word “if” ?
Er, this?
If it’s not “hurting us”, WTF are you doing here, prattling on like such an asshole, acturd?
To recap–the gist of the entire post is about the unintended consequences of screwing with the environment even in the name of good intentions.
Actus, as usual, misses that point and substitutes the word “if” into the discussion to avoid having to actually take a stand on anything other than “look at my irony, bitches!”.
Fixing it implies it is broke.
If man didn’t break it, you are assuming that the cycle of climate changes that have served us for billions of years is broken and you know how to fix it? Is the preposterous arrogance of this position truly lost on you?
God darnit actus, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore
The benefit of using conditionals is that me and you can have discussions about what to do based on information not available to the two of us. I’m not enough of an expert to know whether we can fix the environment, or how much, off the top of my head, global warming is going to hurt. What I do know is that it doesn’t matter whether we caused it. What matters is whether we can fix it, and whether we need to.
I get the point about unintended consequences. I made that point earlier, saying that our climate treaties should be at least as good as our wars. We don’t want incompetent wars or treaties.
But some people added that we can only address global warming if its human caused. I think not. I think thats irrelevant. Whats relevant is if humans can undo it, not if we caused it.
If the word “if” means “assume.” Then I guess so. But I don’t think the cycle of climate changes has served “us” for that long, since we haven’t been around for billions of years. At least not at the level where we have such a large portion of our population in places where climate change could hurt them.
Those that are convinced that global warming is caused by human activity are ignoring that the very claim relied upon by the IPCC ( to show that recent warming is unprecedented ) has been shown to be not merely wrong but based on dishonestly manipulated statistical analysis.
The scientists flogging that bogus pseudo-science have been playing hide-the-ball to prevent independant verification of their work for years.
Y’know, actus, there’s an “if” you missed there.
IF climate change is going to affect us adversely, we should look into doing something about it.
Yeah, yeah, I know, sea level rise and the poor damned Bengladeshi. Bullshit. The whole point of the “hockey stick” fraud was to make inconvenient data go away—and the inconvenient data is that, based on the historical record, global warming is a good thing for roughly 90% of the human race.
A thousand years ago, Eric the Red and Leif Ericcson were selling farm plots in Greenland, and people were buying them and farming there. At the same time, the Saale River valley in Germany was a prime wine-grape-growing region, and the so-called Anasazi culture in North America was booming. Do the damned research yourself. Around the world, almost the only place where the Medieval Climactic Optimum, rougly 900-1200 AD, was not a very, very good time for human civilizations was at Teotihuican, the “lost city” in Mexico, and up in the Andean peaks. And yes, the city of Dacca existed then—the seas did not rise and swamp the Andaman Islands, either.
Half a millenium ago the Thames froze solid well below London. The “little ice age” was a very very bad time for people everywhere with, again, the exception of central Mexico and the tropical Andes.
If you consult a historian specializing in Medieval to ancient history, an archaeologist, or a physical anthropologist, and look over what they were saying prior to the epidemic of BDS, you would find that it has been for years regarded as firmly established that there have been climate cycles of warming and cooling with a period of roughly a millenium for the entire time human beings have occupied the planet. A thousand years before Leif Ericsson the Roman Empire was expanding to beat the band—the Roman Warm. A thousand years before Columbus, the pitiful rump of the Empire was wheezing its last. A thousand years before the Founding of the City, the Patriarchs of the Semites were expanding and running afoul of the Babylonians. And a thousand years before that, the Harappans were building a mighty civilization—the only known one to have survived a cool period, and they only managed one; the next mini Ice Age brought invaders, Northerners who couldn’t take the freezing steppes any more and moved in.
We call ‘em Aryans, that last bunch.
No, the effects weren’t uniform, and no, it didn’t punch any kind of time clock—it’s a  –ing planet, f’God’s sake, and planets are bigger than Georgetown. They’re even bigger than all of DC! Bigger than Boswash, even, with lots of room for variations!
But there is abundant evidence that the place has, in general, been much warmer than it is now, and no, rpt no, evidence that it was uniformly, or even mostly, a bad thing for humans and the things they build. Rather the reverse, in fact. There is most especially no, rpt no, evidence that The Seas Rose And Flooded Coastal Civilizations.
