Opponents of Waxman-Markey

[hrothgar]

The following points I read in some media reports. These may be biased sources so take them with a grain of salt. I have not read the bill.

 

1) Most of the permits will be given away in the largest corp. giveaway in history.

2) States are asked to put price controls on the permits which I would think would kill the anticarbon incentives.

3) EPA is banned from studying carbon produced by corn ethanol.

4) SMoot-Hawley type tariffs imposed on goods imported from countries that do note reduce their emmisions. This sounds like protectionism and calling for a trade war.

5) The goal of 17% reduction by 2020 is not binding and US greenhouse emmisions might not be reduced at all by this bill.

 

Just going back to the OP, I guess I have come to the conclusion one can be against this bill and not be a traitor to the planet.

 

 

"Paul Krugman views the 212 votes in the US House of Representatives against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill as a kind of treason: Betraying the Planet"

In a starting development, Mike "All Taxes are wrong" 777, has found reason to complain about a new tax. In other news, day follows night.

 

Don't get me wrong: There is plenty to bitch about regarding this particular bill, and the compromises that proved necessary to get this passed. If I were judging this bill in isolation, I'd a lot to complain about. However, I see this bill as one step in a long, convoluted, and quite suboptimal process.

 

This sure isn't perfect - I've said for a long time that I prefer an outright carbon tax - but its certainly a step in the right direction.

[luke warm]

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

 

It is noteworthy I believe to point out the frequency of your use of "thought exercises" in an attempt to create an aura of validity to the point for which you argue. It wasn't so long ago we had the thought exercise of (paraphrased here) suppose L.A. were to be bombed by a terrorist nuke would torturing the terrorist be a valid response? In either case, answering the question creates no new information and only serves to deflect attention away from facts.

then don't take part... aside from that, i never introduced such an exercise (if i'm mistaken, point me to it)... secondly, you sound as if you are philosophically opposed to such exercises when, imo, thought exercises are a necessary component of conspiracy theories... even so, i don't find it 'noteworthy' that you use them

 

as for the question itself, i have long admitted that we all approach certain things from within our own worldviews - we all have presuppositions... there have been many peer-reviewed papers stating that co2 has little or no bearing on climate change... i do *not* know how those papers have been accepted or the qualifications of those who either accept or don't accept their conclusions (the list of references is too daunting to delve into)... one paper, which to my knowledge hasn't been peer-reviewed, is here... another, which i *think* was reviewed, is here... another is referenced here

 

as i said, there is a lot of data on both sides and there is a lot of criticism of this data from both sides... we all have to rely on certain authorities, and the authorities we choose to rely on are those whose conclusions mirror our own presuppositions - why admitting that is such a problem for some is beyond me

 

having said all that, i would favor some action that honestly tried to move us away from the "dirtier" hydrocarbons as fuel sources - i just think there are better ways to do it

[mike777]

Please keep in mind while taxes as I said have the power to destroy, I have suggested taxes and increases in taxes for those who care to read my posts in full. Taxes are wrong does not equal no taxes. :) I do fear this bill is a step in the wrong direction for the reasons posted above. Granted many find it hard to vote against almost any tax increase.

[helene_t]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

[luke warm]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

[mike777]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

From a general believe that taxes while necessary; taxes in so many forms, destroy job creation and inhibit innovation and growth. From a general philosophy that putting economic and political power in the same pair of hands means a loss of freedom, too great a loss of freedom.

 

In general my top priority is jobs, jobs and more decent paying jobs.

 

 

OTOH Danes are the happiest people in the world so I do grant there is a another side worth discussing in this never ending debate. :)

 

Got to go to the fireworks and pops symphony, Happy 4th.

[jdonn]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

About as productive (and mature) of a statement as "There are major philosophical differences on gun control between those who want thousands of innocent people to be shot and killed every year and those who don't."

[Winstonm]

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

 

The group that makes this distinction also tends to deny any scientific basis for evolution, believes that systemic torture as policy of the U.S. saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and agrees that the invasion of Iraq was the "right thing to do" because it brought "democracy" to the desert.

 

secondly, you sound as if you are philosophically opposed to such exercises when, imo, thought exercises are a necessary component of conspiracy theories... even so, i don't find it 'noteworthy' that you use them

 

Your repeated use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" as an insult is getting old - try to find a more mature insult than whispering "nutcase" with the boys in the back taking drags off one cigarette while all snickering with you in unison, won't you, please?

[Winstonm]

... we all have to rely on certain authorities, and the authorities we choose to rely on are those whose conclusions mirror our own presuppositions - why admitting that is such a problem for some is beyond me

 

It seems beyond your comprehension that there could be people without a politically-driven bias who simply would like to know the facts about global warming. I take exception to your statement - I believe the politically-guided person does not care about what the authorities say but really cares about what the political leadership has to say about which authorities are correct.

 

What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views.

