The USA has a long history of making friends with despicable regimes. As more despicable than Cuba, I'd put: Myanmar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Rwanda, and Cambodia. Arguably tied with Cuba would be: Honduras, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, and Uganda.
Then, if you travel back in time, you have despicable regimes in Iran, Chile, and Argentina.
Trade is ultimately for more powerful in making positive changes in these societies.
My guess is that you come from the wingnut wing of the American political spectrum, and thus have a "four-legs-good, Cuba-bad" mentality.
It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.
Projection isn't a river in Egypt.
Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.
Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.
The thing with crankery, is that cranks never let themselves in on the secret. It is a "self-secret" if you will.
The sad truth is that it will not cost the USA economy much (if anything) to make huge strides in reducing CO2 emissions. The technology is already here. Koch and Koch will need a new business model, which is what this is really about.
I believe that Steve McIntyre believes what he says, and thinks he is doing the right thing. Now what is true is that, McIntyre, McKitrick, Lindzen, Spencer, Pat Michaels, all travel in the same circles, receiving money from industry insiders who perfected the tobacco strategy. No-one is going to hire these people now, so they are dependent on the largess of the interests that they serve. Too bad for them.
Oh, I agree that green groups are annoying in their tactics. I decry the uncivilized tone of all of it. Now, if you want to know who started it, then you have to read some history, and I assure you, there is a lifetime worth of references to read there. (Personally, I spot check about one in every 100 references -- and check more regularly if one fails the sniff test. I find this effective.)
Well, it does strike me as true that those who are public in their opposition to climate science have ruined their careers, and are now 100% reliant on think-tank money and funding in order to pay their bills. That's the price for being a crank. Now *you* may not think it is crankery, but cranks never do. So how do you tell what is real?
The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times using different methods, and the original paper has been scrutinized several times, and found to be sound. But I'm sure you are "neutral" about the science when one Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, or heck, Lord Monckton throw sciency terms around like they are in an episode of Star Trek. Yep, it really is like that, Mr Neutral.
Wow. I mean, truly you know more about the lawsuit than the judge who is settling the legal question. I'm not sure what legal system you believe in, but it evidently is one where people can sue when their theories are mocked!!! My guess is that you used to be a proud "skeptic" but that that little lovefest of "reason" is untenable, and so you've moved to "neutral".
And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area.
"We all mysterious, especially to ourselves" -- Miss Marple.
Bwhahahahaha, you think satellites are accurate thermometers!!! Next you'll tell me that science shouldn't use models because they are inaccurate and cannot be verified!!! And all the while, you'll have no inkling that you are in a slow motion Dunning-Kruger freak show.
Yeah, it is a total fiction that conservatives are about small government and fiscal responsibility. As far as I can tell, the Harper government is economically clueless, just like George W., his father, and Ronald voodoo-economics Reagan. It's pure branding, and conservatives have owned the war on framing the conversation. But it is also bullpucky. Liberals get their economics from university economic departments. Conservatives get their economics from their donors, and sell it with doublespeak.
Leading economic theories on combating climate change involve revenue neutral carbon taxes. Revenue neutral means that the size of the government doesn't increase. Again, no-one cares about your politics, and motivated reasoning.
Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully used to reduce the amount of dirty electricity being used (by raising the price of produce), and still leave home owners with more money in their pocket. They drive economic growth (energy innovation, home modernization, grid modernization), and they also cause economic harm (fossil fuel interests are losers). When you tally up the growth and harm, they come feakily close to zero. So, on average, it costs nothing, but Koch and Koch will need a new business model.
There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all the naval bases and city facilities and property that are at sea level -- to name merely one certain economic downside of warming.
A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.