So before you go fixing it, do a little digging to establish whether it’s –ing broke or not, dammit.
Glowball Worming is the Lefties’ attempt at inventing something scary from outside that everybody can rally ‘round them to combat, like the Tsar picking on the Japanese to try to maintain his position. The reason they get so angry and frustrated is that nobody who pays enough attention to keep bootlaces tied is going to be skeered by the proposition of Realtors® in Greenland (fearsome though that might be.)
Regards,
Ric
Conceptually, this is not a complicated problem, but one of a class of “tragedy of the commons” problems that predictably result when there are no clear or enforceable propoerty rights to particular resources. Conservatives and libertarians should understand these and want to work for solutions that create private propoerty rights – like transferable rights in fisheries or pollution permits in the LA basin.
What we’ve got now is unfettered use of the global atmosphere as a dump – for CO2, methane, other GHGs and particulates. Obviously, coordinated efforts are needed to solve the problem, otherwise efforts in one country can be hamstrung by lack of effective policy elsewhere. This is the great accomplishment of the Bush administration – in dissing our allies and in giving a free ride to China, India etc.
Actually, it’s a bit richer, because lack of an effective policy in China means we effectively subsidize their GHG production, and thereby subsidize theiur manufactures and their growth as a rival. Add onto that the Administration’s “Asia-Pacific Partnership”, where we provide explict subsidies to get the to adopt the latest CO2-reduction technologies, instead of using trade levere like a stick.
But whatever works in the short-term, right? Like making sure we’re afraid of the Dems, instead of long-term problems, and turning on the A/C even as that just makes the world a little warmer?
By the way, even Exxon admits the problem, and the bulk of Senators is prepared to adopt mandatory limits, led by Pete Domenici.
Kinda hard to engage on a China policy when China says “check back with us in 50 years.”
Yes, it is all Bush’s fault.
Idiot.
Ric, that rant truly was a thing of beauty.
Best of all, it silenced the actard.
TW: If lawyer actus argues his cases like he does here, he’s in for a rough time.
Yeah because your side of the aisle has done such a bang up job w/ the war on poverty, improving the educational system, fixing Social Security, solving, much less accomplishing anything in the Middle East, Africa, Asia or Central America. Why is it the most violent places to live, w/ the highest crime rates in America are also Democratic strongholds? The most occurrences of racism, poverty, pollution & corruption are as well? Let me guess, Bushco. & greedy capitalists that care only for money.
I won’t even bother to go into your absolute lack of scientific knowledge or education, I know it isn’t everyone’s bag or what have you, but have you actually read anything but the left-leaning, proto-science blogs or articles? Why is it every major prediction by the so-called environmental scientists over the last 30 years have either been disproven or have never happened? That they are not supported by any historical data, can’t predict current trends & fall apart after a 20 year cycle – w/o a little fudging that is. How come current weather models still can’t predict the weather accurately beyond a 5 day window, but we should completely re-adjust the world’s economical & industrial basis because of a pet theory or Al Gore’s opinion? When did that become good science or science at all? Why is not alright to remove a brutal dictator that committed genocide, but okay to force other nations to use only approved, (this week’s) environmentally acceptable means of production, manufacturing or transportation?
Personally I don’t mind that you have a different opinion, but try to back it up w/ some facts or a model that can predict anything within a more specific time line than it’s happening right now or sometime in the future.
That sounds exactly like what signing Kyoto would have done, except that Congress, and not just Bush, rejected it.
So, how many Kyoto signatories have met their obligations?
And the Mississippian. Cahokia, near modern St. Louis, had a population of 10,000 or so. Their cultural influence spread over the entire eastern half of the US and lasted until the French wiped out the Natchez in the early 1700s.
And this corresponds to the Hopewell/Adena culture. Centered in Ohio, had influence as far afield as Louisiana.
Almost like the improvement in climate was global or something.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m afraid of what the Dems will cause for long-term problems because ideology (and “white” guilt) weighs far more heavily for them than mere science.
