The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Canadiens1131]

It's fun when you occasionally get that peek into the workings of the minds of certain conservatives' minds.

 

[purpleoscar]

Oh, well then. If they'd just thought of that earlier they wouldn't still be poor!

Do you realize how completely out of touch that sounds?

It's actually not out of touch but something anyone with common sense can figure out. Developing an economy requires a development of politics (democracy) and with development of both people can economize and develop their property and and the results we've seen in the West since industrialization is great evidence (right in front of you) that it works. Only people who erect the perfect at the expense of the good will find it out of touch. Most poor countries have oppressive governments and stupid laws that prevent the potential from emerging. I'm so glad I live in a developed country. The difference in the environment is palpable. Basic environmental laws usually require money and development that's why for example communist governments were in fact worse for the environment than capitalist ones. We are using less farmland in history and with modern farming are using less fields to make more food. How do you think that happened? Obviously development allows for more efficency of resources. If there's more efficiency there's less need to cut down trees. If there are countries to trade with a country can rely on other products to trade for goods that are scarce in one's own country.

I think it's just fashionable to be pessimistic because there are bad things in the world and because we naturally want to dwell on them yet why is there such a HUGE population living better than ever in human history unless some of this has already come to pass in parts of the world?

I think organic farming should be everywhere, but located in agri-towers (multistory buildings/skyscrapers that can be built anywhere).
There are companies out there with excellent models. Some Middle Eastern countries are very interested.

We romanticize farming too much in the U.S.

As long as you look at it as a niche as opposed to a realistic proposition to replace conventional farming. The food costs of only buying organic would starve the majority of the world's population. I think we romanticize organic too much (which scientifically has been shown to have no different health benefits than regular produce). People are paying for a concept or badge of honour rather than value.

 

[anitram]

Purpleoscar, in which developing countries have you spent appreciable time? Those one week holidays at minimum security prisons - I mean all-inclusive resorts - down in Mexico and the Caribbean notwithstanding.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I think it's just fashionable to be pessimistic because there are bad things in the world and because we naturally want to dwell on them yet why is there such a HUGE population living better than ever in human history unless some of this has already come to pass in parts of the world?

Pretending that India and China will consume inordinate amounts of fossil fuel in the next 25 years of development and that we'll still be a-okay as far as a global energy market is a pipedream.

Or you just don't care because you won't be around or will be retired in 25 years and sipping your mixed drink with a tiny umbrella.

 

[BVS]

It's just fashionable to wear badges of honor.

We could all be rich with the same exact product, and then no one would be poor.

This th$ead has taught me so much.

 

[purpleoscar]

Purpleoscar, in which developing countries have you spent appreciable time? Those one week holidays at minimum security prisons - I mean all-inclusive resorts - down in Mexico and the Caribbean notwithstanding.

So therefore development is not an option? What are you babbling about? How does that rebutt any of my arguments?

Development has helped us enormously and because we have democracy, private property laws, and trade we benefit. Poor countries lack those elements. If they had ALL of those elements they would improve enormously. This isn't goint to happen overnight just like the industrial revolution didn't appear that fast. Political barriers are the tough nuts to crack. Does it have to happen overnight for you to be satisfied? This ties into my argument that some want the perfect at the expense of the good.

Pretending that India and China will consume inordinate amounts of fossil fuel in the next 25 years of development and that we'll still be a-okay as far as a global energy market is a pipedream.

Or you just don't care because you won't be around or will be retired in 25 years and sipping your mixed drink with a tiny umbrella.

Never said I was against new technologies. The current technologies produce so little energy they would create poverty of enormous magnitude if we shut off cheap fossil fuel energy. Idiots like James Hansen protest all over to shut down coal plants. What a joke! This is what I'm against. Forcing panaceas that haven't proven themselves. We have lots of fossil fuels WAY beyond my lifetime so there is still time to develop nuclear and other technologies. Scientific research and development tax credits can be applied to any new technologies and are much cheaper than cap and trade that would give money to the corrupt U.N. to mismanage. Also wealthier countries tend to have less children so the speed at which populations increase has already started to slowdown since the baby boomers started having kids.

It's just fashionable to wear badges of honor.

We could all be rich with the same exact product, and then no one would be poor.

This th$ead has taught me so much.

What are you talking about? Trade has already a proven track record. It's not difficult to understand. It's not the "exact same product". If a country produces a surplus of commodities (oil, minerals, food, forestry products, etc) and trades a with a commodity poor nation that has manufacturing surpluses they get all the products. You're supposed to produce more than your country can consume so you can provide those surpluses to other countries that need what you have and have surpluses of what you want. With trade barriers and a lack of property rights plus dictatorship and cronism of course those benefits are out of reach.

