In the history of the SDMB has anyone ever been wrong about more things than adaher?

[eschereal]

@adaher

Neither is FDR or LBJ. Or anyone like them. Those days are gone forever.

So? Are you suggesting that “liberals” pine for those days? Are you implying that you have some sort of keen insight into the minds of “liberals”, when it is pretty well evident that you barely understand your own self?

[Little_Nemo]

@adaher

Liberals have been known in the past to misjudge the proper role of science. Not that long ago, many people of the left persuasion thought that society could be ordered through the use of experts applying the latest scientific knowledge. That’s scientific hubris.

But even you’re acknowledging that at least science is allowed in the room when liberals are making policy. Conservatives facing the same issues go to religion instead of science and base their decisions on what a bunch a sheepherders said two thousand years ago.

[Kolga]

@adaher

…I also think I have insights many of you haven’t heard or dealt with before,

You would be wrong about that.

@adaher

I’m more self-aware then I let on.

You would be wrong about that.

[Finagle]

@adaher

Such a belief system is so absurd on its face that it doesn’t even require debunking, but here’s one example off the top of my head: government spending provides stimulus. Here’s another: poverty causes crime. The first has no empirical evidence to support it, only theory, and the second is just demonstrably and provably wrong. The most hilarious part about it is that now that we know lead was a major cause of crime, liberals now find it PC to say things that conservatives said for years, but which were “racist”: criminals tend to be dull-witted and lack impulse control. But that’s exactly what lead exposure did to people! It made them stupid and less likely to control their baser impulses! but now it’s okay to say it because the lead did it.

I must have missed the emptying of the prisons after we removed the lead from gasoline. Or the places in the history books where they write about how crime and violence free all the slums were before the introduction of leaded gas. Needless to say, it’s not all as black and whiteas our local expert on science, epidemiology, sociology and economics would have us believe. Lots of us grew up in the era of tetraethyl lead additives, but not all of us engaged in violent or criminal activities. Some of us even managed to do OK in school. Maybe, just maybe, one who is not insensitive to the subtle interplay and nuance of sociological influences might conjecture an impoverished environment might play a part in bringing out those tendencies?

[Oakminster]

@BrainGlutton

Oakminster, I think.

You’re joking, right?

[Oakminster]

@elucidator

Oakie? Nah, a “sour pickle up the butt” Republican, not a “pants on fire”. More like he’s grumpy than he’s nuts.

I will have you know that my butt is “Exit Only”. And the polite term is “curmudgeon”.

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

The notion of completely re-ordering society may have faded, but there are still plenty of scientists, economists, sociologists and technocrats giving advice to politicians, and the wiser governments are the ones who listen.

Scientists can warn of impending problems, but they are poorly suited to recommending solutions, unless it involves building a really big laser or something. If the solution, as it is with global warming, is to figure out how to reduce emissions, that’s 99% an economics issue, not a science issue.

[adaher]

@Little_Nemo

But even you’re acknowledging that at least science is allowed in the room when liberals are making policy. Conservatives facing the same issues go to religion instead of science and base their decisions on what a bunch a sheepherders said two thousand years ago.

I think it’s more a case that liberals find science a more convincing way to sell and justify their policy preferences, which are based on their values, not evidence. Whereas conservatives do the same, but may use science or religion. Although I find lately that some liberals have taken to quoting the New Testament for some reason, which just further shows that they’ll cherry pick anything, whether faith, science, or 1920s economic theories, to justify the policies they want to pursue.

I’ve noticed that on issues from vaccines, to GM foods, to fracking, to nuclear power, it’s primarily liberals who suddenly lose their fidelity to science. They may not turn to religion, but pseudoscience is strangely popular in liberal circles.

[running_coach]

@adaher

Scientists can warn of impending problems, but they are poorly suited to recommending solutions, unless it involves building a really big laser or something. If the solution, as it is with global warming, is to figure out how to reduce emissions, that’s 99% an economics issue, not a science issue.

So it’s an economist who works out a cleaner process to refine oil or ore. It’s an economist who designs a cleaner burning ICE. It’s an economist who works out alternative energy sources.

Damn, you’re an idiot.

[adaher]

No, but an economist can better tell you whether cap and trade or a carbon tax makes sense, while we’re waiting for the scientists to come up with alternative energy sources. Except the scientists have already come up with alternative energy sources. In which case the economist would explain to you why the alternative energy sources have not been accepted by consumers and producers.

Damn, you’re an idiot.

And you further demonstrate how scientific hubris works. Scientists have come up with a TON of options. Problem is, none of them are viable in the market, which they would understand if they had any economist friends.

[running_coach]

Not viable yet. Every new technology goes through a period when it costs and is inefficient.
Do you really expect everything to turn a profit?

And alternative sources have been accepted. While they may never go mainstream ,every erg we get from a clean source is one less we get from a dirty one, thus improving the world even a tiny bit. And solving global warming will take multiple solutions.

[running_coach]

Since when have liberals been turning to the New Testament?