This is really it, isn’t it? Guilt about being comfortable. Shame that we can mitigate the effects of nature.
What problem would that be, chief?
Name one large corporation that doesn’t lobby the government to enact regulations which will hamstring their competition.
Do steel tariffs, farm subsidies, import quotas ring bells?
There is no real agreement that ethanol is a net energy saver once all the costs are factored in. There is no disagreement that it is a very effective tool in transferring money from the government to farmers and farming corporations.
Civics lesson 101: There is no such thing as government money. It all comes from you and me and goes through Washington where they skim their percentage off the top.
The oil companies and car companies would be ecstatic if an alternative fuel were mandated tomorrow. Because they will sell you a new car and the new “gas” which will save the world.
Since I’m going to pay for these miracles, I’d like to be reasonably certain they are necessary and effective. I’m unreasonable that way.
This is the part of the article that bothers me the most.
Too much to say the first go-round, apparently. As is almost everything else.
It just might be a good idea to actually give us a clue what you’re talking about when you decide to comment, rather than dropping some snide, glib nugget and watching the resulting replies.
Which is what a troll does. You’re a troll, intentionally or un-.
If you’re talking Earth mass, you’re a factor of ten low.
Like I said, if its hurting us…
What do you know about my scientific knowledge or education? I don’t like arguments by authority, but what you’re doing here is basically the same thing as that. It’s not good. I think it was robin roberts tried it last time we talked global warming statistics. It wasn’t a good idea then.
But you’re going to tell me about 5 day weather predictions having something to do with predicting global average temperatures. So I’m sure i’m about to get some good science learning.
Oh, as as for social security, that seems like a problem that fixes itself: as more people get on social security, the greater the political will to fund it properly. Ergo, it will be funded. I suspect this is why people who want to destroy social security want to cut it now rather htan later, but I don’t know for sure.
This thread has been the least edifying exchange with the telephone pole, evah. And that’s saying something.
‘As more people get on social security, the greater the political will to fund it properly’
That’s the problem actus, overpopulated aging entitlement-driven babyboomers who never sacrified a moment of pleasure will suck the life out of the left-over un-aborted underpopulated, over-taxed youths.
At 44, I’m stuck in the middle facing the future having to hear the more of the same screaming sounds from boomer entitlement babies that their stiffened botox faces and sagging sized DDD silconed skeletal bodies deserve to be politically pampered because they spent youth partying like there was no tomorrow.
tw: It all started back when they hoped they would die before they got old. Who thought.
Yeah, conditionally.
You simply mean to be misunderstood, actus, because what you want and have always wanted is to prance around naked again, all 4’ of you, immune to responsibility. Anything whatsoever for a lookie-here; nothing in the way of accountability or shame.
Law?
Only what’s evident, law student.
Or are you appealing to your own vacant authority, again meaning to be misunderstood or perhaps simply trolling?
If you had an ounce of integrity I wouldn’t have to ask.
Then I can’t blame you for despising yourself, actus, really I can’t.
‘fail to consider the law of unintended consequences’
Like almost eradicating malaria from the face of the planet until some feel-good junk-scientist came along with a book title ‘The Silent Spring’ and convinced eco-consious peoples that egg shells were at risk of extinction. So, how does the eco-conscious Mrs. Carson feel about the fact that she has helped to kill millions with malaria.
tw: Children are of no concern to carbon-neutral eco-imperialists.
Lets put man made environmental pollution in some sort of perspective so that we can get an idea of what is being proposed.
Mount Penetubo(?) erupted in the Phillipines a while ago and the eruptions lasted for a couple of weeks. In that time the volcano ejected more gaseous and particulant effluents, (and not the good kind), than all of mans history to date.Yet there wasn’t snow in july in Austin.
Science is concerned with objective proof.The truth. Not what a group agrees to be the truth.The sun is causing our planet to heat up. The sun is causing our whole planetary system to heat up.I know it’s heresy, but we just aren’t that good at being messy to fuck up the whole planet.Jesus christ. If you want something to worry about, worry about what your kids are learning in school.Save the planet, my ass.
