OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:54 pm

I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:55 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Yeah....or how they just believe anything they read or hear.... As if they themselves were scientists....

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:07 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?

Most of the experts in geography in 1492 believed the world was flat. Good thing that "geography skeptic" Columbus didn't believe them and set sail.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:09 pm

bdoughty wrote:
wco81 wrote: Who's asked for "trillions of dollars?"
Glad you asked. You little buddy Al is asking for $5 trillion for his energy plan. T.Boone Pickens on the other hand is only thinking $1 trillion.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-com ... -plan.html

T.Boone is also the same nut job that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on some land near our farm, just so his buddies can pheasant hunt. What a swell guy. Just who I want setting up a plan for energy proposals.

OK, Gore hasn't proposed any $5 trillion plan. What this blogger is doing is estimating what a conversion to renewable energy sources is going to cost, extrapolating from what Pickens has proposed:

By my math, using Pickens's numbers, converting the whole economy to renewable energy in a short period of time might cost $5 trillion—and that is if you assume that government-led projects come in on budget.

So again, what specific measures from Gore is going to cost $5 trillion? A financial analysis would be more credible than some blogger coming up with some number (one that he doesn't explain how he came up with).

If you say that the the carbon caps are going to cost $800 billion over 10 years from the oil companies, $1 trillion over 5 years from the power generation companies, etc. then we have something to discuss the cost/benefits.

Or that if implemented, his proposal to increase fuel taxes by x percent will cost y percent in GDP growth, that would be worth discussing.

But because Gore is a visible figure, you want to attach all kinds of worst-case scenarios to his ideas, which have really no substantive facts to support the claims.

As for Pickens, global warming wasn't the biggest issue in 2004 but he backed Bush, who was the most visible counterpart to Gore. He's a Johnny-come-lately on this issue and you wonder since he's first and foremost a businessman, whether he has any holdings in wind turbines, wind mill right of ways, natural gas.

After all, he made his career and fortune by taking positions in public companies and extorting greenmail to go away.

As far as I can tell, the $5 trillion figure from the blogger is the figure to convert our power generation and distribution infrastructure from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Some of this is going to have to be done regardless as oil production declines and we have to upgrade the power transmission network eventually. For example, there's a push for more nuclear power but those plants require so much money that the industry is looking for federal subsidies and grants.

Even if we spent trillions to build new plants and infrastructure, those wouldn't be costs. There will certainly be return on that capital for decades. Nobody is going to invest $1 billion or more in a power plant without the expectation of getting several times that over the service life of that plant. It would be a cost if we spent that money on plants and didn't get a dime back in returns.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:21 pm

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:50 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?

What you are advocating here is that I take what 'people smarter than me' say for granted, because 'I'm not smart enough to make a conclusion or have an opinion on it without them'. Know what that sounds like? Religion. Jim Jones had the same opinion of religion that you have here of 'global warming'. You know the one: 'Trust me...I'm an expert. I'll tell you what you are to believe, and you can simply behave as if what I'm telling you is the truth, because, like...I know more than you-trust me.' Saw Noah 'what's-his-name' (The Librarian) do a heartstring infomercial about the 'plight' of polar bears, and their shrinking ice, the starvation, OH THE HORROR!!!! crap the other night, and it just made me laugh. The polar bears are fine. Adaptation is a wonderful thing, the cycles of life and all that. We are trying to play God here, and it's just a ridiculous thing to watch happen...

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:53 pm

Communes anyone?

GameSeven · Post by **GameSeven** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:38 pm

pk500 wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?
Most of the experts in geography in 1492 believed the world was flat. Good thing that "geography skeptic" Columbus didn't believe them and set sail.

Take care,
PK

I believe global warming is caused by phlogiston.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:59 pm

pk500 wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?
Most of the experts in geography in 1492 believed the world was flat. Good thing that "geography skeptic" Columbus didn't believe them and set sail.

Take care,
PK

Misconception. Europeans had plenty of texts from antiquity which indicated the earth was round. Acquinas also referred to the earth being round.

