Why do so many people deny climate change

[bripat9643]

Pretty much what I said about Apollo being a first customer.. The innovation was very distributed through industry. Not a focuse effort by govt...

Without government investment and purchasing, integrated circuits would have taken years longer to get into the marketplace.

And this is certainly not the only example of both direct and indirect beneficial government investments in research. Damn few companies out there conduct unapplied research. How many satellites would be in orbit? Would we have a Hubble? Any of the manned missions? Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the Shuttle or the ISS? Any of the planetary probes? Why didn't business fund the Human Genome Project? Surely there was money to be made there? How about the massive biological surveys that have been conducted across several nations? There's all manner of stuff that the goverment has funded, that has benefitted humanity six ways from Sunday, that no business would ever have put a dime towards: too risky and too little gain to be had.

Arguing that government is all bad is just a crap position.

Part of the conservative business direction is no R&D. Too risky. While laying off workers who create wealth is not. Shrink to success. Even though that's never been the case in corporate history.

You must be on LSD when you read books on economics.

 

[bripat9643]

Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.

Why sparingly?

It shouldn't be used at all. Government shouldn't be in the business of molding society. It's only legitimate function is to protect your rights, and that's it.

 

[Spiderman]

Somalia is not a red herring. It's the realized vision of extreme conservative politics, though it was realized just by people who didn't know any better. Conservatives don't know any better either. They merely follow those selling plutocracy.

That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.

Show us some evidence that less government is advantageous. How about some examples.

Advantageous to whom?

Smaller government costs less

When government costs less we all have more money in our pockets

That's advantageous to anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

Here we go again with the Somalia red herring.

Where has anyone here suggested we have no government?

Somalia is not a red herring. It's the realized vision of extreme conservative politics, though it was realized just by people who didn't know any better. Conservatives don't know any better either. They merely follow those selling plutocracy.

That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.

Somalia has no shortage of government. It has dozens of governments.

 

[bripat9643]

That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.

Show us some evidence that less government is advantageous. How about some examples.

Advantageous to whom?

Smaller government costs less

When government costs less we all have more money in our pockets

That's advantageous to anyone.

Having guns pointed at you to make you do things you don't want to do is always worse than the alternative.

 

[Spiderman]

Somalia is not a red herring. It's the realized vision of extreme conservative politics, though it was realized just by people who didn't know any better. Conservatives don't know any better either. They merely follow those selling plutocracy.

That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.

Somalia has no shortage of government. It has dozens of governments.

So many that there might as well be none.

 

[bripat9643]

That you can't see advocating for less intrusive government is not the same as advocating for no government tells me all I need to know about your intelligence.

Somalia has no shortage of government. It has dozens of governments.

So many that there might as well be none.

Somalia is what you get when a totalitarian socialist state collapses. The survivors are left to squabble over the scraps. The social institutions that would normally function in the absence of state power never had a chance to develop in Somalia. Take common law, for example. It's not something the state created, and it took a thousand years for it to develop in Europe. It's the basis for all real law in the Western world.

 

[orogenicman]

Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.

Why sparingly?

It shouldn't be used at all. Government shouldn't be in the business of molding society. It's only legitimate function is to protect your rights, and that's it.

So you are proposing re-writing the Constitution, then. Hmm.

 

[Abraham3]

Somalia has no shortage of government. It has dozens of governments.

So many that there might as well be none.

Somalia is what you get when a totalitarian socialist state collapses. The survivors are left to squabble over the scraps. The social institutions that would normally function in the absence of state power never had a chance to develop in Somalia. Take common law, for example. It's not something the state created, and it took a thousand years for it to develop in Europe. It's the basis for all real law in the Western world.

Paddy, do you have an example you prefer? Some state that shows the benefits of your philosophy?

On a related note, if a state of no government is fundamentally superior, why have we seen so few of them?

 

[Abraham3]

I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it. I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore. And perhaps dislike is not the right word. I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history. Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency. It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not). It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich. It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).

I suppose if one is forced by one's 'principles' to adopt the absurd position that Bush was a satisfactory president, rejecting out of hand, science held as widely as is AGW, becomes far, far easier. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[Spiderman]

I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it. I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore. And perhaps dislike is not the right word. I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history. Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency. It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not). It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich. It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).

I suppose if one is forced by one's 'principles' to adopt the absurd position that Bush was a satisfactory president, rejecting out of hand, science held as widely as is AGW, becomes far, far easier. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I don't deny it but there is a political aspect to this whole thing.

Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see.

I just don't believe that a 2 degree C increase in temps over the next 100 years is going to be that big of a deal.

And Al Gore jumped on the band wagon to make himself rich with his carbon credit scam

 

[JWBooth]

Almost no one denies climate change.
Climates have changed since the crust cooled and solidified.
The point of contention is the politicised question - Is man responsible for affecting change, can he reverse his affect?

