Conservatives and climate change

[TheSapient]

Answer the question, please. [SNIP]
I find continually having to correct things people say a bit tiring. There's no reason, if you have a firm position, to have to mis represent other peoples' position.

Another possibility is that he's just goofed.

Whatever. Generally is is yet another type of derail into personality, a way to not address the topic at hand.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

Misrepresenting people is the core technique you use. You say that Democrats are "anti-energy". You say that people who agree with the scientific consensus are "eco-fascists". You say that people who want sensible regulations really want "depressions on depressions". And so on. None of these claims do you even attempt to support.

I know you are in a bit of bind here, dedicating yourself to political positions that can't be defended with evidence or logic. But do you really think it is wise for you to pretend you care about honesty, given your history?

 

[johnny karate]

Equating acceptance of the scientific consensus with faith is just making you look less credible. All that's being asked of you is that you show that you are at least rational enough to agree that the people who spend their lives studying AGW are the best placed to determine whether or not it is happening. If you can't do that, you're unlikely to be rational enough to be worth engaging in a debate on public policy.

Fascinating comment you have there.

However, I can't think of any university or public discussion where your view would be allowed. You'd be butt kicked out on the street with that attitude.

If you honestly can't think of any university where rational thought and adherence to accepted science is allowed, you might want to broaden your experience with colleges beyond the clown and barber variety.

 

[mhaze]

Misrepresenting people is the core technique you use. You say that Democrats are "anti-energy". You say that people who agree with the scientific consensus are "eco-fascists". You say that people who want sensible regulations really want "depressions on depressions". And so on. None of these claims do you even attempt to support.

I know you are in a bit of bind here, dedicating yourself to political positions that can't be defended with evidence or logic. But do you really think it is wise for you to pretend you care about honesty, given your history?

Actually I'm not seeing any bind. I'm seeing tiny little mousetraps. For example, when I make a comment explicitly called a "sweeping generalization", you read a bit too much into it. Maybe you are a little bit too sensitive. Tough.

Then when I offer an alternative...

"and the idea of fanatical ecofascists, that we should burden economies with huge costs in "carbon taxes", said economies being already in the most severe economic downturn since the great depression, is even crazier"...


You think nobody notices that you conveniently translated a comment specifically stated as being the concept of fanatical ecofascists, to being equal to "people who agree with the scientific consensus".
.
But those are not the same. So what you've done is misrepresent what I've said. Basically, lying. So I let it slide.

Then you didn't like my comment about depressions on top of depressions.

My, my, my. Certainly are lots of things you don't like.

But none of that is substantive is it? And the substantive issue I asked you were silent on.

Please point me to an economic forecast dated fifty years PRIOR (on or about 1962) that comes anywhere near in accuracy to predicting today. Let's see it. Look for key phrases and buzz words like...

personal computer, SARS, router, velcro, ipad, mobile phone, GPS, space shuttle, linux, cadcam, predator drone, ETF transfer, on line banking, satellite tv, genetic engineering, nanotech, on line dating....

I'll stop there. You get the picture. Let me know about this, please. Because given the exponential rate of technology growth, the next fifty years should dwarf the last fifty years. Since the world economy is highly dependent on these factors, surely you are up to this small task?

I think it's a reasonable question and a practical approach. If you don't, let me know why.

 

[TheSapient]

Actually I'm not seeing any bind. I'm seeing tiny little mousetraps. For example, when I make a comment explicitly called a "sweeping generalization", you read a bit too much into it. Maybe you are a little bit too sensitive. Tough.

Then when I offer an alternative...

"and the idea of fanatical ecofascists, that we should burden economies with huge costs in "carbon taxes", said economies being already in the most severe economic downturn since the great depression, is even crazier"...


You think nobody notices that you conveniently translated a comment specifically stated as being the concept of fanatical ecofascists, to being equal to "people who agree with the scientific consensus".
.
But those are not the same. So what you've done is misrepresent what I've said. Basically, lying. So I let it slide.