It is a fallacy that we must sacrifice much to fight climate change. The real alarmists are the economic alarmists. (Sure there are far left weirdos who use AGW as cover for their anti-capitalist economics, but their lunacy does not reflect the reality of the problem.) The consensus from economists is that a lot can be done with zero net effect to the economy. This is not just technology. We must change incentive structures that are already biased toward drawing down on fossil fuels. (Remember, we are not paying the true cost of our energy, for a lot of complex reasons.) The technology is already ready, with wind energy already having a total cost of ownership lower than coal. Solar is more expensive, for now, but will soon be cheaper. The only reason why we burn coal is because it is subsidized. Thus, pricing in the cost of pollution will lower the overall energy costs of the nation, and also drive economic growth. This is because most of the world is using revenue neutral taxes -- taking money from polluters and then creating incentives for housing and grid modernization. We already have more people working in renewable energy than in coal in the USA. Sure renewables do not supply reliable baseline energy, but that is a grid problem that is being solved by technology. You can look up the solutions if you are interested. The main obstacle in the USA is the nimby crowd. (The USA needs more high voltage transmission between parts of the country.)
. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all.
You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science. It's part of "signal processing". I know you will get distracted by that last comment. So again, and speaking very, very, slowly. Modeling is a tiny part of climate science, and the AGW hypothesis does not depend on it in the slightest. See here and here.
The political argument is only choking on its own blood within conservative circles in the USA, Australia, and Canada -- with the later two making some discernible progress. The GOP is not equal to the entire world.
No amount of sound argumentation will help you phantom, because, as we both know, you are only interested in tickling your own motivated reasoning. It doesn't matter that the AGW theory doesn't rely on models. It doesn't matter surface temperature has next to nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that 2014 was warmer than 1998, when there was no El Nino in 2014, and a record El Nino in 1998.
What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.
Do you know what a mimophant is? Either Mann is one, or his detractors are. Hint, his detractors came after him -- personally -- and now they are playing the victim if he so much as protests, let alone follow sound legal council over witch-hunts.
Slashdot Mirror
The USA has a long history of making friends with despicable regimes. As more despicable than Cuba, I'd put: Myanmar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Rwanda, and Cambodia. Arguably tied with Cuba would be: Honduras, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, and Uganda.
Then, if you travel back in time, you have despicable regimes in Iran, Chile, and Argentina.
Trade is ultimately for more powerful in making positive changes in these societies.
My guess is that you come from the wingnut wing of the American political spectrum, and thus have a "four-legs-good, Cuba-bad" mentality.
Obstinate rage didn't work for 50 years. Maybe trade will bring change -- it sure works that way in the rest of the world.
Gee, what was the last legitimate mainstream science paper you read on the hockey stick? Rich, eh?
It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.
Projection isn't a river in Egypt.
Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.
Or maybe read some original papers on the issue! Of course, if it doesn't agree with Anthony Watts, then you'll probably consider it propaganda. Bet you never read these.
Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.
The thing with crankery, is that cranks never let themselves in on the secret. It is a "self-secret" if you will.
Haha, nah, denialists are the ones running the PR campaign, and Mann receives constant death threats. Do you know what a mimophat is?
The sad truth is that it will not cost the USA economy much (if anything) to make huge strides in reducing CO2 emissions. The technology is already here. Koch and Koch will need a new business model, which is what this is really about.
I believe that Steve McIntyre believes what he says, and thinks he is doing the right thing. Now what is true is that, McIntyre, McKitrick, Lindzen, Spencer, Pat Michaels, all travel in the same circles, receiving money from industry insiders who perfected the tobacco strategy. No-one is going to hire these people now, so they are dependent on the largess of the interests that they serve. Too bad for them.
Oh, I agree that green groups are annoying in their tactics. I decry the uncivilized tone of all of it. Now, if you want to know who started it, then you have to read some history, and I assure you, there is a lifetime worth of references to read there. (Personally, I spot check about one in every 100 references -- and check more regularly if one fails the sniff test. I find this effective.)
Well, it does strike me as true that those who are public in their opposition to climate science have ruined their careers, and are now 100% reliant on think-tank money and funding in order to pay their bills. That's the price for being a crank. Now *you* may not think it is crankery, but cranks never do. So how do you tell what is real?
The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times using different methods, and the original paper has been scrutinized several times, and found to be sound. But I'm sure you are "neutral" about the science when one Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, or heck, Lord Monckton throw sciency terms around like they are in an episode of Star Trek. Yep, it really is like that, Mr Neutral.
And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area.
"We all mysterious, especially to ourselves" -- Miss Marple.
Bwhahahahaha, you think satellites are accurate thermometers!!! Next you'll tell me that science shouldn't use models because they are inaccurate and cannot be verified!!! And all the while, you'll have no inkling that you are in a slow motion Dunning-Kruger freak show.