But in any event, these experts in the 15th century wouldn't have been scientists. Rather, they would have been Church philosophers who excommunicated or attacked figures like Galileo for promoting heliocentric cosmology over the prevailing geocentric view.

Such ideology had more to do with theology than science.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:09 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?

I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is factual.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:11 pm

GameSeven wrote:
I believe global warming is caused by phlogiston.

Hmmm...

I go away from the science of the ancients and lean more towards a more philosophical cause.

Im thinking perhaps the pontification of blowhards might be something we should look at.

All that hot air cannot possibly be good for our environment.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:48 am

wco81 wrote:
pk500 wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?
Most of the experts in geography in 1492 believed the world was flat. Good thing that "geography skeptic" Columbus didn't believe them and set sail.

Take care,
PK
Misconception. Europeans had plenty of texts from antiquity which indicated the earth was round. Acquinas also referred to the earth being round.

But in any event, these experts in the 15th century wouldn't have been scientists. Rather, they would have been Church philosophers who excommunicated or attacked figures like Galileo for promoting heliocentric cosmology over the prevailing geocentric view.

Such ideology had more to do with theology than science.

PK, he's absolutely correct. I (kinda) get your point, but bad example.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:49 am

I stand corrected.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:55 am

pk500 wrote:I stand corrected.

Only partially, as the correlation between religion and science was very closely knit back in those days. The founders of most of our modern sciences were believers in a Diety of some sort.

And besides, the religion angle just works here. "It is THIS way because we SAY SO! We're smarter than you, we're more 'enlightened' than you, and you will listen to us, because we have pieces of paper on our wall declaring that we're smarter than you!!!"

We need MORE Galileo's right now...

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:58 am

I'm not advocating believing in anything on faith. However, if you want to know something you go to the person who studies it every day. Then, because it's science, the experts in the field argue and try to disprove each other and poke holes in their each others arguments until they figure out where the evidence leads. This isn't one guy up in a tower who is claiming to have secret knowledge, this is many people who study many different aspects of the climate in different fields that release results to the public. I understand many of the concepts because I try to stay informed by reading sites like http://www.realclimate.org/

Like I said, the only ones who have first hand knowledge are the climate scientists, but to scoff at them, because they could be wrong is missing the point. They could be wrong, but they don't claim they are infallible. They look at the evidence and it's lead to a consensus in the field that you shouldn't take lightly. Any time the vast majority of scientists agree on something you better have damn good reasons for disagreeing with them or you are being irrational. If you have those reasons, then go disprove them by using evidence and the scientific method. That's what science is all about.

And we rely on arguments from authority all the time. This happens because we only have so much time in the day, and you can really only be an expert in a few areas that are complex. But yes, it's crazy to think that the people who are experts in something may actually know what they are talking about. And that the vast majority of other scientists who look at the evidence are also concerned. I guess it's just big science trying to crush the economy because they want attention.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 9:53 am

XXXIV wrote:Chicago endures its 9th coldest December in 139 years
December 14, 2008 · No Comments
December’s opening week average of 21.8 degrees—more than 10 degrees below normal—joins two others since 2005 in being unusually cold—2005 (16.5 degrees) and 2006 (18.3 degrees). [/b]

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008 ... ber-start/

I wish some of that would come my way. It hasn't snowed properly here since the winter of 05-06, and so I have no chance of getting a snow day off work and my dog still hasn't got a chance to play in some proper snow.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:00 am

Teal wrote:The polar bears are fine.

On May 14, 2008 the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, citing the melting of Arctic sea ice as the primary threat to the polar bear.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... olarbears/

In Canada, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada recommended in April 2008 that the polar bear be assessed as a species of special concern under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/natio ... c8&k=98911

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:16 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I guess it's just big science trying to crush the economy because they want attention.

That logic cracks me up every time I read or hear it. But I guess there are Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage lemmings who probably believe it.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:20 am

On there definitely are.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:20 am

Teal wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote:I love how people think they understand one of the most complicated sciences on the planet, and understand it so well that they know the science is flawed.

