To The Bush Haters

[vbnautilus 48]

Except darwinian evolution. In this they are sure without the facts

What?

He means we haven't yet found the pinnacle of evidence: a really old self-contradictory book where people wrote the theory down in a language no one speaks any more.

[Balloon guy 158]

He means we haven't yet found the pinnacle of evidence: a really old self-contradictory book where people wrote the theory down in a language no one speaks any more.

Anytime you can produce said contradictory I'm sure the church of atheism will give you a medal, because so far no one has been able to.and the Bible was written in 3 different languages, and 2 of them are still spoken, with Koinia Greek a maybe( not really sure about that, but probably a close dilect is spoken. ) Just tryng to help you not look too foolish while you type lazy arguements that have been disproven thousands of times for hundreds of years.

[vbnautilus 48]

Anytime you can produce said contradictory I'm sure the church of atheism will give you a medal, because so far no one has been able to.and the Bible was written in 3 different languages, and 2 of them are still spoken, with Koinia Greek a maybe( not really sure about that, but probably a close dilect is spoken. ) Just tryng to help you not look too foolish while you type lazy arguements that have been disproven thousands of times for hundreds of years.

I appreciate it. I don't concede there are no contradictions in the bible, but this is not the place to get into that. Let's change it to: "The pinnacle of evidence is a really old book where people wrote down the theory in three languages, one of which is no longer spoken. "Now, if we can find that for evolution everyone will be satisfied.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

But those private companies wouldn't stop doing what they are doing if the subsidies went away. They are taking the money because they can get it, not because it is necessary or fair -- just as I would take some mortgage bailout money if it were available. "Corruption happens" is a poor justification for future corruption.If you want a true discussion of the economics of global warming, look up Bjorn Lomborg (there's a good link at reason.tv, another at TED Talks). He takes the consensus of scientists, and compares it to the consensus of economists, and ranks problems and solutions of world problems on cost effectiveness, both in the short term and the long term. He does this with different groups of people from different backgrounds, and the results are always the same:It's cheaper to solve the problems caused by global warming than it is to prevent global warming. Worried about the spread of tropical diseases due to global warming? It's cheaper to eradicate the diseases. Worried about the heat waves? Actually, more people die from cold than heat, so global warming save lives, plus it's cheaper to give air conditioners to at-risk people than to prevent global warming. Worried about coastal areas being flooded? It's cheaper to just move the people affected.He does support investments in green technology, but that seems to be an afterthought and a concession. Economists agree it is a net loss for the govt to invest in green technology; it's just a small loss (something like 8 cents on the dollar), compared to the carbon reduction strategies, which are a huge loss, pretty much all waste, no gain.

I love your posts -- you listen to smart stuff, understand it completely, and analyze it nicely. I've heard Bjorn Lomberg's TED Talk (I love most of the TED Talks -- among my favorite podcasts). His take on things is interesting, and should be implemented in a lot of cases, but it's also limited. He seems to assume that "cheap" is the absolute only criterion that matters. Of course it isn't. Eradicating the diseases is his best case -- he's a very strong believer that we must do much, much more to support health in Africa, because the long-term cost of doing that is far lower than the long-term cost of political instability, famine, food aid, corruption, and depopulating the continent of its young adults.But while it's cheaper to give everyone an air conditioner, we're not talking about simply cheap versus expensive. We're talking about, possibly, the future viability of life on this planet. It might be cheap to move everyone out of equatorial regions and settle them all in northern Canada and Russia, while conceding that the middle third of the planet no longer supports human life. But that's a horrible outcome. What if 20 years after that, it's cheaper to kill a billion or so people rather than try to squeeze them into Antarctica? Would "cheap" still be the only consideration? "Cheap" is why the Nazis used gas instead of bullets. [i'm NOT equating Lomberg to a Nazi, just saying that the world generally uses non-economic criteria when it comes to making decisions and judging the outcomes.]I agree with him on green technology investments versus carbon reduction strategies. We can all do easy things to reduce our own carbon footprint, and that's what it will take. I don't believe that there are any really viable plans on the horizon for large-scale reduction. He likes green investment not only because it's a relatively small loss, but also because he's willing to acknowledge that there might be some kind of paradigm-changing invention out there to be made, one that would render the investments a gain. He doesn't see that same potential with government-level carbon reduction, and neither do I.As for companies continuing what they do if the subsidies went away, I'm not sure the airlines could afford to. I'm sure the others would, but they are mature industries. Would they have continued, or been able to continue, if they were only in their infancy, as green technology is now? Maybe not. That's why I support government investment -- we're looking at a new technology with great potential, still in its infancy when a boost could mean the difference between surviving and going under. Even if it is a net loss of a few cents on the dollar because the great invention never happens, I think it's worth supporting a new American industry.Lomberg's a very interesting guy, and I hope a lot of world governments listen to him. I just hope they don't listen _only_ to him.

