by Doctor Science
Performed by Ken Ham and Bill Nye:
I didn’t watch the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, I’ve been too busy working to devote 3 hours to writhing between embarrassment and rage. And I definitely fall (or fell) in the camp of scientists who thought Bill was just feeding the trolls by agreeing to the debate.
Now, I’m not so sure, because I’ve seen many comments to the effect that Nye’s enthusiasm and joy in science came across really well. And he also was able to convey how much scientists change our minds, and how much we *like* it.
I’ll take this opportunity to re-post my favorite metaphor for scientific epistemology, how scientific knowledge works.
Imagine that there is such a thing as objective Truth, represented as a single point. Scientific knowledge is like a spiral, circling the Truth and getting closer all the time:
But you can’t get all the way to Truth this way, Truth is a singularity or mathematical limit. You just get *closer*, close enough for one purpose or another — but you’ll never be exactly there. And it’s a spiral, not a straight-line, Zeno’s-paradox-type approach, because the direction you’re coming from is always changing — you’re never heading directly toward Truth, it’s always at an angle. A scientist can never be 100% certain, just 99.999…% — and always striving for another 9. The truth always comes with an error bar.
I think this was the greatest philosophical achievement of 20th-century science: realizing that the quest for capital-T Truth means you have to give up capital-C Certainty.[1] It took a while, but I’d say most scientists are now content with the idea that there are things that are in principle uncertain or unprovable, that one way to learn is to get proved wrong, and that your ideas about the world are going to change. That’s why scientists can face situations like oops, we seem to have misplaced 80% of the universe — AGAIN without getting terribly bent out of shape about it — not that it wouldn’t be nice to have some answers we all agree about, but it’s not a horrible epistemological trauma.
What Ken Ham wants is not science, it is 100.000% Certainty. He thinks that he can be absolutely positively sure about some things, without any need to strive for another 9. He believes his Certainty has nailed Truth in place, that there’s no singularity or spiral of knowledge. There are no error bars on his Biblical Truth.
The kind of epistemological uncertainty that Bill Nye can accept and even revel in is a trauma for a lot of people like Ham. Perhaps 20 years ago I remember reading an article in Biblical Archaeology Review, in which the author was expressing irritation at historical-critical analysis of the Bible, because “what kind of real knowledge changes every generation?” Well, that would be scientific knowledge, actually, where even if new knowledge doesn’t sweep the old away, it changes it so it becomes gradually unrecognizable.
For a lot of people the result will be Future Shock. I think this is what a lot of the “culture wars” are about: people who’ve been trained to rely on Fundamental Truths, who don’t expect the shock of the new, being hit with it wave after wave.
I know it often looks, from the outside, as though scientists are hyper-certain judgmental assholes who can’t deal with disagreement. But in fact there’s a huge difference between the disagreements and uncertainties within the Pale of science — which are many and loud — and those with outsiders who don’t come armed with scientific-type evidence.
For instance, right now scientists as a whole “believe” in evolution a lot more than we “believe” in gravity. The basic theory of evolution by natural selection is very well-supported and stable, it’s in what Thomas Kuhn calls a period of “normal science”. Gravitational theory, on the other hand, is over-ripe for a paradigm shift: physicists are quite certain that most current theories are *wrong*, but they haven’t been able to agree on one that might be *right*. And this has been going on for decades.
Here’s an irony. Despite what Ham says you can’t get certainty (or Certainty) from the Bible either. The one thing about God we can be pretty sure of, judging from the proliferation of faiths around, is that we’re not meant to all have the same inarguable understanding. (I’ve forgotten to which author I owe the credit for this observation).
Here’s an irony. Despite what Ham says you can’t get certainty (or Certainty) from the Bible either. The one thing about God we can be pretty sure of, judging from the proliferation of faiths around, is that we’re not meant to all have the same inarguable understanding. (I’ve forgotten to which author I owe the credit for this observation).
Yeah, gravity has some problems. No reason to get all crazy and go with “Intelligent Falling”, however.
Yeah, gravity has some problems. No reason to get all crazy and go with “Intelligent Falling”, however.
Certainly not, Snarki. Geez. It’s “Being Intelligently Pulled Down”.
Certainly not, Snarki. Geez. It’s “Being Intelligently Pulled Down”.
Would scientists congregate at a tavern called the Error Bar?
Would scientists congregate at a tavern called the Error Bar?
Speaking of which, a nitpick:
I don’t think Hamm would be content with 100.00% certainty. What he needs is 100%, integer, with no implicit finite-length error bar.
Not that he’s aware of this, of course. If he somehow got such an understanding into his head (always assuming he’s a mostly sincere ass, not simply a charlatan), it would destroy his entire model of the world, and *that* sort of inconvenience
makes a truth even harder to accept than a mere attack on one’s mere livelihood.
Speaking of which, a nitpick:
I don’t think Hamm would be content with 100.00% certainty. What he needs is 100%, integer, with no implicit finite-length error bar.
Not that he’s aware of this, of course. If he somehow got such an understanding into his head (always assuming he’s a mostly sincere ass, not simply a charlatan), it would destroy his entire model of the world, and *that* sort of inconvenience
makes a truth even harder to accept than a mere attack on one’s mere livelihood.
Isn’t the line “gravity doesn’t exist, the earth just sucks”?
Isn’t the line “gravity doesn’t exist, the earth just sucks”?
Would scientists congregate at a tavern called the Error Bar?
You can find a bunch of evolutionary scientists and hangers-on at The Panda’s Thumb, which started out as the online tavern for the University of Ediacara.
Would scientists congregate at a tavern called the Error Bar?
You can find a bunch of evolutionary scientists and hangers-on at The Panda’s Thumb, which started out as the online tavern for the University of Ediacara.
I haven’t watched the debate, but does Ham ever say how he knows the Bible is the Word Of God? It’s all well and good to say you know X is true because it’s the Word Of God, but you still have that threshold problem of sorting out the Word Of God from the word of Bob.
I haven’t watched the debate, but does Ham ever say how he knows the Bible is the Word Of God? It’s all well and good to say you know X is true because it’s the Word Of God, but you still have that threshold problem of sorting out the Word Of God from the word of Bob.
I watched some of the debate. Bah, on both sides. Bill Nye wad probably the best science guy to do it, Hamm not so much. They did manage to point out that neither side knows much.
I watched some of the debate. Bah, on both sides. Bill Nye wad probably the best science guy to do it, Hamm not so much. They did manage to point out that neither side knows much.
…but you still have that threshold problem of sorting out the Word Of God from the word of Bob.
it’s turtles all the way down.
…but you still have that threshold problem of sorting out the Word Of God from the word of Bob.
it’s turtles all the way down.
@Prolock – I’m surprised there isn’t already one called Error Bar here in Kendall Sq, Cambridge, MA. We have Catalyst, a physical therapy place called Joint Ventures, a store called Xylem, etc.
I’ve gotten into arguments with people about science, and they always think it’s a gotcha moment when I say that science doesn’t know anything with complete certainty. Except for those who throw up their hands wondering how in the world I can live when the only think I know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure.
@Prolock – I’m surprised there isn’t already one called Error Bar here in Kendall Sq, Cambridge, MA. We have Catalyst, a physical therapy place called Joint Ventures, a store called Xylem, etc.
I’ve gotten into arguments with people about science, and they always think it’s a gotcha moment when I say that science doesn’t know anything with complete certainty. Except for those who throw up their hands wondering how in the world I can live when the only think I know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure.
People get even more twitchy when an engineer calmly tells them that, while some of the stuff he uses is based on science, other stuff is not. We use stuff that science has no idea how it works or why.
Case in point: if you look carefully, you will find engineers in the field using dowsing rods to find stuff underground. At this point, nobody (to my knowledge) has any clue how or why they work. So no scientific basis. But if you are looking for utility pipes in a place where there are no maps of them available, it’s a way to find them that actually works.
I recall one time in college, when a couple of us were fooling around with dowsing rods. And another kid came by and freaked out. In his words: “That’s can’t be true! It’s not science! And if it is, my whole world will collapse!”
We gently (well, sort of gently) pointed out that we were two engineers, a chem major, and a physics major, whereas he was an English major. (No offense to English majors in general.) And if we didn’t think it would destroy the world of science if downsing rods worked, where did he get off telling us it was not science? But it was my first encounter w,th the mindset that cannot deal with uncertainty. or with changes in the certainties it already thinks it has.
People get even more twitchy when an engineer calmly tells them that, while some of the stuff he uses is based on science, other stuff is not. We use stuff that science has no idea how it works or why.
Case in point: if you look carefully, you will find engineers in the field using dowsing rods to find stuff underground. At this point, nobody (to my knowledge) has any clue how or why they work. So no scientific basis. But if you are looking for utility pipes in a place where there are no maps of them available, it’s a way to find them that actually works.
I recall one time in college, when a couple of us were fooling around with dowsing rods. And another kid came by and freaked out. In his words: “That’s can’t be true! It’s not science! And if it is, my whole world will collapse!”
We gently (well, sort of gently) pointed out that we were two engineers, a chem major, and a physics major, whereas he was an English major. (No offense to English majors in general.) And if we didn’t think it would destroy the world of science if downsing rods worked, where did he get off telling us it was not science? But it was my first encounter w,th the mindset that cannot deal with uncertainty. or with changes in the certainties it already thinks it has.
There’s Randi’s $1M challenge, attempted but still unclaimed, to demonstrate that “dousing works”.
There’s Randi’s $1M challenge, attempted but still unclaimed, to demonstrate that “dousing works”.
“I know it often looks, from the outside, as though scientists are hyper-certain judgmental assholes who can’t deal with disagreement.”
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism, frankly. All this “Denier” bs, “basic physics” bs, as though we weren’t talking about models using loads of empirical coeficients which are perfectly capable of having been wrongly derived, and models most of which manifestly are NOT clustered around the actual behavior of the climate for the last couple of decades.
Science is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved, and the results take on political salience.
“I know it often looks, from the outside, as though scientists are hyper-certain judgmental assholes who can’t deal with disagreement.”
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism, frankly. All this “Denier” bs, “basic physics” bs, as though we weren’t talking about models using loads of empirical coeficients which are perfectly capable of having been wrongly derived, and models most of which manifestly are NOT clustered around the actual behavior of the climate for the last couple of decades.
Science is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved, and the results take on political salience.
I had an on-line debate a few years back with someone whose position was that Einstein’s theories proved Newton’s theories “wrong.” Well, they sort of do, but they sort of don’t.
They do still teach classical mechanics in engineering and physics classes because classical mechanics gets close enough to the truth to be useful, even if relativistic theories managed to get closer to the truth. (And using relativistic calculations to analyze, say, the trajectory of a fastball would be needlessly cumbersome and of no practical benefit beyond using classical Newtonian physics).
I should have used the word “verisimilitude” in that discussion and saved myself a lot of time, but I don’t even know if was familiar with it then.
But, the point is that Einstein’s theories are also “wrong” in that they have failed to nail down the truth completely and perfectly, they are just a bit less wrong than Newton’s. And there are times when you just don’t need Einstein’s theories, which are useful for high-energy situations of the sort we don’t generally encounter in our day-to-day lives.
The tallest buildings in the world, for instance, were designed and built without any need for the use of general or special relativity.
As religion goes, why are they debating scientists? Why do people want to dress up religion in the clothing of science at all? Scientists, for the most part at least, don’t really try to make religious claims, per se, via science (and if they do, they’re being stupidly unscientific). They may attempt to answer some of the same questions, but they don’t say, for instance, that the Big Bang was or wasn’t the work of God, because they know they can’t, at least not as scientists.
I had an on-line debate a few years back with someone whose position was that Einstein’s theories proved Newton’s theories “wrong.” Well, they sort of do, but they sort of don’t.
They do still teach classical mechanics in engineering and physics classes because classical mechanics gets close enough to the truth to be useful, even if relativistic theories managed to get closer to the truth. (And using relativistic calculations to analyze, say, the trajectory of a fastball would be needlessly cumbersome and of no practical benefit beyond using classical Newtonian physics).
I should have used the word “verisimilitude” in that discussion and saved myself a lot of time, but I don’t even know if was familiar with it then.
But, the point is that Einstein’s theories are also “wrong” in that they have failed to nail down the truth completely and perfectly, they are just a bit less wrong than Newton’s. And there are times when you just don’t need Einstein’s theories, which are useful for high-energy situations of the sort we don’t generally encounter in our day-to-day lives.
The tallest buildings in the world, for instance, were designed and built without any need for the use of general or special relativity.
As religion goes, why are they debating scientists? Why do people want to dress up religion in the clothing of science at all? Scientists, for the most part at least, don’t really try to make religious claims, per se, via science (and if they do, they’re being stupidly unscientific). They may attempt to answer some of the same questions, but they don’t say, for instance, that the Big Bang was or wasn’t the work of God, because they know they can’t, at least not as scientists.
Priority #1 for engineers: It has to work
Priority #2: how do we get it to work half way reliably even if we do not know why it works?
It took about 80 years to understand in detail how the Haber-Bosch process works (iirc that yielded a Nobel). Nice to produce something in the million tons per year range without exactly knowing what the heck happens. I believe the catalytic process for sulfuric acid still holds some open questions.
Still I know no one who claims that it is magic. And there is little spiritual in ammonia or sulfucric acid 😉
Priority #1 for engineers: It has to work
Priority #2: how do we get it to work half way reliably even if we do not know why it works?
It took about 80 years to understand in detail how the Haber-Bosch process works (iirc that yielded a Nobel). Nice to produce something in the million tons per year range without exactly knowing what the heck happens. I believe the catalytic process for sulfuric acid still holds some open questions.
Still I know no one who claims that it is magic. And there is little spiritual in ammonia or sulfucric acid 😉
Along the lines of what Shane wrote in the first comment and what Julian wrote later on – how lacking in spirituality is biblical literalism?
I’m not particularly religious (to put it mildly), but I would see the practice of religion as a constant and neverending search for the truth, much the same as science is. It would be a different approach for a different kind of truth, but I think the spiral analogy would be just as apt.
Sometimes I think the people who claim to be the most religious are the ones who understand God (if there is one!) the least.
Along the lines of what Shane wrote in the first comment and what Julian wrote later on – how lacking in spirituality is biblical literalism?
I’m not particularly religious (to put it mildly), but I would see the practice of religion as a constant and neverending search for the truth, much the same as science is. It would be a different approach for a different kind of truth, but I think the spiral analogy would be just as apt.
Sometimes I think the people who claim to be the most religious are the ones who understand God (if there is one!) the least.
As religion goes, why are they debating scientists? Why do people want to dress up religion in the clothing of science at all?
This is pretty much my point of view.
Science and religion are different projects. Different motivations, different goals, different assumptions, different method of investigation.
They are about fundamentally different things.
Arguing about which one is “right” is like a painter and a geologist arguing about what a mountain “really looks like”.
The religious perspective has its own contribution to make, and that contribution is not going to be found in arguments with scientists about science.
As religion goes, why are they debating scientists? Why do people want to dress up religion in the clothing of science at all?
This is pretty much my point of view.
Science and religion are different projects. Different motivations, different goals, different assumptions, different method of investigation.
They are about fundamentally different things.
Arguing about which one is “right” is like a painter and a geologist arguing about what a mountain “really looks like”.
The religious perspective has its own contribution to make, and that contribution is not going to be found in arguments with scientists about science.
Science is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved
shouldn’t people who say this have to provide actual hard evidence that thousands of scientists are actually milking “the system” for those heaps and heaps of sweet grant money ? shouldn’t you have to prove the conspiracy actually exists ?
Science is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved
shouldn’t people who say this have to provide actual hard evidence that thousands of scientists are actually milking “the system” for those heaps and heaps of sweet grant money ? shouldn’t you have to prove the conspiracy actually exists ?
cleek, who would pay those scientists to say climate change isn’t a problem? Do you think there are big corporations out there who would rather be able to spew carbon and greenhouse gasses into the air as much as they want because it would be cheaper for them or something? There’s no money behind trying to falsify the claims of all those conspiring climate scientists.
cleek, who would pay those scientists to say climate change isn’t a problem? Do you think there are big corporations out there who would rather be able to spew carbon and greenhouse gasses into the air as much as they want because it would be cheaper for them or something? There’s no money behind trying to falsify the claims of all those conspiring climate scientists.
And I want to know who’s paying off all those glaciers!
And I want to know who’s paying off all those glaciers!
Wow. Not this engineer.
Practically everything I do, I have to justify. If we don’t know how something works, we had damned better set about explaining it, or it doesn’t get implemented.
This is not, to be sure, intended to convey that I understand every bit of what I work on; that’s not the case. I let other engineers of other specialties, who also have to provide basis for their work, worry about those bits. I only have to know what they do, and the quality of the data they produce.
About this post, though, I have to say that I generally disfavor debates between scientists and theologians. It doesn’t work. Theologians wind up learning just enough science to come up with some sciencey explanation for what they believe, and no more. And which makes no sense to people who engage in scientific pursuits for a living.
Not that Bill Nye is really that kind of guy, but he’s interested enough in science to have learned something about it.
Disagreement between scientific evidence and what e.g. the Bible tells me means I just didn’t understand one of those well enough. And my money is on not understanding what the Bible tells me. I don’t really have much appreciation for people who are dead certain what the Bible is telling us, because even the words of Jesus are widely and variously interpreted.
So, for me, the key is to try and hang on to the bits of it that obviously hang together, and not spout off as if I am an expert or something. I don’t think there are much in the way of experts, even though there are people who can tell us some things about the linguistics that add flavor.
Wow. Not this engineer.
Practically everything I do, I have to justify. If we don’t know how something works, we had damned better set about explaining it, or it doesn’t get implemented.
This is not, to be sure, intended to convey that I understand every bit of what I work on; that’s not the case. I let other engineers of other specialties, who also have to provide basis for their work, worry about those bits. I only have to know what they do, and the quality of the data they produce.
About this post, though, I have to say that I generally disfavor debates between scientists and theologians. It doesn’t work. Theologians wind up learning just enough science to come up with some sciencey explanation for what they believe, and no more. And which makes no sense to people who engage in scientific pursuits for a living.
Not that Bill Nye is really that kind of guy, but he’s interested enough in science to have learned something about it.
Disagreement between scientific evidence and what e.g. the Bible tells me means I just didn’t understand one of those well enough. And my money is on not understanding what the Bible tells me. I don’t really have much appreciation for people who are dead certain what the Bible is telling us, because even the words of Jesus are widely and variously interpreted.
So, for me, the key is to try and hang on to the bits of it that obviously hang together, and not spout off as if I am an expert or something. I don’t think there are much in the way of experts, even though there are people who can tell us some things about the linguistics that add flavor.
@Brett:
“I know it often looks, from the outside, as though scientists are hyper-certain judgmental assholes who can’t deal with disagreement.”
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism, frankly.
You might observe it mostly in that context, but the “hyper-certain judgmental asshole” phenomenon is far more widespread.
It comes from having domains of very, VERY well confirmed knowledge and observation and realms that are much less certain, and knowing the boundary between them.
To use a (non political) example:
mathematician’s STILL don’t know if Goldbach’s Conjecture is true! Yet they will go all hyper-judgmental assholish on anyone that claims that pi is 22/7!
@Brett:
“I know it often looks, from the outside, as though scientists are hyper-certain judgmental assholes who can’t deal with disagreement.”
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism, frankly.
You might observe it mostly in that context, but the “hyper-certain judgmental asshole” phenomenon is far more widespread.
It comes from having domains of very, VERY well confirmed knowledge and observation and realms that are much less certain, and knowing the boundary between them.
To use a (non political) example:
mathematician’s STILL don’t know if Goldbach’s Conjecture is true! Yet they will go all hyper-judgmental assholish on anyone that claims that pi is 22/7!
There is plenty of hard fact, or certainty, out there. And while evolution may be normal science today, wasn’t gravity once normal science?
There is plenty of hard fact, or certainty, out there. And while evolution may be normal science today, wasn’t gravity once normal science?
@slarti:
I don’t really have much appreciation for people who are dead certain what the Bible is telling us, because even the words of Jesus are widely and variously interpreted.
And that’s before we note that their “interpretations” (in the sense I think you are using it) of what it means ignore the detail that their are dealing with interpretations (in the sense of converting from one language to another). The number of linguists who can and do read the Bible in the original languages, among those who insist that it is without error, is microscopic.
@slarti:
I don’t really have much appreciation for people who are dead certain what the Bible is telling us, because even the words of Jesus are widely and variously interpreted.
And that’s before we note that their “interpretations” (in the sense I think you are using it) of what it means ignore the detail that their are dealing with interpretations (in the sense of converting from one language to another). The number of linguists who can and do read the Bible in the original languages, among those who insist that it is without error, is microscopic.
Actually, my pastor is one of said number who both read and declare.
I think some room could be made for confusion, personally, although that is not my church’s publicly held-forth opinion.
That Jesus died for our sins I take as an article of faith. The other bits are rather small compared with that.
Actually, my pastor is one of said number who both read and declare.
I think some room could be made for confusion, personally, although that is not my church’s publicly held-forth opinion.
That Jesus died for our sins I take as an article of faith. The other bits are rather small compared with that.
DrSci:
And I definitely fall (or fell) in the camp of scientists who thought Bill was just feeding the trolls by agreeing to the debate.
Now, I’m not so sure, because I’ve seen many comments to the effect that Nye’s enthusiasm and joy in science came across really well.
I think that is the key thing that a lot of people miss. I worry about the apparent growth of creationism, but I don’t view non-engagement as an effective buffer.
