tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post9194837663474152030..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: The science is settled [updated]Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-7500183340107636252013-08-22T14:57:20.711+12:002013-08-22T14:57:20.711+12:00Sam - even if it IS real what can you do about it ...Sam - even if it IS real what can you do about it anyway?<br /><br />The oceans will rise by 80 cm - so what?<br /><br />Ice in Greenland (or anywhere else) melts - so what?<br /><br />Anybody who has experienced winters in Christchurch or Invercargill (or New York) should be glad if it is going to get warmer! haha!<br /><br />Putting aside ideology for a moment, most of the scientists talking about this issue are the same people who, early in their careers back in the 1970s, were telling everyone an ice age was just around the corner.<br /><br />They cannot get their story straight for one thing!<br /><br />You just wait until the year 2035 - global warming will be shown to be a load of rubbish, and people like Kevin Rudd and B. Hussein Obama will be saying "thank god we acted when we did; government regulation saved mankind"<br /><br />Give me a break!<br /><br />This issue - like so many others - is about Marxists wanting to take mankind back to the 18th century.<br /><br />40 years ago - ice age: so better disinvent capitalism<br /><br />Today - global warming: so better disinvent capitalism<br /><br />2040 - temperatures neither up nor down: better disinvent capitalism (just to be on the safe side comrades!)Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58662865912814510312013-08-22T13:29:43.984+12:002013-08-22T13:29:43.984+12:00@Sam: AGW skepticism is is not actually cherry pic...@Sam: AGW skepticism is is not actually cherry picking science, it's realising ( to use your metaphor) that one actual cheery falsifies a whole gazillion models predicting apricots. <br /><br />In other words, and this is part of the point of the graph above (whose comparison of cherries and apricots you still haven't actually commented on) if the only place in which catastrophic warming is found is in the models, and the models don't actually describe reality, then how can you say the AGW hypothesis is proven?<br /><br />Further, as far as solutions to the problems posed by this unproven hypothesis go, Pete Boettke explains the simple solution above: "I have little doubt that bourgeois people operating in free, competitive, private-property-based markets will more than adequately deal with any problems - and take great advantage of any blessings - caused by climate change."<br /><br />In other words, the "action" governments take should not be to hobble private action, but to allow the natural organic adaptation process of the market to work.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-59762788129185015362013-08-22T12:38:15.538+12:002013-08-22T12:38:15.538+12:00@ Dolf
you should have added "naive" to...<br />@ Dolf<br /><br />you should have added "naive" to your list of insults - it took me a while to realise you might have posted your litttle attack on me off-thread so that the casual reader could not merely scroll up and see what was written, to see that you had in fact agreed with me etc. <br /><br />Clever you if that is what you were up to (but probably an old trick).<br /><br />So I am reposting on the original thread, so that an honest reader can judge for themselves.<br /><br />Mind you, the impression I am rapidly getting is that many people here might not really be interested, seeing as they do not really care that much about SOME government meddling as long as it suits THEM.the drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30376805617419541402013-08-22T12:38:13.037+12:002013-08-22T12:38:13.037+12:00Re Sam's BS (below):
The profits from the ca...Re Sam's BS (below): <br /><br />The profits from the capitalist element in countries will provide the funds if something needed to be done. But a warming <i>and</i> an increase in carbon dioxide will be beneficial, as anyone who owns a glasshouse will attest. <br /><br />But there is no use making sense of nonsense - a hoax - just to ask what it achieves. This hoax achieves the objectives of the technocracy. The parasitical class who always need more bodies from which to suck. <br /><br />The "solutions so far" are not solutions. Logically there can be no solutions when there is nothing to solve. The "solutions" you wet yourself over are the equivalent of a priest's penance meted out to the original sinner for the insolence of using his mind productively in dragging mankind from the depravity that the priest, and environmentalist, actually prefers.<br /><br /><i>"I really don't think Libertarians etc should be so threatened by the possibility something might need to be done. Sure all the solutions so far are basically regulatory, but that's because you've locked yourself out of the debate by cherry-picking your science."</i>gregsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04786701115887458801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61284239198583423522013-08-22T12:27:59.154+12:002013-08-22T12:27:59.154+12:00It would be simpler to calm the evangelicals down ...It would be simpler to calm the evangelicals down by referring them to back to scripture. Following the great flood, Genesis 8.22 records God's promise ..."While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."<br /> And in Psalm 104.5-8<br />But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.<br />9 You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-90546309448341491372013-08-22T12:11:16.434+12:002013-08-22T12:11:16.434+12:00Dolf
this is off-thread, but anyway...
