Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Al, excellent comment. I will add, how about measuring the national debt against the average discretionary income of middle class workers who will bear the brunt of the interest payements and repayment of the debt? That is the killer in this equation, because the middle class is chest deep in personal debt all its own at record levels. The middle class, unlike the past, is not in a position to carry the tax increases that will be needed, nor bear the loss of the transfer payments that will be needed, to resolve the national debt and bear the interest burden.

I agree with your comment on rhetoric. Too often in politics the issue is decided by framing in what logically is not an appropriate way. However, I can’t agree with your environmental framing problem. Through Kyoto and like-minded ideas we are being asked to drastically cut back on our economic output in a way that will be devestating to everyone in our country, but especially the poor who can’t afford pricier transportation and goods alternatives. We are being asked to do that based on highly speculative models which predict drastic increases in global temperature over the last 100 years (which goes against historical fatc) if you use the same models which apply to their forecasts for the next 100 years. So I think the burden of proof is correct in that case.

I think talking about the best way to reduce abortions may be more productive than our current abortion debate, but it is difficult to see why the pro-choice side would engage in it. They have already won the right to abort any child, at any time, for any reason. They have very little incentive to engage, and every incentive to protect the status quo.

The proof that there is warming is incontrovertable. Nobody, not even the people representing the contrary interests dares to suggest that the average temperature, world-wide is going up.

The opponents of Anti-global warming measures claim that the environment is doing this by itself. Additionally, they claim that these models, because they are tentative to new theories and information are unreliable, and therefore current practices should be continued.

But there is a major hole in that argument.

First, you must recognize that both claims, pro and con of the measures to cut down greenhouse gases, merit the exact same treatment. We cannot claim either one true without testing them as a hypothesis.

In english, both the assertion that human produced greenhouse gases are contributing, and the assertion that they aren’t must be tested scientifically. The opponents of greenhouse gas reduction do not get a free scientific pass.

As such, their claims must be made subject to experimental evidence. The evidence, so far, has indicated that even the amounts that we put in the air can have an effect on things. I mean, if a Butterfly flapping it’s wings can have an effect on the weather a month from now, how much of an effect would billions of tons of carbon dioxide or methane have on the system?

Of course, science may prove one side or the other correct. Most likely, both sides will be wrong. But in the meantime, I think it is better to be safe than sorry. Better to act now, before we reach some sort of destabilizing threshold in the complex mechanics of climate, than to act only as the water begins to rise around our cities.

“In english, both the assertion that human produced greenhouse gases are contributing, and the assertion that they aren’t must be tested scientifically. The opponents of greenhouse gas reduction do not get a free scientific pass.”

Nope that isn’t science. First of all, you are empirically wrong about the state of the argument of warming itself. Satellite imagery of the atmosphere shows no overall warming since the 1970s. Data is unavailable before then from satellites. This is a vexing problem for advocates of the warming hypothesis. Data from thermometers near cities show a slight warming effect. This is explainable since monitoring stations which were once near a city are now deep within it, and a small, localized warming effect in ambient air from asphalt is well documented. (Kyoto would do nothing about that kind of warming).

Second, science is about testing hypotheses. Saying that humans are not causing warming isn’t a hypothesis. It is skepticism of a hypothesis. It doesn’t need to be proven in the same way as the hypothesis that humans are causing warming. The hypothesss are that humans are causing global warming and that global warming will be worse for us or the planet than non-warming.

Third, even if you someday prove that we are causing global warming if you want social change to come from that hypothetical scientific discovery you will need to show that humans will be worse off under this warmer atmosphere. The evidence shows that earth was much warmer in the very recent past. Even if we added 2 or 3 degrees we would be well withing the normal variation. Kyoto style reforms demand an enormous recession in Western countries and offer a change of at most a decade in the warming timelines hypothesized. That doesn’t seem like a good trade off to me. Frame it however you like, it won’t seem like a good trade off to most people. Which is why in the warming debate many are reduced to playing up non-scientific scare scenarios. They hope to change the perception of the trade off.

