[QUOTE=ex747mech]
It seems pretty obvious to me the leftists are using climate change as a reason to impose more socialism on us.
[/QUOTE]
Pardon me, but the measures that might be taken to redress anthropogenic climate change have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism, except to the kind of impenetrable dumbass who applies the label “socialism” to everything from AFDC to public libraries, and I’m sure you’re not one of those.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
If you don’t believe a large majority of climate scientists, then why on earth would you believe any scientific research that said that iron fertilization might work? If scientific results are politically motivated, of course research that showed that iron fertilization worked could be politically motivated and false as well.
You seem to be in the class of people who believe scientific results only when they are convenient. That’s not the way science works.
[/QUOTE]
Combined with the fact that most scientists (or at least those who I’ve known) tend to vary from politically neutral to fiscally (and often socially) conservative, it’s hard to see how climatologist consensus on global climate changes could be any kind of liberal or socialist conspiracy.
Since often presents us with uncomfortably, objectionable, and sometimes unpalletable theories which nonetheless stand up to rigorous testing and attempts at falsification. When that happens, we have to redefine our view of the world, an effort that is difficult even for the very scientists who make the discoveries. An unwillingness to do so, however, is an abandonment of logical principles and an adoption of the language of science to bolster an emotional or political agenda. We call this pseudoscience, and it is one of the most intellectually dishonest and repugnant instuitions in public consciousness.
Stranger
When a corporation is able to pass the costs of its activity onto an unrelated person, this is known as an “externalized cost.” That is, part of the cost for say, a factory, to make a part has been passed along to someone who does not benefit from making the part. This tends to be an economically inefficient transaction. Preventing the externalization of costs is not “anti-capitalist.” It is an attempt to seek market efficiency.
Now, let’s say there’s a factory that’s polluting. There are a lot of people who benefit from the factory’s production (the workers, the suppliers, the shareholders, the purchasers). However, the pollution is damaging a number of people has well. If we lived in a theoretical world, we could calculate each person’s damage, and force all the beneficiaries of the the factory to pay their pro-rata share of the damage to each person.
This is obviously very impractical. On the factory side, what you can do is force the
externalized cost back onto the factory. The factory hopefully will then determine the most efficient way to propogate this cost onto the entire system of beneficiaries.
On the damages side, the situation becomes more difficult. Calculating damages for each and every individual is a tremendous undertaking. Furthermore, damaged invidivuals may lack the resources to recover their costs (as when they are too poor to sue). Finally, the factory itself may not be able to pay for all its damages (this is known as an under-insurance problem).
So, if you want to force the externalized cost back onto the factory, what are your options?
You could prevent the factory from polluting (perhaps through some sort of recapture or sequestration). This would force the cost of the pollution entirely onto the factory. However, it may not be possible with current technology to do this for certain types of pollution.
You could tax the pollution. Ideally you would increase the tax a little bit each year as well. This doesn’t necessarily force the entire externalized cost back onto the factory. But it does incentivize the factory away from the pollution, and hopefully, eventually, cheaper alternatives can be found.
You could ban the pollutant entirely. This would probably make sense when the pollutant is diificult to control, or when the damages from the pollutant are so high, that there is simply no way to force the eternalized cost back on the factory.
You could cap the pollution, and set up a market for trading on who gets to pollute (I personally don’t care for this solution, but it seems to be generally favored).
None of these options are anti-capitalist. What is anti-capitalist is allowing entities to externalize their costs without having to pay for them. That is, in essence, a forced subsidization.
Now, if global warming is cause by human activity, then this will be a tremendous externalized cost, and regulation and/or taxes on greenhouse gas production is not anti-capitalist.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
5)The global warming proponents are beginning to use fascist tactics in stifling dissent. Heidi Cullen thinks dissenters should be stripped of their credentials.
[/QUOTE]
By the way, I had not clicked on your link here when I wrote my previous response because I was familiar with Heidi Cullen’s remarks and the controversy. However, now I have looked at your link and I realize that they did not quote her but rather characterized…or I would say, carichatured…what she said. Here is what she actually said:
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
Since a large majority of the member nations of the UN are in fact capitalist rather than socialist, as are four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (and the other is nominally Communist but in practice capitalist), it is rather difficult to see how it can be characterized as a “socialist organization.” One must suppose that a majority of the Security Council members, as well as most of the General Assembly, are acting in direct opposition to their own political and economic interests.
As far as discrediting you, you are doing a fine job of that on your own. When so much of what someone says is contrary to demonstrable fact, certain conclusions about them become inevitable.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
I never called them communist front organizations, but most environmentalists who have been leading the charge on global warming HAVE been leftists.
Politics IS a major component of this issue. Socialists genuinely hate free markets and capitalism, just listen to their rants or watch their protests.
[/quote]
Well, I personally would rather be leftist and dry than conservative/capitalist and under 15 feet of water.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
What better way to end capitalism than to blame it for the inevitable destruction of earth if we don’t change our political and economic structure.
[/quote]
I don’t see how socialism/capitalism and global warming are necessarily related.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
[/quote]
This is hardly a logical argument. It’s like saying “There have been plenty of fires in the past, but now suddenly this one is arson?”.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
[/quote]
Oh sweet irony
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
Well, the issues include:
-we don’t know if iron fertilization will work
-we don’t know if it could make the problem worse
-we don’t know if there could be unintended consequences
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
If by “the UN” you mean its executive arms, remember they are answerable to an Assembly composed of ambassadors from national governments, none eager to give up any part of its sovereignty.
We do need a world government, but that’s another debate.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
Of course I will be labeled as a paranoid extremist for saying that, but that is how socialists operate: label their critics as insane or ignorant or evil in order to discredit them.