Suck the life out of? Arent the worst estimates something like 1 or 2 percent of GDP? That doesn’t seem like suckign the life out of. Specially since that money goes straight to consumption, rather than savings. And if underpopulated is the problem, then immigration can help with that. Lets get all those undocumented paying into the system!
What I’m saying is we haven’t really discussed our credentials, as in what we studied in university, what we’ve worked in after that, or what peer reviewed publications we have, so its hard to tell on what basis you’re concluding about anyone’s scientific education.
Plus we really haven’t talked that much science in order to be able to tell much about science education. Science being a very wide field, too.
Good gracious, let’s not go off on THAT topic just yet. That’s where the politicians atart eating their young!
Let’s make it simple: everybody who thinks that we need massive climate treaties to fix a pandemic of man made global warming is required to read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Seige.” They then have to be able to SCIENTIFICALLY refute his contentions (and, no, the “corporate science stooge” argument doesn’t work here.)
I just can’t let go of his point that before we make global policy with global consequences that climatologists must be able to demonstrate ANY ability to project climate over a 10 – 20 year period. ‘nuff said.
What credentials to you need to call bullshit on someone trying to establish detailed predictions of weather with 50 years of data in a millions of years old system? Lack of data is lack of data, further particular scientific expertise is not necessary.
I think you mean “State of Fear,” which amazon.com lists under “fiction” and “thriller.” The climate scientists at realclimate.org have discussed it here and here.
I dont know what SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed contentions are in his, err, novel, so I can’t tell you whether the climate scientists at realclimate.org have addressed them. Since you’ve read the novel, perhaps you could look through realclimate.org and tell me whether the climate scientists there address his SCIENTIFIC contentions.
But maybe we should have chrichton head up science policy, grisham as chief justice, and tom clancy as sec def. At least government would be more thrilling, and more friendly to travellers toting mass market paperbacks.
Probably none at all. But you do need some inkling of someones credentials if you’re going to talk about how much science education they have.
First of all, sorry for “Seige.” I’ve had a mental block about that for a year.
Secondly, while the story is fiction, the science was meticulously researched and extensively footnoted with multiple appendices and graphs galore. As a medical doctor and a proven researcher, his conclusions have unique weight in the argument because he has no ax to grind (at least as far as I can see.) To pass this off as just a novel is disingenious and not worthy of your self described argument style (such as it is.)
Secondly I have read through realclimate. The problem is that the the people writing there are the very same climatologists who can’t do an accurate 20 year climatological study and still don’t have a documented causal link between man made gasses and global warming. I would suggest that you go to junkscience.com and get the other side of the discussion. Of course, in your world, they’re probably all Neo-polluting big oil minions, because any reasonable person knows that man made global warming is a proven scientific fact and any discussion to the contrary signifies insensativity, callous disregard, and red meat eatin’ hillbilly yahoos.
Thirdly, I wasn’t suggesting that Crichton be the sole arbitor of global science policy. I would like to point out that Al Gore has less scientific credentials that Michael Crichton.
Fourthly; I still don’t have a response to the 10-20 year climate projections and neither does realclimate. And, neither do you.
Fifthly, I’m all for Tom Clancy as Sec-Def. Nuke ‘em all!
Hey, blame Amazon. I’m guessing the publisher also lists it as fiction, so blame them too for disingenuity. I suppose the dude taught me most of the chaos theory I know, so it can go for climate science as well.
Right, but thats not what you asked. You said there are SCIENTIFIC contentions in chrichton’s paperback thriller. I don’t know what those are, other than the facts you’ve told me: that they are footnoted and have graphs. I want to know if those contentions are addressed by the climate scientists at realclimate.org.
As for junkscience, its not a good sign that the domain name is owned by a lobbyist. Its also not very useful for you to just send me to a top level website with lots of articles. I provided you with specific links to realclimate.org’s climate scientists discussing chrichton’s novel. Perhaps you could find a specific link at the junk website that also discusses the novel? That would help us stay focused.
actard:
Reply in light of there being no such evidence:
acturd:
Reply:
actuse:
actus, will you be bringing that “argument” to the bench? Because if you are, just call ahead and tell the opposition to take the day off.
