Some Morning Links

Monday, September 17th, 2012

 

–Radley


Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

161 Responses to “Some Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Lloyd Flack | 

    #137 Doeoxy, not a record low for Arctic ice? In what universe? This year extent, area and volume of Arctic sea ice have reached record lows. The important metric that gives us an idea of how likely the ice is to persist is the minimum sea ice volume. This tells us what ice is persisting from year to year. It is less than a quarter of what it was several decades ago. The Arctic Ice Cap is in a death spiral. But you blind yourself to what is happening and its consequences because it might reflect badlly on your ideology. Guess what! The Universe does not care one bit about your ideology or values or about mine. And if you look for interpretations of the evidence that you find ideologically convenient then you will probably misunderstand what is going on. To understand what is happening to the climate you have to ignore your ideological preferences, completely ignore them. You have to recognize integrity and that includes integrity in those who disagree with you. You have to stop looking for reasons to continue believing what you want to continue believing. You have to, sorrowfully and reluctantly, be prepared to place beloved ideologies in front of a steamroller if science or history tell you to.

  2. #2 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @145 – No, your uncritical support of anything companies do means you are very much a huge part of the problem.

    You deny modern science, you deny externalities, you deny the need for any form of control other than corporate, you deny your literally murderous calls, you deny the failure of your neoliberal economics, you deny that your views are Corporatist.

    You expect people to use “words”, when you are starting from a position where you have already rejected evidence and rationality.

    @143 – Well done, you’ve managed to ignore 98% of a profession in favor of shilling for big oil and coal. You ignore the dead, you spit on the people affected, you laugh at those who are dying.

    You write off people as if they’re nothing. Zero-empathy individuals like you are a severe risk to others.

  3. #3 |  Balking at Balko | Daily Pundit | 

    […] Balking at Balko Posted on September 22, 2012 11:30 am by Bill Quick Classical Values » Energy Is Life Libertarian Radley Balko likes a carbon tax. […]

  4. #4 |  el coronado | 

    Couldn’t help but notice, Lloyd, that nowhere in your frantic 20-line “melting polar ice cap danger danger danger!!!” comment….NOwhere in it do you *even once* use the word “Antarctic”.

    Why is that?

  5. #5 |  Lloyd Flack | 

    *153 el coronado, did you compare what is happening. The changes in the Arctic dwarf those in the Antarctic. In the Antarctic, as in the Arctic the relevant figure is not the annual maximum but the annual minimum. And this has not changed much. In the Arctic it has changed enormously. Read this post by a statistician on the matter.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/

  6. #6 |  Elliot | 

    Leo Wolfeson (#152):No, your uncritical support of anything companies do…

    …is a product of your imagination. The word “anything” is your word and you get to take responsibility for it.

    I’m not the one who chose to levy “carbon” taxes against companies in California, at the level that just 500 companies are fined $1,000,000,000 just because they exist. When the other states don’t do that, when most other nations don’t do that, it’s simply economic suicide for Californians. I have family who want to escape that place because the private sector is bleeding out.

    You deny modern science….

    You’re just flat out lying now. My criticism of the Chicken Little alarmists is that they are rejecting necessary components in the scientific method of inquiry. Namely:

    Skepticism. A good scientist should always look at what his or her colleagues conclude and question it. Challenge it. Test, test, test. Look at alternate explanations. “consensus”, “settled”, and the like are anti-Science. They compel people to not be scientific, to shut the fuck up, and go along with the herd. Or else.
    Reproducibility Any scientific investigation must be repeatable by other researchers–especially by people who have different viewpoints. Hiding data sets, keeping algorithms (including fixed parameters, basic functions, omitted factors) secret, conspiring to use deceptive statistical techniques to “hide the decline”…all of these are the sorts of fraud which ought to cost people their grants, if not their jobs. Certainly, their reputations should suffer for such unscientific tactics.

    As far as the science goes, I agree that the global temperatures have risen since the “little ice age”, increasingly so since the Industrial Revolution. I agree that emissions from human industry have contributed to this global warming. You are being dishonest pretending that skeptics deny AGW, when the debate is actually the degree to which anthropogenic factors influence global temperature, relative to natural factors. It isn’t whether CO2 increases global temperatures, it’s that CO2, alone, has a logarithmic influence on global temperature (tapering off, not linear), so the catastrophic predictions require that positive feedbacks not only outweigh negative feedbacks, but so outpace them to multiply the effect of CO2 many times over.

    The world’s climate has been much hotter and much colder throughout human history, so it’s just plain stupid to assume that once factories were built, natural forces stopped influencing these cycles.

    …you deny externalities…

    I demand evidence. A computer program which runs a simplified model of a vastly complex world is not evidence. It’s conjecture. It’s extrapolation.

    If you have evidence that Acme Widget Co has done harm to the people in a given town, then holding Acme accountable is perfectly within reason.

    You don’t have that here. You have politicized reports and “settled science” and “you’re a Holocaust Denier” type means of shouting down dissenters.

    …you deny the need for any form of control other than corporate…

    A corporation is a government-issued license or charter. It’s not an aspect of free market economics, but lends itself to government cronyism. Big businesses help draft laws, regulations, licensing requirements to hamstring their competition. That sort of influence is inseparable from the big government bureaucracy in place in the US now. Whether you pull for Team Pepsi or Team Coke in the two party system, you get both. Corporations contribute to politicians on both sides.

    When you want to control others, you need to have an ethical justification. Hyping the latest contrived “crisis” to frighten people that they “need” to cede their rights to government power is a recipe for disasters, writ large in the blood of hundreds of millions of victims throughout history.

