Jump to content
I think the above is a fair argument for humility, both in our self-judgment, and our judgment of others. At best, this website is an opportunity to understand the spectrum of thinking around us.
I will never understand the dismissals I see, of any writer, regardless of their view. If you do not enjoy encountering the full spectrum of intelligence, including the ideas that oppose your own, what is the point?
"... it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."
Federalist No. 1, Alexander Hamilton
"I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy."
When I re-developed our property I was tempted to register Republican one particularly frustrating day of permitting. But for the subsequent re-development around me, I was glad to know they would meet the same standard. The extra rigor makes for value. Anything built in this valley prior to the 70's has a fair chance of being shoddy work, particularly in regards to rotting structure and poor foundation placement. The 70's marked the arrival of a serious building dept and better construction behind each permit.
One might say govt staff have it too easy, but my plumber made those clerks look like true professionals. State and local governments have shrunk more than the private sector. Obviously that means fewer staff to go around. Thought you would be the first to approve.
"Too many taxes" begs the fair question - which country has a system you like better?
I do like reading counter-arguments. And the arguments to those. All a good chew that educates.
P1 - The negative (cooling) feedback of aerosols may be helpful. On the other hand, the source of Powerline 4, that Economist article, argues aerosols, which include coal smoot may actually, be a net heater. Other NASA links say the aerosols' negative feedbacks are being downgraded from earlier estimates.
P2 - You wouldn't support the underlying comments by the global cooling guy either. The WWU faculty critique was right to point out the misuse of data and dumb conclusion.
Deming won't defend any of the global cooling theory that WWU debunks, but attacks WWU and warming based on "significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming"? He is right with 2 arguments about data trends and wrong on 2 arguments that are cherry picked snapshots. Another argument counts fewer fires but ignores their increased size.
His most interesting argument is droughts. Recent reduction in drought measurements have come through more modeling metrics. At the same time, weather fluctuations both dryer and wetter still diminish potential crops, but more abroad than here. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23214/policy_brief_trends11.pdf
In sum, climate change is a wiser focus than global warming.
P3 - Not sure what debunking a new study proves.
P4 - The Economist is a solid mainstream publication. Their article is far better than Powerline's cherry picking of it.
The lead was good as well:
Et tu? What do you think about ocean acidification? Our ocean's food chain is a closer term problem and harder to accommodate.
Alex Jone's website, Infowars, is junk. And you know it. Awhile back you posted this link based on a PoliceOne poll:
Infowars writes, "85 percent of law enforcement professionals said that in their opinion, a federal ban on assault weapons would have no effect on crime, and would likely have a negative effect on their safety."
Which led you to post, "85% of cops say gun control is useless."
Neither are true statements.
Again, here is the poll:
You know the poll does not support your or infowars' conclusion. Yet you continue to post infowar.com links and laugh at superior news sources. You've found a "news" source that invents what you want to hear, and you are convinced everyone else needs to wake up?
When you next write about the energy issues of our day, please try to acknowledge some of these negatives of our carbon economy. I think with that broader view, you'll find more to like about these efforts to get "beyond carbon".
Even so, the temperature concerns may be smaller than other CO2 consequences. Some are fairly new to the radar.
"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.
Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk."
One gets the impression this impact will get attention sooner than the temperature impacts. It is a new CO2 topic, but already suspected as the cause of oyster die-offs on both coasts.
What is your source? Perhaps it failed to mention the large bulk of that change was since 1970. Temps kept rising even though 2000-2010 was a decade of relatively low solar impact. Some perspective on that 1 degree:
"At the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only 5 to 9 degrees cooler than today."
"Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century."
Do those "undeniable facts" you brought out have sources?
One MIT scientist you believe and thereby debunk his peers? Fred, it seems yours is the ideology getting in the way of reality.
Last login: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.