If you want to convince people of the power of science, you need to talk science with them.
I have a friend, strongly fundamentalist, who falls into the category of “will never change his mind”.
I still enjoy debating with him about evolution for 3 reasons:
(1) I may not convince him evolution is “true”, but I have shown him that there is a lot of evidence to support it and it’s not ignoring inconvenient facts.
(2) I may never convince him, but I learn from the holes (which typically are not holes) he points out. It allows me to improve my understanding and have better answers in the future.
(3) If you can’t engage in respectful discussion with those you vehemently disagree with, the populations will never mix. You get echo chambers. Nobody learns.
If nothing else, Bill Nye, as you noted, put a really good face on science: Questioning, open, enthusiastic.
That contrasts strongly with the ‘militant atheism’ of Dawkins. Which I personally find counterproductive.
DrSci:
And I definitely fall (or fell) in the camp of scientists who thought Bill was just feeding the trolls by agreeing to the debate.
Now, I’m not so sure, because I’ve seen many comments to the effect that Nye’s enthusiasm and joy in science came across really well.
I think that is the key thing that a lot of people miss. I worry about the apparent growth of creationism, but I don’t view non-engagement as an effective buffer.
If you want to convince people of the power of science, you need to talk science with them.
I have a friend, strongly fundamentalist, who falls into the category of “will never change his mind”.
I still enjoy debating with him about evolution for 3 reasons:
(1) I may not convince him evolution is “true”, but I have shown him that there is a lot of evidence to support it and it’s not ignoring inconvenient facts.
(2) I may never convince him, but I learn from the holes (which typically are not holes) he points out. It allows me to improve my understanding and have better answers in the future.
(3) If you can’t engage in respectful discussion with those you vehemently disagree with, the populations will never mix. You get echo chambers. Nobody learns.
If nothing else, Bill Nye, as you noted, put a really good face on science: Questioning, open, enthusiastic.
That contrasts strongly with the ‘militant atheism’ of Dawkins. Which I personally find counterproductive.
There is plenty of hard fact, or certainty, out there. And while evolution may be normal science today, wasn’t gravity once normal science?
McKinney, I think the difference is that evolution is a theory about something that happened on this planet in the very recent history of the universe.
When Newton put forth his theories on gravity, he was looking at a certain set of observable phenomena. Einstein was looking at a larger set. Astronomers and astrophysicists today are considering a still larger set of phenomena.
Gravity works in a very predictable way on objects on or near the earth (or rather between those objects and the earth – I have some gravity, too). The way the planets and other massive objects in our solar system behave likewise.
These were the sorts of things Newton could observe in his time. What he was seeing was a small slice of the spectrum of gravitational behavior. That slice hasn’t changed.
What has changed is that scientists can now observe, even if indirectly, a far greater range of phenomena over a much wider swath of our universe. So it’s not just a matter of getting closer to the truth; it’s also a matter of seeing more of it.
It’s like being from another planet and observing the behavior of humans, but the ones you observed were all, say, deaf 5-year-olds. You might be able to get a really good idea of the range of behavior exhibited among those humans. But it wouldn’t tell you much about prize fighters, harpists, welders, heroin addicts, car salesmen, foot fetishists, rodeo clowns, stamp collectors, abusive husbands, compulsive hand-washers, jazz composers or whomever.
You would find, if you suddenly saw all of humanity, that you were wrong about humans, but not necessarily about deaf 5-year-olds.
There is plenty of hard fact, or certainty, out there. And while evolution may be normal science today, wasn’t gravity once normal science?
McKinney, I think the difference is that evolution is a theory about something that happened on this planet in the very recent history of the universe.
When Newton put forth his theories on gravity, he was looking at a certain set of observable phenomena. Einstein was looking at a larger set. Astronomers and astrophysicists today are considering a still larger set of phenomena.
Gravity works in a very predictable way on objects on or near the earth (or rather between those objects and the earth – I have some gravity, too). The way the planets and other massive objects in our solar system behave likewise.
These were the sorts of things Newton could observe in his time. What he was seeing was a small slice of the spectrum of gravitational behavior. That slice hasn’t changed.
What has changed is that scientists can now observe, even if indirectly, a far greater range of phenomena over a much wider swath of our universe. So it’s not just a matter of getting closer to the truth; it’s also a matter of seeing more of it.
It’s like being from another planet and observing the behavior of humans, but the ones you observed were all, say, deaf 5-year-olds. You might be able to get a really good idea of the range of behavior exhibited among those humans. But it wouldn’t tell you much about prize fighters, harpists, welders, heroin addicts, car salesmen, foot fetishists, rodeo clowns, stamp collectors, abusive husbands, compulsive hand-washers, jazz composers or whomever.
You would find, if you suddenly saw all of humanity, that you were wrong about humans, but not necessarily about deaf 5-year-olds.
HSH:
I like your ‘example humans’. You must run with a very interesting crowd.
HSH:
I like your ‘example humans’. You must run with a very interesting crowd.
I think the difference is that evolution is a theory about something that happened on this planet in the very recent history of the universe.
That’s a misconception, though a very very common one.
Evolution is a theory about something that’s happening _now_, _everywhere_, to all living things. It’s observable _now_, in the laboratory and in the field. Further, evolution is a direct logical consequence of what we now know (with considerable certainty) about the mechanisms of genetics and reproduction — it’s difficult to accomodate modern genetics in a description of a world in which evolution does not happen.
I think the difference is that evolution is a theory about something that happened on this planet in the very recent history of the universe.
That’s a misconception, though a very very common one.
Evolution is a theory about something that’s happening _now_, _everywhere_, to all living things. It’s observable _now_, in the laboratory and in the field. Further, evolution is a direct logical consequence of what we now know (with considerable certainty) about the mechanisms of genetics and reproduction — it’s difficult to accomodate modern genetics in a description of a world in which evolution does not happen.
You’re correct, joel, though it was poor wording on my part rather than a misconception that I hold. (I don’t think evolution suddenly stopped when Charles Darwin was born. Or when I was, for that matter.)
Gravity continues as well.
You’re correct, joel, though it was poor wording on my part rather than a misconception that I hold. (I don’t think evolution suddenly stopped when Charles Darwin was born. Or when I was, for that matter.)
Gravity continues as well.
Sorry for the knee-jerk; I spent years on talk.origins, where one of the most common problems is the guy who is certain that evolution is all about cows turning into whales sometime in the distant past.
Sorry for the knee-jerk; I spent years on talk.origins, where one of the most common problems is the guy who is certain that evolution is all about cows turning into whales sometime in the distant past.
“Gravity persists as well”
Is this the depression thread still?
“Science is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved, and not so much when the results take on political salience.”
Religion is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved, and not so much, when the results take on political salience.
When you adjust the calibration on a drill- press, do you say a little prayer too? And do you adjust the amount of time you spend on either invocation according to the most recent payoff?
I didn’t see the Ham/Nye debate. Give me a discussion among a devout Catholic, medically trained physician, and endorser of the theory of evolution like Walker Percy, an agnostic, ironic astronomer who reserves a corner of the cosmos for a cranky mysterious god or gods mulling over his/her creation, a Native American chief cautioning Christian Europeans about the proper sustainable approach to bison and passenger pigeon resource management as a part of the great father’s plan, and, say, Woody Allen, or another comedian, who believes the universe is an awful torture chamber intent upon afflicting suffering, Milton’s Satan, the somewhat sympathetic fallen Angel, and, what the Hell, John Lennon, and I’ m all ears.
Their respective doubts, frail as they are, human, should be front and center.
Camus should be the moderator. Or Bishop Sheen.
This spectacle we’re speaking of is a gladiator reality show, a simplified black and white cage fight between true believers, an Olympic event called the Shallow Pool Diving, a quintessentially American consumer standoff on a par with the Whopper versus the Big Mac, a carnival setup for rubes, a media bullsh&t profit center.
“Gravity persists as well”
Is this the depression thread still?
“Science is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved, and not so much when the results take on political salience.”
Religion is a pretty nifty way of approaching truth, but not so much when big bucks are involved, and not so much, when the results take on political salience.
When you adjust the calibration on a drill- press, do you say a little prayer too? And do you adjust the amount of time you spend on either invocation according to the most recent payoff?
I didn’t see the Ham/Nye debate. Give me a discussion among a devout Catholic, medically trained physician, and endorser of the theory of evolution like Walker Percy, an agnostic, ironic astronomer who reserves a corner of the cosmos for a cranky mysterious god or gods mulling over his/her creation, a Native American chief cautioning Christian Europeans about the proper sustainable approach to bison and passenger pigeon resource management as a part of the great father’s plan, and, say, Woody Allen, or another comedian, who believes the universe is an awful torture chamber intent upon afflicting suffering, Milton’s Satan, the somewhat sympathetic fallen Angel, and, what the Hell, John Lennon, and I’ m all ears.
Their respective doubts, frail as they are, human, should be front and center.
Camus should be the moderator. Or Bishop Sheen.
This spectacle we’re speaking of is a gladiator reality show, a simplified black and white cage fight between true believers, an Olympic event called the Shallow Pool Diving, a quintessentially American consumer standoff on a par with the Whopper versus the Big Mac, a carnival setup for rubes, a media bullsh&t profit center.
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism
Really? Scientists just started getting prickly starting in the late 20th century? You’ve never read about Newton’s idiocentricities? Your hypothesis smacks of political self interest.
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism
Really? Scientists just started getting prickly starting in the late 20th century? You’ve never read about Newton’s idiocentricities? Your hypothesis smacks of political self interest.
a scientist and a religious person arguing about who’s right is like a painter and a geologist arguing about what a mountain really looks like.
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism, frankly.
this is known as a drive-by.
a scientist and a religious person arguing about who’s right is like a painter and a geologist arguing about what a mountain really looks like.
I think that’s mostly a product of climate alarmism, frankly.
this is known as a drive-by.
a scientist and a religious person arguing about who’s right is like a painter and a geologist arguing about what a mountain really looks like.
Sure. But if the geologist isn’t a total jerk about it, they might get a few painters to appreciate the beauty of geology.
a scientist and a religious person arguing about who’s right is like a painter and a geologist arguing about what a mountain really looks like.
Sure. But if the geologist isn’t a total jerk about it, they might get a few painters to appreciate the beauty of geology.
When you adjust the calibration on a drill- press, do you say a little prayer too? And do you adjust the amount of time you spend on either invocation according to the most recent payoff?
That was once an approved practice for artillerists. Early manuals held spells with even specified duration (i.e. how long the spell would prevent the cannons from exploding before it had to be repeated). I don’t know how much empiricism went into this. 😉
I kid you not, I had to write a paper on those early artillery textbooks/manuals once, so I have a bit of first-hand knowledge.
When you adjust the calibration on a drill- press, do you say a little prayer too? And do you adjust the amount of time you spend on either invocation according to the most recent payoff?
That was once an approved practice for artillerists. Early manuals held spells with even specified duration (i.e. how long the spell would prevent the cannons from exploding before it had to be repeated). I don’t know how much empiricism went into this. 😉
I kid you not, I had to write a paper on those early artillery textbooks/manuals once, so I have a bit of first-hand knowledge.
“Really? Scientists just started getting prickly starting in the late 20th century?”
You know, there IS a difference between the occasional scientist being “prickly”, and a widespread effort to declare anybody who raises questions about a theory some kind of heretic.
“Climate denier”; That’s not the sort of terminology you expect to hear from scientists. Though I’ll grant that’s not who you mostly hear it from.
To give an example, I would be allowed to note that the Pacific Decadal Oscilation might have something to do with the climate not warming as fast as predicted over the last 15-20 years. However, if I venture to point out that, if this is really the case, it logically follows that the PDO was not factored into climate calculations, and so the warming effect it would have previously exerted would have been attributed to CO2 instead, (Omitted variable bias) causing the power of CO2 to warm thing to be exaggerated in the models, THEN I become a “denier”.
Even though this is precisely the sort of observation which advances science. Learning from mistakes.
But there’s a large faction out there who can’t tolerate the possibility that global warming being a serious threat is a mistake. Because it isn’t just the advance of science that matters to them, there’s a lot of power and money at stake, too.
See, science depends on scientists achieving a considerable degree of objectivity. Objectivity is not something that comes easy to human beings, and bringing power and money into the equation makes it much harder to sustain.
I ask: Is that really an observation you want to dispute?
“Really? Scientists just started getting prickly starting in the late 20th century?”
You know, there IS a difference between the occasional scientist being “prickly”, and a widespread effort to declare anybody who raises questions about a theory some kind of heretic.
“Climate denier”; That’s not the sort of terminology you expect to hear from scientists. Though I’ll grant that’s not who you mostly hear it from.
To give an example, I would be allowed to note that the Pacific Decadal Oscilation might have something to do with the climate not warming as fast as predicted over the last 15-20 years. However, if I venture to point out that, if this is really the case, it logically follows that the PDO was not factored into climate calculations, and so the warming effect it would have previously exerted would have been attributed to CO2 instead, (Omitted variable bias) causing the power of CO2 to warm thing to be exaggerated in the models, THEN I become a “denier”.
Even though this is precisely the sort of observation which advances science. Learning from mistakes.
But there’s a large faction out there who can’t tolerate the possibility that global warming being a serious threat is a mistake. Because it isn’t just the advance of science that matters to them, there’s a lot of power and money at stake, too.
See, science depends on scientists achieving a considerable degree of objectivity. Objectivity is not something that comes easy to human beings, and bringing power and money into the equation makes it much harder to sustain.
I ask: Is that really an observation you want to dispute?
bringing power and money into the equation makes it much harder to sustain.
It’s beyond risible that you raise this point in defense of people who argue against anthropogenic climate change.
bringing power and money into the equation makes it much harder to sustain.
It’s beyond risible that you raise this point in defense of people who argue against anthropogenic climate change.
I guess he wanted to circle the block.
I guess he wanted to circle the block.
You know, there IS a difference between the occasional scientist being “prickly”, and a widespread effort to declare anybody who raises questions about a theory some kind of heretic.
Real life scientists are pretty resistant to change like most other people. As someone famous (the name of whom elides me at the moment*) said: New theories don’t win by power of persuasion but by the adherents to the old theories dying off.
*I looked it up. It was Max Planck in 1933
You know, there IS a difference between the occasional scientist being “prickly”, and a widespread effort to declare anybody who raises questions about a theory some kind of heretic.
Real life scientists are pretty resistant to change like most other people. As someone famous (the name of whom elides me at the moment*) said: New theories don’t win by power of persuasion but by the adherents to the old theories dying off.
*I looked it up. It was Max Planck in 1933
Gosh. Power and money. Who’da’ thunk that! Pray tell, who has these attributes in greater abundance, a bunch of nerdy asshole scientists or the petroleum & coal industries?
Ask questions…get answers.
Oh, and that crap about the PDO? Look it up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
Thanks.
Gosh. Power and money. Who’da’ thunk that! Pray tell, who has these attributes in greater abundance, a bunch of nerdy asshole scientists or the petroleum & coal industries?
Ask questions…get answers.
Oh, and that crap about the PDO? Look it up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
Thanks.
The nerdy scientists aren’t the ones with the power and money. They’re the ones who either give the government the excuse to take over more control, or deny it.
And in a contest between the government and business as to who’s got more power and money, it’s the government, hands down.
The nerdy scientists aren’t the ones with the power and money. They’re the ones who either give the government the excuse to take over more control, or deny it.
And in a contest between the government and business as to who’s got more power and money, it’s the government, hands down.
once again, how about you prove the conspiracy?
because, screeching about a conspiracy to withhold the truth while refusing to back up your claims is a little bit ironic. doncha think?
once again, how about you prove the conspiracy?
because, screeching about a conspiracy to withhold the truth while refusing to back up your claims is a little bit ironic. doncha think?
The nerdy scientists aren’t the ones with the power and money. They’re the ones who either give the government the excuse to take over more control, or deny it.
So what you are saying is that you oppose the scientific hypothesis regarding global warming based upon some normative principle asserting that since said science dovetails nicely with government’s (an apparently exogenous entity) unquenchable thirst for “more control” that said science should ipso facto be opposed upon that basis alone?
I guess that explains the rather shaky nature of your “evidence”.
The nerdy scientists aren’t the ones with the power and money. They’re the ones who either give the government the excuse to take over more control, or deny it.
So what you are saying is that you oppose the scientific hypothesis regarding global warming based upon some normative principle asserting that since said science dovetails nicely with government’s (an apparently exogenous entity) unquenchable thirst for “more control” that said science should ipso facto be opposed upon that basis alone?
I guess that explains the rather shaky nature of your “evidence”.
So, what I’m saying is that the scientific hypothesis regarding global warming has it’s certainty exaggerated for political reasons, because it provides a useful excuse to increase governmental power. And for that reason, anybody who raises questions about it gets attacked in a rather unscientific manner.
The hypothesis may yet be proven true, in some version or other, but it’s a long ways from that yet. Attacking anyone who raises questions will not accelerate that process.
So, what I’m saying is that the scientific hypothesis regarding global warming has it’s certainty exaggerated for political reasons, because it provides a useful excuse to increase governmental power. And for that reason, anybody who raises questions about it gets attacked in a rather unscientific manner.
The hypothesis may yet be proven true, in some version or other, but it’s a long ways from that yet. Attacking anyone who raises questions will not accelerate that process.
what I’m saying is that the scientific hypothesis regarding global warming has it’s certainty exaggerated for political reasons, because it provides a useful excuse to increase governmental power.
Have you perhaps noticed that arguments against have been exaggerated for political, economic, and other reasons?
The hypothesis may yet be proven true
I’d say the hypothesis will never be “proven true”. The phenomena involved are too complex and interwoven.
If you’re waiting for “proof”, it’s not going to arrive.
What would be useful is prudence, which likewise seems to be pretty scarce.
In any case, what is glaringly not in evidence is any kind of government program to “take control” of anything, at all, whatsoever, as regards climate change or any human behavior that might be related to it.
So, rest easy.
what I’m saying is that the scientific hypothesis regarding global warming has it’s certainty exaggerated for political reasons, because it provides a useful excuse to increase governmental power.
Have you perhaps noticed that arguments against have been exaggerated for political, economic, and other reasons?
The hypothesis may yet be proven true
I’d say the hypothesis will never be “proven true”. The phenomena involved are too complex and interwoven.
If you’re waiting for “proof”, it’s not going to arrive.
What would be useful is prudence, which likewise seems to be pretty scarce.
In any case, what is glaringly not in evidence is any kind of government program to “take control” of anything, at all, whatsoever, as regards climate change or any human behavior that might be related to it.
So, rest easy.
Yeah, I’d say the arguments on both sides are rather exaggerated, and for the same reason: It’s difficult to maintain a disinterested devotion to the truth, and to understanding when you don’t know something, when the stakes get high.
Yeah, I’d say the arguments on both sides are rather exaggerated, and for the same reason: It’s difficult to maintain a disinterested devotion to the truth, and to understanding when you don’t know something, when the stakes get high.
I’d say the arguments on both sides are rather exaggerated, and for the same reason
I can’t really evaluate the arguments. I’m not a climatologist.
What I notice is that a few years ago, some folks were saying we should expect to see a particular set of things begin to happen, and now we are seeing them happen.
What I also notice is that crazy hippie outfits like the insurance industry, the DoD, and the CIA are all strategizing about how to deal with the various outcomes of climate change.
So, as a non-climatologist, I say to myself, there is probably something to it.
There are two reasons that little to nothing is being done about it at a public policy level:
1. The $$$$ value of the oil and gas currently in the ground
2. Nobody living in the heavy-hitter industrialized countries has any interest in changing their lifestyles
If changes in climate continue and begin to cause really expensive problems, we’ll see the needle move on remedial action. That’s pretty much the extent of what I expect to see happen.
The reason I say this is because it’s been, literally, decades since folks started talking about this stuff, and as far as I can tell bugger-all has been done about it.
Basically, if guys like Hansen and McKibben are right, we’re fucked. If they’re even in the general direction of right, we’re fucked. And I mean well and truly.
And I’m not really interested in arguing with you about whether they are or not, because as far as I can tell you have no better idea about it than I do.
We’ll see what happens, won’t we?
But I’m really not interested in hearing about conspiracies between Big Government and climatological academia to expand government power. As far as I can tell, government isn’t doing a damned thing about climate change. Not here, anyway.
The conspiracy is not in evidence.
I’d say the arguments on both sides are rather exaggerated, and for the same reason
I can’t really evaluate the arguments. I’m not a climatologist.
What I notice is that a few years ago, some folks were saying we should expect to see a particular set of things begin to happen, and now we are seeing them happen.
What I also notice is that crazy hippie outfits like the insurance industry, the DoD, and the CIA are all strategizing about how to deal with the various outcomes of climate change.
So, as a non-climatologist, I say to myself, there is probably something to it.
There are two reasons that little to nothing is being done about it at a public policy level:
1. The $$$$ value of the oil and gas currently in the ground
2. Nobody living in the heavy-hitter industrialized countries has any interest in changing their lifestyles
If changes in climate continue and begin to cause really expensive problems, we’ll see the needle move on remedial action. That’s pretty much the extent of what I expect to see happen.
The reason I say this is because it’s been, literally, decades since folks started talking about this stuff, and as far as I can tell bugger-all has been done about it.
Basically, if guys like Hansen and McKibben are right, we’re fucked. If they’re even in the general direction of right, we’re fucked. And I mean well and truly.