To the same extent that a single drop of rain affects the flow of the Mississippi river, sure man makes a difference.

 

[Abraham3]

I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it. I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore. And perhaps dislike is not the right word. I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history. Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency. It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not). It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich. It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).

I suppose if one is forced by one's 'principles' to adopt the absurd position that Bush was a satisfactory president, rejecting out of hand, science held as widely as is AGW, becomes far, far easier. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I don't deny it but there is a political aspect to this whole thing.

Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see.

I just don't believe that a 2 degree C increase in temps over the next 100 years is going to be that big of a deal.

And Al Gore jumped on the band wagon to make himself rich with his carbon credit scam

You say you don't deny it and they you deny it all.

Precisely what does this mean: "Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see."?

The word "nothing" seems out of place. If you choose to live in a nation of laws the government will always be telling you how to live; or, more accurately, how NOT to live. What sort of controls do you anticipate from anti-AGW efforts that you would find unbearable or undesirable?

 

[Spiderman]

I do not believe that people deny AGW because they see excess government control in it. I really think the vast majority of opposition resulted from people's dislike of Al Gore. And perhaps dislike is not the right word. I think Al Gore's continued existence embarrassed people who were forced - or at least encouraged - by unusual circumstances, to support a 'president' who lost the popular vote and then turned out to be one of the worst presidents in US history. Every time Al Gore's face appears, it is as if Republican's noses are rubbed in the detritus of the Bush presidency. It doesn't help, I suppose, that Gore, like Carter before him, dedicated his post-political time to public service (and Bush did not). It explains to some extent why we constantly hear the ridiculous accusation that Gore invented global warming to make himself rich. It's why almost every single opponent of action to counter AGW is a staunch conservative (and FlaCalTenn's vitriolic, leftwing, commie-pinko, bleeding-heart liberalism is why I say "almost")( ;-) ).

I suppose if one is forced by one's 'principles' to adopt the absurd position that Bush was a satisfactory president, rejecting out of hand, science held as widely as is AGW, becomes far, far easier. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I don't deny it but there is a political aspect to this whole thing.

Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see.

I just don't believe that a 2 degree C increase in temps over the next 100 years is going to be that big of a deal.

And Al Gore jumped on the band wagon to make himself rich with his carbon credit scam

You say you don't deny it and they you deny it all.

Precisely what does this mean: "Government is an agent of control nothing so the fact that the government wants to tell us how to live and is using apocalyptic propaganda is plain to see."?

The word "nothing" seems out of place. If you choose to live in a nation of laws the government will always be telling you how to live; or, more accurately, how NOT to live. What sort of controls do you anticipate from anti-AGW efforts that you would find unbearable or undesirable?

Excuse the fuck out of me

Government is nothing but an agent of control.....

You people and you anti AGW strategies.

We should be fracking the shit out of our natural gas rich lands but the environmentalists who want to stop GW say no even though natural gas is the least harmful fossil fuel.

You all say you're all for science but have a fit when nuclear power is mentioned as a large scale proven emission free source of power.

No you people want carbon taxes and boondoggle federal wind farm and solar projects.

And where have I denied that the earth is getting slightly warmer?

I don't think that's the issue. the issue is the predictions.

Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.

 

[Abraham3]

Almost no one denies climate change.
Climates have changed since the crust cooled and solidified.

Did you actually think that was the question under discussion?

The point of contention is the politicised question - Is man responsible for affecting change, can he reverse his affect?

Everyone here was already aware of that.

To the same extent that a single drop of rain affects the flow of the Mississippi river, sure man makes a difference.

On what do you base that? The vast majority of scientists in this very field, based on decades of research, seem to disagree with you.

 

[Abraham3]

Excuse the fuck out of me

No problem. I excuse the fuck out of you. ;-)

Government is nothing but an agent of control.....

Yes... are you saying that is a bad thing?

You people and you anti AGW strategies.

We should be fracking the shit out of our natural gas rich lands but the environmentalists who want to stop GW say no even though natural gas is the least harmful fossil fuel.

You may be confusing a few different, admittedly overlapping, groups. There is a general opposition to fossil fuels among people concerned about AGW which would - or has - produced some of the opposition towards fracking. However, the bulk of the opposition towards fracking, at least from my own observations, is in response to other dangers fracking presents. From Wikipedia's article on the subject: "Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[ Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01] .

You all say you're all for science but have a fit when nuclear power is mentioned as a large scale proven emission free source of power.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I fully support nuclear power. I don't think we should put plants near major faults, in flood zones or areas subject to tsunamis, but other than that, I love nuclear power.

No you people want carbon taxes and boondoggle federal wind farm and solar projects.