You’ll be debating yourself, which for such an egomaniac which such a schizophrenic debating style, I suppose is strangely fitting.
I do snicker at being lectured on legal practice by you, 6Gun. But I think you’re mixing up 2 things here. One is claims about the science. The other is claims about our scientific education. I think you need some knowledge of each other’s scientific education before you go on to talk about each other’s scientific education. I don’t think you need knowledge of each other’s scientific education before you go on to talk about the science.
Also, after that whole episode about global warming not needing to be man made, you go in there add ‘man made’ to my words. Bravo dude. Do that in court, and blame the opposing party when you get nailed. It helps to project, but only for a bit.
Actus,
Stay focused on what, exactly?
Having read all of the comments, it seems to me that the issue you avoid is this:
1) it appears proven that there have been cold and warm periods on earth throughout the history of man;
2) those don’t appear to be caused by man, ergo it is unlikely that this warming period is caused by man;
3) why do we need to do anything about a natural phenomena?
4) IF this natural phenomena of a warming cycle is currently happening – is it bad for humanity?
– where is there any evidence of this other than very, very, very hypothetical theories?;
5) IF (again, a very big if), it is bad for humanity – can humanity actually do anything to effect the climate of the earth?
6) IF humanity can do something to effect the climate of the earth – is it worth it (i.e., cost / benefit analysis)?
As there is no real consensus in the scientific community as to any of this (despite what the left says), it seem increbibly premature and foolish to enact policies based on global warming, no?
I’m not sure what the argument is about here. I think most of us consider you a troll b/c you are never willing to explicitly state what your position is.
Is your position that you believe global warming exists and is man-made?
Or, is your position that global warming exists and is not man-made, but man should still do something about it?
What do you believe should be done?
I think if you clarify what your actual position is, people can believe you are being sincere and arguing in good faith. It is the constant vague and non-responsive responses, that get people thinking you are a troll just looking for attention.
– GB
Actus,
Stay focused on what, exactly?
Having read all of the comments, it seems to me that the issue you avoid is this:
1) it appears proven that there have been cold and warm periods on earth throughout the history of man;
2) those don’t appear to be caused by man, ergo it is unlikely that this warming period is caused by man;
3) why do we need to do anything about a natural phenomena?
4) IF this natural phenomena of a warming cycle is currently happening – is it bad for humanity?
– where is there any evidence of this other than very, very, very hypothetical theories?;
5) IF (again, a very big if), it is bad for humanity – can humanity actually do anything to effect the climate of the earth?
6) IF humanity can do something to effect the climate of the earth – is it worth it (i.e., cost / benefit analysis)?
As there is no real consensus in the scientific community as to any of this (despite what the left says), it seem increbibly premature and foolish to enact policies based on global warming, no?
I’m not sure what the argument is about here. I think most of us consider you a troll b/c you are never willing to explicitly state what your position is.
Is your position that you believe global warming exists and is man-made?
Or, is your position that global warming exists and is not man-made, but man should still do something about it?
What do you believe should be done?
I think if you clarify what your actual position is, people can believe you are being sincere and arguing in good faith. It is the constant vague and non-responsive responses, that get people thinking you are a troll just looking for attention.
– GB
Actus,
Stay focused on what, exactly?
Having read all of the comments, it seems to me that the issue you avoid is this:
1) it appears proven that there have been cold and warm periods on earth throughout the history of man;
2) those don’t appear to be caused by man, ergo it is unlikely that this warming period is caused by man;
3) why do we need to do anything about a natural phenomena?
4) IF this natural phenomena of a warming cycle is currently happening – is it bad for humanity?
– where is there any evidence of this other than very, very, very hypothetical theories?;
5) IF (again, a very big if), it is bad for humanity – can humanity actually do anything to effect the climate of the earth?
6) IF humanity can do something to effect the climate of the earth – is it worth it (i.e., cost / benefit analysis)?
As there is no real consensus in the scientific community as to any of this (despite what the left says), it seem increbibly premature and foolish to enact policies based on global warming, no?
I’m not sure what the argument is about here. I think most of us consider you a troll b/c you are never willing to explicitly state what your position is.
