[Industrialblog,
May 3, 2006]
More on contempt
Caitlyn Flanagan on her forced march to the GOP:
The Democrats made a huge tactical error a few decades ago. In the middle of doing the great work of the '60s--civil rights, women's liberation, gay inclusion--we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues-paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us. And he took the wife and kids with him.
And now here we are, living in a country with a political and economic agenda we deplore, losing election after election and wondering why.
It's the contempt, stupid.
In other news, did you hear the Beatles broke up?
damn.
heh.
The best thing that could happen In American politics would be for the Democratic Party to just disband.
Then we can have a meaningful debate between the two factions in the GOP: the Old School social/financial Conservatives and the Interventionist-NeoCon/Big Government Fundamentalists who are currently driving the bus.
==========
TWS -not sure if you were kidding about the Global Warming thing - but, even GOP senators are taking it seriously oh - and this guy too.. So -yeah -junk science? I guess in the same way that cigarettes causing cancer was junk science....
Who's advocating appeasement and Marxist economics? huh?
Plenty of financial conservatives are not social conservatives, and plenty of interventionalists are not pro-big government. Just look at Instapundit.
Cigarettes causing cancer and predicting the future temperature of the world are two different types of activities.
If they weren't, weathermen would be able to give 10 day health forcasts.
And do you really want to get into a list of things scientists were sure of and were completely wrong? I mean, Global Warming is for sure, just like pellagra being caused by a virus. Or like the luminiferous aether.
Where does pointing out historical success or failure of science get us? Do you really want us to tally things up and then figure out whether all of the scientists who make their living by predicting global warming are right? At this point, all of the moneyed interests are on the side of predicting global warming.
and plenty of lefties aren't ganja smoking, Marxist economics supporting, appeasement monkeys.
Hey - if you guys can paint in overly broad strokes - so can I.
Interesting rhetorical exercise. I'm not sure what the point would be - other than we should ignore scientific arguments that we find inconvenient. Fortunately, that isn't an option in public policy when you're got the preponderance of credible evidence that Global Warming does.
Re: the cigarette issue - 20 to 30 years, tobacco interests argued against warning labels. First by publishing "research" that showed there wasn't a cancer risk. Later by pressure on Congress to limit the power of the FTC to require them to put labels on their packages.
Their strategy is not disimiliar from that employed by Global Warming opponents.
In both cases, the more credible science has won out. (with Global Warming we're headed in that direction - but with increasing numbers of Repubs coming on board it's looking inevitable). Which is nice - it's gratifying to see yet another Bush administration talking point being abandoned by his own party.
Gratifying - but it's likely it doesn't matter too much anymore- we're probably too late for corrective action to make much difference.
Kyoto would accomplish nothing. It would only cripple our economy in exchange for some delay in global warming.
Let me tell you -- you don't want to be right on this. If you are, then we're fucked, plain and simple, and there isn't a damned thing you or George Bush or Al Gore or anyone else can do about it. We'd need a worldwide ban on internal combustion, and even then, we'd have a 50-year lag and so many variables it's unlikely anything would work.
I've heard respected scientists from some of biggest research organizations say back in 1988 that we needed a ban on the internal-combustion engine and clearing land in the Third World.
We easily could be entering into a warmer period in the Earth's history. The Earth's been warmer than this before, and it's been colder. Maybe we should just enjoy it.
Our best shot is through -- let's work on technology that will reduce emissions without crippling our economies. And that will occur naturally as an economic matter in the next century, whether or not we attempt to guide it.
"Interesting rhetorical exercise. I'm not sure what the point would be - other than we should ignore scientific arguments that we find inconvenient."
You're holding science up as an authority. I've pointed out that your authority has been completely convinced before, and completely wrong. The point is that the opinions of science are not admissable as an unquestioned authority. You are capable of at least rudimentary logic, right? Or is science some sort of religion for you, and questioning science is like questioning a literal interpretation of the bible to creationists?
If questioning science is, to you, unthinkable heresy, then let's please drop the subject.
Supposing you don't hold science as a religion:
I don't find global warming inconvenient. If we're really causing something, then we need to start a big program of planting crops to bury them underground to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Problem solved, and without too much stress or cost.
I find the current global warming stuff to be an amazing pile of unscientific crap. This is as simple as you can get. You make predictions, then test them. You want to show me a model which predicts the next 100 years? Fine. Predict 100 years, we'll wait around, and see if you were right. Repeat 4 or 5 times and now your model is credible.