[85suited 0]

double post

[85suited 0]

I already presented that data and he's ignoring it. Its about 9 to 1. But posting those 31,000 names would help him get towards his daily lines copy-and-pasted quota.

VB... So where do you get your 9 to 1 "fact"Here are the 31,000 Scientists that disagreehttp://www.petitionproject.org/http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/...s_BY_State.html - Signers by statehttp://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/...Of_Signers.html - Qualifications of signers

[vbnautilus 48]

VB... So where do you get your 9 to 1 "fact"

Sigh. Please don't use quotes when you are paraphrasing. I never used the word "fact", and I'm pretty careful with my words. I said that I presented evidence regarding the proportion of scientists who believe in global warming. Did you miss this entire discussion just two pages back?

No, you can't. A study published last month surveyed 3,146 scientists on global warming and whether it was caused by human factors.¹ • Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800 levels? 90% of scientists say yes• Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 87% of scientists say yes, with 97% of climatologists saying yesThe authors conclude that "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."If that's not enough for you, the following scientific organizations have released statements stating their consensus scientific opinion is that climate change is heavily influenced by human activity: European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Science Foundation, The US National Research Council, the UK Institute of Biology, the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the World Meteorilogical Association, the National Academy of Science in the United States, the corresponding organizations in China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Russia, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, and about 18 other nations. So, please revise your statement to: "For every 9 scientists you you say believes in global warming, I might be able to find one who doesn't."¹Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22-23.

I presented to you evidence that most scientists believe in global warming. I cited one of several studies that have come to the same conclusion. I'll be happy to provide the others for you upon request. Basing a conclusion upon evidence is hardly "drinking kool aide". If you have evidence which contradicts my data about the proportion of scientists who believe in global warming, by all means present it here. Finding individual scientists who do not believe in global warming is not inconsistent with my point that there is a broad consensus on the issue in the scientific community.If you want to find out what most scientists believe, you would put together a good sampling technique and ask them. (That is what the study did which I presented to you). Or, you could just continue search the internet for individuals who do not believe in global warming. Who of the two of us is epistemologically challenged?

They contacted 10,000 scientists listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. 3,146 responded. They recorded IPs to make sure each person only responded once. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. They broke down the results by subfield, for example climatology researchers agreed 97% while petroleum geologists (funded by gas companies) only believed 47%. The question of why the scientists have come to their conclusions and are they biased by funding opportunities is an interesting one, but the fact that the majority of them do indeed believe in global warming is not really in dispute.

OK, that seems like about the best they could do. I think this study will have to be considered to be the definitive one until someone with an equal or better methodology comes along.I think it's time to stop asking "is it real?" and instead ask "what should we do about it?" I've previously posted a couple of links discussing that question, if anyone missed them and is interested, just ask, I can dig them up again.

All that being said, this really doesn't matter. Appeal to authority is of the weakest forms of argument. Something isn't true simply because certain people believe it.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Sigh. Please don't use quotes when you are paraphrasing. I never used the word "fact", and I'm pretty careful with my words. I said that I presented evidence regarding the proportion of scientists who believe in global warming. Did you miss this entire discussion just two pages back?