And I’m not really interested in arguing with you about whether they are or not, because as far as I can tell you have no better idea about it than I do.
We’ll see what happens, won’t we?
But I’m really not interested in hearing about conspiracies between Big Government and climatological academia to expand government power. As far as I can tell, government isn’t doing a damned thing about climate change. Not here, anyway.
The conspiracy is not in evidence.
I expect we’ll know within a few years. Either the “pause” will cease, and warming resume, or the divergence between global temperatures and the models will become great enough that the models fail normal statistical tests for validity.
If the competing theory that climate is driven by solar variations is valid, we should soon be looking for a drop in temperatures, not an increase.
I expect we’ll know within a few years. Either the “pause” will cease, and warming resume, or the divergence between global temperatures and the models will become great enough that the models fail normal statistical tests for validity.
If the competing theory that climate is driven by solar variations is valid, we should soon be looking for a drop in temperatures, not an increase.
I expect we’ll know within a few years. Either the “pause” will cease, and warming resume…
Again, simply not true.
There is no “competing theory”. There is only the assertion that CO2 emissions generated by humans is having little or no impact on global climate, followed by a hodgepodge of speculations about some other cause for the actual facts on the ground that have been observed. That and a lot of throwing sh*t up against the wall to see what sticks.
The deniers are not engaging in science. They are simply throwing stones. That is why they are called deniers.
I expect we’ll know within a few years. Either the “pause” will cease, and warming resume…
Again, simply not true.
There is no “competing theory”. There is only the assertion that CO2 emissions generated by humans is having little or no impact on global climate, followed by a hodgepodge of speculations about some other cause for the actual facts on the ground that have been observed. That and a lot of throwing sh*t up against the wall to see what sticks.
The deniers are not engaging in science. They are simply throwing stones. That is why they are called deniers.
drat……my poor html skills have betrayed me again…obviously a government conspiracy.
On “solar variations”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
The deniers have no model that explains observed facts. So they throw sticks.
drat……my poor html skills have betrayed me again…obviously a government conspiracy.
On “solar variations”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
The deniers have no model that explains observed facts. So they throw sticks.
Says the guy engaged in caber tossing.
Care to read this? It points out why the reasoning at your link isn’t much good.
Essentially what your link is saying is, if you put a pot of water on a stove, and turn the burner to high, the fact that the temperature in the pot keeps rising even though the burner setting is constant, proves that the burner has nothing to do with the temperature.
Somehow he’s capable of noting that the climate doesn’t have to instantly respond to CO2, but insisting that it must instantly respond to solar effects.
But, surely, we ought to be able to agree that the real test is what the climate does over the next ten years. Right? Not dueling theories, but dueling predictions, will rule in the end.
Can we agree to that much? That the test of a theory is whether its predictions prove out?
Says the guy engaged in caber tossing.
Care to read this? It points out why the reasoning at your link isn’t much good.
Essentially what your link is saying is, if you put a pot of water on a stove, and turn the burner to high, the fact that the temperature in the pot keeps rising even though the burner setting is constant, proves that the burner has nothing to do with the temperature.
Somehow he’s capable of noting that the climate doesn’t have to instantly respond to CO2, but insisting that it must instantly respond to solar effects.
But, surely, we ought to be able to agree that the real test is what the climate does over the next ten years. Right? Not dueling theories, but dueling predictions, will rule in the end.
Can we agree to that much? That the test of a theory is whether its predictions prove out?
But, surely, we ought to be able to agree that the real test is what the climate does over the next ten years. Right?
I’d like to say that yes, the real test will be to see what the climate actually does over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years.
But I can’t actually say that, because based on present evidence, the planet could be turned into a howling non-stop sh*tstorm and there will still be folks standing around claiming that human activity had nothing to do with it.
It wasn’t us, it was all of those cow farts.
In any case, assume we get 10 years further down the road and discover that yes, in fact, Hansen et al were right on the money. The evidence we’d be looking for would be things that are actually not so great.
And then, where the hell are we? Do we then go back in time and make the changes that would have mitigated it?
This isn’t a science experiment. It’s the climate of the planet we live on, and which we depend on, utterly, for our very existence.
IMO the correct response to our current position is risk mitigation, not an endless stream of arguments about paleodendrology.
We are in the position of the guy who smokes two packs a day, who goes to the doctor and is told for the tenth time “I don’t like that cough”, but who replies “I’m not cutting down on the smokes until I know it’s cancer”.
That’s a stupid guy to be.
But, surely, we ought to be able to agree that the real test is what the climate does over the next ten years. Right?
I’d like to say that yes, the real test will be to see what the climate actually does over the next 10 or 20 or 50 years.
But I can’t actually say that, because based on present evidence, the planet could be turned into a howling non-stop sh*tstorm and there will still be folks standing around claiming that human activity had nothing to do with it.
It wasn’t us, it was all of those cow farts.
In any case, assume we get 10 years further down the road and discover that yes, in fact, Hansen et al were right on the money. The evidence we’d be looking for would be things that are actually not so great.
And then, where the hell are we? Do we then go back in time and make the changes that would have mitigated it?
This isn’t a science experiment. It’s the climate of the planet we live on, and which we depend on, utterly, for our very existence.
IMO the correct response to our current position is risk mitigation, not an endless stream of arguments about paleodendrology.
We are in the position of the guy who smokes two packs a day, who goes to the doctor and is told for the tenth time “I don’t like that cough”, but who replies “I’m not cutting down on the smokes until I know it’s cancer”.
That’s a stupid guy to be.
I propose we give it ten years and if the deniers turn out to be wrong, we kill and eat them, or at the very least, deny the deniers marriage licenses.
I now expect calls to lengthen this waiting period to 20 years.
I propose we give it ten years and if the deniers turn out to be wrong, we kill and eat them, or at the very least, deny the deniers marriage licenses.
I now expect calls to lengthen this waiting period to 20 years.
I accept the fact that the planet is getting warmer, and has been for the last 10,000 or so years, and it makes sense that the process is accelerated by 4 billion or so humans adding their bit.
I don’t accept that there is anything useful or productive that we, the US, can do, without the rest of the world going along, which it won’t do.
Further, much of the cure seems as bad as the disease.
And, I agree with Brett, dissent is not tolerated. It is marginalized by name-calling, by egregious labeling and by touting even the most unsettled, dire predictions as valid. Also, the lobby within the Democratic party, the media and academia is pretty much lock step and the motivation isn’t entirely reverence for Mother Gaia–there is quite a bit of political gaming going on.
I accept the fact that the planet is getting warmer, and has been for the last 10,000 or so years, and it makes sense that the process is accelerated by 4 billion or so humans adding their bit.
I don’t accept that there is anything useful or productive that we, the US, can do, without the rest of the world going along, which it won’t do.
Further, much of the cure seems as bad as the disease.
And, I agree with Brett, dissent is not tolerated. It is marginalized by name-calling, by egregious labeling and by touting even the most unsettled, dire predictions as valid. Also, the lobby within the Democratic party, the media and academia is pretty much lock step and the motivation isn’t entirely reverence for Mother Gaia–there is quite a bit of political gaming going on.
I propose we give it ten years and if the deniers turn out to be wrong, we kill and eat them, or at the very least, deny the deniers marriage licenses.
Sure, and we do the same thing if ACA turns out to be a flop as well.
I propose we give it ten years and if the deniers turn out to be wrong, we kill and eat them, or at the very least, deny the deniers marriage licenses.
Sure, and we do the same thing if ACA turns out to be a flop as well.
Do you mean to say that if the ACA covers only half the previously uninsured It’s supporters claimed it would, that we make a meal of them because they were only half-right, or do you mean that if climate change deniers are only half wrong and we lose only half the coastline the climate alarmists estimated that we should buy the deniers lunch on higher ground and let bygones be bygones.
Marginalized? Outright climate change deniers, far to the right of either McTX or Brett have their own TV and radio shows on their own networks and seek and win high political offices on a regular basis.
Yes, there is name-calling, but my name-calling is insincere so it doesn’t warrant the force of law.
Do you mean to say that if the ACA covers only half the previously uninsured It’s supporters claimed it would, that we make a meal of them because they were only half-right, or do you mean that if climate change deniers are only half wrong and we lose only half the coastline the climate alarmists estimated that we should buy the deniers lunch on higher ground and let bygones be bygones.
Marginalized? Outright climate change deniers, far to the right of either McTX or Brett have their own TV and radio shows on their own networks and seek and win high political offices on a regular basis.
Yes, there is name-calling, but my name-calling is insincere so it doesn’t warrant the force of law.
I guess what I’m missing in the great climate debate is the part where the government is actually doing anything about it all, let alone going for huge power grabs.
We have lobbyists from the energy industry literally writing legislation. But the dirty hippie environmentalists are taking over?
Basically, what I think about the whole climate change thing is that we’re well and truly screwed, because we’re too stupid and lazy to do a damned thing about it. Even bone-simple, dead-obvious things like using a different kind of light bulb gets turned into some stupid pissing match about Our Precious Freedoms.
Because, as we all know, our forefathers pledged their sacred honor and put their lives and treasure at hazard so that no tyrant would ever tell us we couldn’t use a god damned incandescent light bulb.
If the Hansens of the world are remotely on target, we’re royally rogering the world, and our kids and grandkids, and their kids and grandkids, are going to pay and pay and pay, and then pay some more.
Mother Gaia quite frankly will not give a crap either way. Whatever the world looks like in 10 or 50 or 200 years, there will be some collection of life forms that will find it more than congenial. It just might not be us, at least 6 or 8 or 10 billion of us.
It ain’t about whether Mother Gaia survives, and it ain’t about political correctness, and it ain’t about our precious liberty. It’s about whether we can continue to live on the freaking planet without massive amounts of disruption and catastrophe.
Our lifestyles are a luxury, not a given.
I guess what I’m missing in the great climate debate is the part where the government is actually doing anything about it all, let alone going for huge power grabs.
We have lobbyists from the energy industry literally writing legislation. But the dirty hippie environmentalists are taking over?
Basically, what I think about the whole climate change thing is that we’re well and truly screwed, because we’re too stupid and lazy to do a damned thing about it. Even bone-simple, dead-obvious things like using a different kind of light bulb gets turned into some stupid pissing match about Our Precious Freedoms.
Because, as we all know, our forefathers pledged their sacred honor and put their lives and treasure at hazard so that no tyrant would ever tell us we couldn’t use a god damned incandescent light bulb.
If the Hansens of the world are remotely on target, we’re royally rogering the world, and our kids and grandkids, and their kids and grandkids, are going to pay and pay and pay, and then pay some more.
Mother Gaia quite frankly will not give a crap either way. Whatever the world looks like in 10 or 50 or 200 years, there will be some collection of life forms that will find it more than congenial. It just might not be us, at least 6 or 8 or 10 billion of us.
It ain’t about whether Mother Gaia survives, and it ain’t about political correctness, and it ain’t about our precious liberty. It’s about whether we can continue to live on the freaking planet without massive amounts of disruption and catastrophe.
Our lifestyles are a luxury, not a given.
– climate change is too big and widewpread an issue for Aemrica to solve it alone. Therefore we should do nothing.
– Other countries won’t act unless the US leads the way, and maybe not even then for some of them. Therefore we should do nothing.
Besides, it would be inconvenient, not to mention costing some money, to do something. And our country won’t be the one flooded out (except for Florida, of course). And besides, it won’t happen in the (remaining) lifetime of the largest segment of active voters.
OK, I think I am understanding. We shouldn’t bother to do anything. And to help justifying doing nothing, we should trash any evidence that there might be a problem.
– climate change is too big and widewpread an issue for Aemrica to solve it alone. Therefore we should do nothing.
– Other countries won’t act unless the US leads the way, and maybe not even then for some of them. Therefore we should do nothing.
Besides, it would be inconvenient, not to mention costing some money, to do something. And our country won’t be the one flooded out (except for Florida, of course). And besides, it won’t happen in the (remaining) lifetime of the largest segment of active voters.
OK, I think I am understanding. We shouldn’t bother to do anything. And to help justifying doing nothing, we should trash any evidence that there might be a problem.
McTx: And, I agree with Brett, dissent is not tolerated.
Not tolerated?! It’s tolerated on ObWi and it’s tolerated on FOX, at the very least. The difference of course, is that here at ObWi we don’t celebrate the denialism. Most of us don’t even fall for it. A few of us even find it puerile and (when conspiracy theories get floated) paranoid. Plenty of people here will tell you you’re wrong, but nobody ever told you to STFU as far as I recall.
One reason, BTW, that I at least find the denialist position fairly ridiculous is the “cure worse than the disease” attitude — the proposition that saving The Environment will destroy The Economy by costing a lot of money. Curing cancers costs a lot of money, too, but where do you think that money goes? Does it vanish from The Economy, or does it show up as incomes in The Economy?
The main thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions is to increase the efficiency of our cars and houses and appliances. What’s your beef with increased efficiency? I mean, do you get positive pleasure from merely burning gasoline in your car’s engine, or is driving from here to there your actual goal? If your next car gets twice the MPG of your present one will your joy in life be diminished somehow?
–TP
McTx: And, I agree with Brett, dissent is not tolerated.
Not tolerated?! It’s tolerated on ObWi and it’s tolerated on FOX, at the very least. The difference of course, is that here at ObWi we don’t celebrate the denialism. Most of us don’t even fall for it. A few of us even find it puerile and (when conspiracy theories get floated) paranoid. Plenty of people here will tell you you’re wrong, but nobody ever told you to STFU as far as I recall.
One reason, BTW, that I at least find the denialist position fairly ridiculous is the “cure worse than the disease” attitude — the proposition that saving The Environment will destroy The Economy by costing a lot of money. Curing cancers costs a lot of money, too, but where do you think that money goes? Does it vanish from The Economy, or does it show up as incomes in The Economy?
The main thing we can do to reduce CO2 emissions is to increase the efficiency of our cars and houses and appliances. What’s your beef with increased efficiency? I mean, do you get positive pleasure from merely burning gasoline in your car’s engine, or is driving from here to there your actual goal? If your next car gets twice the MPG of your present one will your joy in life be diminished somehow?
–TP
Tony, is seems really similar to the way that conspiracy theory folks are convinced that everything is the result of an ultra-secret conspiracy which they nonetheless have been able to gather vast amounts of information on. In service of the conslusion that they start from, people are willing to accept the most amazing variety of nonsense that they outherwise would reject out of hand.
Tony, is seems really similar to the way that conspiracy theory folks are convinced that everything is the result of an ultra-secret conspiracy which they nonetheless have been able to gather vast amounts of information on. In service of the conslusion that they start from, people are willing to accept the most amazing variety of nonsense that they outherwise would reject out of hand.
“Big government” could probably do a great deal to reduce carbon emissions, and to promote alternative environmentally-friendly energy sources. Since there are too many voters who apparently take McKinney’s and Brett’s view for that to ever happen, I’m hoping against hope that “the market” will actually come up with something. Unfortunately, “the invisible hand” is currently being guided by subsidies to big oil.
Please explain, McKinney, why my tax dollars are being used for that purpose instead of finding ways towards greener energy (which, incidentally, would be welcome in developing countries whose pollution levels are heartbreakingly unacceptable).
“Big government” could probably do a great deal to reduce carbon emissions, and to promote alternative environmentally-friendly energy sources. Since there are too many voters who apparently take McKinney’s and Brett’s view for that to ever happen, I’m hoping against hope that “the market” will actually come up with something. Unfortunately, “the invisible hand” is currently being guided by subsidies to big oil.
Please explain, McKinney, why my tax dollars are being used for that purpose instead of finding ways towards greener energy (which, incidentally, would be welcome in developing countries whose pollution levels are heartbreakingly unacceptable).
would be welcome in developing countries whose pollution levels are heartbreakingly unacceptable
Ever been to Riverside? It’s the collecting basin for LA smog.
Speaking of LA, one of my brother’s friends in the academy who grew up in LA was reportedly largely unaffected by tear gas during training.
I don’t know how true the story is, but I always found it amusing.
why my tax dollars are being used for that purpose
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2014&ind=E01
I am shocked, shocked, shocked to learn there is corruption in politics.
would be welcome in developing countries whose pollution levels are heartbreakingly unacceptable
Ever been to Riverside? It’s the collecting basin for LA smog.
Speaking of LA, one of my brother’s friends in the academy who grew up in LA was reportedly largely unaffected by tear gas during training.
I don’t know how true the story is, but I always found it amusing.
why my tax dollars are being used for that purpose
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2014&ind=E01
I am shocked, shocked, shocked to learn there is corruption in politics.
Since we’re providing links, thompson, please note the relative pollution level of Riverside.
Since we’re providing links, thompson, please note the relative pollution level of Riverside.
FWIW, I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950s & 1960s, and the smog situation there now, though still unpleasant, is a great deal better than it used to be. Why? Gubmint regulation, in large part. People actually passed and enforced laws that resulted in making their lives better. Who’da thunk it?
Seeing Brett B (and, to a lesser extent, McK T) on the side of the denialists would be a sight more convincing if one didn’t feel that the underlying premise is “Gubmint bad,” to which the objection to climate change is a mere corollary.
FWIW, I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950s & 1960s, and the smog situation there now, though still unpleasant, is a great deal better than it used to be. Why? Gubmint regulation, in large part. People actually passed and enforced laws that resulted in making their lives better. Who’da thunk it?
Seeing Brett B (and, to a lesser extent, McK T) on the side of the denialists would be a sight more convincing if one didn’t feel that the underlying premise is “Gubmint bad,” to which the objection to climate change is a mere corollary.
I am shocked, shocked, shocked to learn there is corruption in politics.
This isn’t corruption. Oil and gas subsidies are openly done without pushback. It’s the democratic process, supported by people like McKinney, Brett, as well as the ignorant, the apathetic, and the unscrupulous. It’s not “corrupt” for climate change deniers to deny.
I am shocked, shocked, shocked to learn there is corruption in politics.
This isn’t corruption. Oil and gas subsidies are openly done without pushback. It’s the democratic process, supported by people like McKinney, Brett, as well as the ignorant, the apathetic, and the unscrupulous. It’s not “corrupt” for climate change deniers to deny.
“Since we’re providing links, thompson, please note the relative pollution level of Riverside.”
Thanks, sapient. I was kidding regarding LA/Riverside. But its a nice link.
“This isn’t corruption.”
Eh, its not illegal, but I definitely think that campaign contributions effect a) who gets face time and b) what laws get written. In other words, I doubt our congresscritters are refusing to be biased by these contributions. I view that as a corruption of their oath of office, you may differ and wish to limit your use of the word corruption purely to the legal sense of the word. In which case, yeah, its not corruption.
“Since we’re providing links, thompson, please note the relative pollution level of Riverside.”
Thanks, sapient. I was kidding regarding LA/Riverside. But its a nice link.
“This isn’t corruption.”
Eh, its not illegal, but I definitely think that campaign contributions effect a) who gets face time and b) what laws get written. In other words, I doubt our congresscritters are refusing to be biased by these contributions. I view that as a corruption of their oath of office, you may differ and wish to limit your use of the word corruption purely to the legal sense of the word. In which case, yeah, its not corruption.
I definitely think that campaign contributions effect a) who gets face time and b) what laws get written.
Sure, and we can all work to eradicate money from politics (which will require a change in the Supreme Court, in the direction of Democrats).
In the meantime, we can all vote (unless Republican voter suppression tactics win the day). If we’re all voting for people who oppose subsidies for gas and oil, we will win. However, if a large portion of the gullible (or worse) public thinks like McKinney and Brett, subsidies will continue.
I definitely think that campaign contributions effect a) who gets face time and b) what laws get written.
Sure, and we can all work to eradicate money from politics (which will require a change in the Supreme Court, in the direction of Democrats).
In the meantime, we can all vote (unless Republican voter suppression tactics win the day). If we’re all voting for people who oppose subsidies for gas and oil, we will win. However, if a large portion of the gullible (or worse) public thinks like McKinney and Brett, subsidies will continue.
People actually passed and enforced laws that resulted in making their lives better. Who’da thunk it?
The golden olden years. I lived through them too (though I breathe easier for not having lived in LA).
People actually passed and enforced laws that resulted in making their lives better. Who’da thunk it?
The golden olden years. I lived through them too (though I breathe easier for not having lived in LA).
Care to read this?
Sure. Do you care to read this?
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/tag/alec-rawls/
and associated links?
Or http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bid-to-heap-blame-on-sunspots-for-climate-change-has-backfired-8418195.html.
Mr. Rawls is a self described “Republican blogger”. Does this tell you anything?
Utter mendacity. Lying. Cherry picking. Misinterpretation.
Again, denialists are not engaging in science. They have no theory. They have suppositions, guesses, and rationalizations….all serving a deeply political agenda.
Care to read this?
Sure. Do you care to read this?
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/tag/alec-rawls/
and associated links?
Or http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bid-to-heap-blame-on-sunspots-for-climate-change-has-backfired-8418195.html.
Mr. Rawls is a self described “Republican blogger”. Does this tell you anything?
Utter mendacity. Lying. Cherry picking. Misinterpretation.
Again, denialists are not engaging in science. They have no theory. They have suppositions, guesses, and rationalizations….all serving a deeply political agenda.
Another try…..why are links so hard here?
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/tag/alec-rawls/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bid-to-heap-blame-on-sunspots-for-climate-change-has-backfired-8418195.html
Another try…..why are links so hard here?
https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/tag/alec-rawls/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/bid-to-heap-blame-on-sunspots-for-climate-change-has-backfired-8418195.html
More on Mr. Rawls:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/alec-rawls-selects-his-science-its-sun.html
More on Mr. Rawls:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/alec-rawls-selects-his-science-its-sun.html
See also Alec Rawls, conspiracy theorist about the flight 93 memorial.