Obviously, everyone (other than climate scientists) have to rely on other people to form an opinion, but "climate skeptics" happen to choose people other than the scientists that are the experts in the field. How does that make sense?
What you are advocating here is that I take what 'people smarter than me' say for granted, because 'I'm not smart enough to make a conclusion or have an opinion on it without them'. Know what that sounds like? Religion. Jim Jones had the same opinion of religion that you have here of 'global warming'. You know the one: 'Trust me...I'm an expert. I'll tell you what you are to believe, and you can simply behave as if what I'm telling you is the truth, because, like...I know more than you-trust me.' Saw Noah 'what's-his-name' (The Librarian) do a heartstring infomercial about the 'plight' of polar bears, and their shrinking ice, the starvation, OH THE HORROR!!!! crap the other night, and it just made me laugh. The polar bears are fine. Adaptation is a wonderful thing, the cycles of life and all that. We are trying to play God here, and it's just a ridiculous thing to watch happen...

It's not a religion. And it's not about people being smarter than anyone. I'm as smart if not smarter than many car mechanics, but does that mean I am the best person to fix my car? No, I take it to someone who has the training to understand what the problem is and how to fix it.

So let's use that analogy. My car is making a funny noise and I don't know why. I take it to a mechanic. He says I need a new Johnson rod. Now, those are expensive, so I get a second opinion. He says the Johnson rod is fine and I don't need to worry about it, at least not for a while.

That would be pretty inconclusive, and who you listen to depends primarily on your personality and probably how much you trust your car. But let's say I take my car to 100 mechanics. 70 of them say I need a new Johnson rod. 30 say I don't. That changes things quite a bit. It doesn't make the 70 mechanics right and the 30 wrong, but it does leave me more inclined to think I need to get my car fixed. Sure, I could ignore it and figure it will last another 20,000 miles and maybe longer, but I decide to fix it now rather than risk having a bigger problem later.

Among people that study climate and have the training to understand the data, the vast, vast majority say that global temps are rising. Very few say that isn't happening. Among those that agree, the majority believe humans are having some impact on that change, and that altering our environmental policies could perhaps reduce or even eliminate this change. Could they be wrong? Sure. But look at the extinction of the dinosaurs. We had a catastrophic asteroid that wiped out most life on Earth, mostly because of the debris thrown in the air. Why is it so hard to believe that a century and a half of industrialization could have a negative effect on the global climate? Especially when there are a lot of data that suggest that's what is happening?

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:22 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote: Like I said, the only ones who have first hand knowledge are the climate scientists, but to scoff at them, because they could be wrong is missing the point.

You say this as if 100% of climate "experts" believe in man made global warming.

And yet you scoff at those (even scientists) that disagree with you point of view.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 12:09 pm

Feanor wrote:
XXXIV wrote:Chicago endures its 9th coldest December in 139 years
December 14, 2008 · No Comments
December’s opening week average of 21.8 degrees—more than 10 degrees below normal—joins two others since 2005 in being unusually cold—2005 (16.5 degrees) and 2006 (18.3 degrees). [/b]

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008 ... ber-start/

I wish some of that would come my way. It hasn't snowed properly here since the winter of 05-06, and so I have no chance of getting a snow day off work and my dog still hasn't got a chance to play in some proper snow.

NO you dont...It snowed 2-3 inches here a couple of weeks ago and it took me 4.5 hours to get home.
The snow clean up was so bad I thought I lived in Florida. I was wtf!?..Not expecting snow in december? It was pretty lame.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:02 pm

Yet another reason why 'climate change' is bullshit political theater-now how long, exactly, have cows been around? And NOW, just now, they're hurting the environment?!?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/article ... 65231.aspx

So the solution is to bankrupt dairy farmers and cattlemen??

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:03 pm

And another entry from 'The Boy who Cried Wolf':

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

So why should I care that the Dept. of the Interior puts polar bears on the endangered list, when they cite 'shrinking of Arctic Ice' as a reason, again?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:07 pm

Teal wrote:Yet another reason why 'climate change' is bullshit political theater-now how long, exactly, have cows been around? And NOW, just now, they're hurting the environment?!?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/article ... 65231.aspx

So the solution is to bankrupt dairy farmers and cattlemen??

I think it's a plot by the cows to get us to eat more chicken.