    …you deny your literally murderous calls…

    Muderous? Governments have literally murdered 262,000,000 people in the past century. You actually have the gall to accuse me, a man who is not demanding to destroy the values that others produced, a man who is not attempting to abridge the rights of others, of wanting to kill others?

    You’re losing it. You’ve become a self-parody: the climate alarmist who tries to shout down dissent by accusing any critics of heinous crimes.

    …you deny the failure of your neoliberal economics…

    Show me where laissez faire free market economics have been allowed by any government, under any party. As with all the other liars, you’re pretending that the government has not been interfering in the economy.

    Furthermore, the notion that a non-system, a lack of a system, which hasn’t been allowed, is the cause of a “failure” begs the question: a failure of what and for whom? The economic fascism of Bush 43 and Obama, rewarding stupid and dishonest decisions by taking money from honest, productive people to bail them out, is simply insanity.

    …you deny that your views are Corporatist.

    Again, a corporation is a government-issued license or charter. It’s not a product of the free market.

    You expect people to use “words”…

    Words instead of guns. Absolutely. It’s morally reprehensible to use aggressive force because you’re too lazy to convince people of the merits of an argument–or, rather, if you know your argument isn’t persuasive and you want to use guns to get what you can’t achieve otherwise.

    Do you think that force is ethically superior to reason?

    …when you are starting from a position where you have already rejected evidence and rationality.

    On the contrary, I’m criticizing the rejection of rationality inherent to your arguments. I’m asking for tangible evidence, not computer simulations.

  7. #7 |  el coronado | 

    Lloyd, Lloyd, Lloyd. I *want* to take seriously your arguments, truly I do….but you’re making it hard, dude. When you offer as documentation & evidence of your position a link to an article that begins with these words….”As most of you are aware, Arctic sea ice has shrunk dramatically over the last several decades, **because of man-made global warming**.”….how is that a cogent argument? Or proof of any kind?

    I betcha I can find an article by a “prominent individual” that starts with these words: “As most of you are aware, Liberty and Individual Rights have deteriorated precipitously over the last century, because women were granted the right to vote.” Or this: “As most of you are aware, the performance/effectiveness of the once-world-class public schools in California has dropped like a freakin’ rock, because of radical left wing teacher unions indoctrinating the students with Marxism and feminism to further their political aims.”

    Would you consider those arguments to be legitimate? No? Why not? I’d be using the same standard as you: a self-proclaimed expert makes a blanket statement and offers nothing to back up his ludicrous claim.

  8. #8 |  Elliot | 

    A lesson in the meaning of words:

    Leon Wolfeson (#152):…you [Elliot] deny your literally murderous calls…

    Leon, the word “literally” means “in actual fact, not metaphorically”. To say my calls are “literally murderous” is to assert that what I have advocated has actually resulted in the premeditated, deliberate killing of human beings.

    Leon Wolfeson (#152):You [Deoxy] ignore the dead, you spit on the people affected, you laugh at those who are dying.

    Once again, a reference to dead people and dying people.

    Leon, name these people. Show how people have already died because of anthropogenic global warming. More precisely, show how those people were murdered by something I advocated. Oh, also, explicate on this “your literally murderous calls” by, first of all, precisely naming which “calls” to which you refer and name some victims of murder.

    You want to accuse me of advocating murder (literally, not metaphorically) and you want to accuse that other guy of laughing and spitting on dead and dying people, you’d better have some actual facts. You being upset because we ridiciule ideas you hold dear is not justification to levy such accusations. That’s like claiming that a visual representation of the murderous, illiterate pedophile “prophet” Mohammed is responsible for killing people, and that the screaming savages killing people over cartoons are not responsible for their savagery.

    Most preciously, you accuse me of literally (actually, not metaphorically) murdering people, but then you mock my call to stop using force, for people to work out problems with words:

    Leon Wolfeson (#152):You expect people to use `words’, when you are starting from a position where you have already rejected evidence and rationality.

    My call to use words, not force, is the Non-Aggression Principle (NPA). In case you’re dense, that’s the ethical principle that one not commit murder and refrain from violence (i.e., use `words’) except in self defense or defense of others.

  9. #9 |  Lloyd Flack | 

    el coronado, did you read and try to understand? The post was about the collapse of the Arctic sea ice. A short article cannot go into every aspect of attribution. The article was more about what has happened rather than why. Those who have been following what is going on will know much of why the sea ice is melting.

    So if it is not global warming why has three quarters of the volume of the year to year core of the Arctic sea ice gone? I suggest you try to explain the science rather than defend an ideology. That is ignore your ideological preferences. The laws of nature do. If you seek reasons why acting in accordance with your ideological preferences will not cause massive environmental damage then sooner or later you will get it wrong. Badly! That time is now.

  10. #10 |  Deoxy | 

    Lloyd:

    Allow me to tell you something you badly need to hear:

    you blind yourself to what is happening and its consequences because it might reflect badlly on your ideology. Guess what! The Universe does not care one bit about your ideology or values or about mine. And if you look for interpretations of the evidence that you find ideologically convenient then you will probably misunderstand what is going on. To understand what is happening to the climate you have to ignore your ideological preferences, completely ignore them. You have to recognize integrity and that includes integrity in those who disagree with you. You have to stop looking for reasons to continue believing what you want to continue believing. You have to, sorrowfully and reluctantly, be prepared to place beloved ideologies in front of a steamroller if science or history tell you to.

    I have done all of that. This is the position I have come to.

    You, clearly, have not. Healer, heal thyself.

  11. #11 |  william wright | 

    Burgers Allday supporting a wealth tax over an income tax. I nominate that as the most economically illiterate statement of the week. Yikes.

    And apparently you’re just generally illiterate.

    The statement has no economic content. It’s a matter of morality or political philosophy.