I didnt e...Dolf<br /><br />this is off-thread, but anyway...<br /><br />I didnt expect you to resort "irrational" and "dishonest". I could say the same thing about your argument, but I wouldn't lower myself.<br /><br />I mean, for goodness sake, you said that you actually agreed with me. Was that a typo?<br /><br />Yeah, disappointment, well I am also diappointed that a libertarian blog has so little say about such government meddling. I get a horrible feeling there is an element of expedience in all of this; i.e government meddling is ok as long as it suits ME.<br /> <br />You will remember, I asked you for some other examples of definitions being changed by "sole purpose" legislation in order to simply reflect changing mores, but you couldnt give me any except to say there were many :(<br /><br />So I guess the disappointment cuts many ways. <br /><br /> the drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-21029403123756496352013-08-22T11:37:44.138+12:002013-08-22T11:37:44.138+12:00@Peter
You're right, I don't think us liv...@Peter<br /><br />You're right, I don't think us living in New Zealand can come close to comprehending the terrible influence of religion in the US.<br /><br />And although I'm strongly inclined to agree with the majority of climate scientists on this issue, I'm glad that there are dissenting <i>climate</i> scientists (such as Spencer, whose credentials are indeed excellent).<br /><br />What annoys me, however, is when other scientists (and especially non-scientists), pick and choose their experts based on their ideology. Sure, there are dissenting climate scientists, but for every of those there are a dozen or so who largely believe AGW is real.<br /><br />I would suggest the people who choose to ignore the majority of experts do so because they perceive global warming (and particularly the proposed solutions) to be a threat to their free-market ideals. The right gives up the high ground by being so nakedly anti-science on this issue, a high ground the environmental hard-left have gladly claimed.<br /><br />I really don't think Libertarians etc should be so threatened by the possibility something might need to be done. Sure all the solutions so far are basically regulatory, but that's because you've locked yourself out of the debate by cherry-picking your science.Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-49497442426495919942013-08-22T10:38:22.333+12:002013-08-22T10:38:22.333+12:00DW,
I have tried to have a reasoned argument wit...DW, <br /><br />I have tried to have a reasoned argument with you, and to be fair, I put quite some effort in.<br /><br />You have now proven your irrationality, and that you are fundamentally dishonest. <br /><br />I am quite disappointed, actually.<br />Dolfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14272948799628246342013-08-22T09:48:49.506+12:002013-08-22T09:48:49.506+12:00@Sam: I confess, I've never before delved into...@Sam: I confess, I've never before delved into the connections between American fundamentalists and global warming, but Googling "evangelical scientists climate change" to find some context for your quote, this news was near the top: "'<a href="http://www.treehugger.com/culture/200-evangelical-scientists-ask-congress-pass-climate-legislation.html" rel="nofollow">200 evangelical scientists ask Congress to pass climate legislation</a>'<br />As evangelical scientists and academics, we understand climate change is real and action is urgently needed. All of God's Creation - humans and our environment - is groaning under the weight of our uncontrolled use of fossil fuels, bringing on a warming planet, melting ice, and rising seas..."<br /><br />I think, from this distance, it's almost impossible to understand the extent to which religion has poisoned America.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-18395940083340262802013-08-22T09:38:56.906+12:002013-08-22T09:38:56.906+12:00@Sam: Well, to be fair, I'm relying on his dat...@Sam: Well, to be fair, I'm relying on his data collection and comparison, not his views on theology.<br /><br />And to be perfectly fair, and accurate, the man is a <i>signatory</i> to that statement, not the author, <a href="http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/" rel="nofollow">the entirety of which conclusions is mostly unexceptionable</a>.<br /><br />And if you're going to play the man, then his credentials aren't bad: former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and now Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. <br /><br />But you're right, the words "intelligent design" make it hard.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-44434788518453371382013-08-22T09:35:00.336+12:002013-08-22T09:35:00.336+12:00Truth, fact, reality, rational thinking are no lon...Truth, fact, reality, rational thinking are no longer in fashion. It is a scary wave of non thinking promoted by the new age masses. Why think when you can believe?<br /><br />The whole environment religion could be laughed at and even considered cute if it were not for the wide spread support it receives.<br /><br />A great indicator are the comments you can read on the many forums. <br /><br />For example: Scientists find the underlying cause of some cancers. The first comment it receives is not "Congratulations" It is, "If you really care about cancer you would provide us with clean air and food"<br /><br />That comment is wrong in so many ways but such comments are common. They discourage people to get into science, they discourage thought itself.<br /><br />(Damn captchas ncycumn 8305" Really!)Dintherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09444894238003853527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-90690432683129619472013-08-22T09:26:37.099+12:002013-08-22T09:26:37.099+12:00I hate to play the man, but Dr Roy Spencer makes i...I hate to play the man, but Dr Roy Spencer makes it hard:<br /><br /><i>"Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting."</i>Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30032657841038063782013-08-22T09:02:17.950+12:002013-08-22T09:02:17.950+12:00.. thus enabling laws such as "Holocaust deni...<br />.. thus enabling laws such as "Holocaust denial" prohibition in Germany <br /> <br />... and proposals in the USA to do the same thing to "Climate Change deniers"<br /><br />... and Hate Speech laws in New Zealand <br /><br />I reckon, sometime in the future, humans will all be implanted with Google's brain chips, and we will be monitored for bad thoughts ...like wondering if the climate models might be wrong... or privately thinking that a Government definition of a word might be wrong :)<br /><br />You think the N word, and you get an electric shock, like Pavlov's dog... and I hear it coming already, "But that is a good thing, right?".<br /><br /><br />ah well, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?<br /><br /> the drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-74433047713715888472013-08-22T08:49:23.880+12:002013-08-22T08:49:23.880+12:00... just as governments all over are insisting on,...... just as governments all over are insisting on, and getting away with, accepting "consensus" as scientific fact. And then trying to force it on the rest of us.<br /><br />that's what happens when the government is able to change the meanings of words, right?<br /><br /> the drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35334417786836828782013-08-22T08:39:58.234+12:002013-08-22T08:39:58.234+12:00perhaps legislation will be passed to change the m...<br />perhaps legislation will be passed to change the meaning of the word "truth" to include climate models<br /><br />:)the drunken watchmannoreply@blogger.com