And I’ve noticed that conservatives turn to the Bible only and ignore science.

[Little_Nemo]

@adaher

I think it’s more a case that liberals find science a more convincing way to sell and justify their policy preferences, which are based on their values, not evidence. Whereas conservatives do the same, but may use science or religion. Although I find lately that some liberals have taken to quoting the New Testament for some reason, which just further shows that they’ll cherry pick anything, whether faith, science, or 1920s economic theories, to justify the policies they want to pursue.

I’ve noticed that on issues from vaccines, to GM foods, to fracking, to nuclear power, it’s primarily liberals who suddenly lose their fidelity to science. They may not turn to religion, but pseudoscience is strangely popular in liberal circles.

Could you explain what you think the mistaken liberal position is on these issues and what you think the correct scientific position is?

[Little_Nemo]

@runner pat

Since when have liberals been turning to the New Testament?

I’m sure there are plenty of liberals who look to the New Testament to find answers to ethical problems. The Bible can be a good source for ethics. It’s when you start using the Bible as a science textbook that you run into trouble.

[Askance]

@adaher

And you further demonstrate how scientific hubris works. Scientists have come up with a TON of options. Problem is, none of them are viable in the market, which they would understand if they had any economist friends.

Bloody hell but you’re an intellectual, moral, ethical and economic lightweight, aren’t you. You really have no idea what actually matters most. You are a living demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Here is the bottom line: the economy takes place inside the environment. It doesn’t matter how much it costs to fix the environment so that the economy can continue, the alternative is worse - economically speaking (as well as in pretty much every other way that matters).

You seem to think that we must carry on as we are until climate scientists come up with, not only a factual description of what damage current political and economic policies will do, but also an economically more viable alternative. And yet when they attempt to do so the general response is that they are playing outside their area of expertise and only economists can legitimately comment. You can’t have it both ways.

Your starting point appears to be: if it doesn’t make immediate economic sense then discard it without reservation. And just hope that an economically-viable version or alternative turns up before it’s too late. For the market is god and whatever it indicates THIS FRICKIN’ INSTANT must be right and whatever it turns against RIGHT NOW must be wrong, regardless of whether its twists and turns make the slightest sense even in its own incredibly narrow self-interest.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

And you further demonstrate how scientific hubris works. Scientists have come up with a TON of options. Problem is, none of them are viable in the market, which they would understand if they had any economist friends.

In the previous discussions on the subject I have linked to a good Economist friend of the scientists: William Nordhaus.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus

On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).

This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

And he is not alone in that conclusion. So how good is he? Well, in 2013, Nordhaus became president-elect of the American Economic Association.

So yeah, you are not only an idiot, you are a **certifiable **idiot for not doing a check of the issue that was discussed here also.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@GIGObuster

In the previous discussions on the subject I have linked to a good Economist friend of the scientists: William Nordhaus.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books
And he is not alone in that conclusion. So how good is he? Well, in 2013, Nordhaus became president-elect of the American Economic Association.

Samuelson also pulled him in to co-write his textbook during the 1970s IIRC. He’s a pretty big name. Among environmental economists, he has been one of the less interventionist.

On a policy basis, I can imagine 4 approaches to global warming. They are emission taxes, cap and trade, command-control (technological mandates) and doing nothing. If a Republican politician advocates anything other than the last, he is sent to the cornfield. Heck, Newt Gingrich felt obliged to retract support for CO2 regulation.

I don’t know whether I want to call economics a science, but I think it’s fair to say mainstream variants don’t indulge in conspiracy theories - those advocating inaction (eg Nordhaus c. ~1991) don’t claim global warming is a hoax.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

I’ve noticed that on issues from vaccines, to GM foods, to fracking, to nuclear power, it’s primarily liberals who suddenly lose their fidelity to science.

What is the liberal view on vaccines?

[Finagle]

@Fear_Itself

What is the liberal view on vaccines?

In my case, it’s that I’m pretty happy not to have to worry about polio and smallpox.

[adaher]

@runner pat

Not viable yet. Every new technology goes through a period when it costs and is inefficient.
Do you really expect everything to turn a profit?

In the energy sector, everything must turn a profit. And scientists don’t know how to make things profitable. That’s where businessmen come into the picture. Real businessmen, not ex-politicians and DNC officials who figured out how to get rich off government subsidies. That one there is where the political scientists explain why government picking winners and losers doesn’t work out very well.

And alternative sources have been accepted. While they may never go mainstream ,every erg we get from a clean source is one less we get from a dirty one, thus improving the world even a tiny bit. And solving global warming will take multiple solutions.

Chances are it will take one, we just can’t know in advance which one. It seems to take multiple sources now because all the alternative sources are insignificant when compared to fossil fuels. But eventually some dude who didn’t get government subsidies will stumble onto an idea, it will replace fossil fuels, and the government will rush to take credit for the whole shebang because sometime in the 80s some basic research was done. So he didn’t build that.