Nuclear power is one of the best ways to reduce greenhouse emissions from electricity production. The French reduced their emissions by using nuclear power. Perhaps we should follow their lead.

Nuclear power is one of the best ways to reduce greenhouse emissions from electricity production. The French reduced their emissions by using nuclear power. Perhaps we should follow their lead.

Replacing one kind of pollution with a far deadlier one that won’t dissipate for millions of years is the height of …… (fill in the blank)

Replacing one increasing cost of energy with another energy source whose cost is incalculably more expensive is the height of ……. (fill in the blank)

Replacing one fuel which is volatile and WHEN mishandled could kill hundreds of people with another fuel which WHEN mishandled will kill and disease and injure millions of people is the height of ……. (fill in the blank).

And that is all the blankety blank I have to say about building new nuclear power plants in America. Anyone with a memmory of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island in the U.S., or anyone who researches more recent close calls in Nuclear power will stand adamantly opposed to this kind of proposal.

This is no concession, but I would like to know where you got your information. In the meantime, I can think of a number of objections right off the bat.

First, I would think that they’d notice the difference. In fact I remember hearing about this phenomena much earlier from scientific sources. So I can’t imagine these people, whose job it is to learn about these things, could be so utterly ignorant of such an important variable in the system.

Second, your claims would have be weighed against readings from stations in rural or wilderness locations. If the temperature increase in those stations, averaged, shows a consistent rise in temperature to those in urban or suburban areas, then you would be proved wrong. It is a good issue to bring up, but it’s no open and shut case.

Speaking of which, I would like to inform you that an opposing theory is indeed as much of hypothesis as the theory itself. You see, that’s what I present in the last paragraph: If, allowing for the thermodynamic effects of concrete and steel, the temperature rise is consistent between city and country, then the assertion that this all just the result of baking concrete would be disproven.

Why? Because that’s the null hypothesis, the negation of real one. When you put together an experiment or an observation, the idea is to gather data that would, allowing for or eliminating other possible causes, show the presence of a causative effect, or it’s absence.

The assertion that the globe is not heating up is a hypothesis. You provided data for that hypothesis by means of that satellite data. Which is why I’m curious to hear about that source of yours.

I’d like to know the following: The study you speak of- is it a straight study or a metastudy, with information brought in from already existing studies, and crunched by the author?

About the satellite or satellites involved, I’d like to know how long they’ve been up, what kind of orbits are taken, and what the original purpose of them is. I hope you know these things, or can point me to those who supposedly do know, because these are crucial facts.

I know politics can get in the way of good science, but it is good to remember that your claims must bear up under scientific scrutiny too, and your people are no more invulnerable to their agendas than our people are.

If you don’t remember this, then all it is, is you not letting the facts get in the way of a good agenda.

One need only read about the deglatiation occuring at both poles and the absence of snow cap on Mt. Kiliminjaro to see that global warming is taking place. The only question for humans is, should we exacerbate the warming or not?

Really quite simple. And since no one knows how long or extreme the natural underpinnings of the natural causes for the warming will be, it is simple logical deduction that states the worst of it will be less worse if we humans stop or slow our contribution to the warming.

The logic is inescapeable. But, who cares, eh? The end is at least two generations away at any given time, right? “This is the end, dun, dun, dun, My only friend, The End” (Jim Morrison).

Just google “satellite shows no warming” and you will get all sorts of reference material on the subject. You will also get lots of articles explaining why the data doesn’t matter, and a discussion of it from both sides. You can see a relatively even-handed take on it here .

Also, you should check your sources, last I heard Antarctic ice levels have been dramatically increasing over the past three years.

“it is simple logical deduction that states the worst of it will be less worse if we humans stop or slow our contribution to the warming.”

Not all marginal threats are worth the costs. If I were to say that simple logic dictates that we could reduce the threat of terrorism by completely suspending all civil rights and declaring martial law, you might suggest that the price was too high for the effect. The marginal difference in warming of Kyoto-like reforms is negligible according to Pro-Kyoto scientists. And according to nearly all economists the economic effect would be dramatic and negative. The price is too high for the negligible effect.