Is your position that you believe global warming exists and is man-made?
Or, is your position that global warming exists and is not man-made, but man should still do something about it?
What do you believe should be done?
I think if you clarify what your actual position is, people can believe you are being sincere and arguing in good faith. It is the constant vague and non-responsive responses, that get people thinking you are a troll just looking for attention.
– GB
Actus,
Stay focused on what, exactly?
Having read all of the comments, it seems to me that the issue you avoid is this:
1) it appears proven that there have been cold and warm periods on earth throughout the history of man;
2) those don’t appear to be caused by man, ergo it is unlikely that this warming period is caused by man;
3) why do we need to do anything about a natural phenomena?
4) IF this natural phenomena of a warming cycle is currently happening – is it bad for humanity?
– where is there any evidence of this other than very, very, very hypothetical theories?;
5) IF (again, a very big if), it is bad for humanity – can humanity actually do anything to effect the climate of the earth?
6) IF humanity can do something to effect the climate of the earth – is it worth it (i.e., cost / benefit analysis)?
As there is no real consensus in the scientific community as to any of this (despite what the left says), it seem increbibly premature and foolish to enact policies based on global warming, no?
I’m not sure what the argument is about here. I think most of us consider you a troll b/c you are never willing to explicitly state what your position is.
Is your position that you believe global warming exists and is man-made?
Or, is your position that global warming exists and is not man-made, but man should still do something about it?
What do you believe should be done?
I think if you clarify what your actual position is, people can believe you are being sincere and arguing in good faith. It is the constant vague and non-responsive responses, that get people thinking you are a troll just looking for attention.
– GB
Actus,
Stay focused on what, exactly?
Having read all of the comments, it seems to me that the issue you avoid is this:
1) it appears proven that there have been cold and warm periods on earth throughout the history of man;
2) those don’t appear to be caused by man, ergo it is unlikely that this warming period is caused by man;
3) why do we need to do anything about a natural phenomena?
4) IF this natural phenomena of a warming cycle is currently happening – is it bad for humanity?
– where is there any evidence of this other than very, very, very hypothetical theories?;
5) IF (again, a very big if), it is bad for humanity – can humanity actually do anything to effect the climate of the earth?
6) IF humanity can do something to effect the climate of the earth – is it worth it (i.e., cost / benefit analysis)?
As there is no real consensus in the scientific community as to any of this (despite what the left says), it seem increbibly premature and foolish to enact policies based on global warming, no?
I’m not sure what the argument is about here. I think most of us consider you a troll b/c you are never willing to explicitly state what your position is.
Is your position that you believe global warming exists and is man-made?
Or, is your position that global warming exists and is not man-made, but man should still do something about it?
What do you believe should be done?
I think if you clarify what your actual position is, people can believe you are being sincere and arguing in good faith. It is the constant vague and non-responsive responses, that get people thinking you are a troll just looking for attention.
– GB
OK, here’s your link:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm
Oh, my! The sight is owned by a LOBBYIST? Oh, my soul! They should be wiped from public discourse.
What a load of crap! Is there a more effective lobby in Washington today than the Envirocrats? But climate scientists tied to The Sierra Club or Greenpeace are automatically way more dependable because, well, their hearts are in the right place. They bleed for mother earth! They would never run rampant with a political agenda (DDT, ANWAR) to suit any crass, capitalist needs. They care! Anyone who might argue with them only cares about profit and in- ground pools. How dare they join the discussion. Off with their blogs!
Crap! I’ve misplaced my Dramamine.
I’ve said quite clearly now that it doesn’t matter whether it is man made. What matters is if it hurts us and if we can do anything about it. Somehow I think no matter how many times I say this, it means i’m not taking a position.
Well that really doesn’t help us discuss Chrichton’s novel. What are the claims in the novel, and do the climate scientists at realclimate.org address the ones you’re talking about, and what does the lobbyist at junkscience say about it?
Which climate scientists are ‘tied’ to the sierra clib or greenpeace? And what are their ties? Milloy probably has contractual obligations to serve the interest of his principal. I don’t know about the guys who run realclimate.org. Do you?