[/quote]
That’s (one way) how politically interested people of all stripes operate, ex. Dems do it, Pubs do it, Libertarians do it . . .
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
8)What about nuclear energy? Why aren’t they supporting that?
[/QUOTE]
Many who accept the anthropogenic-climate-change theory do consider nuclear power a possible (partial) solution. See this thread, posts # 37-39. Also this thread and this thread.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
Like I’ve said before, suppose we AREN’T the cause of the temperature increase, would the socialist countries crucify the capitalist countries?
[/QUOTE]
What socialist countries are trying to crucify the capitalist countries on this issue? China, based on its track record, is no more eager to limit its carbon emissions than we are; Cuba and NK don’t matter; and, assuming Venezuela counts as a socialist country, its economy and all of Chavez’ plans depend on a good market for oil.
[QUOTE=ex747mech]
The lefties at CNN . . .
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
BTW, ex747mech, has it occurred to you that iron fertilization of the oceans could only happen as a tax-funded government program? The private sector won’t do it, except on a government-contractor basis; otherwise, there’s no revenue to be made.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW, ex747mech, has it occurred to you that iron fertilization of the oceans could only happen as a tax-funded government program? The private sector won’t do it, except on a government-contractor basis; otherwise, there’s no revenue to be made.
[/QUOTE]
Heh. If taxpayers pay for the iron fertilization, then they are picking up the externalized cost of the corporatons. Thus, taxpayers would be subsidizing the corporations, and ex747mech’s solution is… SOCIALISM!!!
Ok, I shouldn’t characterize any and all government spending as socialism. But it is amusing to me that solutions which place the cost back on the private sector are considered “anti-capitalist” while solutions which would place the cost onto the taxpayer are somehow considered “pro-capitalist.”
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Heh. If taxpayers pay for the iron fertilization, then they are picking up the externalized cost of the corporatons. Thus, taxpayers would be subsidizing the corporations, and ex747mech’s solution is… SOCIALISM!!!
[/quote]
Nah. Socialism is when the corporations subsidize the taxpayers, or something like that . . .
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny]
Ok, I shouldn’t characterize any and all government spending as socialism. But it is amusing to me that solutions which place the cost back on the private sector are considered “anti-capitalist” while solutions which would place the cost onto the taxpayer are somehow considered “pro-capitalist.”
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t that make sense? Placing costs on the corporations is a burden on capitalism; placing costs on the taxpayers (most of whom do not sit on corporate boards of directors) effectively subsidizes the corporations, even allowing for the taxes corporations and their execs pay.
[QUOTE=jshore]
This is such a bogus claim. When Patrick Michaels, one of the contrarians on climate change, recently made this claim about the media, someone apparently did some research in one of those media databases to see which single climate scientist got the most cites in the press. Want to guess who it was? None other than Patrick Michaels himself!
…
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
w.
jshore, your claim seems very doubtful, although I’m not surprise that it is believed … AGW seems to be all about belief.
As a quick check, since I couldn’t believe such an outrageous claim, a Google News search on [“James Hansen” AND climate], looking for news articles about the well-known NASA climate scientist, finds 765 hits. A search on [“Patrick Michaels” AND climate] finds … 15 hits. Hardly what you are saying.
I look forward to see what your study has to say.
w.
Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press
Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 125–136
[QUOTE=Squink]
Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press
Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 125–136
[/QUOTE]
Nope, no mention of Michaels in that study at all.
w.
Lots of information on the subtle bullshit of ‘fair and balanced’ though.
Is your doubt a general one, or simply in regard to the single case of Patrick Michaels?
Squink, the claim about Michaels sounded bogus, so I questioned it. It still hasn’t been verified.
Regarding the study on bias in the media you quoted, it said that the media coverage was like this:
Exclusive coverage of anthropogenic warming - 6%
Anthropogenic coverage dominant - 35%
So that’s 41% that’s on the side of the warmers. What else?
Balanced accounts of anthropogenic contributions to warming - 53%
So, reportage that is either balanced, or favoring the anthropogenic theories is 94%
What’s on the other side of the question? Well, we have:
Exclusive coverage of skepticism of anthropogenic contribution. How much of that? Oh … 0%.
What else? Skepticism of anthropogenic contribution - 6%
Now, the author says that this is being horribly unfair to those who believe in AGW, that this reflects media bias. So, how does he determine that this shows bias … well of course, he compares it to a survey of climate scientists, like that done by Bray and Von Storch, so he can show that the media view is actually different than the climate scientists’ view … ha, ha, just kidding, of course he wouldn’t do that. That would be science.
What he compares it to are vague claims about consensus, but he ignores the studies that have been done, which show that the “consensus” is not real.
53% of the coverage is balanced, 41% explicitly supports your side, only 6% supports the skeptics, and you and this guy want to whine about “media bias”, without even comparing the media to the studies of the scientists …
Look, I’m sorry you don’t get 100% of the media agreeing with you, you’ll have to move to Cuba or somewhere if you want 100%. 6% of the media articles support the skeptics, 41% supports the AGW side, and you say it’s “subtle bullshit” because there’s too much balanced coverage?
Riiiiight …
w.
[QUOTE=intention]
What he compares it to are vague claims about consensus, but he ignores the studies that have been done, which show that the “consensus” is not real.
[/QUOTE]
Like this study in Science summarized thusly:
intention: Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I heard about the media database research regarding Patrick Michaels’s appearances in the media and I haven’t been able to find it yet. I’ll keep looking.
[QUOTE=intention]
What he compares it to are vague claims about consensus, but he ignores the studies that have been done, which show that the “consensus” is not real.
[/QUOTE]
For nitpicks about the definition of “consensus” as applied to anthropogenic climate change, see [url=]this thread, posts #74, 81, 83, 87, 89, 93, & 96.
Short answer: Yes, Virginia, there is a consensus.