I don't know why you bother. Just find out where he lives, break in and steal the C & V keys from his keyboard. Then sit back and enjoy the peace and quiet.

[hblask 1]

But while it's cheaper to give everyone an air conditioner, we're not talking about simply cheap versus expensive. We're talking about, possibly, the future viability of life on this planet. It might be cheap to move everyone out of equatorial regions and settle them all in northern Canada and Russia, while conceding that the middle third of the planet no longer supports human life. But that's a horrible outcome. What if 20 years after that, it's cheaper to kill a billion or so people rather than try to squeeze them into Antarctica? Would 'cheaper' still be the only consideration?

I think he takes the human toll into it; economists can count the value of each year of human life, both to the economy and to each person. (For example, about 10 years ago economists determined that, on average, Americans valued their own life at about 7 million dollars, based on the amount they were willing to spend to protect it from all of life's threats). So it could never really become cheaper to kill people because "lost productivity" is a huge factor. The same is true for other radical interventions and horror scenarios. There are direct costs and there are indirect costs, and as long as everything is considered, cost is a practical way to do it. This is especially true where free and fair trade is in place, because then we can see the actual psychic cost to individuals, their emotional toll along with their financial toll, because that will be included in the costs. (It would cost you more to move me from a home I lived in for 30 years and raised my kids in than it would to move me from an apartment I rented for six months, even if the actual *moving* cost is the same, because buying me out of the house would cost more).So yeah, there are certainly a lot of considerations, and I agree we need to take them all into account. I think they need to collect as much information as they can and use it wisely, and Lomborg seems to be one of the few public voices of that.

I just hope they don't listen _only_ to him.

Well, so far politicians only seem to be listening to Algore and his Evil Minions, so listening to only Lomborg for a while would be a breath of fresh air.In another thread I posted an interesting debate, I don't know if you saw it, it's here:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=97998613This is the kind of debate we should be having. Instead we get this:Greenie: People are evil and killing the planetPerson with brain: Certainly we have problems, but your hyperbole doesn't help solve anything.G: You hate bunnies and other cute animalsPWB: Certainly common sense should go into our decision making, let's study thisG: Too late, we just spent 5 billion dollars on saving 22 really cute seals.PWB: Sigh.This debate is from a great website, I wish I had another 10 or 20 hours per day to listen to these (home: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/).

[Balloon guy 158]

I appreciate it. I don't concede there are no contradictions in the bible, but this is not the place to get into that. Let's change it to: "The pinnacle of evidence is a series of 66 books written over 1,600 years where people wrote down the theory in three languages, one of which is no longer spoken. "Now, if we can find that for evolution everyone will be satisfied.

Tried to fine tune it a bit

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Actually, I'd characterize the debate like this:Greenie: It's the only planet we've got. Maybe we should try to keep it habitable.Mr. Corporate: And change the way I do business, even if it saves me money in the long term? NEVERRRRRRR!Miss I Luv Jeebus: Don't worry -- the Rapture will happen any day now. We can ignore the planet's future because we'll be lifted off it.Suburbanite: You mean I have to park downtown and WALK my errands, the whole three blocks from the bank to the post office, instead of driving my all-new, kitten-fueled, twelve-seating 4x4 Behemoth, complete with in-car movie theater? NEVERRRRRR!Greenie: Fat-ass.Suburbanite: Hippie.Scientist: Um, could I interject a little science here?All: NO!!!!!

[hblask 1]

Actually, I'd characterize the debate like this:

Excellence!

[Zealous Donkey 0]

So yeah, there are certainly a lot of considerations, and I agree we need to take them all into account. I think they need to collect as much information as they can and use it wisely, and Lomborg seems to be one of the few public voices of that.Well, so far politicians only seem to be listening to Algore and his Evil Minions, so listening to only Lomborg for a while would be a breath of fresh air.

