Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Global warming is about saying "I'm smarter than you, and dammit, I have to make decisions for you for your own good." I think there was an element to that in Silent Spring and I think for the long-term the environment is worse off for it. Because people don't like to be told that. I would be interested to see what the environmental movement would look like today if the argument were from the start cast in strict economic terms. ``These are resources. Managed properly, they will sustain themselves. Managed improperly, they will disappear. We should act accordingly.'' Maybe that would have recast it in less values-based ways.

One nuance about this however is that I don't necessarily think the message is ``I'm smarter''. Sometimes it is. I think it could very well be changed in plenty of instances to ``You may think you know, but there is a ton of misinformation out there and this is my area of expertise and if you don't want to take my word for it you can check the scholarship''. I've seen plenty of very smart people in this country get suckered by the misinformation industry.

Why steal my money to make a product that has no market without a subsidy. Fossil fuels have been and remain heavily subsidized themselves. There are reasons and even if you do not agree with them you probably know what they are. But it's not as if renewables are given an unfair advantage. You will see from this chart that from 1950-2010 fossil fuel-based energy sources received 70% of federal energy sources. http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf. You wouldn't say that gasoline has no market without subsidies, would you?

[iam416]

Managed properly, they will sustain themselves. Managed improperly, they will disappear. We should act accordingly.'' Maybe that would have recast it in less values-based ways.

My environmental science major was very much taught from the "conservation" perspective as opposed to the "preservation" perspective.

The problem environmentalists have is that their political currency deals with the "catastrophic future." In the 60s there were easy existing causes to with known outcomes -- a river on fire. But environmentalism is fundamentally proactive so their message is about that which has not happened. The American public isn't too interested in that unless it's catastrophic. Hence you get these causes that promise the apocalypse. And when predictions of doom fall incredibly short, skepticism rises and, to some, they become the boy that cried wolf.

So, global warming is a good example of this. I think it entirely rational to (a) accept man-made climate change; and (b) call into question the models of disaster. It's widely accepted that the "disaster" scenario requires significant warming. But, to date all the models have grossly overestimated the warming that would occur -- to the point where I think 95% of all models overestimated the warming. The current trend line suggests something far from catastrophic.

The other thing inherent in predicting the future is that predicting technological advances over the next 50 years is fucking hard. And sometimes they a make a mockery of a doomsday prediction (see, Erhlich). So, yeah, global warming to a certain extent will be bad if mankind does nothing to little to adjust and adopt.

Anyway, I take environmental doomsdayism with several doses of salt. Setting aside obvious self-interest, their track record is pretty shitty. Doesn't mean they won't be right sooner or later, but it certainly should mean they haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.

[*JD*]

I think with religion what matters to me personally is not what you believe, because the more I look the more similarities I find, but whether you also believe it's your right to force it on me.

Bingo.

[entropy]

man has always shaped the environment... that part is not disputable. And until we can predict the weather within a couple degrees accurately, I will also be skeptical of any future models of global warming.

[Da Geezer]

Why steal my money to make a product that has no market without a subsidy. Fossil fuels have been and remain heavily subsidized themselves. There are reasons and even if you do not agree with them you probably know what they are. But it's not as if renewables are given an unfair advantage. You will see from this chart that from 1950-2010 fossil fuel-based energy sources received 70% of federal energy sources. http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf. You wouldn't say that gasoline has no market without subsidies, would you?

C'mon Hack. Just because the government is doing something wrong and is paying off oil company donations in the worst case, that doesn't mean that they should give direct aid to competing sources. I'd absolutely cut all corporate welfare of any kind. You are making the same argument that Carter made when Reagan said he'd lift price controls on oil during the Carter years. When he did, the price of gasoline spiked, then dropped to substantially lower levels because we didn't have the government involved in deciding whether it was new oil or old oil.

The market is an information transmission vehicle. That is why Hayak in The Road to Serfdom, in 1942, could predict the demise of socialism/communism/fascism worldwide while it was ascendant everywhere. 5 year plans didn't work, because no one can duplicate the free market in transmitting information.

Because the government is doing something stupid for Bigshot A doesn't make it right to do something stupid for Bigshot B. Just get the stinking government out of the economy. And I won't even get into the TARP money going to these stupid solar and wind projects.

[hack]

Fair enough. The government's job is to provide a level playing field IMO.

I think your point about the market being an information transmission vehicle is a good one. My concern is the quality of the information being transmitted. It's astonishing to me how misinformation thrives, whether intentional or otherwise. People just repeat things. Even after they've been demonstrated to be false.

[entropy]

does anyone know what % of the military budget has been spent on the ME over the last 20 yrs?

[Da Geezer]

One nuance about this however is that I don't necessarily think the message is ``I'm smarter''. Sometimes it is. I think it could very well be changed in plenty of instances to ``You may think you know, but there is a ton of misinformation out there and this is my area of expertise and if you don't want to take my word for it you can check the scholarship''. I've seen plenty of very smart people in this country get suckered by the misinformation industry.