Then you didn't like my comment about depressions on top of depressions.

My, my, my. Certainly are lots of things you don't like.

But none of that is substantive is it? And the substantive issue I asked you were silent on.

Please point me to an economic forecast dated fifty years PRIOR (on or about 1962) that comes anywhere near in accuracy to predicting today. Let's see it. Look for key phrases and buzz words like...

personal computer, SARS, router, velcro, ipad, mobile phone, GPS, space shuttle, linux, cadcam, predator drone, ETF transfer, on line banking, satellite tv, genetic engineering, nanotech, on line dating....

I'll stop there. You get the picture. Let me know about this, please. Because given the exponential rate of technology growth, the next fifty years should dwarf the last fifty years. Since the world economy is highly dependent on these factors, surely you are up to this small task?

I think it's a reasonable question and a practical approach. If you don't, let me know why.

So if it is OK that you base your arguments on science and economics on false positions you assign to other people, why are you pretending to find this practice objectionable?

You are right, though, that I did not bother to defend a position you falsely assigned to me. I bet you can't figure out why.

 

[Krikkiter]

Actually I'm not seeing any bind. I'm seeing tiny little mousetraps. For example, when I make a comment explicitly called a "sweeping generalization", you read a bit too much into it. Maybe you are a little bit too sensitive. Tough.

Then when I offer an alternative...

"and the idea of fanatical ecofascists, that we should burden economies with huge costs in "carbon taxes", said economies being already in the most severe economic downturn since the great depression, is even crazier"...


You think nobody notices that you conveniently translated a comment specifically stated as being the concept of fanatical ecofascists, to being equal to "people who agree with the scientific consensus".
.
But those are not the same. So what you've done is misrepresent what I've said. Basically, lying. So I let it slide.
<snip>

FWIW, what I took from the bolded statement is:

People who advocate carbon taxes are "fanatical ecofascists." I'm really not sure how else that statement could be interpreted. Most people who advocate carbon taxes would generally agree with the scientific consensus right?

 

[Travis]

Fascinating comment you have there.

However, I can't think of any university or public discussion where your view would be allowed. You'd be butt kicked out on the street with that attitude.

I'm sure there are circles where you could get away with it. Like earlier, Travis mentioned being shunned from a group because he had pro nuclear attitudes

I should point out there wasn't an actual scientist in that group. Instead it was a bunch of activist students who approached the whole thing from a political ideology. And they were wrong for doing that. Just as it is wrong to simply say AGW isn't real because you are approaching things from another political point of view.

 

[DC]

Fascinating comment you have there.

However, I can't think of any university or public discussion where your view would be allowed. You'd be butt kicked out on the street with that attitude.

I'm sure there are circles where you could get away with it. Like earlier, Travis mentioned being shunned from a group because he had pro nuclear attitudes.

Gee, I wonder....Maybe you could ask the moderators for rules requiring a profession of belief on JREF prior to any discussion about consequences of possible climate change?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Many people would agree with the analogy, but that doesn't have much to do with a cost benefit analysis. One viable option, as noted in the OP, is to simply do nothing. Arguing against that can't be done except on a cost benefit basis. Neither is it necessarily true that governments must act, nor is it true that "the problem must be fixed".

I am of the opinion that an ethical "green" morality as you have espoused will not work. It has advantages of simplicity and understand ability and could be used in propaganda messages to the public. That might help you rake in cash for supposed "green taxes".

What you (and stokes234) are requesting is not just a profession of faith, but of a "green altruism". Altruism is typically giving without critical examination or discrimination. Here, you'd like to see the public "giving to the government" without comprehensive review of practicality, engineering feasibility, or utility. Or (quite likely) the monies just go into the general coffers and some lame excuses are offered as to what it was spent on.