The mere fact that people wear lab coats doesn't make what they do science. No one understands the environment -- it's far too complex. No one has accurate information on what increased CO2 does to plant growth, cloud coverage, etc. To know what temperature does to plant growth, you need to know what the actual plants are, because they'll all respond differently, and they'll all use CO2 differently. We don't have any near-perfect models of cloud formation yet. There are a lot of other factors, as well. Will rock exposed from ice absord CO2?
By the way, does it not bother you even slightly that global warming is an industry where the people researching it only get money if global warming is real and dangerous? The tabacco companies had a large financial interest in tabacco being healthy. Climate researchers have a big financial interest in the importance of climate research to save us all.
But tell me, what are the predictions of global warming? Specifically, what will happen when. You keep talking about "global warming", but you're very vague. When will there be a 10' rise in ocean levels? What year will manhattan become uninhabitable? Please, give us specifics. I'd like to know when the forced evactuation of manhattan will take place, as I'll be able to make a fortune in the futures markets.
Happily, this isn't the way things work.
As for the financial aspect, lets be honest -both sides have financial stakes - and the energy industry historically has a lot of sway in DC.
The preponderance of credible scientific research supports Global Warming - as increasing numbers of elected officials from your own party are conceding.
I have no interest whatsoever in debating the details of Global Warming theory with you. You say you've got a science journalism background - if that's true - you've got the skills you need to research it yourself. It'd probably be good exercise for you to get away from writing rhetoric and do some research and critical analysis on an issue.
On the other hand - if you can actually make a convincing argument based on credible research against Global Warming - you really should write some letters to the growing numbers of Republican Governors, Senators and Congressmen who are switching sides.
The old stale talking points just arent working anymore - if you've actually something better - - well, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party......
I've never claimed to have a science journalism background, nor anything like it. My background is in math and computer science, with friends in science from whom I learn as much as I can, because I've had a deep and abiding interest in science. And as such, I can tell the difference between a computer model and a physics experiment.
And I've studied the history of science, and found out how often popular scientific opinion was wrong.
As to "the preponderance of credible scientific research", fine. Take science as a religion if you want.
Why aren't you talking about programs to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere, if all you care about is science?
And why the ever living fuck are you talking about what elected officials believe? What on earth, or in space, or anywhere else in the universe has the preponderance of uninformed opinion to do with anything at all? Are you seriously trying to use elected officials as some sort of authority on science? Are you genuinely insane?
One other question. Why is the environment the one complex dynamic system about which scientists can make accurate long-term predictions? What's special about the environment that makes it workable, whereas every other complex dynamic system (e.g. the Stock Market, the weather) doesn't admit of this?
No, you know what? you've convinced me. No matter how wrong science has been or might be, we've got to always act in accordance with scientific preponderance of opinion.
But the problem is that we've already burned all but the last few drops of oil anyway, and we've already burned all of that coal. So, we've obviously got to do two things: (1) stop burning more and (2) put all that released carbon back.
So, that means that we're going to have to switch over to nuclear power, right? Fuck the anti-nuclear lobby, and full steam ahead. You're with me, right? We'll bring as many nuclear plants online as it takes to remove all other sources, and then away we go. Plus we'll need more in order to make the hydrogen to power the fuel cell cars.
But that's only half of it. There's all that CO2 in the air which, if left unchecked, will continually heat the earth's crust until it's an unlivable cinder. So, we've got to get it all out. So we'll need some sort of massive carbon sink. So we need to pour money into that as fast as we can.
How are we going to fund all of this? Cutting consumption isn't enough, since we need to undo the damage already done. We've got to build the enormous carbon sink. So we need a viable economy to undertake something so massive, so we can't do it through heavy taxes, or before we have the technology to keep the economy going despite cutting CO2 emissions. So we need some source of a lot of money that won't significantly hurt the economy (hence we can't just print it up, either).
The only solution that I can see is to euthanize all of the retired people who aren't working any more, and then devote the entire budget of social security into saving the planet. It's only temporary, though. Once we have the CO2 back in the ground, we can let old people live and fund social security again.
Or is there some easier way of getting all of that deadly CO2 back into the ground that I'm missing?
I don't think you read my post. I have no interest in debating you on Global Warming. (this may or may not be because I'm familiar with your method of "debating")
I don't have a particular problem with nuclear power - -Um..I'm guessing from the tone of your response that you do? Or were you just being snarky? Honestly it's very very hard to tell with you. Do you have a problem with nuclear power? If so - why? Are you just assuming that I'd have a problem with nuclear power? Why? On second thought, never mind.
