Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 15. (Read 23958 times)

You mean like the endless set of libertarian think tanks which publish things like the Oregon Petition and Environment and Climate News and people like Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen all of whom are heavily funded by Exxon/Mobil?

It at least doesn't seem an unreasonable question.

If you put that shitty argument in an economic model, the conclusion would displease you. The wealth effects would not be large enough to meaningfully affect overall innovation. Alternatively, keep things as vague as possible to better convince ignorant readers.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.

Thanks for the coherent explanation. I don't follow this stuff.

However, I still take issue with this exchange:
Response:
Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?

Are you even remotely aware of what classes of damage I am referring to?

If you can't repeat it, it isn't science.

No, that is incorrect. The researchers were honest and competent. The problem was the fundamental methodology of their field wherein results are "calibrated" routinely by ensuring they agree with the "known correct" results of others in their field. For example, NASA uses satellites to measure temperatures. But satellite temperature sensors drift over the years. How do you think NASA recalibrates their sensors to ensure they receive temperature data from their satellites that remain accurate? Assume they are honest and competent, so they use the best data they can find from other sources. That will include the CRU data, and the data that the CRU scientists (we now know) used to calibrated their own data.

To an outsider, it looks like three independent sources all agree. No dishonesty. No incompetence. It's just that the problem is not visible because it's not obvious what standards proxy temperatures are calibrated to.

What can you do to calibrate and tweak your computer models other than to make sure they replicate the "known correct" existing temperature data as closely possible for the past? (Which, we now know, was the CRU data, the data that CRU calibrated to, and other data sets calibrate from CRU. Yay.) Then you turn them lose on the future. So if we have a bogus temperature increase in the past, they will report that same bogus temperature increase in the future. That's what they're *supposed* to do. That's what an honest and competent application of the methodology will produce.

Say you want to measure past temperatures based on ice cores or tree rings. So you measure ice cores or tree rings. Now, how do you convert those numbers to temperatures? Simple -- you take readings from times where temperatures are known from other sources and make a calibration table. So if those other sources have a bogus increase in temperature, so will yours. No dishonesty. No incompetence. Just the nature of the methodology.

And we know there were inputs that put a continuous upward pressure on the "everyone calibrates from everyone else's data" effect, such as urban heat island effects.

These were people with high internal moral codes and top scientists. This wasn't a case of a few bad guys. This was the curtain being pulled back and the methodology being exposed.

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

So your answer to my question is yes?

And let's not overlook this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data

Hacked climate emails: Phil Jones admits loss of weather data was 'not acceptable'


tl;dr  ManBearPig is a giant global scam, used to scare children and credulous adults into giving the government more of their money.

Yes, you are confused.  Specifically, about the nature and scope of the ClimateGate fiasco.  

You must understand that the ClimateGate critique, of politicized agendas masquerading as science, indicts everything it touches.

You must also understand that in real, proper Science presumption is negative and thus the burden of proof is on those who Truly Believe that ManBearPig is super serial.

It wasn't just the "result" that was fabricated.  Data was intentionally and illegally withheld from the US/UK taxpayers who paid for it, in violation of our respective Freedom of Information Acts and the spirit of the peer-review process.

Your attempt at damage control, spinning to minimize ClimateGate's impact, fails:



We serious, reputable scientists simply cannot give credence to any data emerging from the murky manipulated depths of the pseudoscience known as folk climatology!

I'm confused. You are taking fabrication of a result as evidence that the result is not true.
Fabrication indicates that the researchers involved were either dishonest and/or incompetent.

If I find a dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinker can we assign libertarianism to the waste bin too?

No, YOU can't have a conversation about climate change.  You've been shown computer source code evidence here that the whole "climate change" is a FABRICATION, but you resist it.  Clearly you cannot be reasoned with.

The level of corruption in the actions of the ClimateGate actors is only surpassed by the level of self-delusion in their worshippers.

Cos nobody would use their Ponzi shit.  The only way their scheme "works" (that is, lasts longer than a day in active use) is if they impose it on everyone else violently.

Amen to that.


Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example.

Really? I make no claims of veracity of the following chart as I just grabbed it off of google indiscriminately but if you will post up a chart showing the inverse, I will happily consider myself schooled.




Are you aware of how disagreement works? My position is that this claimed damage has not been sufficiently and scientifically demonstrated.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.

Do you have scientific studies showing all this damage that will occur to billions if we take action? Are you aware of the damage that is occurring right now by doing nothing?

You put words in my mouth again (surprise surprise). I'm suggesting both that we should be certain of what is occurring before taking actions that would certainly damage the wellbeing and health of millions, if not billions of human beings and that the solutions as proposed by the watermelon faction (that's you) are almost certainly not the correct ones.

Questions:

1)Is CO2 a pollutant? How so?

2)Is AGW caused to any degree by any pollutants other than CO2? (allowing that CO2 is a pollutant for the purposes of this question).

Look at the boldfaced statement above. Now, we know you have libertarian views. Fine. How do these work together? You're suggesting that we wait, and wait, and wait, until it's all settled. But perhaps, it's exactly because of your libertarian views, is the reason you want to argue against what others believe to be already settled.

It has now been predicted that the arctic will be ice free in the summers within 20 years. We broke yet another record this year regarding arctic ice melt. Now, factor in ice albedo feedback loops. Google "ice albedo feedback loop". It's not good. And you want to wait.