Using tactics of fear and intimidation against the opposition and pulling the guilt and fear knobs might work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM

Why not just crank it up a bit? After all, it's for a Good Cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTknP8t7JU

Wouldn't want those people speaking out with independent views. No, we couldn't have that, could we....

all your drivel of faith is psychological projection.

 

[DC]

Liar. No...wait. I'm sure you can prove you are not a liar. That would only involve showing where I've said the bolded part above.

But let me say this. Given that you are lying for a Good Cause, that makes it okay, right?

Saving the Planet...ya gotta pull out all the stops for that righteous crusade.

then why don't you answer questions regarding fossil fuel subsidies? does it challange your belief system?

 

[DC]

Answer the question, please, without wasting peoples' time. Or just STFU.

I find continually having to correct things people say a bit tiring. There's no reason, if you have a firm position, to have to mis represent other peoples' position. Several people on this forum do this routinely. That's simply the level of their debating skills or lack of.

Another possibility is that he's just goofed.

Whatever. Generally is is yet another type of derail into personality, a way to not address the topic at hand.

Profit? Or cost? Any large scale switch to renewables would impact the electric costs to the poor in accordance directly with the fraction of renewables.

I'm excluding hydro and geothermal.

The truth is that the rich could, in many cases, afford to pay 10x for power from wind or solar, but the poor could not.

That's the exact REVERSE of your claim, isn't it...

can you show me the cost benefit analysis that justify the fossil fuel subsidies?

 

[DC]

Actually I'm not seeing any bind. I'm seeing tiny little mousetraps. For example, when I make a comment explicitly called a "sweeping generalization", you read a bit too much into it. Maybe you are a little bit too sensitive. Tough.

Then when I offer an alternative...

"and the idea of fanatical ecofascists, that we should burden economies with huge costs in "carbon taxes", said economies being already in the most severe economic downturn since the great depression, is even crazier"...


You think nobody notices that you conveniently translated a comment specifically stated as being the concept of fanatical ecofascists, to being equal to "people who agree with the scientific consensus".
.
But those are not the same. So what you've done is misrepresent what I've said. Basically, lying. So I let it slide.

Then you didn't like my comment about depressions on top of depressions.

My, my, my. Certainly are lots of things you don't like.

But none of that is substantive is it? And the substantive issue I asked you were silent on.

Please point me to an economic forecast dated fifty years PRIOR (on or about 1962) that comes anywhere near in accuracy to predicting today. Let's see it. Look for key phrases and buzz words like...

personal computer, SARS, router, velcro, ipad, mobile phone, GPS, space shuttle, linux, cadcam, predator drone, ETF transfer, on line banking, satellite tv, genetic engineering, nanotech, on line dating....

I'll stop there. You get the picture. Let me know about this, please. Because given the exponential rate of technology growth, the next fifty years should dwarf the last fifty years. Since the world economy is highly dependent on these factors, surely you are up to this small task?

I think it's a reasonable question and a practical approach. If you don't, let me know why.

so instead of supporting any of your claims with evidence, you just demand evidence from others.... well that made me atleast laugh, lucky most people on this forum are rational beings and not lunatics that blindly follow their ideology.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Being objective and removed from the conversation, is there actual evidence from the "deniers" that global warming does not exist? I have found some excellent studies from neutral scientist that suggests that the world is naturally warming up by itself, but even these studies suggest that humans are playing a part (however small it may be) in the increase of global temperatures. Besides this sort of pragmatic position, I was unable to find any reliable denial studies on the subject. How is it that nearly seventy plus percent of the scientific establishment can be wrong on a subject? If there is a reliable denial study I'd love to see it.

 

[SezMe]

How is it that nearly seventy plus percent of the scientific establishment can be wrong on a subject?

Most folks cite 97%-98%. Where did your seventy come from?