From my cited article note especially:

“Climate models say the upper air should warm at a faster rate than the surface.”

Well, there are those who believe a profit today is of greater value than our life sustaining planet tomorrow. Then there are those who say, better poor than extinct.

Guess we simply choose different sides on the issue. The very fact that we don’t know how devastating global warming can be and how soon, puts me on the side of caution, and preferring poor to extinct.

But, the world is full of gamblers and 98.2% of them lose more than they win. But, hey, life is just a game of chance anyway, eh? : )

This back and forth about banter about whether or not global warming is happening makes me think we still haven’t framed the question adequately. If proving that global warming is occurring means getting 100% scientific agreement, then it will never be proven. However, if we frame the question as “What is an acceptable level of risk that the earth will be 90% uninhabitable in 300 years?” I sure hope most people will answer as close to zero as possible.

Your article Sebastian:
“A National Academy of Sciences panel has concluded that strong evidence exists to show an “undoubtedly real” warming of Earth’s surface over the last 20 years — even if satellites and weather balloons show little or no warming five miles up.”

from http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/28/convection2.html

“Outside an airplane window at 30,000 feet, the air temperature drops to -40 degrees F”

I did more than google your key words, Sebastian, I followed up on them. This is what I found about the device used to take those temperatures:

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/guides/GSFC/guide/limb93_dataset.gd.html

From the looks of it, I don’t think that data can be relied upon to refute Global warming. The Microwave Sounding Unit, as used in those studies has poor resolution in the Troposphere, which of course you know is our section of the atmosphere, and the section that climatologist are chiefly concerned with. Weather and surface temperature are phenomena of it.

Additionally, it seems like the article you link to is saying not so much that the upper air temperatures are indicating global warming is not taking place, so much as it’s saying that it’s importance in present models is overemphasized.

In terms of what can be done about it, I’d say this: environmentally sound technologies will always remain expensive if our manufacturers don’t put time and research into creating cleaner technologies. I cannot name a technology that did not start out expensive or difficult to create. But somebody persevered, somebody took the risk, and made the investment, and because they did, our lives are infinitely more productive.

The question is, are these things expensive because of the innate economics involved, or are they expensive because nobody has taken the initiative to do the things that would make these processes cheaper?

“The very fact that we don’t know how devastating global warming can be and how soon, puts me on the side of caution, and preferring poor to extinct.”

I can’t imagine you letting me get away with an argument in that form regarding civil rights or the war on terrorism. Furthermore I know of absolutely no credible suggestion from even scientists who believe in global warming that we face the kind of threat you are worrying about. It would be like me suggesting that because Al Qaeda wants nuclear weapons, we should assume that they have 10,000 thermonuclear bombs and should ‘therefore’ suspend all civil rights, declare a state of emergency, and search house to house until we round up al Al-Qaeda members. In both your argument, and the Al-Qaeda hypothetical we start with true statements and extrapolate wildly into nightmare scenarios. That isn’t helpful to a real cost/benefit analysis.

“The question is, are these things expensive because of the innate economics involved, or are they expensive because nobody has taken the initiative to do the things that would make these processes cheaper?”

What I have never understood is that those who are so convinced that these processes are there for the taking fail to themselves invest in such technological investigation. If there was a good proposal, why couldn’t you get a few bucks from each of the environmentalists in the nation. With the budget of the Sierra Club you could get lots of research done which if successful would do more than the environment than the Sierra Club could ever hope to do. I wouldn’t donate money to it because I don’t believe such technologies are right around the corner. But for those who believe it, it would seem like a great investment.

Sebastian, let me address your objection to my question about R+D first.

We don’t know what’s around the corner. Ten years ago, we were still running DOS. Ten years ago, the chips were running thirty times slower. Ten years ago, the internet as we know it now did not exist.