If you want to investigate it and debunk the research that growing numbers of elected Republicans find compelling - do it! Really. It'd be nice to see a Repub Global Warming opponent with well-thought responses and counters to current research. Too often your side relies on old talking points and verbal bombast (see my previous remark about your snarkiness.)
I'm not trying to convince you. Nor do I have to.
Here's what you don't get - key members of your own party are giving up on opposing Global Warming research. They're declaring the science sound. Their numbers are growing - and they're predicting having enough support and to be able to pass legislation in the next few years (maybe sooner).
I would say it's because the GOP is slowly waking up to what the rest of the industrialized world has taken for fact for a long time.
You might argue - heck I don't know - that's it the result of the wealthy environmental protection concerns in alliance with the vast Left-Wing Media conspiracy.
Looks to me like you're losing the battle. If this angers you as much as it seems to - I'm not the guy you need to argue with.
I can only presume that the defectors on your own side have heard this line of argument before (since it sure sounds like the party line that Energy concerns have been talking for years) and found it unconvincing. If that argument can't convince members of your own party - it's not wise to assume it would convince anyone else
Junk science abounds, and the issue is extremely politicized. You're trying to further politicize it, Mike, by making it sound like the GOP is just waking up to what everyone knows. This kind of condescension is annoying, to say the least. Let the facts come in, and we'll take a look. Sheesh.
For the record, every few years I look into this. I'm not doing it today, though.
WRT global warming... what we should be doing is looking at how we can survive in a hotter future... Let's not forget that the world had been through a series of ice ages and only very recently in geologic time scales has it had some well behaved temperatures. A little warming to stave off some of an ice age wasn't really a bad thing for mankind.
If you have some good ideas on how to profit from global warming, let me know. I'd like to look at the future in a more positive light.
profit from global warming? invade canada. those bastards are so smug!
Are you honestly, seriously trying to claim that a growing number of politcians believing something about science means anything at all?
And do you really not understand that there's no way to disprove the foundation of someone's predictions of the future besides to wait and see? You can point out things that are significant that they're obviously missing because such things are impossible to get accurate numbers for with current technology (e.g. how much will the increased plant growth in warmer temperatures cool the planet?), but this is easily dismissible, since anyone can dismiss anything as not very significant when it comes to computer modeling small data sets. What evidence would you even accept as disproving man-made global warming destroying the planet?
And for the record, I'm a registered Democrat, and I don't care much about either party.
But who cares about all that. In this comment thread I'm a convert. Man-made global warming accounts for 100% or more of the global warming that we've seen. It's a threat that's going to kill us all off if we don't take drastic action. In this thread, consider me completely convinced. I'm 100% serious. I've got a Masters in mathematics. I can take anything as true for the sake of argument and be completely serious about it.
Now what?
Obviously we need to ram nuclear down everyone's throats as fast as possible, since this is a matter of life and death. There's too much opposition to nuclear to do it nicely (i.e. using the democratic process which has gotten us nowhere so far), and this is deadly serious. Do you think that sedition acts for people opposed to nuclear is going too far? Time is critical, after all, and the US burns way more coal than oil. Converting half of our electricity that comes from coal to nuclear and shutting down half the coal plants would reduce CO2 emissions more than if we came up with cars that got 100,000 miles to the gallon. How far should we got to achieve this? The future of humanity is at stake. What should we do?
And then there's the question of what to do with all of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We have to put it back — we must save the planet if we want to survive — so how do we do it? How do we pay for it? Obviously we can't stop fighting the terrorists, and we can't let our guard down to allow things like the DPRK taking over SK, so we've got to maintain our military budget. So where do we get the money to put into the technology and the eventual program to put the CO2 back into the ground as soon as possible. Obviously we need to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into this immediately — global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity. Where do we get these billions?
You've conquered; now govern. Where do you stand on the solutions to the most pressing issue that our species has ever faced?
Should we threaten nuclear annihilation on any country that doesn't sign and obey kyoto? The people who don't comply will make us all die, them included, so they're dead either way. And a nuclear winter might buy us some time to get rid of the CO2. What do you think? Too extreme? Too soft?