Nut.Case.
QED
See also Alec Rawls, conspiracy theorist about the flight 93 memorial.
Nut.Case.
QED
Essentially what your link is saying is, if you put a pot of water on a stove, and turn the burner to high, the fact that the temperature in the pot keeps rising even though the burner setting is constant, proves that the burner has nothing to do with the temperature.
That is simply not true. That is NOT what they are saying. I leave to our fellow readers to verify the outrageous nature of your assertion.
Essentially what your link is saying is, if you put a pot of water on a stove, and turn the burner to high, the fact that the temperature in the pot keeps rising even though the burner setting is constant, proves that the burner has nothing to do with the temperature.
That is simply not true. That is NOT what they are saying. I leave to our fellow readers to verify the outrageous nature of your assertion.
Fixed the links. If you just put the url in the comment, typepad will make a link.
btw, Alec Rawls is the son of moral philosopher, John Rawls
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-son-of-a-legendary-moral-philosopher-leaked-the-uns-next-climate-report-in-the-name-of-bad-science
I heard of him when he weighed in on Japanese American internment here
[insert your joke about veil of ignorance here]
Fixed the links. If you just put the url in the comment, typepad will make a link.
btw, Alec Rawls is the son of moral philosopher, John Rawls
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-son-of-a-legendary-moral-philosopher-leaked-the-uns-next-climate-report-in-the-name-of-bad-science
I heard of him when he weighed in on Japanese American internment here
[insert your joke about veil of ignorance here]
I believe you’re actually making my point: Yelling “Denialist!” is not part of the normal procedure of science.
Per the normal procedure of science, if it’s allowed to function, this will be settled in due time by it getting hotter or colder.
I believe you’re actually making my point: Yelling “Denialist!” is not part of the normal procedure of science.
Per the normal procedure of science, if it’s allowed to function, this will be settled in due time by it getting hotter or colder.
Yelling “Denialist!” is not part of the normal procedure of science.
neither is yelling “conspiracy!”
Yelling “Denialist!” is not part of the normal procedure of science.
neither is yelling “conspiracy!”
I believe you’re actually making my point…
Well, no. If you would bring actual science to the discussion, you’d have one. Shrill propaganda and off-the-wall conspiracy theories don’t cut it.
I believe you’re actually making my point…
Well, no. If you would bring actual science to the discussion, you’d have one. Shrill propaganda and off-the-wall conspiracy theories don’t cut it.
I don’t believe any objective observer would think *I’m* the shrill one here. And both sides are yelling “Conspiracy!”, if you hadn’t noticed.
I don’t believe any objective observer would think *I’m* the shrill one here. And both sides are yelling “Conspiracy!”, if you hadn’t noticed.
Per the normal procedure of science, if it’s allowed to function, this will be settled in due time by it getting hotter or colder.
And then what?
Per the normal procedure of science, if it’s allowed to function, this will be settled in due time by it getting hotter or colder.
And then what?
Two questions for Brett —
1. Any response on the debunking of your Pacific Decadal Oscillation claim, at all? I didn’t see one.
2. What were reputable scientists predicting ten or fifteen years ago? Does it tally with the warming we’ve seen in the intervening years? It seems to me that it has, but if you can refute that, that would be interesting. If you can’t, perhaps you should consider that test already passed.
The US seems happy to take unilateral action in all sorts of other sphere if it so wishes. What makes climate change special? Furthermore, it seems like there have been a number of climate change talks around the world in the last ten years, and if the US really cared about encouraging action on climate change, then perhaps it would have been heard loud and proud yelling about what needed to be done to save the planet. No? No, I don’t remember that either.
Two questions for Brett —
1. Any response on the debunking of your Pacific Decadal Oscillation claim, at all? I didn’t see one.
2. What were reputable scientists predicting ten or fifteen years ago? Does it tally with the warming we’ve seen in the intervening years? It seems to me that it has, but if you can refute that, that would be interesting. If you can’t, perhaps you should consider that test already passed.
The US seems happy to take unilateral action in all sorts of other sphere if it so wishes. What makes climate change special? Furthermore, it seems like there have been a number of climate change talks around the world in the last ten years, and if the US really cared about encouraging action on climate change, then perhaps it would have been heard loud and proud yelling about what needed to be done to save the planet. No? No, I don’t remember that either.
I don’t believe any objective observer would think *I’m* the shrill one here.
“Objective observer” is carrying a lot of weight there, but I would tend to disagree. I’m not the one trotting out cranks and political hacks to support my position. I’m not the one claiming “the government” is some exogenous force whose ‘prime directive’ is ‘more control’. I’m not the one claiming any conspiracy exists. It’s a fairly obvious line-up of major economic players intent on maintaining their markets and their profits.
This is not rocket science.
I don’t believe any objective observer would think *I’m* the shrill one here.
“Objective observer” is carrying a lot of weight there, but I would tend to disagree. I’m not the one trotting out cranks and political hacks to support my position. I’m not the one claiming “the government” is some exogenous force whose ‘prime directive’ is ‘more control’. I’m not the one claiming any conspiracy exists. It’s a fairly obvious line-up of major economic players intent on maintaining their markets and their profits.
This is not rocket science.
“Intelligent Falling”
ITYM “Intelligent Decline”.
“Intelligent Falling”
ITYM “Intelligent Decline”.
Per the normal procedure of science…. competing theories and/or hypotheses would be advanced and those in the field would be actively seeking reproducible observations confirming the predictive power of their theory.
Denialists have come up with a hodgepodge of “explanations” that have been debunked fairly soundly and repeatedly. They have no competing theory*. Fieldwork appears to be beneath them. And lastly, they routinely impune the motives of the vast majority of climatologists.
In sum, you can’t be serious.
*curiously-you allude to “cooling” above. What crank theory have you come across that predicts global cooling in the next few years?
Per the normal procedure of science…. competing theories and/or hypotheses would be advanced and those in the field would be actively seeking reproducible observations confirming the predictive power of their theory.
Denialists have come up with a hodgepodge of “explanations” that have been debunked fairly soundly and repeatedly. They have no competing theory*. Fieldwork appears to be beneath them. And lastly, they routinely impune the motives of the vast majority of climatologists.
In sum, you can’t be serious.
*curiously-you allude to “cooling” above. What crank theory have you come across that predicts global cooling in the next few years?
One of the books in my library is The Next Eighty Years, the proceedings of a 1977 futurology conference at Caltech. One of the articles discusses the possibility of climate change, and the uncertainties thereof. I will quote one snippet:
[T]he CO2 effect on climate should jump up out of the climatic noise level in the next decade or two, according to our climate models, and time will tell us whether the models are right if it happens.
1977, folks – the time when, some claim, climatologists were worried about a cooling trend. Does that count as “prediction”?
One of the books in my library is The Next Eighty Years, the proceedings of a 1977 futurology conference at Caltech. One of the articles discusses the possibility of climate change, and the uncertainties thereof. I will quote one snippet:
[T]he CO2 effect on climate should jump up out of the climatic noise level in the next decade or two, according to our climate models, and time will tell us whether the models are right if it happens.
1977, folks – the time when, some claim, climatologists were worried about a cooling trend. Does that count as “prediction”?
Hm, there’s this, a couple years back. I suppose you’ll say they’re not really climate scientists.
There’s this general description of the problems with the case for warming.
There essentially isn’t a well developed alternate theory, for the reason that the people who haven’t signed onto the dominant theory don’t think the climate system is actually well enough understood to make such predictions yet.
Hm, there’s this, a couple years back. I suppose you’ll say they’re not really climate scientists.
There’s this general description of the problems with the case for warming.
There essentially isn’t a well developed alternate theory, for the reason that the people who haven’t signed onto the dominant theory don’t think the climate system is actually well enough understood to make such predictions yet.
Brett, just so I’m clear. Are you saying
1) climate change isn’t happening, or
2) there isn’t sufficient evidence at this point to show that it is happening?
Or just that, 3) while it is happening, we don’t know enough to be sure why it is happening (and therefore shouldn’t make any particular effort at dealing with it)?
Or something else?
I ask because I have seen all three variations at one time or another. And they say rather different things about the people holding them.
Brett, just so I’m clear. Are you saying
1) climate change isn’t happening, or
2) there isn’t sufficient evidence at this point to show that it is happening?
Or just that, 3) while it is happening, we don’t know enough to be sure why it is happening (and therefore shouldn’t make any particular effort at dealing with it)?
Or something else?
I ask because I have seen all three variations at one time or another. And they say rather different things about the people holding them.
Here is the reason we can’t find a way to do anything about climate change. Or, at least, one of the top two or three reasons.
The money quote:
Basically, to achieve the most commonly cited goal for averting climate change, a *huge* chunk of the book value of publicly listed oil and gas companies would have to be rendered worthless.
I’m not citing this to point the finger at the oil and gas (and, for that matter, coal) industries and say “big business BAD BAD BAD”.
I’m citing it to point out that there are real, practical consequences to making the kinds of changes we would need to make to slow the increase in CO2 or other greenhouse gases.
How would we go about leaving all of that stuff in the ground? Would we buy the leases back from the oil and gas industry? If so, who is “we” in that sentence?
How much would it cost? Where would the money come from? What would the downstream effects be on the economy? How do those effects compare to the costs (of all kinds) of simply letting greenhouse emissions continue at current or even greater rates?
I don’t really see anybody trying to address this. There are some investment analysts trying to figure out how to price the risk of having to leave the stuff in the ground, which is kind of prudent and I applaud them, but there’s certainly nothing going on in that area in the public dialog. As least as far as I can tell.
We appear to be incapable of taking this issue on at anything like an intelligent or productive way. I.e., a way that might, perhaps, lead to some kind of constructive action.
Here is the reason we can’t find a way to do anything about climate change. Or, at least, one of the top two or three reasons.
The money quote:
Basically, to achieve the most commonly cited goal for averting climate change, a *huge* chunk of the book value of publicly listed oil and gas companies would have to be rendered worthless.
I’m not citing this to point the finger at the oil and gas (and, for that matter, coal) industries and say “big business BAD BAD BAD”.
I’m citing it to point out that there are real, practical consequences to making the kinds of changes we would need to make to slow the increase in CO2 or other greenhouse gases.
How would we go about leaving all of that stuff in the ground? Would we buy the leases back from the oil and gas industry? If so, who is “we” in that sentence?
How much would it cost? Where would the money come from? What would the downstream effects be on the economy? How do those effects compare to the costs (of all kinds) of simply letting greenhouse emissions continue at current or even greater rates?
I don’t really see anybody trying to address this. There are some investment analysts trying to figure out how to price the risk of having to leave the stuff in the ground, which is kind of prudent and I applaud them, but there’s certainly nothing going on in that area in the public dialog. As least as far as I can tell.
We appear to be incapable of taking this issue on at anything like an intelligent or productive way. I.e., a way that might, perhaps, lead to some kind of constructive action.
In a former life, I attended and reported on scientific conferences featuring meteorologists from government, academia, and the private sector, and the debate over much more trivial matters than global warming could become extremely lively.
Lots of yelling regarding theoretical approaches, and imprecations worse that “denialist” and “conspiracy” worse bandied about, all in the spirit of the “normal procedure of science”.
Next, someone will claim that calm and good feelings prevailed at the debut of Stravinsky’s “The Rite Of Spring” or the Armoury Show featuring the Impressionist painters all those years ago.
Who says scientists aren’t permitted to or don’t act out with the religious-like fervor of conservative talk radio or the McClaughlin Group, or a gaggle of stock market forecasters going at it on CNBC?
A rabbi, a priest, and a mullah walked into a bar.
The bartender, a theoretical physicist, greeted the ……
Tell me who starts the yelling.
The pelican?
In a former life, I attended and reported on scientific conferences featuring meteorologists from government, academia, and the private sector, and the debate over much more trivial matters than global warming could become extremely lively.
Lots of yelling regarding theoretical approaches, and imprecations worse that “denialist” and “conspiracy” worse bandied about, all in the spirit of the “normal procedure of science”.
Next, someone will claim that calm and good feelings prevailed at the debut of Stravinsky’s “The Rite Of Spring” or the Armoury Show featuring the Impressionist painters all those years ago.
Who says scientists aren’t permitted to or don’t act out with the religious-like fervor of conservative talk radio or the McClaughlin Group, or a gaggle of stock market forecasters going at it on CNBC?
A rabbi, a priest, and a mullah walked into a bar.
The bartender, a theoretical physicist, greeted the ……
Tell me who starts the yelling.
The pelican?
Hm, there’s this, a couple years back. I suppose you’ll say they’re not really climate scientists.
whatever their job, they’re jumping on one report of a slight warming “pause” as proof of a lack of warming. they don’t seem all that interested in papers which shows that the ‘pause’ paper was mistaken.
Hm, there’s this, a couple years back. I suppose you’ll say they’re not really climate scientists.
whatever their job, they’re jumping on one report of a slight warming “pause” as proof of a lack of warming. they don’t seem all that interested in papers which shows that the ‘pause’ paper was mistaken.
… well, not ‘mistaken’, so much as not quite accurate and then wildly misinterpreted by the deniers.
… well, not ‘mistaken’, so much as not quite accurate and then wildly misinterpreted by the deniers.
Hm, there’s this, a couple years back. I suppose you’ll say they’re not really climate scientists.
Based upon my review of the cited credentials of the first 25 names, I’m fairly certain I could say that with a good deal of certainty. I mean really, a marketing professor? Are you kidding me?
Just stop.
Hm, there’s this, a couple years back. I suppose you’ll say they’re not really climate scientists.
Based upon my review of the cited credentials of the first 25 names, I’m fairly certain I could say that with a good deal of certainty. I mean really, a marketing professor? Are you kidding me?
Just stop.
I don’t really see anybody trying to address this.
Exactly. As you and others have alluded to, there are societies (the affluent west) and powerful interests (coal, oil, etc.) that stand to lose a great deal if we get serious about this issue. Getting serious will require a huge political change.
Denying the science is part of that political struggle.
I don’t really see anybody trying to address this.
Exactly. As you and others have alluded to, there are societies (the affluent west) and powerful interests (coal, oil, etc.) that stand to lose a great deal if we get serious about this issue. Getting serious will require a huge political change.
Denying the science is part of that political struggle.
To be clear:
1. Climate change is happening. It is ALWAYS happening.
So,
2. Don’t need proof the climate is changing, it always is.
So, put me down for 3. The climate is changing, but we don’t yet know, with enough certainty to do expensive, intrusive things, the mechanics behind this.
I honestly think what lies behind much of the mounting hysteria to DO SOMETHING about climate change, before the science is actually in, is a mounting fear that it won’t come in, and a perfectly good excuse to rearange other people’s lives will be lost.
Indeed, “getting serious” WILL require huge political change, and it’s quite natural that people who want that change will be angry with anybody who threatens their basis for imposing it.
To be clear:
1. Climate change is happening. It is ALWAYS happening.
So,
2. Don’t need proof the climate is changing, it always is.
So, put me down for 3. The climate is changing, but we don’t yet know, with enough certainty to do expensive, intrusive things, the mechanics behind this.
I honestly think what lies behind much of the mounting hysteria to DO SOMETHING about climate change, before the science is actually in, is a mounting fear that it won’t come in, and a perfectly good excuse to rearange other people’s lives will be lost.
Indeed, “getting serious” WILL require huge political change, and it’s quite natural that people who want that change will be angry with anybody who threatens their basis for imposing it.
…and it’s quite natural that people who want that change will be angry with anybody who threatens their basis for imposing it.
And those who resist this ‘imposition’ aren’t imposing anything on anybody. Glad we got that out of the way.
…and it’s quite natural that people who want that change will be angry with anybody who threatens their basis for imposing it.
And those who resist this ‘imposition’ aren’t imposing anything on anybody. Glad we got that out of the way.
Well, I wasn’t forcing anybody to buy incandescent bulbs, that’s for sure.
To be even clearer, “getting serious” will require pretty substantial political change on the global warming side, too. “Getting serious” would require ceasing to use global warming as an excuse for crony capitalism, and ceasing to humor anti-nuclear activists.
Well, I wasn’t forcing anybody to buy incandescent bulbs, that’s for sure.
To be even clearer, “getting serious” will require pretty substantial political change on the global warming side, too. “Getting serious” would require ceasing to use global warming as an excuse for crony capitalism, and ceasing to humor anti-nuclear activists.
Brett, just for curiosity: what would it take for you to agree that “the science is in” finally?
Would half of Florida being under water persuade you to stop bellyaching about incandescent bulbs? Would another couple of winters featuring snowstorms that paralyze Atlanta (while tennis shoes melt on the court in Australia) make you wonder whether maybe the denialists are (gasp) wrong?
–TP
Brett, just for curiosity: what would it take for you to agree that “the science is in” finally?
Would half of Florida being under water persuade you to stop bellyaching about incandescent bulbs? Would another couple of winters featuring snowstorms that paralyze Atlanta (while tennis shoes melt on the court in Australia) make you wonder whether maybe the denialists are (gasp) wrong?
–TP
Brett, just for curiosity: what would it take for you to agree that “the science is in” finally?
When Glenn Beck takes up the cause.
“Getting serious” would require ceasing to use global warming as an excuse for crony capitalism…
SOLYNDRA!!!!!!!
The Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! of winger anthropocene denialism.
Brett, just for curiosity: what would it take for you to agree that “the science is in” finally?
When Glenn Beck takes up the cause.
“Getting serious” would require ceasing to use global warming as an excuse for crony capitalism…
SOLYNDRA!!!!!!!
The Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! of winger anthropocene denialism.
How about, the actual climate being somewhere near the MIDDLE of the output of the models we’re supposed to be relying on, rather than right at the lower confidence level?
As shown in this graph.
How about, the actual climate being somewhere near the MIDDLE of the output of the models we’re supposed to be relying on, rather than right at the lower confidence level?
As shown in this graph.
Notice that I’m not the one shouting irrelevancies.
Here’s another *relevant* graph.
These are things the models are supposed to be predicting. They’re getting the predictions wrong. They’re ALL getting the predictions wrong in the same direction. That’s a bad sign, it demonstrates some kind of systematic error that’s being shared by all the models.
I will be confident that climate predictions are healthy science, when the models are scattered AROUND actual climate, rather than all to one side of it. Simple enough?
Notice that I’m not the one shouting irrelevancies.
Here’s another *relevant* graph.
These are things the models are supposed to be predicting. They’re getting the predictions wrong. They’re ALL getting the predictions wrong in the same direction. That’s a bad sign, it demonstrates some kind of systematic error that’s being shared by all the models.
I will be confident that climate predictions are healthy science, when the models are scattered AROUND actual climate, rather than all to one side of it. Simple enough?
How about, the actual climate….
How about we stop trying to peddle anything by serial climate science ‘disinformer’ Roy Spencer as remotely germaine to any serious discussion of this topic? He is also a proponent of so-called “intelligent design” and thus denies the veracity of evolutionary theory.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/
How about, the actual climate….
How about we stop trying to peddle anything by serial climate science ‘disinformer’ Roy Spencer as remotely germaine to any serious discussion of this topic? He is also a proponent of so-called “intelligent design” and thus denies the veracity of evolutionary theory.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/
More on Roy Spencer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
He is a crank with an agenda.
More on Roy Spencer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
He is a crank with an agenda.
More on your graphs……
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/speaking-of-epic-fails.html
The comments are quite interesting..
More on your graphs……
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/speaking-of-epic-fails.html
The comments are quite interesting..
I honestly think what lies behind much of the mounting hysteria to DO SOMETHING about climate change, before the science is actually in […]
Since you were discussing the impugning of motives, Brett… Here’s why I’m wary of accepting your “fair and balanced” insistence we need to wait a decade or two before doing anything rash like take precautions to mitigate things. No, I mean beyond the fact that we’ve been hearing that tune for a decade or two.
If your side, such as it were, is vindicated, what do you want to do? Nothing. Make no changes, drive on as before. What are you proposing as the unbiased, objective and completely neutral course of action “until the science is in”? Make no changes, drive on as before. Never mind that “the science [being] in” in this case means the predicted catastrophic climate changes are indeed taking effect, and fairly drastically so in order for you and your comrades to be satisfied (assuming such a thing is even possible). Your modest proposal is to accede to your desired course of action until it’s probably too late to do anything, at which point you’ll point to that as a cause to continue to do nothing. Or if your side is right, then obviously that’s why you’d want nothing done. So in short, your call to “wait ’til the science is in” is a call to pursue your preferred course of action regardless of what “the science” eventually demonstrates by coming to pass.
I honestly think what lies behind much of the mounting hysteria to DO SOMETHING about climate change, before the science is actually in […]
Since you were discussing the impugning of motives, Brett… Here’s why I’m wary of accepting your “fair and balanced” insistence we need to wait a decade or two before doing anything rash like take precautions to mitigate things. No, I mean beyond the fact that we’ve been hearing that tune for a decade or two.
If your side, such as it were, is vindicated, what do you want to do? Nothing. Make no changes, drive on as before. What are you proposing as the unbiased, objective and completely neutral course of action “until the science is in”? Make no changes, drive on as before. Never mind that “the science [being] in” in this case means the predicted catastrophic climate changes are indeed taking effect, and fairly drastically so in order for you and your comrades to be satisfied (assuming such a thing is even possible). Your modest proposal is to accede to your desired course of action until it’s probably too late to do anything, at which point you’ll point to that as a cause to continue to do nothing. Or if your side is right, then obviously that’s why you’d want nothing done. So in short, your call to “wait ’til the science is in” is a call to pursue your preferred course of action regardless of what “the science” eventually demonstrates by coming to pass.