Yup, check the scholarship. That'll work. Please read the Port Huron Declaration that I have posted. That is why universities were targeted in 1962-4; so that you could say, "check the scholarship". I'm not going to believe anyone who is paid by the government to do "scholarship".

Talent has it exactly right. When Nixon established the EPA (by presidential decree) there were real environmental problems. I favored that. This is called the Tragedy of the Commons. I believe government has a place looking after things that no one owns (or everybody owns). When lampreys kill off lake trout, government at it's best substitutes coho and chinook salmon. No one owns fish in the Big Lakes, so there is no incentive to conserve. But that is not what we are talking about here, that is in the past.

Talent said

The problem environmentalists have is that their political currency deals with the "catastrophic future."

That is so well said that I'm going to steal it. You cannot control society, and transfer wealth from the rich to the poor worldwide, without a catastrophic future. The best and the brightest told us that the world faced massive starvation in 30 years, and many of us believed it and eventually we committed demographic suicide. But Uhrlich wasn't working as a government mouthpiece, he was a professor who was wrong. And he still believes he is right, by the way. He received the MacArthur Genius Award, or something, in 1992. See above for my opinion on the educational "scholarship".

Do you really want to prosecute me under RICO, which requires a "criminal conspiracy"? 27% of Democrats do (and I suspect probably in the range of 15% or Republicans do too). Reasonable people can see using natural gas in power plants instead of coal, because coal fired plants discharge what should be a cost of production, their waste, into the Commons. Reasonable people can agree that the planet is warming, and maybe the CO2 in the atmosphere is partly from humans. But CO2 is beneficial to crops, and slightly warmer weather brings an enormous amount of land into production in Russia and in Canada. The earth's temperature spiked on 9-11-01 when the jets were grounded, because clouds form around jet fumes. Can we create clouds to shelter the earth? Why does every solution to this "crisis" involve control of individual humans in some way? One trillion dollars per year is to be spent. Can we watch a little longer? Can we come up with an answer that is inexpensive and does not need government control of individuals? I really don't think that is unreasonable.

And I'll save discussion of disruptive technology for another time. What we do know is that, if not controlled, humans have always come up with an answer, and often that answer involved doing absolutely nothing. And what we also know is that the statists, once they are in the majority, will go to great ends to shut down debate. Even if I am wrong, I used to be allowed my opinion. Uhrlich was.

[entropy]

I have been perfectly fine with BO's push for alternative energy. In fact, I've always felt that each president should have a mission that the citizens get around; such as going to the moon or building dams and parks. Something that says we are advancing society. So pushing and spending $$ on things like that, I think are good and part of the gov't role. That doesn't mean we should fund art, prop up failing industries or not balance budgets.. but rather, I think there is a need for that vision and leadership. That is different than taxing commerce or changing people's lives. I would suggest most people would prefer getting their power from wind if it was as affordable as coal.

[Da Geezer]

Does anyone here know if there is a distinction between "Muslim" and "Islamic"?

And if you are worried about catastrophic events, can we sometime talk about the prospect of Donald Trump becoming President?

[hack]

I think there's a difference between measuring reality and predicting a future one. Few people are arguing that climate change isn't happening. It took us years to get there, to overcome the noise from paid misinformation strategies, but we're pretty close to consensus that it's happening, and that human activity is a part of it to some degree.

Geezer I appreciate your skepticism over the scholarship. I still think it's noticeable that you pick and choose your places to be a skeptic. When you do you sure do go at it with guns blazing. Environmental groups have been like charities, in a way, overselling the importance/impact elements in pursuit of funding. But, in the end, scholarship is a peer-review process. In particular with things that get studied closely, we have a system in which scientists can check numbers, replicate the projects of others to make sure the process was proper, etc. Funding sources are multiple. I honestly don't know what the process was like when Erlich was putting out his research. I do know in other areas, it wasn't nearly as rigorous at that time as it is now.

[hack]

Does anyone here know if there is a distinction between "Muslim" and "Islamic"?

What do you mean?

[entropy]

It is interesting to me the republicans seem to be voting for outsiders and signaling they are tired of the career politicians. I would have expected that sentiment to come from the dems. Trump would be a lot of things... he'd be like rubbing sandpaper on your arm for most. He'd also tell people what he thinks, which may not be all bad. He'd be entertainment and nothing would get done... which may not be bad either. But mostly, he'd shake things up and maybe next election, both parties would present someone I could vote for... because right now, I'm not voting for the top 2 of either party.

[hack]

I'm not even sure he's actually telling people what he thinks. But he's certainly keeping his name in lights.

If you consider the support for Sanders on the left, I think it's clear that both on the left and right people aren't thrilled about establishment politicians.

[Dr. Strangelove]

People are upset that "nothing gets done" but we're also voting for increasingly extremist politicians, who ensure that nothing will get done.