Profiting from global warming is easy, assuming that anarchy doesn't break out while people are still left. Just buy contracts to sell land in manhattan for very high prices (put options). That's the standard way to profit from an event that you know is going to make something of value worthless. Futures are also an option, though they entail more risk. But since the computer models used by the respected scientists are all perfectly accurate, you can't go wrong. And on the up side, if you want to realize your windfall early, as more people realize this and the price of the options approaches the profit that you'd make from them, you can sell the options to others and live in luxury before global warming catches you.
Alternatively, invest in summer clothing manufacturers, and buy put options on the manufacturers of all of the goods that are going to become worthless, such as insulation manufacturers, tire chain makers, snow shovel manufacturers, sweater companies, etc. Also, buy stock in air conditioner manufacturers, pool companies, Ben &Jerry's (well, I guess Unilever, now) etc.
Also, I would expect that bicycles and other human-powered tools will sell well.
So, yeah - I think there's at least one of us here who hasn't accepted Global Warming as a fact.
Regarding the Republican's just waking up to it - ok - I was being overly harsh. More and more, the GOP is accepting that
a) it's happening
b) that human activity likely contributes to it
As I mentioned before - a lot of GOP officials are on boards with it- and more are coming over every year.
By the same token - there are very notable holdouts. The Bush administration has been accused by researchers in both NASA and in the Dept of Energy of applying pressure to have reports written to downplay the impact of industrial activity on climate change.
My intent wasn't to condescend, just to point out that many of Bush's own party are leaving him behind on this issue.
As for letting the facts in - look, Chris has already told me that
a) Science is fallible and shouldn't be believed - because scientists have been wrong at various points in the past - so we shouldn't trust them. Ever apparently.
b) We especially can't trust scientists doing research about climate change because they stand to profit from Global Warming.
Having the battlefield defined like that - if you were in my shoes - would you want to try and make a rational argument about climate change in this forum? No, really?
Any point I make will refuted based on Chris' beliefs about how scientists are greedy schmucks who can't be believed no way, no how. And how can you argue with a perfectly constructed logical position like that?
And so then I'm stuck -what?- having to argue that some scientists are maybe not greedy and have professional ethics? And even if (big if) I get him to concede that point - then I'm stuck trying to make a case that science can be taken seriously? Yeah -I could maybe bring up penicillin or - I don't know - the Manhattan Project? The Apollo program? Electricity?
Yeah -umm - no, thanks. I have a day job - and I just don't have that kind of time.
Forget all of that. I'm a convert. We have to take science as an absolute authority no matter how many times science has been wrong. Let's talk about what we do now, please.
Opinions on how to save the planet from man-made global warming are all over the place. What are yours?
This doesn't change that in this thread I now believe that global warming is 100% caused by human industry, but there's kind of a big difference between happily believing in radiosonde and satellite data, and taking any trends that you see and then drawing a straight line out to infinity.
What? You want me to forget the all your previous posts? You're a convert for the sake of this thread?
Chris - I'm sorry. I honestly can't tell if you're being sincere or snarky. Maybe you're being 100 percent sincere - but it's pretty hard to tell.
You were pretty aggravated earlier - to the point of adopting a very snarky tone (see your above quote about wanting exact predictions for the flooding of New York) and even dropping the F-bomb.
I really can't believe that after all that - you've now changed your spots and want to have a genuine and rational discussion.
If I'm doing a disservice- I apologize.
As I said, I was a math major in college, and I got a Masters in Mathematics. I can take anything as true for the sake of a discussion, genuinely and sincerely. I can deal with defining any terms any way that you like at a moment's notice (provided the notice is given), and use them as defined without extra baggage.
I'd like to now, if you don't mind.
Please tell me, of the array of solutions people have for the man-made global warming threat, where do you stand?
I was born at night - but not last night, yaknow? And I'm too old to be baited into pointless flame wars.
To be honest - my only point on the whole subject was that while the Bush Administration is resisting the theory that human industry has contributed to global warming - the rest of the world - including more and more of their own party are accepting it.
Re: solutions - As I've probably mentioned before - I don't think there's a point at this late date. There's not much point in fixing your hair once you're under the guillotine. Some researchers are more hopeful. I wish them luck
If I had to name one solution - I'd throw a dart and say some equitable combination of emission reduction and emission trading is what seems most practical -barring alternative energy research coming up with something amazing.
But - I think we're way too late for it to matter and talk of solutions at this point is wishful thinking.
What did you study in college? No point, I'm just curious.
Anyhow, you don't think that there's any value to pursuing carbon sinks? I would think that that's far more important than reducing emissions, since so much damage has already been done.