[luke warm]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

About as productive (and mature) of a statement as "There are major philosophical differences on gun control between those who want thousands of innocent people to be shot and killed every year and those who don't."

fine josh, you attempt an answer

secondly, you sound as if you are philosophically opposed to such exercises when, imo, thought exercises are a necessary component of conspiracy theories... even so, i don't find it 'noteworthy' that you use them

Your repeated use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" as an insult is getting old - try to find a more mature insult than whispering "nutcase" with the boys in the back taking drags off one cigarette while all snickering with you in unison, won't you, please?

the subject was thought experiments, not conspiracy theories... you criticize me for that which you do... it just seems a little inconsistent... btw, why did you throw out nuking LA as a thought experiment re: torture?

... we all have to rely on certain authorities, and the authorities we choose to rely on are those whose conclusions mirror our own presuppositions - why admitting that is such a problem for some is beyond me

It seems beyond your comprehension that there could be people without a politically-driven bias who simply would like to know the facts about global warming. I take exception to your statement - I believe the politically-guided person does not care about what the authorities say but really cares about what the political leadership has to say about which authorities are correct.

 

What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views.

fine winston, you have no presuppositions and no biases... my mistake... since you have no biases maybe you can tell me why you accept one 'evidence' over another

[jdonn]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

About as productive (and mature) of a statement as "There are major philosophical differences on gun control between those who want thousands of innocent people to be shot and killed every year and those who don't."

fine josh, you attempt an answer

I thought we had established this long ago in god 'debates'. A major difference between us is when I don't know an answer I don't feel the need to assume I know, say something stupid, or make something up. I just accept that I don't know.

 

Dance around it all you want. Your comment was really childish and stupid.

[Winstonm]

since you have no biases maybe you can tell me why you accept one 'evidence' over another

 

I don't accept one "evidence" over another. I don't believe there can be "two or more types of evidence" that conflict. Evidence is simply fact. It is only the conclusions about what the evidence means that can be in conflict.

 

Goes exactly back to what I wrote that there appears in our media only two types of "facts", i.e., the facts as promoted by the Republicans and the facts as promoted by the Democrats and truth is therefore a choice based on faith.

 

the subject was thought experiments

 

No, the subject matter was identifying truth and how the journalistic media has failed in its role as antagonist by becoming stenographers rather than reporters.

[luke warm]

since you have no biases maybe you can tell me why you accept one 'evidence' over another

I don't accept one "evidence" over another. I don't believe there can be "two or more types of evidence" that conflict. Evidence is simply fact. It is only the conclusions about what the evidence means that can be in conflict.

 

Goes exactly back to what I wrote that there appears in our media only two types of "facts", i.e., the facts as promoted by the Republicans and the facts as promoted by the Democrats and truth is therefore a choice based on faith.

you said "What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views." now you say "I don't accept one "evidence" over another." presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

the subject was thought experiments

No, the subject matter was identifying truth and how the journalistic media has failed in its role as antagonist by becoming stenographers rather than reporters.

even though i agree with your last remark, this is the post in question and your reply

And, of course, there are always the delusional...

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

It is noteworthy I believe to point out the frequency of your use of "thought exercises" in an attempt to create an aura of validity to the point for which you argue.

[helene_t]

Since this anti-science movement is a largely US phenomena, maybe I shouldn't speculate about the reasons for the strong emotions involved in this debate. Neverthess I will give it try.

 

That the pro-scientists have strong feelings against the anti-scientists is easy to understand. After all, evidence-based decision making is a sacred principle.

 

That the anti-scientists have strong emotions against the pro-scientists could be because they think that scientists make up evidence on the basis of a political convenience criterion. Man-made global warming is a pet theory of those who want scientific advicers to have more say on politics, and politics to have more say on the economy (because it indirectly gives more power to the academic elite).

 

Personally, I am somewhat concerned that there is some truth in the latter. I suppose the theory of man-made global warming is largely correct but I am concerned that the political implications of it are being exaggerated by radical anti-capitalists.

[cherdanno]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

Abortion is a discussion about values. Apart from the fact that most people actually have mixed feelings about abortion, I can accept when people come to a different value judgment on this issue.

The debate about global warming is in part a debate about facts. It is much harder to accept when the other side manages to completely ignore established facts ("The earth isn't actually warming.") or scientific consensus ("Global warming is only due to increased sun activity."). Or, as Jimmy would say, the other side is completely living in their own spin and creating their own reality of spin and bias.

Abortion is, in parts, a debate of religious versus other values. Global warming is a debate of rationality versus irrationality, about general distrust against science. The age of enlightenment settled this debate in Europe for good (and those who still disagreed with its principles emigrated to America).

 

Now, the cap-and-trade-bill combines this issue with TAXES, the most toxic word in US politics.

[hrothgar]

Since this anti-science movement is a largely US phenomena, maybe I shouldn't speculate about the reasons for the strong emotions involved in this debate.

What you call the "anti-science movement" is a lot more widespread that you seem to assume. There's a very strong link between religious fundamentalism and hostility towards science. (The rapid spread of creationism in Islamic countries is one of the obvious supporting points).

 

It shouldn't be at all surprising that the most vocal religious fundamentalists on this board are also the strongest climate change skeptics.