This process is already established, working in rich countries right now, and developing countries are slowly adopting it. It's not rocket science. Government should only be there to make the playing field as fair as possible, military, crime laws, and to help people with serious medical problems. As we produce more we are able to feed people with massive food surpluses so other industries can grow. If we only had organic farms everybody would have to farm (meaning abandoning every industry that would require a food surplus) and HUGE amounts of forest would have to be chopped down. No amount of skyscrapers would replace yields that fertilizers and pesticides provide.

The public is tired of crackpot leftwing ideas that have good intentions but ignore science, scale and lengths of time of development.

 

[anitram]

So therefore development is not an option? What are you babbling about? How does that rebutt any of my arguments?

I see that you're still your rude self.

I asked because you seem convinced that these problems can be solved in one way and that it's all very neat and easy so I wanted to know what your experience was in the developing world.

I doubt you have any.

 

[BVS]

The public is tired of crackpot leftwing ideas that have good intentions but ignore science, scale and lengths of time of development.

This is rich... What the "public" wants is more science based thinking like you espouse, right? Because you're the one that doesn't ignore science, right?

The solution for poor countries is to get rich

 

[PhilsFan]

If everyone was just more like Republicans, the world would be much better!

 

[kramwest1]

Mongolia has been trying to lift themselves up economically by licensing out the mining of their extensive metal deposits to companies. It's starting to work, but it's not without its own new problems:

Gold mining company in Bornuur soum found with mercury - M.A.D

 

[purpleoscar]

Mongolia has been trying to lift themselves up economically by licensing out the mining of their extensive metal deposits to companies. It's starting to work, but it's not without its own new problems:

Gold mining company in Bornuur soum found with mercury - M.A.D

There are always trade offs but the solution ultimately is for people to be able to get jobs instead of handouts. I'm sure people can find all kinds of imperfect elements (including child labour) and corruption problems but all countries have to deal with some shit. In Canada we still allow asbestos production simply because it would piss off Quebec if we shut them down.

I see that you're still your rude self.

I asked because you seem convinced that these problems can be solved in one way and that it's all very neat and easy so I wanted to know what your experience was in the developing world.

I doubt you have any.

Still off topic. You still didn't answer my question. What does this have to do with what I'm talking about? Obviously development is the only way. What "way" are you talking about that wouldn't need development? What does personal experience have to do with it? If personal experience is necessary for all things then almost nobody on this thread could have an opinion including yourself. There is a PAST HISTORY of economic development that is already verified. I don't need personal experience of digging wells in Africa to refer to what already worked. Pardon me if I come off rude but I like it when people get to the point and don't use distractions to avoid the obvious. I'd hope that even many left-wing people would like more jobs to exist in developing countries.

 

[Diemen]

Pardon me if I come off rude but I like it when people get to the point and don't use distractions to avoid the obvious. I'd hope that even many left-wing people would like more jobs to exist in developing countries.

First of all, you tend to go off on tangents quite regularly (this whole "poor countries just need to get rich" is a complete tangent), so it's a little odd to hear you telling others to get to the point and avoid distractions.

Secondly, it is not at all that left-wing people don't want more jobs in existing countries, it's that your solution conveniently skips over the incredible difficulties and completely different circumstances that developing countries find themselves in, especially when compared with "rich" countries. Simply because something works in a rich Western country doesn't mean it will translate well in a developing 3rd world country. At face value, "poor countries need to get rich" is woefully naive at best.

 

[the iron horse]

The truth still ignored is that the global warming
climate change doomsayers mantra is false.


That is what I think.

Looking forward to a cold winter and a warming spring.

 

[purpleoscar]

First of all, you tend to go off on tangents quite regularly (this whole "poor countries just need to get rich" is a complete tangent), so it's a little odd to hear you telling others to get to the point and avoid distractions.

Secondly, it is not at all that left-wing people don't want more jobs in existing countries, it's that your solution conveniently skips over the incredible difficulties and completely different circumstances that developing countries find themselves in, especially when compared with "rich" countries. Simply because something works in a rich Western country doesn't mean it will translate well in a developing 3rd world country. At face value, "poor countries need to get rich" is woefully naive at best.