*presumably point to that
I don’t need any more Carnac penalties than I’ve already got.
*presumably point to that
I don’t need any more Carnac penalties than I’ve already got.
What am I suggesting?
1. Action proportional to the certainty of what action is needed. Forget this precautionary principle bs. You might think it’s clever, but from this side it really does look like nothing but a desperation to exploit a ‘crisis’ before people catch on to there not being one.
2. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. You expect people to take global warming seriously when the conferences are held at the ends of long, CO2 intensive plane rides, instead of by teleconference?
3. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. Stop humoring the anti-nuke lunatics. Shutting down nukes in Germany to burn lignite is madness from any perspective.
4. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. Stop pushing biofuels, which are just laundering fossil fuels through farms at the cost of raising food prices and destroying rainforest.
5. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. I could repeat that all day. You want to know why so few people take you seriously? It’s not because they’re bought off by Big Oil, or idiots. It’s because the people screaming about global warming aren’t acting like they think it’s an emergency. They’re acting like they think it’s an opportunity, an excuse to order people to do what you wanted done anyway.
Just start acting like YOU think it’s real, not a scam. And more people will believe you.
What am I suggesting?
1. Action proportional to the certainty of what action is needed. Forget this precautionary principle bs. You might think it’s clever, but from this side it really does look like nothing but a desperation to exploit a ‘crisis’ before people catch on to there not being one.
2. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. You expect people to take global warming seriously when the conferences are held at the ends of long, CO2 intensive plane rides, instead of by teleconference?
3. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. Stop humoring the anti-nuke lunatics. Shutting down nukes in Germany to burn lignite is madness from any perspective.
4. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. Stop pushing biofuels, which are just laundering fossil fuels through farms at the cost of raising food prices and destroying rainforest.
5. If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency. I could repeat that all day. You want to know why so few people take you seriously? It’s not because they’re bought off by Big Oil, or idiots. It’s because the people screaming about global warming aren’t acting like they think it’s an emergency. They’re acting like they think it’s an opportunity, an excuse to order people to do what you wanted done anyway.
Just start acting like YOU think it’s real, not a scam. And more people will believe you.
Let me extend that:
I’m technically educated. If I devoted a fair chunk of my life to it, I could tool up to evaluate in depth the arguments on both sides, and render my own fully informed judgement. But then I’d have no time to do anything else with my life! I’ve settled for sort of understanding the arguments.
Most people don’t even have that option, lacking the technical basis for even starting on that quest.
So, what are we to do? Abandon self-rule, and resign ourselves to being ruled by anybody who claims to know better, and can spin a line of bafflegarb we can’t understand?
Like hell we will.
We’ll fall back to the usual heuristics people use to tell BS artists from serious people. Would they have been telling me to do this anyway? Will they profit if I do as they say? Are they doing the things you’d expect them to do if they believed what they’re saying?
The global warming movement scores a MASSIVE fail on that level. Public proponents living high energy lifestyles, profiting off their own advice to the people who will have to suffer, not doing obvious things.
Well, Occam’s razor: I think that failure is because it IS BS.
But, I guess we’ll know in the next 10 years or so, right?
Let me extend that:
I’m technically educated. If I devoted a fair chunk of my life to it, I could tool up to evaluate in depth the arguments on both sides, and render my own fully informed judgement. But then I’d have no time to do anything else with my life! I’ve settled for sort of understanding the arguments.
Most people don’t even have that option, lacking the technical basis for even starting on that quest.
So, what are we to do? Abandon self-rule, and resign ourselves to being ruled by anybody who claims to know better, and can spin a line of bafflegarb we can’t understand?
Like hell we will.
We’ll fall back to the usual heuristics people use to tell BS artists from serious people. Would they have been telling me to do this anyway? Will they profit if I do as they say? Are they doing the things you’d expect them to do if they believed what they’re saying?
The global warming movement scores a MASSIVE fail on that level. Public proponents living high energy lifestyles, profiting off their own advice to the people who will have to suffer, not doing obvious things.
Well, Occam’s razor: I think that failure is because it IS BS.
But, I guess we’ll know in the next 10 years or so, right?
Shutting down nukes in Germany to burn lignite is madness from any perspective.
Upon reading this, the aware but not informed person (most of us) might ask, “Now why on earth are they doing that? But if you approach it as, “Hmmmm…..another winger bluff? Let’s look a bit closer.”
And sure enough….
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/coal-consumption-in-germany-a-closer-look/150/537/75863/
or this…
http://energytransition.de/2013/02/the-german-coal-myth/
Interesting stuff, I’d say.
There are huge social and political reasons why we in the U.S. have not followed Germany’s (and Europe’s) lead to substantially reduce carbon emissions. The fact that Al Gore lives in a big house is not one of them.
Most people don’t even have that option, lacking the technical basis for even starting on that quest.
So obviously the rational thing to do is promote the anti-science propaganda put out by cranks, lunatics, political lickspittle, and industry hacks.
Makes sense to me.
Shutting down nukes in Germany to burn lignite is madness from any perspective.
Upon reading this, the aware but not informed person (most of us) might ask, “Now why on earth are they doing that? But if you approach it as, “Hmmmm…..another winger bluff? Let’s look a bit closer.”
And sure enough….
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/coal-consumption-in-germany-a-closer-look/150/537/75863/
or this…
http://energytransition.de/2013/02/the-german-coal-myth/
Interesting stuff, I’d say.
There are huge social and political reasons why we in the U.S. have not followed Germany’s (and Europe’s) lead to substantially reduce carbon emissions. The fact that Al Gore lives in a big house is not one of them.
Most people don’t even have that option, lacking the technical basis for even starting on that quest.
So obviously the rational thing to do is promote the anti-science propaganda put out by cranks, lunatics, political lickspittle, and industry hacks.
Makes sense to me.
We’ll fall back to the usual heuristics people use to tell BS artists from serious people.
let’s try!
let’s use “the fossil fuel industry” for “they”. and for “do this” let’s use “consume their products”
Would the fossil fuel industry have been telling me to consume their products anyway?
yes indeed. have tobacco companies stopped trying to sell their products, despite knowing what they do to users? nope!
Will the fossil fuel industry profit if I do as they say?
duh.
Are the fossil fuel companies doing the things you’d expect them to do if they believed what they’re saying?
yes indeed. they say there’s no problem and they’re still selling fossil fuels. and they’re making money hand over fist, and still utterly dominating our economies.
but you reserve your skepticism for scientists and environmentalists.
We’ll fall back to the usual heuristics people use to tell BS artists from serious people.
let’s try!
let’s use “the fossil fuel industry” for “they”. and for “do this” let’s use “consume their products”
Would the fossil fuel industry have been telling me to consume their products anyway?
yes indeed. have tobacco companies stopped trying to sell their products, despite knowing what they do to users? nope!
Will the fossil fuel industry profit if I do as they say?
duh.
Are the fossil fuel companies doing the things you’d expect them to do if they believed what they’re saying?
yes indeed. they say there’s no problem and they’re still selling fossil fuels. and they’re making money hand over fist, and still utterly dominating our economies.
but you reserve your skepticism for scientists and environmentalists.
Brett, I get the distinct impression that you think that there are a significant number of people (specifically on the global warming side) for whom big government is an end in itself. I will grant that there are some (maybe even a lot) on that side who don’t think big government is a problem. But a desirable end, in and of itself? If that is a significant faction, I must have missed it.
I must agree that, looking strictly at global warming, shutting down nuclear energy plants is daft. But I would also point out that this is far from the only issue where people make alliances, and even agree to do things that they dislike for some of those allies, because they see progress on their main concern as worth the price.
Demanding purity from everyone you are working with would doubtless make everyone feel better. But politics rarely works that way.
Brett, I get the distinct impression that you think that there are a significant number of people (specifically on the global warming side) for whom big government is an end in itself. I will grant that there are some (maybe even a lot) on that side who don’t think big government is a problem. But a desirable end, in and of itself? If that is a significant faction, I must have missed it.
I must agree that, looking strictly at global warming, shutting down nuclear energy plants is daft. But I would also point out that this is far from the only issue where people make alliances, and even agree to do things that they dislike for some of those allies, because they see progress on their main concern as worth the price.
Demanding purity from everyone you are working with would doubtless make everyone feel better. But politics rarely works that way.
Forget this precautionary principle bs. You might think it’s clever, but from this side it really does look like nothing but a desperation to exploit a ‘crisis’ before people catch on to there not being one.
FWIW, I’m fully down with the precautionary principle. I don’t think it’s “clever”, I think it’s intelligent.
If my car makes a funny noise, I don’t wait until the transmission actually falls off before I go to the shop.
If the doctor tells me my blood sugar is a little high, I don’t wait until I actually have diabetes before I cut back on carbs and sweets.
Etc etc etc. That’s the precautionary principle. I embrace it, because I’m not a freaking heedless idiot with my head up my @ss.
And I don’t really give a crap how things look from “your side”. Do you care how things look from my side?
No, I didn’t think so.
Same/same.
I don’t care how things “look” from “your side” because as best I can tell “your side” isn’t actually interested in knowing what’s going on. The arguments you’re presenting here have almost nothing to do with the science, they are all based on your paranoid fantasies about “big government” trying to step all over your precious liberties.
What I would invite you to consider is what steps “big government” is likely to take if even half the stuff that folks like Hansen et al come to be.
Self-government works if people aren’t stupid and lazy and don’t have their heads up their behinds. People who make choices based on their own prejudices, ignorance, and laziness *lose their freedom of choice*, because the range of options that are available to responsible actors are not available to them.
If 10 years from now there isn’t enough water to support the populations of the big cities in the southwest, there isn’t going to be any f***ing choice about how to respond. Or, at least, all of the choices will be bad ones.
Lather rinse and repeat for all of the other possible consequences of climate change.
If you assess the risk of things happening BEFORE THEY HAPPEN and plan accordingly, you have choices.
If you wait UNTIL THEY HAPPEN, you don’t.
You don’t think there’s a risk. You haven’t, in fact, “tooled up” and made an intelligent assessment, you’ve just come to a conclusion based on stuff that has *nothing to do with the science*.
The DoD, the CIA, the insurance industry, the financial industry, and a very very long list of other folks who actually have a responsibility for dealing with what happens, and who take that responsibility fairly seriously, think there’s something to the climate change thing.
I find them all to be more credible than you.
I think we’re screwed, because of people who take the dunderheaded approach that you do, and who effectively stand in the way of any meaningful public response to what’s going on.
Ten years from now, you’ll just be finding another set of reasons why we should do nothing. Al Gore will still be fat and flying on planes, and that will be all the reason you need to do bugger-all.
Forget this precautionary principle bs. You might think it’s clever, but from this side it really does look like nothing but a desperation to exploit a ‘crisis’ before people catch on to there not being one.
FWIW, I’m fully down with the precautionary principle. I don’t think it’s “clever”, I think it’s intelligent.
If my car makes a funny noise, I don’t wait until the transmission actually falls off before I go to the shop.
If the doctor tells me my blood sugar is a little high, I don’t wait until I actually have diabetes before I cut back on carbs and sweets.
Etc etc etc. That’s the precautionary principle. I embrace it, because I’m not a freaking heedless idiot with my head up my @ss.
And I don’t really give a crap how things look from “your side”. Do you care how things look from my side?
No, I didn’t think so.
Same/same.
I don’t care how things “look” from “your side” because as best I can tell “your side” isn’t actually interested in knowing what’s going on. The arguments you’re presenting here have almost nothing to do with the science, they are all based on your paranoid fantasies about “big government” trying to step all over your precious liberties.
What I would invite you to consider is what steps “big government” is likely to take if even half the stuff that folks like Hansen et al come to be.
Self-government works if people aren’t stupid and lazy and don’t have their heads up their behinds. People who make choices based on their own prejudices, ignorance, and laziness *lose their freedom of choice*, because the range of options that are available to responsible actors are not available to them.
If 10 years from now there isn’t enough water to support the populations of the big cities in the southwest, there isn’t going to be any f***ing choice about how to respond. Or, at least, all of the choices will be bad ones.
Lather rinse and repeat for all of the other possible consequences of climate change.
If you assess the risk of things happening BEFORE THEY HAPPEN and plan accordingly, you have choices.
If you wait UNTIL THEY HAPPEN, you don’t.
You don’t think there’s a risk. You haven’t, in fact, “tooled up” and made an intelligent assessment, you’ve just come to a conclusion based on stuff that has *nothing to do with the science*.
The DoD, the CIA, the insurance industry, the financial industry, and a very very long list of other folks who actually have a responsibility for dealing with what happens, and who take that responsibility fairly seriously, think there’s something to the climate change thing.
I find them all to be more credible than you.
I think we’re screwed, because of people who take the dunderheaded approach that you do, and who effectively stand in the way of any meaningful public response to what’s going on.
Ten years from now, you’ll just be finding another set of reasons why we should do nothing. Al Gore will still be fat and flying on planes, and that will be all the reason you need to do bugger-all.
They’re acting like they think it’s an opportunity, an excuse to order people to do what you wanted done anyway.
I’m still not sure what that’s supposed to be. What is it that climate scientists want other people to do, regardless of how it affects the climate? Why do they all seem to want this same thing, whatever that may be, from everyone?
And if I personally have an ulterior motive for being convinced by the evidence for (anthropogenic) global warming/climate change as purported by scientists all over the world, I’m not aware of it.
If it helps, I’m not opposed to nuclear power, and I jumped ship on at least some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol, some time ago. I thought most people had, except for those in the corn lobby. But I guess it helps to think everyone is still really into that.
They’re acting like they think it’s an opportunity, an excuse to order people to do what you wanted done anyway.
I’m still not sure what that’s supposed to be. What is it that climate scientists want other people to do, regardless of how it affects the climate? Why do they all seem to want this same thing, whatever that may be, from everyone?
And if I personally have an ulterior motive for being convinced by the evidence for (anthropogenic) global warming/climate change as purported by scientists all over the world, I’m not aware of it.
If it helps, I’m not opposed to nuclear power, and I jumped ship on at least some biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol, some time ago. I thought most people had, except for those in the corn lobby. But I guess it helps to think everyone is still really into that.
Explaining to Brett that his own “heuristics” make his denialism look much more ridiculous than my alarmism would be a waste of keystrokes. So I just want to commend his lucid exposition of the lunatic position.
Well, and also to ask something about his refrain: “act like you think it’s an emergency”. Who is “you” in this trope?
It can’t be “you libruls who run this country and want honest folk like me to stop using incandescent heaters for lighting” for an obvious reason: the honest folk, like Brett, get to vote too. And they keep electing the likes of Joe (BP apologist) Barton to Congress to block the likes of Waxman and Markey. Let us libruls actually make climate policy, and then let’s see how well Brett’s taunt stands up to scrutiny.
–TP
Explaining to Brett that his own “heuristics” make his denialism look much more ridiculous than my alarmism would be a waste of keystrokes. So I just want to commend his lucid exposition of the lunatic position.
Well, and also to ask something about his refrain: “act like you think it’s an emergency”. Who is “you” in this trope?
It can’t be “you libruls who run this country and want honest folk like me to stop using incandescent heaters for lighting” for an obvious reason: the honest folk, like Brett, get to vote too. And they keep electing the likes of Joe (BP apologist) Barton to Congress to block the likes of Waxman and Markey. Let us libruls actually make climate policy, and then let’s see how well Brett’s taunt stands up to scrutiny.
–TP
Forget this precautionary principle bs. You might think it’s clever, but from this side it really does look like nothing but a desperation to exploit a ‘crisis’
I’m completely on board with the precautionary principle. I don’t think it’s “clever”, I think it’s prudent and intelligent.
When my car makes a funny noise, I don’t wait until the transmission falls off before I take it to the shop.
When the doctor says my blood sugar is a little high, I don’t want until I actually have diabetes before I make changes to my diet.
You have not “tooled up” sufficiently to make a solid independent assessment of the risk, but others have. Folks with no political axe to grind. The insurance industry, the financial industry, the intelligence community, the Department of Defense.
None of those folks have any agenda that would lead them to embrace the claims of anthropogenic climate change. All of them take it seriously, and are planning for the possibility that the disaster scenarios will to some degree come about.
You yelp about government “power grabs”. If even a small amount of the predicted outcomes from climate change come about, you will in fact see government power grabs, because people will be clamoring for government to act.
Large cities with insufficient water supplies, unreliable supplies of staple foods due to drought, expensive physical damage to cities and other infrastructure due to severe weather.
If and when those arrive, folks will be looking for dreaded Big Government to bail them out, and in a hurry. If you don’t want that, you would be calling for prudent, pro-active planning to mitigate the effects of those things BEFORE they arrive.
The time when you can make meaningful choices about how to address things is BEFORE they arrive. AFTER THEY HAPPEN, your choices are quite limited. The options available to the self-governed begin to shrink to a range running from crappy to totally crappy.
Basically, your approach here is wait and see if the shit hits the fan, and then we’ll know if the shit is going to hit the fan. That’s a very, very, very stupid approach, to anything, let alone the type and scale of things that are under discussion.
Self-government is only effective if people are intelligent and prudent. Self-government by paranoids, and folks who are deliberately ignorant, is not a good thing.
Forget this precautionary principle bs. You might think it’s clever, but from this side it really does look like nothing but a desperation to exploit a ‘crisis’
I’m completely on board with the precautionary principle. I don’t think it’s “clever”, I think it’s prudent and intelligent.
When my car makes a funny noise, I don’t wait until the transmission falls off before I take it to the shop.
When the doctor says my blood sugar is a little high, I don’t want until I actually have diabetes before I make changes to my diet.
You have not “tooled up” sufficiently to make a solid independent assessment of the risk, but others have. Folks with no political axe to grind. The insurance industry, the financial industry, the intelligence community, the Department of Defense.
None of those folks have any agenda that would lead them to embrace the claims of anthropogenic climate change. All of them take it seriously, and are planning for the possibility that the disaster scenarios will to some degree come about.
You yelp about government “power grabs”. If even a small amount of the predicted outcomes from climate change come about, you will in fact see government power grabs, because people will be clamoring for government to act.
Large cities with insufficient water supplies, unreliable supplies of staple foods due to drought, expensive physical damage to cities and other infrastructure due to severe weather.
If and when those arrive, folks will be looking for dreaded Big Government to bail them out, and in a hurry. If you don’t want that, you would be calling for prudent, pro-active planning to mitigate the effects of those things BEFORE they arrive.
The time when you can make meaningful choices about how to address things is BEFORE they arrive. AFTER THEY HAPPEN, your choices are quite limited. The options available to the self-governed begin to shrink to a range running from crappy to totally crappy.
Basically, your approach here is wait and see if the shit hits the fan, and then we’ll know if the shit is going to hit the fan. That’s a very, very, very stupid approach, to anything, let alone the type and scale of things that are under discussion.
Self-government is only effective if people are intelligent and prudent. Self-government by paranoids, and folks who are deliberately ignorant, is not a good thing.
If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency.
This, folks, is a sighting of the hypocrisy monitor. A common sight among sports fans (“If they really wanted to win the Premier League/World Series/Super Bowl, they would have gotten a first-rate striker/picture/quarterback”) and teachers (“If you were really serious about this class, you would have read beyond the assignments’), you don’t see it so much in arguments (“If you were really concerned about problem X, you would have quit your job and gone to work for no pay to help those people!’) cause it is so obviously bogus. I mean, we all know that there are a web of connections and requirements that keep people on the tracks that they are on, so you don’t expect someone who is deeply concerned about hunger in America to quit their jobs, leave their families and start volunteering full time at a food bank. That Brett feels he can deploy it here, especially after his deeply felt concerns over the reach of big government is fascinating. If the government felt it was an emergency that required them doing something more than not letting Brett buy incandescent light bulbs, we would be hearing concerns about jackbooted thugs demanding he pay a carbon tax or something like that.
I’ll also speak to my Japanese friends who are “anti-nuke lunatics” and tell them to stop, cause it’s an emergency. I’m sure that the name calling should help bring them around.
If it’s an emergency, act like you think it’s an emergency.
This, folks, is a sighting of the hypocrisy monitor. A common sight among sports fans (“If they really wanted to win the Premier League/World Series/Super Bowl, they would have gotten a first-rate striker/picture/quarterback”) and teachers (“If you were really serious about this class, you would have read beyond the assignments’), you don’t see it so much in arguments (“If you were really concerned about problem X, you would have quit your job and gone to work for no pay to help those people!’) cause it is so obviously bogus. I mean, we all know that there are a web of connections and requirements that keep people on the tracks that they are on, so you don’t expect someone who is deeply concerned about hunger in America to quit their jobs, leave their families and start volunteering full time at a food bank. That Brett feels he can deploy it here, especially after his deeply felt concerns over the reach of big government is fascinating. If the government felt it was an emergency that required them doing something more than not letting Brett buy incandescent light bulbs, we would be hearing concerns about jackbooted thugs demanding he pay a carbon tax or something like that.
I’ll also speak to my Japanese friends who are “anti-nuke lunatics” and tell them to stop, cause it’s an emergency. I’m sure that the name calling should help bring them around.
Basically, your approach here is wait and see if the shit hits the fan, and then we’ll know if the shit is going to hit the fan. That’s a very, very, very stupid approach, to anything…
Collectively, the rich and powerful usually think that way. Why not?