All those advancements were not free, were not always easy, and most definitely did not all go as planned. But somebody put the R+D into these things, and we can have this conversation because of that.

There are many environmentalist working on these things, and you should not underestimate their efforts. But you must understand that the R+D capabilities of a Fortune 500 or a national government are vastly superior to that of a not for profit environmental group.

As for the other response, I think you exaggerate the exaggeration, ironically enough. For Al Quaeda, all those warheads would be beyond their means, for we know that the organization does not have the budget or facilities to maintain them.

But the Atmosphere is more than a match for us. It’s current state may be stable, but it’s stable the way a huge boulder is, perched in a notch at the start of a slope. The question is, do we have enough strength to work the stone out of the notch if we keep pushing.

Your camp wants to claim that nothing we could do would have that effect. Flat assertions are made for the factual nature of any claim that would negate event the possibility of global warming. Your people, whether you realize it or not, are stalling, stalling so they do not have to draw any money from the bottom line to fixing these things.

It doesn’t seem like you’re trying to find cheap ways to reduce emissions and improve gas mileage, it seems like you’re trying to avoid it all together. And that would be a real shame, because even if Global Warming is just another bad hypothesis, the benefits of the technology are there.

Gas mileage alone can be helpful. The mileage on my car helped transport my family across the US on just a handful of tanks of gas. The savings and the convenience were quite real to me and my family.

It’s unfortunate that your people have to stonewall on these issues. They could make some real progress, cut down on the NIMBY protests, and forestall some seriously bad environmental problems, but that would just be too much trouble.

“It’s current state may be stable, but it’s stable the way a huge boulder is, perched in a notch at the start of a slope.”

Or rather you think that it may be stable the way a huge boulder is. I don’t, and I’ve researched quite a bit more than most. Corporations are conglomerations of money by like-minded individuals dedicated to a goal. If you, unlike me, believe that amazing enviromental discoveries are just around the corner you should invest in such research and convince others to do the same. There are plenty of people with enviromental interests who would invest in a good research project. The only reason corporations have more money is because they put their money where their mouth is. Actions speak louder than words. I don’t believe that most enviromentalists want to be involved in the hard research because it is far more difficult, and far less rewarding than they claim.

You’re far too idealistic about business. Business is all talk, before the rubber meets the road, and what the business interacts with the customers.

In theory, the best will win, but we know the race doesn’t naturally go to the swiftest, or the fight to strongest. It’s simply those who manage and who continue. And the customers aren’t always served best by those who lead. Often people lack the resources or the knowledge to avoid being taken advantage of by a business or even an industry.

Business can and does insist on the government intervening on it’s behalf. Subsidies, tax breaks, pork barrel projects. Government contracts. Halliburton sure knows this.

What else was the DMCA about? Some wits call it the Mickey Mouse preservation act, because without it, the famed rodent would have become public domain, at least as far as copyright goes.

Point is, we are not living in a pure market economy, where consumer and producer would define things on their own.

What’s more, we are not living in a business environment where people habituatlly do the right thing, or face cold facts with a stiff upper lip. Many times, the whims of the greedy overrule the counsel of the wise. people are punished for bringing potential problems and issues to light with management.

I don’t know. What your people are doing seems like stonewalling. It seems you are denying things in order to avoid having to do things.

I follow up on your statistics, and I find numbers that were quoted out of context. I follow up on your revelations, and the discovery that I make seems to indicate that your revelation is limited to that of your bias. It is one thing to pursue a subject because of what one believes. It’s quite another thing to miss data and qualifications on that data for it.

The majority of scientists say that global warming is occuring. We hear about huge breakups of glaciers in Antartica and Greenland, about the recession of ice caps on our planet. Will you only admit the possibility when the water is lapping at your toes, and your suburban house is beachfront property? I sure hope not.

But all in all, I think nothing will get done about these things as long as it is the policy of the Republican party to shove aside environmental concerns as liberal nonsense, and business leaders insist that the economy will only be well served by irresponsibility towards such issues.