I don't know how old you guys are but were you around in the early 1980s? When I was a freshman in high school my high school science teacher came into class one day in January 1983 and told us to put our books up and to listen to what he had to say. He told us about the ozone layer and green house effect causing the planet to warm. If the planet continued to warm at even a fraction of the rate it had been then the polor ice caps would melt and in just 10 years from (1983) most of the eastern seaboard would be flooded and unihabitable. Here we are 25 years later, polor ice cap still in place and none of the eastern seaboard lost. When I heard Al Gore start talking his BS I am sorry but I wasn't moved. I had heard it all before. I am just curious if any of you take into account the fact that these same global warming fanatics that told me life on earth was going to end in the mid 1990s, are now telling me we have to act now and with trillions of dollars to avert a global disaster in the near future.(to clarify I am talking about global warming, not the stimulas package).Hey, I think we need to take better care of the planet and clean up the air we breath and our waterways. Those of you that believe we have to take the steps Al Gore and his "evil minions" are trying to frighten us into taking are a bit niave. I don't understand how the one view can be so widely accepted and the much more practical and honest approach(by those such as Lomborg) don't get much attention at all. I had never heard of him until Henry linked one of his speeches in one of these threads. If you honestly ask yourself why this is, I believe you have to come to the conclusion that there is a hidden agenda.

[El Guapo 8]

They are the same people who said we had a hole in the ozone layer, which they later figure out had always been there and it is a port to allow gases to escape.

[irishguy 14]

What exactly is the motive of the "evil minions"? I am clearly younger then you but have no recollect on ever being given a specific year or decade on when the world would end due to the global concerns. Say the majority of scientists are wrong and the way we live has zero impact on our planet what is the worst that will happen from recycling and using alternate sources of energy?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

What exactly is the motive of the "evil minions"?

I imagine the usual suspects, profit and power, For Al Gore, relevance.

I am clearly younger then you but have no recollect on ever being given a specific year or decade on when the world would end due to the global concerns.

Well, they certainly did back then, and that wasn't' the only time. Anyone remember the Ted Danson and Tom Cruise commercials?

Say the majority of scientists are wrong and the way we live has zero impact on our planet what is the worst that will happen from recycling and using alternate sources of energy?

No, if you read my entire post, you know I don't think that. I am all for recycling and developing alternate energy sources.

[irishguy 14]

I imagine the usual suspects, profit and power, For Al Gore, relevence.

So what about the motives of the large percentage of scientists? Surely the majority of these people who have made this their lives work aren't doing it for profit and power?

Well, they certainly did back then, and that wasnt' the only time. Anyone remember the Ted Dansan and Tom Cruize commercials?

I don't remember those but I mean marketing any message for any reason always involves a level of hyperbole

No, if you read my entire post, you know I don't think that. I am all for recycling and developing alternate energy sources.

I did see

[Sal Paradise 57]

what is the worst that will happen from recycling and using alternate sources of energy?

trillions of dollars of lost revenue and worldwide starvation?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

So what about the motives of the large percentage of scientists? Surely the majority of these people who have made this their lives work aren't doing it for profit and power?

I think a large percentage of scientists may agree that the planet is warming a bit. That is a far cry from what Al Gore and co. are proposing as a 'solution'.

I don't remember those but I mean marketing any message for any reason always involves a level of hyperbole

What you call hyperbole, I call 'crying wolf'.

[hblask 1]

So what about the motives of the large percentage of scientists? Surely the majority of these people who have made this their lives work aren't doing it for profit and power?