…and remember OCCAM’s RAZOR!!!!!!!!!
Basically, your approach here is wait and see if the shit hits the fan, and then we’ll know if the shit is going to hit the fan. That’s a very, very, very stupid approach, to anything…
Collectively, the rich and powerful usually think that way. Why not?
…and remember OCCAM’s RAZOR!!!!!!!!!
russell:
If and when those arrive, folks will be looking for dreaded Big Government to bail them out, and in a hurry. If you don’t want that, you would be calling for prudent, pro-active planning to mitigate the effects of those things BEFORE they arrive.
This is absolutely correct. As someone who is concerned about government overreach, I view the best way to stop it is not provide an excuse.
Look at the after effects of 9/11. We granted the government broad, expensive powers because “terrorism”!
russell:
If and when those arrive, folks will be looking for dreaded Big Government to bail them out, and in a hurry. If you don’t want that, you would be calling for prudent, pro-active planning to mitigate the effects of those things BEFORE they arrive.
This is absolutely correct. As someone who is concerned about government overreach, I view the best way to stop it is not provide an excuse.
Look at the after effects of 9/11. We granted the government broad, expensive powers because “terrorism”!
Look at the after effects of 9/11. We granted the government broad, expensive powers because “terrorism”!
There was actually nothing wrong with granting government broad, exp[a]nsive powers. The problem was that we had a very bad President, and a very bad Congress (at least until 2006).
Big, bad government is very bad. Big, good government is very good.
Look at the after effects of 9/11. We granted the government broad, expensive powers because “terrorism”!
There was actually nothing wrong with granting government broad, exp[a]nsive powers. The problem was that we had a very bad President, and a very bad Congress (at least until 2006).
Big, bad government is very bad. Big, good government is very good.
As someone who is concerned about government overreach, I view the best way to stop it is not provide an excuse.
The general pattern of human progress has been to employ economies of scale in order to improve the lives and well-being of people or to make people’s lives less “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”, as Hobbes put it. I don’t consider this a problem free solution, but if you want to resist it, I really think you have your work cut out for you.
As someone who is concerned about government overreach, I view the best way to stop it is not provide an excuse.
The general pattern of human progress has been to employ economies of scale in order to improve the lives and well-being of people or to make people’s lives less “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”, as Hobbes put it. I don’t consider this a problem free solution, but if you want to resist it, I really think you have your work cut out for you.
sapient, if you had just said “Bad big** government very bad; good big government . . . marginal” you might even get Brett on-board. Nobody likes bad big governmnet — even though they disagree with which ones are the bad ones.
.
** I know why you put the “bad” adjective second. But “big bad government” just sounded like a fairy tale line to me. Sorry.
sapient, if you had just said “Bad big** government very bad; good big government . . . marginal” you might even get Brett on-board. Nobody likes bad big governmnet — even though they disagree with which ones are the bad ones.
.
** I know why you put the “bad” adjective second. But “big bad government” just sounded like a fairy tale line to me. Sorry.
I know why you put the “bad” adjective second. But “big bad government” just sounded like a fairy tale line to me
Fairy tales are our common mythology, so I’m good with that.
I know why you put the “bad” adjective second. But “big bad government” just sounded like a fairy tale line to me
Fairy tales are our common mythology, so I’m good with that.
“There was actually nothing wrong with granting government broad, exp[a]nsive powers. The problem was that we had a very bad President, and a very bad Congress (at least until 2006).”
Bwah ha ha. If that’s what you call thinking, I’m going to have to question your right to that handle.
The logical extension of this sort of “reasoning” is that the ideal government is a totalitarian state, with saintly geniuses for leaders. It explains why, despite 100 million plus slaughtered, ‘liberals’ persist so often in claiming the only problem with communism was the people who ran it, and if the right bunch had been in charge it would have been great.
That’s like thinking the only problem with the Mafia is that the Don isn’t a nice guy.
That the problem with being in chains is that the wrong people have the whip.
“Sapient”? No, not so much.
“There was actually nothing wrong with granting government broad, exp[a]nsive powers. The problem was that we had a very bad President, and a very bad Congress (at least until 2006).”
Bwah ha ha. If that’s what you call thinking, I’m going to have to question your right to that handle.
The logical extension of this sort of “reasoning” is that the ideal government is a totalitarian state, with saintly geniuses for leaders. It explains why, despite 100 million plus slaughtered, ‘liberals’ persist so often in claiming the only problem with communism was the people who ran it, and if the right bunch had been in charge it would have been great.
That’s like thinking the only problem with the Mafia is that the Don isn’t a nice guy.
That the problem with being in chains is that the wrong people have the whip.
“Sapient”? No, not so much.
The logical extension of this sort of “reasoning” is that the ideal government is a totalitarian state,
‘logical’ might not mean what you think it means.
The logical extension of this sort of “reasoning” is that the ideal government is a totalitarian state,
‘logical’ might not mean what you think it means.
Big, bad government is very bad. Big, good government is very good.
for the record, and just to round out the range of opinion, I’d say that government should be the size that the governed want it to be. no bigger, no smaller.
Big, bad government is very bad. Big, good government is very good.
for the record, and just to round out the range of opinion, I’d say that government should be the size that the governed want it to be. no bigger, no smaller.
I, for one, wish to go on the record as not being particularly fond of small bad government or bad small government…
I, for one, wish to go on the record as not being particularly fond of small bad government or bad small government…
I’m on the fence with small-ish, mediocre government, but kind of okay with medium-sized, slightly above average government. I really don’t know what to think of teeny, tiny, totally awesome government, only because I haven’t seen it yet. I’m curious about humongous but irrelevant government – one that’s really, really big, but doesn’t actually do anything or bother anyone, not even with taxes.
I’m on the fence with small-ish, mediocre government, but kind of okay with medium-sized, slightly above average government. I really don’t know what to think of teeny, tiny, totally awesome government, only because I haven’t seen it yet. I’m curious about humongous but irrelevant government – one that’s really, really big, but doesn’t actually do anything or bother anyone, not even with taxes.
as my momma always said: it’s not the size of the government that matters, it’s how you use it.
as my momma always said: it’s not the size of the government that matters, it’s how you use it.
Your ever so much better than the Bush administration government, which can be trusted with massive power.
Now, since this is a technical publication I access through work, here’s a quote in case you can’t follow the link:
“How the NSA uses SIM cards to mistakenly kill civilians
Former drone operator’s testimony echoes information in leaked NSA documents
The latest reports indicate that data extracted from NSA surveillance programs are used to carry out drone strikes, sometimes killing the wrong victim. Information revealing these grizzly details emerged from an interview carried out by The Intercept with an anonymous former drone operator of the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
As soon as the US military and CIA identify the target using the NSA’s phone-tracking capabilities and metadata analysis, a drone air-strike is launched; however, the identity is never confirmed on the ground. And while the program has effectively dispatched many terrorists, innocent people have absolutely been killed, he declares.”
So, the Obama administration, so much more ethical and to be trusted with power than the Bush administration? Again, “Bwah ha ha”.
Your ever so much better than the Bush administration government, which can be trusted with massive power.
Now, since this is a technical publication I access through work, here’s a quote in case you can’t follow the link:
“How the NSA uses SIM cards to mistakenly kill civilians
Former drone operator’s testimony echoes information in leaked NSA documents
The latest reports indicate that data extracted from NSA surveillance programs are used to carry out drone strikes, sometimes killing the wrong victim. Information revealing these grizzly details emerged from an interview carried out by The Intercept with an anonymous former drone operator of the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
As soon as the US military and CIA identify the target using the NSA’s phone-tracking capabilities and metadata analysis, a drone air-strike is launched; however, the identity is never confirmed on the ground. And while the program has effectively dispatched many terrorists, innocent people have absolutely been killed, he declares.”
So, the Obama administration, so much more ethical and to be trusted with power than the Bush administration? Again, “Bwah ha ha”.
all who support the drone war, please raise your hand.
all who support the drone war, please raise your hand.
Nice to welcome Brett to the ranks of those opposed to drone warfare, better late than never!
Nice to welcome Brett to the ranks of those opposed to drone warfare, better late than never!
“grizzly details”?
Must be a real top notch publication.
“grizzly details”?
Must be a real top notch publication.
It explains why, despite 100 million plus slaughtered, ‘liberals’ persist so often in claiming the only problem with communism was the people who ran it, and if the right bunch had been in charge it would have been great.
My personal opinion is that communism is a nice idea in the abstract, but that doesn’t work all that well in the real world (like libertarianism), regardless of who’s in charge. It can be especially horrible, though, with especially horrible people in charge, as we’ve seen.
That aside, I have to side with Brett on the issue of granting broad powers being acceptable based on who happens to be in charge at the time. Even if you do have a wonderful executive and legislature, you can’t count on always having those, and powers taken are rarely given back. Not that Obama is all sweetness and light, anyway. Bush-light, maybe.
It explains why, despite 100 million plus slaughtered, ‘liberals’ persist so often in claiming the only problem with communism was the people who ran it, and if the right bunch had been in charge it would have been great.
My personal opinion is that communism is a nice idea in the abstract, but that doesn’t work all that well in the real world (like libertarianism), regardless of who’s in charge. It can be especially horrible, though, with especially horrible people in charge, as we’ve seen.
That aside, I have to side with Brett on the issue of granting broad powers being acceptable based on who happens to be in charge at the time. Even if you do have a wonderful executive and legislature, you can’t count on always having those, and powers taken are rarely given back. Not that Obama is all sweetness and light, anyway. Bush-light, maybe.
Note, this isn’t just “drone warfare”, this is “drone warfare on autopilot”. There’s a large difference between looking at your target through a gigapixel camera before letting a hellfire missile fly, and just assuming that anybody within x number of meters of a phone the NSA has associated with terrorists is a valid target, and blowing it away regardless of where it happens to be at the time.
THIS is the sort of government Sapient thinks is to be trusted with massive power. I say NO government should be trusted with massive power. Even the best of them are run by the worst among us, government attracts people of low morals the way rotten meat attracts flies. No government deserves to be trusted.
It’s easy to delude yourself, think, “My side is different, we’re the good guys, our people can be trusted.” They’re not, they can’t be.
Note, this isn’t just “drone warfare”, this is “drone warfare on autopilot”. There’s a large difference between looking at your target through a gigapixel camera before letting a hellfire missile fly, and just assuming that anybody within x number of meters of a phone the NSA has associated with terrorists is a valid target, and blowing it away regardless of where it happens to be at the time.
THIS is the sort of government Sapient thinks is to be trusted with massive power. I say NO government should be trusted with massive power. Even the best of them are run by the worst among us, government attracts people of low morals the way rotten meat attracts flies. No government deserves to be trusted.
It’s easy to delude yourself, think, “My side is different, we’re the good guys, our people can be trusted.” They’re not, they can’t be.
“It explains why, despite 100 million plus slaughtered, ‘liberals’ persist so often in claiming the only problem with communism was the people who ran it, and if the right bunch had been in charge it would have been great”
“Liberals” haven’t been defending Communism since the before the purges way back when. Communism, even as an abstract ideal, has never had much support in the US and the support it had came from a vey narrow spectrum of people who would have been appalled to be called “liberals”.
I actually met a Communist once in about 1970. She was enamored with China for some reason. Not the real China, of course.
“It explains why, despite 100 million plus slaughtered, ‘liberals’ persist so often in claiming the only problem with communism was the people who ran it, and if the right bunch had been in charge it would have been great”
“Liberals” haven’t been defending Communism since the before the purges way back when. Communism, even as an abstract ideal, has never had much support in the US and the support it had came from a vey narrow spectrum of people who would have been appalled to be called “liberals”.
I actually met a Communist once in about 1970. She was enamored with China for some reason. Not the real China, of course.
There was actually nothing wrong with granting government broad, exp[a]nsive powers. The problem was that we had a very bad President, and a very bad Congress (at least until 2006).
I, for one, am not enamored with the actions Obama administration as regards the GWOT or “overseas contingency operations”. So on this point, I’d disagree with that the problem was just a specific administration/congress.
LJ:
I don’t consider this a problem free solution, but if you want to resist it, I really think you have your work cut out for you.
To get super high level, I don’t want to resist ‘it’, if ‘it’ is the government doing things for the public good.
I just don’t think the government is always (or even frequently) the right tool for the job, and that concentration of power is dangerous (as it would be in any other context, corporate for example).
That statement is, I imagine, not crazy sounding. The devil is always in the details, etc etc, I imagine I deviate from the average in when I think government intervention is a “good thing” (TM).
My only point was that I think russell said (or what I interpreted russell to say, sorry if I got it wrong) was dead on.
There are a number of things we can do now (frex: energy diversification and renewable research, etc) that could stabilize pollution levels. They are (relatively) cheap and burden individual liberty very little.
Maybe Brett’s right and anthropomorphic CO2 isn’t a problem (I disagree, but that’s fine). In which case, we’d have made several changes to our energy infrastructure that reduces pollution and diversifies our energy feedstock. Neither is bad.
If Brett’s wrong, and AGW is a problem, there could be severe economic consequences. Those severe economic consequences are probably going to induce a large government response. That would be very expensive and likely burden individual liberty a great deal (at least in the worst case).
I would like to avoid that and see prudent investment in diversification of our energy generation as a good way of doing it.
There was actually nothing wrong with granting government broad, exp[a]nsive powers. The problem was that we had a very bad President, and a very bad Congress (at least until 2006).
I, for one, am not enamored with the actions Obama administration as regards the GWOT or “overseas contingency operations”. So on this point, I’d disagree with that the problem was just a specific administration/congress.
LJ:
I don’t consider this a problem free solution, but if you want to resist it, I really think you have your work cut out for you.
To get super high level, I don’t want to resist ‘it’, if ‘it’ is the government doing things for the public good.
I just don’t think the government is always (or even frequently) the right tool for the job, and that concentration of power is dangerous (as it would be in any other context, corporate for example).
That statement is, I imagine, not crazy sounding. The devil is always in the details, etc etc, I imagine I deviate from the average in when I think government intervention is a “good thing” (TM).
My only point was that I think russell said (or what I interpreted russell to say, sorry if I got it wrong) was dead on.
There are a number of things we can do now (frex: energy diversification and renewable research, etc) that could stabilize pollution levels. They are (relatively) cheap and burden individual liberty very little.
Maybe Brett’s right and anthropomorphic CO2 isn’t a problem (I disagree, but that’s fine). In which case, we’d have made several changes to our energy infrastructure that reduces pollution and diversifies our energy feedstock. Neither is bad.
If Brett’s wrong, and AGW is a problem, there could be severe economic consequences. Those severe economic consequences are probably going to induce a large government response. That would be very expensive and likely burden individual liberty a great deal (at least in the worst case).
I would like to avoid that and see prudent investment in diversification of our energy generation as a good way of doing it.
I’m saying you are just picking up whatever stick you happen to have handy. It’s the exact opposite of of the reasoned discourse you claim to espouse. You want to debate Sapient? Fine, but don’t pretend that all liberals have the same set of values as him.
And making fun of someone because of the handle they have chosen suggests that your approach to these problems is straight from the 3rd grade playground. Grow up.
I’m saying you are just picking up whatever stick you happen to have handy. It’s the exact opposite of of the reasoned discourse you claim to espouse. You want to debate Sapient? Fine, but don’t pretend that all liberals have the same set of values as him.
And making fun of someone because of the handle they have chosen suggests that your approach to these problems is straight from the 3rd grade playground. Grow up.
I think russell said (or what I interpreted russell to say, sorry if I got it wrong) was dead on.
You have the gist of it.
I think russell said (or what I interpreted russell to say, sorry if I got it wrong) was dead on.
You have the gist of it.
LJ:
Sorry, was I targeted in your 12:38? I have the wherewithal to defend myself, but I didn’t know if you were responding to Brett or my most recent.
LJ:
Sorry, was I targeted in your 12:38? I have the wherewithal to defend myself, but I didn’t know if you were responding to Brett or my most recent.
I’m a fast typist, but not that fast. That was addressed to Brett.
I don’t disagree with what you have written above, but it seems that we are at the point where government promulgated solutions are necessary. If you resist those because they enable the government, I’m not sure alternative there is.
I’m a fast typist, but not that fast. That was addressed to Brett.
I don’t disagree with what you have written above, but it seems that we are at the point where government promulgated solutions are necessary. If you resist those because they enable the government, I’m not sure alternative there is.
LJ:
at the point where government promulgated solutions are necessary.
Yeah, I would agree, but I think there is room for exactly what scale of intervention is needed at this juncture. Which is a complex discussion that’s been proceeding well in my absence and I have little novel to add beyond being somewhere between Brett and the majority of commenters on what, if anything, should be done.
In other words, nothing useful.
All I wanted to say was russell is right, and it deserved being repeated: whatever you think the required level of intervention is *now*: it’s going to go up if the warming increases.
As it so happens, I think the ‘low cost’ options now (diversification, research, etc) are good things overall and likely even politically achievable.
LJ:
at the point where government promulgated solutions are necessary.
Yeah, I would agree, but I think there is room for exactly what scale of intervention is needed at this juncture. Which is a complex discussion that’s been proceeding well in my absence and I have little novel to add beyond being somewhere between Brett and the majority of commenters on what, if anything, should be done.
In other words, nothing useful.
All I wanted to say was russell is right, and it deserved being repeated: whatever you think the required level of intervention is *now*: it’s going to go up if the warming increases.
As it so happens, I think the ‘low cost’ options now (diversification, research, etc) are good things overall and likely even politically achievable.
whatever you think the required level of intervention is *now*: it’s going to go up if the warming increases.
Not just the level, in the sense of scale.
Also, the number of options, and the degree to which they are mandated, as opposed to chosen.
So, for example, develop infrastructure now that uses water efficiently, as opposed to having your water rationed later.
As an example.
whatever you think the required level of intervention is *now*: it’s going to go up if the warming increases.
Not just the level, in the sense of scale.
Also, the number of options, and the degree to which they are mandated, as opposed to chosen.
So, for example, develop infrastructure now that uses water efficiently, as opposed to having your water rationed later.
As an example.
“Maybe Brett’s right and anthropomorphic CO2 isn’t a problem”
You apparently don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem. I’m saying we don’t know, to a sufficient degree of certainty to justify hugely intrusive measures.
And I’m not terribly impressed with people who think this is important enough to compell others to change their lifestyles, but not important enough, for instance, to tell anti-nuke activists to take a hike.
“Maybe Brett’s right and anthropomorphic CO2 isn’t a problem”
You apparently don’t understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem. I’m saying we don’t know, to a sufficient degree of certainty to justify hugely intrusive measures.
And I’m not terribly impressed with people who think this is important enough to compell others to change their lifestyles, but not important enough, for instance, to tell anti-nuke activists to take a hike.
“Grizzly details”
I can’t bear to hear them.
“Grizzly details”
I can’t bear to hear them.
You apparently don’t understand what I’m saying.
Sorry, Brett, didn’t mean to incorrectly characterize your position. I haven’t been following the thread that closely.
You apparently don’t understand what I’m saying.
Sorry, Brett, didn’t mean to incorrectly characterize your position. I haven’t been following the thread that closely.
but not important enough, for instance, to tell anti-nuke activists to take a hike
because nuclear power is perfectly harmless, poses no short or long term dangers, and would solve all our energy needs, if only those mean old anti-nuke protesters would let us use it?
Jimmy: Billy, stop smoking cigarettes!
Billy: No.
Jimmy: They will kill you!
Billy: No they won’t. The science is inconclusive. Besides, I know you’re not serious. If you really wanted me to stop smoking cigarettes, you’d encourage me to smoke more crack! But you won’t! And that’s why I can’t take you seriously.
but not important enough, for instance, to tell anti-nuke activists to take a hike
because nuclear power is perfectly harmless, poses no short or long term dangers, and would solve all our energy needs, if only those mean old anti-nuke protesters would let us use it?
Jimmy: Billy, stop smoking cigarettes!
Billy: No.
Jimmy: They will kill you!
Billy: No they won’t. The science is inconclusive. Besides, I know you’re not serious. If you really wanted me to stop smoking cigarettes, you’d encourage me to smoke more crack! But you won’t! And that’s why I can’t take you seriously.
Brett Bellmore, 50 years from now: “Well now we’re cooked. I told you chumps a long time ago that you liberals needed to bash a few heads in the anti-nuclear crowd. Now look at the fix we’re in.
It’s all your fault.”
Me. I blame Grisly Adams.
Brett Bellmore, 50 years from now: “Well now we’re cooked. I told you chumps a long time ago that you liberals needed to bash a few heads in the anti-nuclear crowd. Now look at the fix we’re in.
It’s all your fault.”
Me. I blame Grisly Adams.
Nothing is perfectly harmless, including ‘renewable’ energy if implemented on a large enough scale to actually matter. Nuclear energy is about as ‘harmless’ as any REAL energy source gets, CO2 free, and not going to run out until plate tectonics halt. (Which makes it as “renewable” as geothermal. AND it is already proven.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
Nothing is perfectly harmless, including ‘renewable’ energy if implemented on a large enough scale to actually matter. Nuclear energy is about as ‘harmless’ as any REAL energy source gets, CO2 free, and not going to run out until plate tectonics halt. (Which makes it as “renewable” as geothermal. AND it is already proven.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
When you renounce the fraudulent climate change deniers, and stop babbling about how phasing out incandescent light bulbs is an infringement on your Liberty, we’ll talk. Until then, you cannot be taken seriously.