I like the idea of carbon taxes. I would like the government to subsidize (via any of several means) wind and solar power projects. I would also like them to work to enable greater use of nuclear power and research into other alternative energy sources (wave and tide power, OTEC, geothermal, etc). I believe that is needed and will benefit all.

And where have I denied that the earth is getting slightly warmer?

I don't know that you have. The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and the Earth as a whole continues to warm. Do not be fooled by the transition which has moved a large portion of the heat formerly accumulated in the atmosphere to the deep ocean. The energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere HAS NOT CHANGED.

I don't think that's the issue. the issue is the predictions.

It would be nice if our science was perfect and omniscient, but it's not and never will be. However, it IS better - MUCH better - than the views and actions pushed by those who reject our science. And, since global warming continues apace, it is NOT actually the issue. GHG's are still causing increased amounts of solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere, our lands and - for the greatest part - in our oceans.

Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.

I agree with your first clause - they are not evidence. And what we are talking about are, for the most part, not predictions but projections. There's a difference.

It is grossly misguided to classify a multivariate projection of a complex process as right or wrong. They are more or less accurate, but they are not right or wrong. It would be nice if the world were that simple, but it is not. That's why I look to the folks with the most education and applicable experience for the best information. That practice tells me that the world is still warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause. It tells me that the path we are on presents a real risk to us and our descendants. It tells me that overcoming this issue will be expensive and will require deep and enduring dedication. And all of that - and the existence of folks with opinions such as yours - tells me we will fail.

 

[Abraham3]

Almost no one denies climate change.
Climates have changed since the crust cooled and solidified.

Did you actually think that was the question under discussion?



Everyone here was already aware of that.

To the same extent that a single drop of rain affects the flow of the Mississippi river, sure man makes a difference.

On what do you base that? The vast majority of scientists in this very field, based on decades of research, seem to disagree with you.

If you don't think that over-population isn't doing something to our planet and its climate, you're done. Go back to bed. You need a long rest.

Over population? That's a bit out of left field. When did we start talking about over population?

 

[bripat9643]

Encouraging innovation can be used sparingly.

Why sparingly?

It shouldn't be used at all. Government shouldn't be in the business of molding society. It's only legitimate function is to protect your rights, and that's it.

So you are proposing re-writing the Constitution, then. Hmm.

The Constitution was a good attempt at limiting government, but it is fundamentally flawed. The concept of limited government is an oxymoron.

 

[bripat9643]

Advantageous to whom?

Smaller government costs less

When government costs less we all have more money in our pockets

That's advantageous to anyone.

Having guns pointed at you to make you do things you don't want to do is always better than the alternative.

Which is? Not having guns pointed at you and being left alone to do what you want? Fuck are you stupid.

Duh . . Yeah! Doing what you want is called freedom, nimrod.

 

[Spiderman]

Excuse the fuck out of me

No problem. I excuse the fuck out of you. ;-)

Government is nothing but an agent of control.....

Yes... are you saying that is a bad thing?



You may be confusing a few different, admittedly overlapping, groups. There is a general opposition to fossil fuels among people concerned about AGW which would - or has - produced some of the opposition towards fracking. However, the bulk of the opposition towards fracking, at least from my own observations, is in response to other dangers fracking presents. From Wikipedia's article on the subject: "Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[ Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01] .



I'm sorry to disappoint you but I fully support nuclear power. I don't think we should put plants near major faults, in flood zones or areas subject to tsunamis, but other than that, I love nuclear power.



I like the idea of carbon taxes. I would like the government to subsidize (via any of several means) wind and solar power projects. I would also like them to work to enable greater use of nuclear power and research into other alternative energy sources (wave and tide power, OTEC, geothermal, etc). I believe that is needed and will benefit all.



I don't know that you have. The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and the Earth as a whole continues to warm. Do not be fooled by the transition which has moved a large portion of the heat formerly accumulated in the atmosphere to the deep ocean. The energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere HAS NOT CHANGED.

I don't think that's the issue. the issue is the predictions.

It would be nice if our science was perfect and omniscient, but it's not and never will be. However, it IS better - MUCH better - than the views and actions pushed by those who reject our science. And, since global warming continues apace, it is NOT actually the issue. GHG's are still causing increased amounts of solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere, our lands and - for the greatest part - in our oceans.

Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.

I agree with your first clause - they are not evidence. And what we are talking about are, for the most part, not predictions but projections. There's a difference.

It is grossly misguided to classify a multivariate projection of a complex process as right or wrong. They are more or less accurate, but they are not right or wrong. It would be nice if the world were that simple, but it is not. That's why I look to the folks with the most education and applicable experience for the best information. That practice tells me that the world is still warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause. It tells me that the path we are on presents a real risk to us and our descendants. It tells me that overcoming this issue will be expensive and will require deep and enduring dedication. And all of that - and the existence of folks with opinions such as yours - tells me we will fail.

A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.