I'm glad the debate is starting to change from the old "is too -- is not", to something more useful.The answer is that I think scientists are trying to find the truth. I also believe that there is a certain amount of selection bias, in that programs that look for global warming are way, way more likely to be funded than programs that look to debunk it. Either way, it's clear the globe has warmed, and that human activity can have *some* effect on that. So, let's take it from that point.How much affect? How much would it cost to change the course? Are there better, more effective solutions?I think a big part of the problem is the people who are doing it for profit and power. Since Gore lost to one of the weakest Republican candidates ever, he has been trying to rebuild his image through his ridiculous campaign. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that he has money in several corporations that profit from the fear-mongering. But a bigger problem yet is people trying to push pet programs through have found the next magic words. During the Clinton years, it was 'for the children'. Now, it's 'global warming'. So when a golf-cart manufacturer in North Dakota gives a few suitcases full of cash to a congressman, suddenly producing golf carts in North Dakota is about "saving the world from global warming". (Yes, it's in the so-called stimulus bill, look it up). So we need to separate the debate into the correct categories.There are scientists, doing their best to understand earth.There are the funding agencies, who have to cover their asses and get administration support.There are politicians and other charlatans using a climatological anomaly to whip people into a frenzy of fear in order to funnel pork here and there and everywhere.There is the media, that knows that scary headlines sells better than reality.Look at incentives, follow the money.

[Zeatrix 0]

Except darwinian evolution. In this they are sure without the facts

So much doubt! :)I haven't read up on all the research being done on evolution but from what I understand they have some very good data that supports evolution.For example, I'm pulling this out of my head since I read about this some 5 years ago but, scientists found a special pair birds. The two bird species had not had contact with each other for a long time since they lived on each side of a vast ocean but they were related since they shared a lot of DNA. The DNA was so similar that they had to have come from the same "branch" of species. The interesting thing about the story was that the two land masses that the two different species of birds lived on used to be connected millions of years ago. Now what made the birds different was their coloring, the different species had developed completely dissimilar coloring of their feathers. This, according to the scientists, was a convincing situation where evolution had played a part.I'm no evolution expert but if this story is true I'd say it's a pretty convincing fact. This combined with the fact that cells mutate and chromosomes mix when a sperm merges with an egg makes it a pretty convincing case for me. How else could all the different species have coma about on earth?

[Zeatrix 0]

Look at incentives, follow the money.

I don't have a lot of insight into how researchers get their money in the US, but I've seen a lot of comments about scientists doing it for the money.One thing I know, if you want to make money in this world, scientific research is NOT the way to go. At least not in Sweden. Here researchers are hired by universities and colleges and they get money from the government to educate students, so scientists work part time as teachers and the rest of their time researching. They don't get more money if they discover something. So I've always had a hard time swallowing the notion that scientists are only doing it for the money.

[hblask 1]

So I've always had a hard time swallowing the notion that scientists are only doing it for the money.

No, I don't think they do it for the money, but without money they go nowhere and are never heard from. And for the record, no, I don't attribute this to some vast conspiracy, just the usual dynamics of public policy.

[vbnautilus 48]

So much doubt! :)I haven't read up on all the research being done on evolution but from what I understand they have some very good data that supports evolution.For example, I'm pulling this out of my head since I read about this some 5 years ago but, scientists found a special pair birds. The two bird species had not had contact with each other for a long time since they lived on each side of a vast ocean but they were related since they shared a lot of DNA. The DNA was so similar that they had to have come from the same "branch" of species. The interesting thing about the story was that the two land masses that the two different species of birds lived on used to be connected millions of years ago. Now what made the birds different was their coloring, the different species had developed completely dissimilar coloring of their feathers. This, according to the scientists, was a convincing situation where evolution had played a part.I'm no evolution expert but if this story is true I'd say it's a pretty convincing fact. This combined with the fact that cells mutate and chromosomes mix when a sperm merges with an egg makes it a pretty convincing case for me. How else could all the different species have coma about on earth?

He won't believe you unless you have a series of 66 books written over 1,600 years where people wrote down the theory in three languages, one of which is no longer spoken.

[Balloon guy 158]

He won't believe you unless you have a series of 66 books written over 1,600 years where people wrote down the theory in three languages, one of which is no longer spoken.

Don't forget that the books would need to be filled with fullfilled prophecies, and have the authority of the God of the Universe behind it.