For an different view on nuclear: http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/thegreatsustainabilitydebates-nuclearpower.aspx
Regards,
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
When you renounce the fraudulent climate change deniers, and stop babbling about how phasing out incandescent light bulbs is an infringement on your Liberty, we’ll talk. Until then, you cannot be taken seriously.
For an different view on nuclear: http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/thegreatsustainabilitydebates-nuclearpower.aspx
Regards,
I’m supposed to stop “babbling” about how being told I can’t buy incandescent light bulbs is an infringement of my liberty? Why? Because being told you can’t do something isn’t exactly what having your liberty infringed means?
I’m supposed to stop “babbling” about how being told I can’t buy incandescent light bulbs is an infringement of my liberty? Why? Because being told you can’t do something isn’t exactly what having your liberty infringed means?
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
There are lots of folks, including James freaking Hansen, who both call for action to address climate change, and also support nuclear power as an important part of the solution.
Some are for it, some agin it, some are open to it as part of the mix.
At any rate, I’m not sure you’re in any position to judge who is and is not taking global warming seriously.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
There are lots of folks, including James freaking Hansen, who both call for action to address climate change, and also support nuclear power as an important part of the solution.
Some are for it, some agin it, some are open to it as part of the mix.
At any rate, I’m not sure you’re in any position to judge who is and is not taking global warming seriously.
Because being told you can’t do something isn’t exactly what having your liberty infringed means?
At a certain point, the triviality of things that people decide are going to be the next Unconscionable Assault On Liberty is so absurd as to be an insult to the people who actually have made sacrifices – real sacrifices – to preserve the liberties we have.
What’s next, the sacred right to use leaded gas? The sacred right to clad your house in asbestos shingle?
First, they came for the incandescent bulbs. Next stop, FEMA re-education camps!!
If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
Because being told you can’t do something isn’t exactly what having your liberty infringed means?
At a certain point, the triviality of things that people decide are going to be the next Unconscionable Assault On Liberty is so absurd as to be an insult to the people who actually have made sacrifices – real sacrifices – to preserve the liberties we have.
What’s next, the sacred right to use leaded gas? The sacred right to clad your house in asbestos shingle?
First, they came for the incandescent bulbs. Next stop, FEMA re-education camps!!
If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
When you renounce the fraudulent climate change deniers, and stop babbling about how phasing out incandescent light bulbs is an infringement on your Liberty, we’ll talk.
I’m supposed to stop “babbling” about how being told I can’t buy incandescent light bulbs is an infringement of my liberty?
The citing of fraudulent climate change deniers is non-negotiable, I guess.
When you renounce the fraudulent climate change deniers, and stop babbling about how phasing out incandescent light bulbs is an infringement on your Liberty, we’ll talk.
I’m supposed to stop “babbling” about how being told I can’t buy incandescent light bulbs is an infringement of my liberty?
The citing of fraudulent climate change deniers is non-negotiable, I guess.
The word isn’t “trivial”, it’s “gratuitous”. The forced wholesale adoption of a technology which has substantial downsides which don’t get acknowledged, or you’d have to admit that there are plenty of circumstances where people rationally prefer incandescent lighting.
Where the heat is a desired byproduct. Like my chicken coop.
Where the light will hardly get used, and so initial cost is everything. Like closet lights which are on only seconds a day.
Where the bulb is exposed to extreme cold, and CFL’s won’t light up immediately, such as porch lights in cold climates. (Yes, I’m aware they’re legal for this, just much harder to get, you have to buy “special” bulbs, instead of the ordinary ones.)
Where Mercury release is to be avoided. Hey, I guess that’s everywhere.
Where you want a bulb which is actually long lasting, not just supposedly long lasting. I’ve had at least a half dozen of these swirly bulbs die on me prematurely, often within mere hours of use.
The gratuitous banning of incandescent bulbs, besides being objectionable in itself, is representative of an over-all problem with this sort of thinking. Like the water saving toilets, forced on people even in areas where water was not in short supply, before they were actually a working technology, condemned a generation to grow up with toilets you had to flush several times. Houses and entire cities have had problems with their plumbing, due to the fact that it does you no good to hook up a specially designed toilet to existing pipes designed for a certain minimum amount of water per turd.
Like forcing intermittently available energy sources on utilities, destabilizing the grid, and requiring redundant power sources to be online, wasting fuel, just in case a cloud comes by or the wind stops blowing.
What’s the common thread here? You want what you want, and you mean to shove it down everybody else’s throats, whether they like it or not, and you don’t freaking care how much trouble it causes anybody.
Because problems experienced by other people are “trivial”. Only your cause matters, and your cause is more important than other people having a choice.
Than other people being free.
The word isn’t “trivial”, it’s “gratuitous”. The forced wholesale adoption of a technology which has substantial downsides which don’t get acknowledged, or you’d have to admit that there are plenty of circumstances where people rationally prefer incandescent lighting.
Where the heat is a desired byproduct. Like my chicken coop.
Where the light will hardly get used, and so initial cost is everything. Like closet lights which are on only seconds a day.
Where the bulb is exposed to extreme cold, and CFL’s won’t light up immediately, such as porch lights in cold climates. (Yes, I’m aware they’re legal for this, just much harder to get, you have to buy “special” bulbs, instead of the ordinary ones.)
Where Mercury release is to be avoided. Hey, I guess that’s everywhere.
Where you want a bulb which is actually long lasting, not just supposedly long lasting. I’ve had at least a half dozen of these swirly bulbs die on me prematurely, often within mere hours of use.
The gratuitous banning of incandescent bulbs, besides being objectionable in itself, is representative of an over-all problem with this sort of thinking. Like the water saving toilets, forced on people even in areas where water was not in short supply, before they were actually a working technology, condemned a generation to grow up with toilets you had to flush several times. Houses and entire cities have had problems with their plumbing, due to the fact that it does you no good to hook up a specially designed toilet to existing pipes designed for a certain minimum amount of water per turd.
Like forcing intermittently available energy sources on utilities, destabilizing the grid, and requiring redundant power sources to be online, wasting fuel, just in case a cloud comes by or the wind stops blowing.
What’s the common thread here? You want what you want, and you mean to shove it down everybody else’s throats, whether they like it or not, and you don’t freaking care how much trouble it causes anybody.
Because problems experienced by other people are “trivial”. Only your cause matters, and your cause is more important than other people having a choice.
Than other people being free.
What’s the common thread here?
things signed into law by a Republican President?
What’s the common thread here?
things signed into law by a Republican President?
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
Seems to me Brett has issued a pretty straightforward challenge to “action now” climate change people. He has asked for detailed specifics that the majority here seem to favor but do not identify. Nor does the majority identify the downsides and how those will be mitigated/addressed. If we can computer model long term climate change, we can also computer model the impact of near and mid term solutions.
I see plenty of snarking and sneering, but not much substance.
The northeast is densely populated and gets very cold every winter: how will these folks be fed and kept warm after these essential changes in our infrastructure et al are implemented?
And how are we going to pay for that and ACA and SS and Medicare/Medicaid and all the rest?
If we can know what the future holds climate-wise, we ought to be able to know and honestly disclose the rest.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, a very similar crowd’s glowing predictions of the awesomeness of ACA are more than a little off.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
Seems to me Brett has issued a pretty straightforward challenge to “action now” climate change people. He has asked for detailed specifics that the majority here seem to favor but do not identify. Nor does the majority identify the downsides and how those will be mitigated/addressed. If we can computer model long term climate change, we can also computer model the impact of near and mid term solutions.
I see plenty of snarking and sneering, but not much substance.
The northeast is densely populated and gets very cold every winter: how will these folks be fed and kept warm after these essential changes in our infrastructure et al are implemented?
And how are we going to pay for that and ACA and SS and Medicare/Medicaid and all the rest?
If we can know what the future holds climate-wise, we ought to be able to know and honestly disclose the rest.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, a very similar crowd’s glowing predictions of the awesomeness of ACA are more than a little off.
What’s the common thread here? You want what you want, and you mean to shove it down everybody else’s throats, whether they like it or not, and you don’t freaking care how much trouble it causes anybody.
And, of course, the inefficiency of incandescents, and the stupid waste of gallons of water per flush, and the various downsides of not having redundant sources of power, never cause trouble for anyone.
But it’s tyranny, because chicken coop.
There’s nothing that anyone can do *or not do*, including government at whatever level, that won’t be a problem or create an inconvenience for someone. We all do our best.
The idea that stupidly wasting finite resources will never impinge on anybody’s liberty or freedom seems, to me, to demonstrate a certain lack of imagination. Or at least historical awareness. Or, maybe just plain old awareness.
Yes, it’s probably a bad idea to connect toilets to inappropriate plumbing. It’s also a bad idea to waste gallons of water to flush away three ounces of piss.
If your argument is that solutions to problems should be useful and effective, we have no argument. Governments are made up of people, and people do stupid stuff.
If your argument is that liberty amounts to the freedom to use an incandescent bulb to heat your chicken coop, or the freedom to waste gallons of water at will, I’d say that’s pretty small beer, and goes beyond stupid to some kind of deliberate boneheadedness.
Upthread you gave us all a lecture on how our various points of view look from your side. That’s how your point of view looks from mine. Just dumb.
You’re a pretty intelligent guy, but you seem to be attached to positions that are not so smart. My opinion.
What’s the common thread here? You want what you want, and you mean to shove it down everybody else’s throats, whether they like it or not, and you don’t freaking care how much trouble it causes anybody.
And, of course, the inefficiency of incandescents, and the stupid waste of gallons of water per flush, and the various downsides of not having redundant sources of power, never cause trouble for anyone.
But it’s tyranny, because chicken coop.
There’s nothing that anyone can do *or not do*, including government at whatever level, that won’t be a problem or create an inconvenience for someone. We all do our best.
The idea that stupidly wasting finite resources will never impinge on anybody’s liberty or freedom seems, to me, to demonstrate a certain lack of imagination. Or at least historical awareness. Or, maybe just plain old awareness.
Yes, it’s probably a bad idea to connect toilets to inappropriate plumbing. It’s also a bad idea to waste gallons of water to flush away three ounces of piss.
If your argument is that solutions to problems should be useful and effective, we have no argument. Governments are made up of people, and people do stupid stuff.
If your argument is that liberty amounts to the freedom to use an incandescent bulb to heat your chicken coop, or the freedom to waste gallons of water at will, I’d say that’s pretty small beer, and goes beyond stupid to some kind of deliberate boneheadedness.
Upthread you gave us all a lecture on how our various points of view look from your side. That’s how your point of view looks from mine. Just dumb.
You’re a pretty intelligent guy, but you seem to be attached to positions that are not so smart. My opinion.
I see plenty of snarking and sneering, but not much substance.
I don’t know if Brett is saying that Americans have to adopt nuclear energy and give up other forms (which I am unable to see how that would pass muster because FREEDOM), or if the whole world has to (which means that the UN’s black helicopters will have won). I can tell you, here in Japan, these ‘anti-nuke lunatics’ have their reasons and from where I stand, they have a pretty good point.
I see plenty of snarking and sneering, but not much substance.
I don’t know if Brett is saying that Americans have to adopt nuclear energy and give up other forms (which I am unable to see how that would pass muster because FREEDOM), or if the whole world has to (which means that the UN’s black helicopters will have won). I can tell you, here in Japan, these ‘anti-nuke lunatics’ have their reasons and from where I stand, they have a pretty good point.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
ok, all those people are right out. they won’t be invited to any more parties.
that leaves everyone else in the world. now tell us why everyone else can’t be ‘taken seriously’.
Bottom line, reject nuclear, prove you don’t really take global warming seriously.
ok, all those people are right out. they won’t be invited to any more parties.
that leaves everyone else in the world. now tell us why everyone else can’t be ‘taken seriously’.
He has asked for detailed specifics that the majority here seem to favor but do not identify.
Actually, no, he has issued his demands for what everyone else must do before he will entertain the idea of doing anything to address climate change.
Not the same thing.
You have asked for details.
Note that this represents a moving of goal posts, from “the science is bogus so leave me alone”, to “you either have to explain in detail everything you expect us to do, with a line item budget, or else leave me alone”.
The prudent thing to do is to put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The details of what that means, and how difficult or intrusive it is, and what it will cost, vary from case to case.
There’s no lack of information about specific proposals, along with estimates of cost, likelihood of being useful, etc., available for anyone with an actual interest.
In any case, any evaluation of cost has to include a discussion of the cost of doing nothing. If you expect folks who think it’s a good idea to do whatever we can to bring a bean counter analysis to the table, we will expect you to do the same for your point of view.
What’s the cost of doing nothing, McK?
He has asked for detailed specifics that the majority here seem to favor but do not identify.
Actually, no, he has issued his demands for what everyone else must do before he will entertain the idea of doing anything to address climate change.
Not the same thing.
You have asked for details.
Note that this represents a moving of goal posts, from “the science is bogus so leave me alone”, to “you either have to explain in detail everything you expect us to do, with a line item budget, or else leave me alone”.
The prudent thing to do is to put less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The details of what that means, and how difficult or intrusive it is, and what it will cost, vary from case to case.
There’s no lack of information about specific proposals, along with estimates of cost, likelihood of being useful, etc., available for anyone with an actual interest.
In any case, any evaluation of cost has to include a discussion of the cost of doing nothing. If you expect folks who think it’s a good idea to do whatever we can to bring a bean counter analysis to the table, we will expect you to do the same for your point of view.
What’s the cost of doing nothing, McK?
Where Mercury release is to be avoided. Hey, I guess that’s everywhere.
Brett, I must be missing something here. As far as I know (admittedly not something I have researched much), mercury is a problem if you use florescent lights. But not if you use, for example, LEDs. Do the folks writing the anti-incandecent laws you have seen only talk about florescents as an alternative?
Because here, the LEDs have actually gotten to the point where they provide adequate brightness — and they are available in the stores. And the price is actually comparable over a bulb’s lifetime (by actual illumination; not wattage, which appears to be based on power consumption . . . including all that heat).
Where Mercury release is to be avoided. Hey, I guess that’s everywhere.
Brett, I must be missing something here. As far as I know (admittedly not something I have researched much), mercury is a problem if you use florescent lights. But not if you use, for example, LEDs. Do the folks writing the anti-incandecent laws you have seen only talk about florescents as an alternative?
Because here, the LEDs have actually gotten to the point where they provide adequate brightness — and they are available in the stores. And the price is actually comparable over a bulb’s lifetime (by actual illumination; not wattage, which appears to be based on power consumption . . . including all that heat).
There’s no lack of information about specific proposals, along with estimates of cost, likelihood of being useful, etc., available for anyone with an actual interest.
True. Here’s but one example, with many links (took 15 seconds for the web search):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/#
Me? I’m still waiting for the detailed post war plan for the Middle East from the war hawks c. 2003 when they asked us to sacrifice thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a foreign war. Both the plan and the cost-benefit analysis seems to have gone missing. When are you going to cough it up, McK?
There’s no lack of information about specific proposals, along with estimates of cost, likelihood of being useful, etc., available for anyone with an actual interest.
True. Here’s but one example, with many links (took 15 seconds for the web search):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/#
Me? I’m still waiting for the detailed post war plan for the Middle East from the war hawks c. 2003 when they asked us to sacrifice thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a foreign war. Both the plan and the cost-benefit analysis seems to have gone missing. When are you going to cough it up, McK?
Unlike government, which tends to have concentrated benefits and defused harms, climate change, up to a point, tends to have concentrated harms and defused benefits.
Unlike government, which tends to have concentrated benefits and defused harms, climate change, up to a point, tends to have concentrated harms and defused benefits.
mercury is a problem if you use florescent lights
he mentioned CFLs up there.
and the thing about those CFLs is that they are clearly a stop-gap tech. right now, they’re the low-energy, lowish price solution. but as soon as the price of LEDs comes down where it doesn’t take most a paycheck to replace a room’s worth of bulbs, CFLs won’t have a market. and that will be a good thing.
likewise, nuclear energy should be seen as a stop-gap solution. it’s far too dirty and dangerous to be the ultimate solution. but it sure beats coal. or, maybe we’ll come up with a use for spent nuclear fuel and solve two problems at once. i’m not betting on that.
mercury is a problem if you use florescent lights
he mentioned CFLs up there.
and the thing about those CFLs is that they are clearly a stop-gap tech. right now, they’re the low-energy, lowish price solution. but as soon as the price of LEDs comes down where it doesn’t take most a paycheck to replace a room’s worth of bulbs, CFLs won’t have a market. and that will be a good thing.
likewise, nuclear energy should be seen as a stop-gap solution. it’s far too dirty and dangerous to be the ultimate solution. but it sure beats coal. or, maybe we’ll come up with a use for spent nuclear fuel and solve two problems at once. i’m not betting on that.
Charles,
Feel free to expand on your remark since I, in my ignorance, have no idea what you are talking about.
Regards,
Charles,
Feel free to expand on your remark since I, in my ignorance, have no idea what you are talking about.
Regards,
McTx: And how are we going to pay for that and ACA and SS and Medicare/Medicaid and all the rest?
Easy: money is a renewable resource. Unlike petroleum. Unlike the biosphere’s dumping capacity for CO2.
A livable planet, medical care, and a bit of leisure in old age seem to be things worth spending money on, to a simple man like me. But I take it that some people think there are more important things to spend money on. Okay, what things?
–TP
McTx: And how are we going to pay for that and ACA and SS and Medicare/Medicaid and all the rest?
Easy: money is a renewable resource. Unlike petroleum. Unlike the biosphere’s dumping capacity for CO2.
A livable planet, medical care, and a bit of leisure in old age seem to be things worth spending money on, to a simple man like me. But I take it that some people think there are more important things to spend money on. Okay, what things?
–TP
And how are we going to pay for that and ACA and SS and Medicare/Medicaid and all the rest?
Well, we could build fewer of these for example.
And how are we going to pay for that and ACA and SS and Medicare/Medicaid and all the rest?
Well, we could build fewer of these for example.
Concerning mercury, that was a topic I had to work on while I was employed by the German equivalent of the EPA. The main problem with the Hg in lamps is not not the release in case of broken bulbs (that can be suppressed pretty easily for a few cents more) but in the production. The main producer (China), despite having extremly strict laws on the books, has a significant problem with Hg release during production exceeding by far what ends up in the lamps themselves.
Secondly, one has to compare the reduction in Hg release via coal fire power plants through higher efficiency of CFLs with the Hg stored in the CFLs. At least in the US this clearly favors the CFLs since US coal has a special Hg problem (it does not necessarily contain more but for certain complicated reasons it is more difficult to filter out).
If we want to cope with mercury, the CFLs are a minor issue compared to the main polluters (coal fired power plants, cement production, Chinese PVC, 3rd world gold production and a few other things).
Concerning mercury, that was a topic I had to work on while I was employed by the German equivalent of the EPA. The main problem with the Hg in lamps is not not the release in case of broken bulbs (that can be suppressed pretty easily for a few cents more) but in the production. The main producer (China), despite having extremly strict laws on the books, has a significant problem with Hg release during production exceeding by far what ends up in the lamps themselves.
Secondly, one has to compare the reduction in Hg release via coal fire power plants through higher efficiency of CFLs with the Hg stored in the CFLs. At least in the US this clearly favors the CFLs since US coal has a special Hg problem (it does not necessarily contain more but for certain complicated reasons it is more difficult to filter out).
If we want to cope with mercury, the CFLs are a minor issue compared to the main polluters (coal fired power plants, cement production, Chinese PVC, 3rd world gold production and a few other things).
Funny thing is, I haven’t noticed any coal fired power plants, cement kilns, Chinese PVC, third world gold production, and so forth, in my child’s room, or my kitchen. The only sources of Mercury you’ll find there are CFL lights.
And, as for mercury from coal fired plants, I’ve offered a solution to that, now, haven’t I? Nuclear is indeed dirty and dangerous, merely less so than every feasible alternative.
Hydro drowns huge expanses of land, with a flood hazard capable of killing as many as a Chernobyl scale nuke accident, and is limited.
Solar smothers huge expanses of land, some versions fry birds, is painfully intermittent, and has it’s own toxins. (With infinite half lives, yet!) And, if implemented on a large enough scale to displace other sources of energy, will alter the Earth’s albedo enough to effect climate.
Wind chops the birds up, instead of frying them, is even more intermittent than solar, huge expanses of land, and, guess what: Yup, on large scale would alter climate.
Geothermal doesn’t work well in most areas, and is not nearly as “renewable” as advertised. (Guess what: You pull heat out of rocks, they cool down!)
Then we come to nuclear, fuel enough to last geologic ages, (Extraction from sea water has proven to have a good EROI, and erosion on land puts more fissile elements into the sea each year than we’d need to extract, so nuclear is good until plate tectonics ends, at least.) uses really small chunks of land, not intermittent, and proven to work.
Sure, you’ll offer defenses of attacking nuclear. It’s just denialism.
Funny thing is, I haven’t noticed any coal fired power plants, cement kilns, Chinese PVC, third world gold production, and so forth, in my child’s room, or my kitchen. The only sources of Mercury you’ll find there are CFL lights.
And, as for mercury from coal fired plants, I’ve offered a solution to that, now, haven’t I? Nuclear is indeed dirty and dangerous, merely less so than every feasible alternative.
Hydro drowns huge expanses of land, with a flood hazard capable of killing as many as a Chernobyl scale nuke accident, and is limited.
Solar smothers huge expanses of land, some versions fry birds, is painfully intermittent, and has it’s own toxins. (With infinite half lives, yet!) And, if implemented on a large enough scale to displace other sources of energy, will alter the Earth’s albedo enough to effect climate.