 

[bit_pattern]

I had a very interesting experience tonight. I was asked to present at the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators meeting, on climate change and denial. I normally present on science, antiscience, and politics, and have a lot of supporters on both sides of the aisle. But because I was focusing just on climate change, the republicans in the audience were offended by points and slides that they otherwise are not because they are otherwise balanced out by examples of antiscience by democrats (eg vaccines, cell phones cause brain cancer, etc). This presents an interesting question about climate change communication. When a science issue comes to be viewed as partisan, to what degree is it ethical to accept that and change your communication, even if your are communicating knowledge and not opinion?​

Shawn Otto

 

[Travis]

So is that what is going on? Republicans think they can be wrong on climate change because a bunch of Democrats were wrong about cell phone cancer?

Think about the implications here:

If you are wrong about cell phones causing cancer then......oh well you wasted a bunch of time and energy.

If you are wrong about climate change we have droughts, species extinctions, floods and rising sea levels to contend with.

 

[stokes234]

Why not? The "request is standard".

Go ahead, ask the moderators.

Postscript: There are precedents. For example, I think possibly at the Oral Roberts University, professions of beliefs might be required for employment and might be required premises for discussion. I guess, then I'm agreeing with you in part. In some places, the request is standard.

If you refuse to state that you agree that the scientific consensus is correct, then engaging in debate about public policy with you would be like discussing the best around-the-world flight path with someone who believes the earth is flat. Pointless.

 

[mhaze]

I should point out there wasn't an actual scientist in that group. Instead it was a bunch of activist students who approached the whole thing from a political ideology. And they were wrong for doing that. Just as it is wrong to simply say AGW isn't real because you are approaching things from another political point of view.

Not markedly different than what we see here, likely.

FWIW, what I took from the bolded statement is:

People who advocate carbon taxes are "fanatical ecofascists." I'm really not sure how else that statement could be interpreted. Most people who advocate carbon taxes would generally agree with the scientific consensus right?

No, they might think it was far too weak.

And to note that the subgroup of greens who are fanatical ecofascists advocate carbon taxes does not imply that the reverse attribution is made.

can you show me the cost benefit analysis that justify the fossil fuel subsidies?

You mean the subsidies that Lomiller has falsely said I favor?

If you refuse to state that you agree that the scientific consensus is correct, then engaging in debate about public policy with you would be like discussing the best around-the-world flight path with someone who believes the earth is flat. Pointless.

Well, I think that the matter as it is thrashed out politically, will have no such ridiculous constraints. And so in the real world, the results of policy decision making will not be based on discussions with your bars to entry.

So I'm fine with not discussing it with you.

 

[BenBurch]

Republicans ALL favor subsidies. They are just not honest about it. They call them lots and lots of other things, but they involve business sticking the People with the bill while the 1%-ers eat lark's vomit canapés and get served by "the little people."

 

[mhaze]

If you refuse to state that you agree that the scientific consensus is correct, then engaging in debate about public policy with you would be like discussing the best around-the-world flight path with someone who believes the earth is flat. Pointless.

On second thought, I think you are completely wrong. Here's why.

Ben, Trakker and I all personally favor nuclear energy. We may come to that point from way different perspectives, but on a imperative for a huge expansion of nuclear, we agree. It would be ridiculous for Ben, Trakker and Mhaze to refuse to discuss nuclear energy unless they all agreed first of all on some common set of beliefs regarding some vague creed on "climate change".

I'm sure you can think of many examples of that sort.

 

[AlBell]

...

business sticking the People with the bill while the 1%-ers eat lark's vomit canapés and get served by "the little people."

Do you honestly suggest large wealth transfer from the first world will solve that?

What it will do is move more politically connected people into the 1%.

 

[lomiller]

Being objective and removed from the conversation, is there actual evidence from the "deniers" that global warming does not exist? I have found some excellent studies from neutral scientist that suggests that the world is naturally warming up by itself, but even these studies suggest that humans are playing a part (however small it may be) in the increase of global temperatures. Besides this sort of pragmatic position, I was unable to find any reliable denial studies on the subject.

Papers that dispute the consensus are exceedingly rare.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.