I wasn't the one who started a new tangent here. I even asked if this was now going to be a general environmentalist thread or to stick to the CO2 topic. You added to the distraction by defending Kramwest's article in such away (when I criticized a perceived connection to AGW and this lake he talked about) that it would derail it. If Kramwest's article is only lightly about AGW then maybe someone can start a general environmentalist thread so ANY topic including global warming can be talked about or stick to CO2. I'm okay with most derailments but when after a derailment people don't answer my questions it's a dead-end.

My solution on this off-topic area of organic farming, deforestation, etc, is something that happened already. Of course there are major obstacles which I listed. Again I'll ask: If there is another option what is it? Either you face the political (the biggest obstacle) and economic obstacles or you go nowhere. If people in poor countries want trade barriers and have a lack of property rights and they want dictatorship there will naturally be poverty and environmental consequences as well. Cause and effect. The West had poverty and many obstacles in the past but overcame them. Once we got wealthier and developed new technologies (because of the wealth) it was cost effective enough to regulate some areas of the environment without destroying an economy. Now back to CO2 nobody has the technology cheap enough to remove fossil fuels from the equation so to force people to adopt technologies that haven't proved themselves is precisely the example of impatient left-wingers that want results that are unaffordable at the moment. People need to have salaries that can pay for energy taxes. If the salaries don't rise (because of no large increases in wealth production) then I don't know how our standard of living will continue to increase under those circumstances. This is why emissions in countries with cap and trade still continue to rise regardless.

 

[Diemen]

I wasn't the one who started a new tangent here. I even asked if this was now going to be a general environmentalist thread or to stick to the CO2 topic. You added to the distraction by defending Kramwest's article in such away (when I criticized a perceived connection to AGW and this lake he talked about) that it would derail it.

First of all, since when is this thread specifically about CO2 and nothing else related to climate change? Secondly, you misrepresented kramwest's post completely, drawing a conclusion that wasn't logical given his post and linked article.

 

[kramwest1]

First of all, since when is this thread specifically about CO2 and nothing else related to climate change? Secondly, you misrepresented kramwest's post completely, drawing a conclusion that wasn't logical given his post and linked article.

Thank you. I wasn't going to bother to continue to explain that.
(As far as being an old story, it was on NPR's Science Friday last week.)

 

[purpleoscar]

First of all, since when is this thread specifically about CO2 and nothing else related to climate change? Secondly, you misrepresented kramwest's post completely, drawing a conclusion that wasn't logical given his post and linked article.

Yes but it's posted in this thread and I showed other articles on how it related to AGW so it should be understood how someone could look at it as related when the scientists there actually connect climate models with impending doom about the lake.

Secondly stopping deforestation doesn't really require cap and trade and that's where I started talking about development and modern farming. Urbanization has reduced the need to do mass clearing and that's what I was pointing to.

 

[BVS]

The truth still ignored is that the global warming
climate change doomsayers mantra is false.

That is what I think.

Looking forward to a cold winter and a warming spring.

So you have an opinion that climate change is false? Therefore the truth is being ignored? Are you considering yourself a prophet these days?

 

[PhilsFan]

You cannot get honey from a hornet's nest.
I just don't think there's any science to support that, buddy.
There is some very basic science supporting that. It's actually a fact. It's not even science.

 

[the iron horse]

So you have an opinion that climate change is false? Therefore the truth is being ignored? Are you considering yourself a prophet these days?

No, I'm not a prophet and neither is Al Gore.

The "Truth" so embraced by the global warming fan club is not
the truth. There are dissenting voices with viewpoints to say
otherwise.

I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.

 

[Canadiens1131]

No, I'm not a prophet and neither is Al Gore.

The "Truth" so embraced by the global warming fan club is not
the truth. There are dissenting voices with viewpoints to say
otherwise.

I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.

By dissenting voices, you mean around 3% of climate researchers? Or 1 in 10 of scientists?

Then again we all know how many out there in America feel about scientists and...facts.

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[106] Another study found just under 90% of active scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.[107]

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming.
[edit] Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[108]

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[the iron horse]

"By dissenting voices, you mean around 3% of climate researchers? Or 1 in 10 of scientists?"


I don't know, it could be.

Does a majority always mean right?


Thanks for posting the numbers and stats Canadien1131,

but I'm not buying it.

I guess we can wait and see.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

The solution for poor countries is to get rich which will involve fossil fuels.

Oh my, I'm lost for words. Yet, I shouldn't really be surprised that this is coming from a conservative.

 

[the iron horse]

Are you for real? Is this what you consider an adult answer?

I agree with the post.

What fuel do you suggest for my tractor?

Organic way to cover a few thousand acres of corn?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.

why? what are your qualifications for believing the few contrary voices to what is an overwhelming consensus?

or is it just easier to do so?