Wind chops the birds up, instead of frying them, is even more intermittent than solar, huge expanses of land, and, guess what: Yup, on large scale would alter climate.
Geothermal doesn’t work well in most areas, and is not nearly as “renewable” as advertised. (Guess what: You pull heat out of rocks, they cool down!)
Then we come to nuclear, fuel enough to last geologic ages, (Extraction from sea water has proven to have a good EROI, and erosion on land puts more fissile elements into the sea each year than we’d need to extract, so nuclear is good until plate tectonics ends, at least.) uses really small chunks of land, not intermittent, and proven to work.
Sure, you’ll offer defenses of attacking nuclear. It’s just denialism.
Funny thing is, I haven’t noticed any coal fired power plants, cement kilns, Chinese PVC, third world gold production, and so forth, in my child’s room, or my kitchen.
here’s another funny thing: in the Adirondacks there are deep, crystal clear lakes. you can see all the way to their rocky bottoms. but don’t swim in them in your good clothes. besides being really cold, they have Phs lower than 5. in the 90s, more than half of lakes in the Adirondacks had Phs lower than five. they are dead lakes. nothing lives in them. that’s why you can see their bottoms.
funny eh?
why are they dead?
mid-west coal burning powering plants.
you might not have one in your bedroom, but all of upstate NY is suffering from what plants a thousand miles away create.
and mercury ? yeah, that too.
funny!
if you were serious about nuclear, you’d be working to shut down coal plants. but you’re not. and we won’t take you seriously about until you start.
Funny thing is, I haven’t noticed any coal fired power plants, cement kilns, Chinese PVC, third world gold production, and so forth, in my child’s room, or my kitchen.
here’s another funny thing: in the Adirondacks there are deep, crystal clear lakes. you can see all the way to their rocky bottoms. but don’t swim in them in your good clothes. besides being really cold, they have Phs lower than 5. in the 90s, more than half of lakes in the Adirondacks had Phs lower than five. they are dead lakes. nothing lives in them. that’s why you can see their bottoms.
funny eh?
why are they dead?
mid-west coal burning powering plants.
you might not have one in your bedroom, but all of upstate NY is suffering from what plants a thousand miles away create.
and mercury ? yeah, that too.
funny!
if you were serious about nuclear, you’d be working to shut down coal plants. but you’re not. and we won’t take you seriously about until you start.
so, it sounds like we’re all in agreement that some kind of action is needed, but we’re disagreeing on what the best way forward is.
so, it sounds like we’re all in agreement that some kind of action is needed, but we’re disagreeing on what the best way forward is.
Mercury is so volatile that an emission anywhere in the world will spread to any other place in less than 18 months. A proper CFL contains no more than 5 mg (a Chinese disguised as a Vietnamese may go up to 15) the majority of it being bound to the solid phase when the lamp is not ‘burning’. So, provided you do not heat or eat a broken CFL and instead open the windows for a few minutes, your exposure to extra mercury will be negligible. Do you have amalgam dental fillings left or ever broken an old-fashioned thermometer in your home with the mercury disappearing into the carpet?
And you may not have a Chinese PVC plant in your neighbourhood but I’d bet there is a lot of Chinese made plastics in your home too. A significant part of the mercury used in production remains in the product. Maybe in your baby’s chew-toy?
Mercury is so volatile that an emission anywhere in the world will spread to any other place in less than 18 months. A proper CFL contains no more than 5 mg (a Chinese disguised as a Vietnamese may go up to 15) the majority of it being bound to the solid phase when the lamp is not ‘burning’. So, provided you do not heat or eat a broken CFL and instead open the windows for a few minutes, your exposure to extra mercury will be negligible. Do you have amalgam dental fillings left or ever broken an old-fashioned thermometer in your home with the mercury disappearing into the carpet?
And you may not have a Chinese PVC plant in your neighbourhood but I’d bet there is a lot of Chinese made plastics in your home too. A significant part of the mercury used in production remains in the product. Maybe in your baby’s chew-toy?
As I wrote way back on this thread, I’m not opposed to nuclear power, but I find more than a little irony in Brett’s “you must accept nuclear or not be taken seriously” edict when he’s quite capable of rejecting other solutions based on the problems with them, which he presents as non-starters. Other people can’t think the problems with nuclear power outweigh the benefits without being non-serious, but he can do that for all sorts of things.
Is that just because he’s so sure he’s right?
And I’m an LED-bulb guy, myself. I don’t actually buy them, for financial reasons, but I really, really want to, and eagerly anticipate their up-front costs coming down. (CFLs don’t take well to frequent cycling. If you turned one on and left it on, it would last far longer than an incandescent would if burned continuously. But if you turn it on and off a lot, not so much. And the standard ones don’t dim – well, except like Brett wrote: when they’re cold and you don’t necessarily want them to.)
As I wrote way back on this thread, I’m not opposed to nuclear power, but I find more than a little irony in Brett’s “you must accept nuclear or not be taken seriously” edict when he’s quite capable of rejecting other solutions based on the problems with them, which he presents as non-starters. Other people can’t think the problems with nuclear power outweigh the benefits without being non-serious, but he can do that for all sorts of things.
Is that just because he’s so sure he’s right?
And I’m an LED-bulb guy, myself. I don’t actually buy them, for financial reasons, but I really, really want to, and eagerly anticipate their up-front costs coming down. (CFLs don’t take well to frequent cycling. If you turned one on and left it on, it would last far longer than an incandescent would if burned continuously. But if you turn it on and off a lot, not so much. And the standard ones don’t dim – well, except like Brett wrote: when they’re cold and you don’t necessarily want them to.)
Well, how would you feel about it if the government decided you were wrong that LEDs hadn’t come down in price enough yet, and proceded to ban florescents, in order to impose that judgement on you?
The problem here is a basic one: It’s the conviction that other people aren’t entitled to make their own choices. Not about lighting, not about health care, not about anything where the self-appointed elite have decided that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions.
Well, how would you feel about it if the government decided you were wrong that LEDs hadn’t come down in price enough yet, and proceded to ban florescents, in order to impose that judgement on you?
The problem here is a basic one: It’s the conviction that other people aren’t entitled to make their own choices. Not about lighting, not about health care, not about anything where the self-appointed elite have decided that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions.
People are entitled to make their own choices to the extent that those choices do not impact other people. Thus you can, and should be able to, choose to do lots of things that may or may not be good for you, but don’t matter to anyone else.
On the other hand, as soon as your choices do have an impact on others, they ought to get some say in them. Maybe only a little; maybe a great deal. But giving others some say in choices which impact them is not a matter of you being too stupid to make your own choice. It’s about having all those impacted get some say.
Look at it from the other side. If some kinds of lighting have a huge effect on others, and a tiny effect on you, does that mean you should get no say at all in what you do? Or should you, as one of those impacted, still get some input as well?
Where we come down to is this. How much say an individual gets in a decision ought to depend, at least in part, on how much impact the decision has on him. And a small impact on a very large number of people may still add up to a pretty large impact on the decision. That’s not a license for untrammelled majority rule. Just a note that majorities also have some rights over how their world runs.
People are entitled to make their own choices to the extent that those choices do not impact other people. Thus you can, and should be able to, choose to do lots of things that may or may not be good for you, but don’t matter to anyone else.
On the other hand, as soon as your choices do have an impact on others, they ought to get some say in them. Maybe only a little; maybe a great deal. But giving others some say in choices which impact them is not a matter of you being too stupid to make your own choice. It’s about having all those impacted get some say.
Look at it from the other side. If some kinds of lighting have a huge effect on others, and a tiny effect on you, does that mean you should get no say at all in what you do? Or should you, as one of those impacted, still get some input as well?
Where we come down to is this. How much say an individual gets in a decision ought to depend, at least in part, on how much impact the decision has on him. And a small impact on a very large number of people may still add up to a pretty large impact on the decision. That’s not a license for untrammelled majority rule. Just a note that majorities also have some rights over how their world runs.
the self-appointed elite have decided that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions.
And once again, public policy will founder because somebody somewhere thinks the folks who made the policy are snotty.
Excellent.
Funny thing is, I haven’t noticed any coal fired power plants, cement kilns, Chinese PVC, third world gold production, and so forth, in my child’s room, or my kitchen.
Funny thing is, I live about two miles from a coal fired power plant. It’s being retired and converted to natural gas.
The reason for that is because it’s really freaking dirty. Sufficiently so that the state rep who led the effort to move it away from coal did so because she kept finding dust from the plant all around her house, including where her kids were playing.
My wife and I have two good friends who died in the last few years from the same obscure bladder cancer. Most likely cause was their spending a lot of time in the water in the harbor next to the coal plant, which has an unusually high level of heavy metals in it. Might be from the coal plant, might be left over from the tanning industry which dumped crap in the river that empties into the harbor, might be from the lead mill that operated at the head of the harbor for about 100 years. Or, some combination of all three.
There have also been other related issues over the years, like the operators dumping fly ash in the watershed of a local lake that provides drinking water for several nearby towns.
It’ll cost about $800M to convert the plant from coal to gas. Due to concerns about CO2 emissions, gas is seen as a transition phase, the operators have to shut down gas operations by 2050 and transition to some other technology to be named, or else just shut the plant down altogether.
It’s nice that you don’t have crap like this in your neighborhood. Some of the rest of us do. These aren’t academic or hypothetical issues.
the self-appointed elite have decided that the people are too stupid to make their own decisions.
And once again, public policy will founder because somebody somewhere thinks the folks who made the policy are snotty.
Excellent.
Funny thing is, I haven’t noticed any coal fired power plants, cement kilns, Chinese PVC, third world gold production, and so forth, in my child’s room, or my kitchen.
Funny thing is, I live about two miles from a coal fired power plant. It’s being retired and converted to natural gas.
The reason for that is because it’s really freaking dirty. Sufficiently so that the state rep who led the effort to move it away from coal did so because she kept finding dust from the plant all around her house, including where her kids were playing.
My wife and I have two good friends who died in the last few years from the same obscure bladder cancer. Most likely cause was their spending a lot of time in the water in the harbor next to the coal plant, which has an unusually high level of heavy metals in it. Might be from the coal plant, might be left over from the tanning industry which dumped crap in the river that empties into the harbor, might be from the lead mill that operated at the head of the harbor for about 100 years. Or, some combination of all three.
There have also been other related issues over the years, like the operators dumping fly ash in the watershed of a local lake that provides drinking water for several nearby towns.
It’ll cost about $800M to convert the plant from coal to gas. Due to concerns about CO2 emissions, gas is seen as a transition phase, the operators have to shut down gas operations by 2050 and transition to some other technology to be named, or else just shut the plant down altogether.
It’s nice that you don’t have crap like this in your neighborhood. Some of the rest of us do. These aren’t academic or hypothetical issues.
A more salient question, I think.
A more salient question, I think.
Even better: of the things that we could do (including doing nothing), where does each potentially lie on the spectrum between being the best (right) thing to do and being the worst (wrong) thing to do?
In short, since all of our options include potential up-sides and potential down-sides, we need to look at both. And at how likely they are. Something may have a huge potential down-side, but one which is extremely unlikely. Another may have a high probability down-side, but it just amounts to there maybe being an even better option that we don’t know yet.
Even better: of the things that we could do (including doing nothing), where does each potentially lie on the spectrum between being the best (right) thing to do and being the worst (wrong) thing to do?
In short, since all of our options include potential up-sides and potential down-sides, we need to look at both. And at how likely they are. Something may have a huge potential down-side, but one which is extremely unlikely. Another may have a high probability down-side, but it just amounts to there maybe being an even better option that we don’t know yet.
A more salient question, I think.
If you do any collection of things, some of them will turn out to be wrong. When that becomes clear, you do something else.
And, that includes doing nothing, because doing nothing is always actually something you choose. And making choices are, in the end, something one does.
You take your best shot given the information you have.
Based on the information we appear to have, IMO “do nothing” is not our best shot.
A more salient question, I think.
If you do any collection of things, some of them will turn out to be wrong. When that becomes clear, you do something else.
And, that includes doing nothing, because doing nothing is always actually something you choose. And making choices are, in the end, something one does.
You take your best shot given the information you have.
Based on the information we appear to have, IMO “do nothing” is not our best shot.
I use an incandescent instead of a CFL, or LED when you get around to mandating those, what’s the “externality”? I use more electricity.
I use more electricity if I leave my computer on at night. If I leave the hall light on so my son doesn’t have nightmares. If I replace that incandescent I was using as a space heater with bonus light with a much more expensive actual space heater and CFL combo. My use of electricity, no matter how it comes about, is neatly captured in one metric: My electric bill, which I pay each month.
So you never had any excuse to intrude into my home, and dictate how I use my electricity. You never had any excuse to stick your nose into anybody’s affairs, dictate anybody’s choice of lighting technology. All you had to do was take it up with the electric company. They’re the ones burning coal or atoms, not me. Extract your blasted externalities from THEM, the people actually imposing them, and leave me out of it. I’ll get the bill in the end, and be more free in the meantime.
But I might chose to economize in some way other than the way you wanted, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
What you’ve got here is a general purpose excuse liberals use to subject everything to regulation: You just refuse to draw lines. Everything is interconnected, so an excuse to regulate anywhere is an excuse to regulate everywhere.
I use an incandescent instead of a CFL, or LED when you get around to mandating those, what’s the “externality”? I use more electricity.
I use more electricity if I leave my computer on at night. If I leave the hall light on so my son doesn’t have nightmares. If I replace that incandescent I was using as a space heater with bonus light with a much more expensive actual space heater and CFL combo. My use of electricity, no matter how it comes about, is neatly captured in one metric: My electric bill, which I pay each month.
So you never had any excuse to intrude into my home, and dictate how I use my electricity. You never had any excuse to stick your nose into anybody’s affairs, dictate anybody’s choice of lighting technology. All you had to do was take it up with the electric company. They’re the ones burning coal or atoms, not me. Extract your blasted externalities from THEM, the people actually imposing them, and leave me out of it. I’ll get the bill in the end, and be more free in the meantime.
But I might chose to economize in some way other than the way you wanted, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
What you’ve got here is a general purpose excuse liberals use to subject everything to regulation: You just refuse to draw lines. Everything is interconnected, so an excuse to regulate anywhere is an excuse to regulate everywhere.
I think there was a Rush song that mentions this, so of course I knew it all along.
😉
I think there was a Rush song that mentions this, so of course I knew it all along.
😉
Brett, so what you are saying is, since you might choose to ride your bike more in order to cut fuel usage, laws which mandated more fuel-efficient engines for autos were an unconscionable infringement on your freedom? At least, I cannot see how it would be different….
Brett, so what you are saying is, since you might choose to ride your bike more in order to cut fuel usage, laws which mandated more fuel-efficient engines for autos were an unconscionable infringement on your freedom? At least, I cannot see how it would be different….
What you’ve got here is a general purpose excuse liberals use to subject everything to regulation
What you’ve got here is a reductio ad bellemoreum:
Everything is a liberal plot to expand the scope of government.
And that, in turn, is a function of liberals’ neurotic need to tell everyone else what to do.
The rest is irrelevant.
What you’ve got here is a general purpose excuse liberals use to subject everything to regulation
What you’ve got here is a reductio ad bellemoreum:
Everything is a liberal plot to expand the scope of government.
And that, in turn, is a function of liberals’ neurotic need to tell everyone else what to do.
The rest is irrelevant.
But I might chose to economize in some way other than the way you wanted, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
well, you can. but it would prove that you’re not serious about economizing at all.
all or nothing, baby. all or nothing.
But I might chose to economize in some way other than the way you wanted, and we can’t have that, now, can we?
well, you can. but it would prove that you’re not serious about economizing at all.
all or nothing, baby. all or nothing.
Incandescent bulbs are extremely inefficient at producing a given amount of light. It’s really that simple, regardless of what source of energy we use. And we can’t simply shut down all the power plants that burn objectionable fuels without causing serious disruptions to the functions of our society and economy. Changing the type of light bulbs we use is relatively painless.
If the government mandated LEDs tomorrow, I wouldn’t mind so much. It would make the choice a lot easier, and I could offset the cost by buying less beer or not going out to eat as often – in other words, economize elsewhere. That’s life.
Economies of scale being what they are, LEDs would come down in price pretty quickly anyway, and I could ramp my beer consumption and dining out back up in short order.
All that aside, it may well be that I’m just being cheap when I’m standing there in front of all the light bulbs on the shelf, not wanting to shell out some extra marginal amount of money in the short term, even though the energy savings and extended service life would make it cheaper for me in the long run. Thanks for being smarter than I am, government!
Incandescent bulbs are extremely inefficient at producing a given amount of light. It’s really that simple, regardless of what source of energy we use. And we can’t simply shut down all the power plants that burn objectionable fuels without causing serious disruptions to the functions of our society and economy. Changing the type of light bulbs we use is relatively painless.
If the government mandated LEDs tomorrow, I wouldn’t mind so much. It would make the choice a lot easier, and I could offset the cost by buying less beer or not going out to eat as often – in other words, economize elsewhere. That’s life.
Economies of scale being what they are, LEDs would come down in price pretty quickly anyway, and I could ramp my beer consumption and dining out back up in short order.
All that aside, it may well be that I’m just being cheap when I’m standing there in front of all the light bulbs on the shelf, not wanting to shell out some extra marginal amount of money in the short term, even though the energy savings and extended service life would make it cheaper for me in the long run. Thanks for being smarter than I am, government!
What you’ve got here is a general purpose excuse liberals use to subject everything to regulation
What you’ve got here is Brett’s idee fixe:
Everything is an example of a liberal attempt to expand the scope of government.
Because liberals think only and always of telling other people how to run their lives.
There can be no other explanation.
What you’ve got here is a general purpose excuse liberals use to subject everything to regulation
What you’ve got here is Brett’s idee fixe:
Everything is an example of a liberal attempt to expand the scope of government.
Because liberals think only and always of telling other people how to run their lives.
There can be no other explanation.
If the liberals here weren’t defending, exactly, telling people how to run their lives, that might be a cutting remark. As it is, I’m not the one dismissing as trivial complaints about forcing people to knuckle under to liberals’ preferences.
You’ve got no principled stopping point for messing with other people’s lives, ordering other people around. You think that your belief something is a good idea is entitlement enough to order people to do it.
Fundamentally, “liberals” have no respect for liberty.
If the liberals here weren’t defending, exactly, telling people how to run their lives, that might be a cutting remark. As it is, I’m not the one dismissing as trivial complaints about forcing people to knuckle under to liberals’ preferences.
You’ve got no principled stopping point for messing with other people’s lives, ordering other people around. You think that your belief something is a good idea is entitlement enough to order people to do it.
Fundamentally, “liberals” have no respect for liberty.
Ah, liberty. Freedom to do things, and to have things done to you, unfettered by any cruel, liberty-hating association based on anything beyond the freedom to spend one’s money to do whatever the hell you want to whosoever lacks the financial wherewithal to resist your freedom.
We’ll have none of that freedom from crap polluting our liberty’s purity of essence, no siree!
Ah, liberty. Freedom to do things, and to have things done to you, unfettered by any cruel, liberty-hating association based on anything beyond the freedom to spend one’s money to do whatever the hell you want to whosoever lacks the financial wherewithal to resist your freedom.
We’ll have none of that freedom from crap polluting our liberty’s purity of essence, no siree!
I’m trying to decide which line of Russell was better
“because chicken coop”
or
“What you’ve got here is a reductio ad bellemoreum”
which got caught up in the spam filter and Russell rewrote it, but I approved the original because I’m imagining it delivered by Strother Martin’s character in Cool Hand Luke.
I’m trying to decide which line of Russell was better
“because chicken coop”
or
“What you’ve got here is a reductio ad bellemoreum”
which got caught up in the spam filter and Russell rewrote it, but I approved the original because I’m imagining it delivered by Strother Martin’s character in Cool Hand Luke.
The thing is, I brought up the incandescent bulb issue, way upthread, as what I thought would be a sort of laughable example of what some folks see as An Assault On Liberty.
I figured it would get a laugh, and we’d all move on. Silly me.
Was the ban on asbestos as a building material an affront to liberty?
The ban on leaded gas?
Etc etc etc.
First of all, the “ban on incandescents” is simply a regulation about power consumption by bulbs. Incandescents aren’t specifically banned, they simply are not efficient enough to meet the standard.
Second, a wide variety of incandescents are exempt. Appliance bulbs, rough service bulbs, three-ways, all exempt.
Never fear, your chickens can still be warm.
The thing is, I brought up the incandescent bulb issue, way upthread, as what I thought would be a sort of laughable example of what some folks see as An Assault On Liberty.
I figured it would get a laugh, and we’d all move on. Silly me.
Was the ban on asbestos as a building material an affront to liberty?
The ban on leaded gas?
Etc etc etc.
First of all, the “ban on incandescents” is simply a regulation about power consumption by bulbs. Incandescents aren’t specifically banned, they simply are not efficient enough to meet the standard.
Second, a wide variety of incandescents are exempt. Appliance bulbs, rough service bulbs, three-ways, all exempt.
Never fear, your chickens can still be warm.
Perhaps Brett is directing his ire in the wrong direction.
Industry, Not Environmentalists, Killed Traditional Light Bulbs
Perhaps Brett is directing his ire in the wrong direction.
Industry, Not Environmentalists, Killed Traditional Light Bulbs
heated or not, coops are an infringement on free range chickens.
heated or not, coops are an infringement on free range chickens.