[Winstonm]

you said "What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views." now you say "I don't accept one "evidence" over another." presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

 

What basis...I don't know....rational thought, maybe....

[Winstonm]

Since this anti-science movement is a largely US phenomena, maybe I shouldn't speculate about the reasons for the strong emotions involved in this debate.

What you call the "anti-science movement" is a lot more widespread that you seem to assume. There's a very strong link between religious fundamentalism and hostility towards science. (The rapid spread of creationism in Islamic countries is one of the obvious supporting points).

 

It shouldn't be at all surprising that the most vocal religious fundamentalists on this board are also the strongest climate change skeptics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/200...tar-harun-yahya

 

You might also want to Google "Atlas of Creation".

[luke warm]

you said "What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views." now you say "I don't accept one "evidence" over another." presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

What basis...I don't know....rational thought, maybe....

ok, fine... your rational thought leads you to believe that gw, to the extent it exists, is mainly attributable to man... those who disagree (for example, here), regardless of their qualifications, must disagree irrationally... this explains why you alone have no presuppositions, no biases

[hrothgar]

ok, fine... your rational thought leads you to believe that gw, to the extent it exists, is mainly attributable to man... those who disagree, regardless of their qualifications, must disagree irrationally... this explains why you alone have no presuppositions, no biases

For all intents and purposes, there is scientific consensus about global warming.

 

Yes, there isolated skeptics. This isn't at all surprising. The world is a diverse place. It's easy enough to find idiots who will agree on most anything. You can even find isolated scientists who will support most any conjecture.

 

However, the scientific debate about global warming has been settled.

 

There's a reason why those articles that you were posting earlier don't pass peer review and don't get published in first tier journals. They aren't credible sources.

 

For what its worth, I don't think that Wilson ever claimed that he had no presuppositions or biases. I do think that he (and I) can make a very credible claim that the over whelming majority of climate scientists believe in man made C02 emissions are causing global warming.

[luke warm]

i don't deny there is a scientific consensus... neither do i deny the many and notable examples of erroneous scientific consensus in the past... perhaps the paper by Drs. Gerlich and Tscheuschner hasn't "passed" peer review, and perhaps they are an example of two idiots who agree on "most anything" (since you appear singularly qualified to sniff out idiots)... what does "pass peer review" mean, in the context you're using it? was their paper shown to be wrong? all that really matters, i'm sure you'll agree, is the truth

 

winston said he believes man-made gw is true on the basis of rational thought, not bias or presuppositions

[Winstonm]

Let me point out why I won't allow myself to be drawn into debates with you. Here is what you said:

 

ok, fine... your rational thought leads you to believe that gw, to the extent it exists, is mainly attributable to man...

 

And this:

 

winston said he believes man-made gw is true on the basis of rational thought, not bias or presuppositions

 

This is total fabrication on your part. This is what I said and the question that led to the response:

 

Your question:

presumably you believe something on this issue... on what basis?

 

My response:

What basis...I don't know....rational thought, maybe....

 

Where in that answer is there any statement of what I believe about man-made global warming? Yet you nonchalantly claim, "winston said he believes man-made gw is true..."

 

I could have meant that I didn't accept man-made global warming based on rational thought. Regardless, it is really irrelevant, as I was actually answering the question you posed of "how do you chose which evidence to believe?".

 

My answer to that is still the same - by rational thought. Bit it does seem by your response that you believe rational thought must lead to the conclusion that man-made global warming is occurring, and I won't disagree with your conclusions.

[hrothgar]

i don't deny there is a scientific consensus... neither do i deny the many and notable examples of erroneous scientific consensus in the past... perhaps the paper by Drs. Gerlich and Tscheuschner hasn't "passed" peer review, and perhaps they are an example of two idiots who agree on "most anything" (since you appear singularly qualified to sniff out idiots)... what does "pass peer review" mean, in the context you're using it? was their paper shown to be wrong? all that really matters, i'm sure you'll agree, is the truth

The following wiki page has a series of web pages devoted to Gerlich and Tsceuschner's work. Many of these links deal with an earlier (unpublished) version of G+T's screed. However, there's also some discussion of the article that was published in the "International Journal of Modern Physics B"

 

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?...D._Tscheuschner

 

Please note: I don't claim that I am uniquely qualified to sniff out idiots. As you can see, quite a few folks have invested quite a lot of time pointing out the myriad flaws in G+T's work. One this that I do claim is that I bother to do some background research before posting.

 

Regarding the "pass peer review" comment

 

The following posting covers the basic ground much more effectively than I could

 

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fac...ow-is-elis.html

[luke warm]

i'm not asking you to research and comment on the many skeptic papers, i doubt you have any more inclination or time to do so than i would... but if you have looked at the Stephen Schwartz paper, “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System” what are your thoughts?

[jdonn]

This whole "scientific consensus has been wrong many times in the past" reminds me of all the people with terrible ideas who say things like "everyone thought Einstein was crazy too." Depending on my mood I either laugh, or shake my head and sigh.