 

[BVS]

No, I'm not a prophet and neither is Al Gore.

The "Truth" so embraced by the global warming fan club is not
the truth. There are dissenting voices with viewpoints to say
otherwise.

I'm on the side of the dissenters. It's not happening.

There are dissenting voices about the holocaust, so does that mean they are the truth? Your line of logic is false. This isn't how "truth" works.

 

[purpleoscar]

"By dissenting voices, you mean around 3% of climate researchers? Or 1 in 10 of scientists?"


I don't know, it could be.

Does a majority always mean right?


Thanks for posting the numbers and stats Canadien1131,

but I'm not buying it.

I guess we can wait and see.

The debate right now is over positive and negative cloud feedback from increases in CO2 so if a majority of climate scientists say something then the appeal to authority comes in to force you to believe because few of us are actually dealing with the hardcore math so we have to either believe one way or another or just keep the powder dry until better science can explain more. I'm in the skeptical camp because reductionism is the food for more discoveries and whenever someone says it's been figured out there is often more room for more detail. If doubling CO2 would damage the planet what would the cambrian period with 7000ppm done? There's definitely more going on and the CERN laboratory has already confirmed that cosmic rays can affect cloud cover. We just have to do more tests to see if this could affect cloud cover on a larger scale. It also doesn't help that the speed of warming in the 20th century is hardly unprecidented in human history, which is why I hate it when the medieval warming period is considered cooler than now when we have historical evidence that plant life existed at higher latitudes.

Now looking in the same source (Wikipedia) I'll post some dissenting views regarding the 98%:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[109] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[110] The Anderegg et al. study was also criticized by Roger A. Pielke,[111] Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke, Jr., and John Christy.[112] Pielke Jr. commented that "this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate." [112]

Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[113]

There are dissenting voices about the holocaust, so does that mean they are the truth? Your line of logic is false. This isn't how "truth" works.

But the evidence for the holocaust is more than the evidence for global warming. Just like when it was considered very scientific to call out global cooling. How is 30 years of warming or cooling a reason to panic? You can bash people like they are holocaust deniers but skeptics can bash in turn with past "scientific" attitudes like eugenics. We have a right to dissent with scientific papers and they do exist. It's not just crazy people.

 

[BVS]

But the evidence for the holocaust is more than the evidence for global warming. Just like when it was considered very scientific to call out global cooling. How is 30 years of warming or cooling a reason to panic? You can bash people like they are holocaust deniers but skeptics can bash in turn with past "scientific" attitudes like eugenics. We have a right to dissent with scientific papers and they do exist. It's not just crazy people.

No one ever said you didn't have the right to dissent.

I was just pointing out the flaw in his line of logic, which was 'because there is dissent then climate change is not the truth'. What thinking person falls for such logic?

It's hard to take you seriously if you have such reading comprehension issues.

 

[purpleoscar]

No one ever said you didn't have the right to dissent.

I was just pointing out the flaw in his line of logic, which was 'because there is dissent then climate change is not the truth'. What thinking person falls for such logic?

It's hard to take you seriously if you have such reading comprehension issues.

Yes but are you addressing the loaded terminology of "climate change"? Look at your sentence above. Nobody is denying that climate change exists. They are debating how much change comes from anthropogenic CO2 and this is being debated by REAL SCIENTISTS. But that's okay you can talk about people's comprehension all you want but that will likely make it look like you deny there is scientific dissent. Science shouldn't proceed in this bashing kind of way but unfortunately it often can. Wait for information that shows conclusively that positive feedback is the answer and then you'll see less "deniers". As long as peer-reviewed data is showing negative feedback you'll be constantly shocked why "deniers" still exist.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

 

[BVS]

Yes but are you addressing the loaded terminology of "climate change"? Look at your sentence above. Nobody is denying that climate change exists. They are debating how much change comes from anthropogenic CO2 and this is being debated by REAL SCIENTISTS. But that's okay you can talk about people's comprehension all you want but that will likely make it look like you deny there is scientific dissent. Science shouldn't proceed in this bashing kind of way but unfortunately it often can. Wait for information that shows conclusively that positive feedback is the answer and then you'll see less "deniers". As long as peer-reviewed data is showing negative feedback you'll be constantly shocked why "deniers" still exist.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

This doesn't address anything I'm talking about, but what else is new?

No one is using loaded terminology. Am I assuming too much to think you and iron horse understand what the actual debate is over? If so I apologize. How much true scientific dissent is out there about ANTHROPOGENIC climate change?