Yeah, it is a total fiction that conservatives are about small government and fiscal responsibility. As far as I can tell, the Harper government is economically clueless, just like George W., his father, and Ronald voodoo-economics Reagan. It's pure branding, and conservatives have owned the war on framing the conversation. But it is also bullpucky. Liberals get their economics from university economic departments. Conservatives get their economics from their donors, and sell it with doublespeak.
Leading economic theories on combating climate change involve revenue neutral carbon taxes. Revenue neutral means that the size of the government doesn't increase. Again, no-one cares about your politics, and motivated reasoning.
The AGW scaremongering is a huge enabler for those who wish for more/expanded government power and higher taxation.
Only in your conspiratorial imagination. The typical climate scientist just wants a solution that works, and couldn't care less about your politics.
Hopefully /not/ ANSI C
Revenue neutral carbon taxes have been successfully used to reduce the amount of dirty electricity being used (by raising the price of produce), and still leave home owners with more money in their pocket. They drive economic growth (energy innovation, home modernization, grid modernization), and they also cause economic harm (fossil fuel interests are losers). When you tally up the growth and harm, they come feakily close to zero. So, on average, it costs nothing, but Koch and Koch will need a new business model.
There are always winners and loser when incentive structures change. The real question is who is being subsized by the status quo, and is it fair. Fighting AGW will produce winners and losers but the consensus among economists it that it will have a negligble effect on overall economic growth. That means we can move away from fossil fuels and, on average, we will still be as rich in the future even if AGW is a hoax. If it isn't a hoax, then we will be a lot richer in the future if the USA still keeps all the naval bases and city facilities and property that are at sea level -- to name merely one certain economic downside of warming.
A revenue neutral pollution tax can be used to compensate the losers, other than the fossil fuel industry, who are enjoying huge negative externalities right now. No wonder Koch and Koch are spending so much money shaping political perceptions on the issue.
It is a fallacy that we must sacrifice much to fight climate change. The real alarmists are the economic alarmists. (Sure there are far left weirdos who use AGW as cover for their anti-capitalist economics, but their lunacy does not reflect the reality of the problem.) The consensus from economists is that a lot can be done with zero net effect to the economy. This is not just technology. We must change incentive structures that are already biased toward drawing down on fossil fuels. (Remember, we are not paying the true cost of our energy, for a lot of complex reasons.) The technology is already ready, with wind energy already having a total cost of ownership lower than coal. Solar is more expensive, for now, but will soon be cheaper. The only reason why we burn coal is because it is subsidized. Thus, pricing in the cost of pollution will lower the overall energy costs of the nation, and also drive economic growth. This is because most of the world is using revenue neutral taxes -- taking money from polluters and then creating incentives for housing and grid modernization. We already have more people working in renewable energy than in coal in the USA. Sure renewables do not supply reliable baseline energy, but that is a grid problem that is being solved by technology. You can look up the solutions if you are interested. The main obstacle in the USA is the nimby crowd. (The USA needs more high voltage transmission between parts of the country.)
. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all.
You are talking about one small vein of climate science -- and creating and testing models is actually science. It's part of "signal processing". I know you will get distracted by that last comment. So again, and speaking very, very, slowly. Modeling is a tiny part of climate science, and the AGW hypothesis does not depend on it in the slightest. See here and here.
The political argument is only choking on its own blood within conservative circles in the USA, Australia, and Canada -- with the later two making some discernible progress. The GOP is not equal to the entire world.
No amount of sound argumentation will help you phantom, because, as we both know, you are only interested in tickling your own motivated reasoning. It doesn't matter that the AGW theory doesn't rely on models. It doesn't matter surface temperature has next to nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that 2014 was warmer than 1998, when there was no El Nino in 2014, and a record El Nino in 1998.
What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.
Do you know what a mimophant is? Either Mann is one, or his detractors are. Hint, his detractors came after him -- personally -- and now they are playing the victim if he so much as protests, let alone follow sound legal council over witch-hunts.
Well, you probably know too much about the "science" to actually understand one of Mann's papers -- so it is really pitched at your level.