6 ms·

It's sad that this is being up-voted as it is incredibly misleading and a conspiracy theory to boot: >#1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactica

by rortian 16y ago

It's sad that this is being up-voted as it is incredibly misleading and a conspiracy theory to boot: >#1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many countries. Most mainstream solutions to dealing with global warming have absolutely nothing to do with controlling capital. In the US, we constantly bend over backwards to makes sure private enterprise controls lots of stuff (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). >you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs. This statement is at best tremendously disingenuous and at worst an amazing attempt at self-delusion. There is no good way to short houses. (Getting CDSs on mortgage backed securities is possible but there are no houses on the coast securities. Shorting those wouldn't even help, as mortgages will be paid off before the sea rises enough). Also, all the global warming sea rise predictions are on the order of decades and centuries. What highly knowledgeable scientist in there late 30s or 40s will make at bet that will be resolved when they are dead? I'll bet you any amount of money that we will have a Korean president by 2150. Don't believe me? Unless you do, you'd better make a bet with me.

mseebach 16y ago
> No, global warming is not a government plan. The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself: > (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government money really aren't private. I disagree with the OP that it's a scheme to control capital, I don't think it's a scheme of any kind. I just think politicians happen to absolutely love an issue with an absolute evil and a very difficult and expensive solution. No matter how much, the other guy will never be able to do enough. My main beef with GW isn't the science. I think it's highly entertaining to follow stuff like ClimateGate, but my beef is with the politics. "Solutions" to GW invariably includes hugely expensive government programs.
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  "hugely expensive government programs" That phrase is redundant. Edit: grammar
  - arohner 16y ago
    Not entirely. It's a scale, that goes from "expensive" to "mind boggling expensive". There's just plain expensive (The V-22 Osprey program), and then there's really expensive (The total expenditure of the Social Security program, from inception to 2050).
    - Tamerlin 16y ago
      I know... I was making fun of government contracting. I worked for various government contractors for around six years, so I feel like I'm morally obligated to make fun of the whole thing whenever I can.
- tome 16y ago
  The proposed solutions to GW are [government plans] Supposing that AGW is real and a problem. It is then a global collective-action problem. What options are there to solve something of that scale that doesn't involve governments? I'm genuinely curious.
dmm 16y ago
> No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus Science and govt are inseparable now. Federal grants fund huge amounts of research. This distorts science to a degree not widely recognized. A good example is nutrition. Start with the modern consensus of what constitutes a healthy diet and trace it back to the research that supports it. Gary Taubes did that in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". What he found was a load of shit. Shit that was supported and popularized by (well-meaning) federal entities. A handful of limited observation studies with ambiguous results were blown way out of proportion.
- rortian 16y ago
  LOL? Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? Nutrition is not at all easy to do as science because doing research with humans is not considered ethical by society. I think it's something we need to address, and it seems short sighted to me. Your example is not at all convincing evidence for you rather sweeping thesis.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? It would be pretty extraordinary if it somehow didn't, wouldn't it?
    - rortian 16y ago
      I'd just be interested in knowing what sort of bias would it have. How would the government like new science to look? Would it be at all productive to fake experiments? The government has its issues, but funding science is a great thing. Sure, I'd like for less money to be controlled by the pentagon. But I'd love to see even money spent on basic research.
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    I think you're missing the fact that this is a new libertarian talking point. Laissez-faire approaches tend to result in the tragedy of the commons, where the commons is some environmental factor -- fish stocks, etc. -- and science has been consistently pointing out the problems caused as a result. Therefore, to defend itself, libertarianism must discredit science. The solution is to associate science with government; since, by libertarian definition, anything a government does is wrong, it follows that science is wrong and, by the fallacy of begging the question, libertarianism is right.
anamax 16y ago
> No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many countries. "global warming" may not be a govt plan, but the responses all involve greater govt control and the sum total has almost no predicted effect on global warming. Since the predictions that show no effect come from the same models that are being used to predict global warming....
gyardley 16y ago
It's probably getting up-voted because of the first line: "There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical." This statement I'm in complete agreement with.
- rortian 16y ago
  Probably right. However, the post outed his as an ideological opponent of government action (with a little fatalism thrown in). This would place him firmly in the denier camp according to the original article.
ErrantX 16y ago
While you're right the GP has a strong smack of "conspiracy" to it I think it is equally naive to believe that GW is not a political arena as well. I'd even go as far to say some of the science has been biased by politicians - or at the very least misused. The hard truth is that there is no real consensus. Enough for us to start adapting and weight options certainly (and who can argue that a greener future is a bad idea!). But not enough for scientific certainty either way We are still at the evidence gathering/observations stage and will likely be there for a while yet. :)

by rortian 16y ago

mseebach 16y ago

> No, global warming is not a government plan. The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself: > (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government money really aren't private. I disagree with the OP that it's a scheme to control capital, I don't think it's a scheme of any kind. I just think politicians happen to absolutely love an issue with an absolute evil and a very difficult and expensive solution. No matter how much, the other guy will never be able to do enough. My main beef with GW isn't the science. I think it's highly entertaining to follow stuff like ClimateGate, but my beef is with the politics. "Solutions" to GW invariably includes hugely expensive government programs.

Tamerlin 16y ago
"hugely expensive government programs" That phrase is redundant. Edit: grammar
- arohner 16y ago
  Not entirely. It's a scale, that goes from "expensive" to "mind boggling expensive". There's just plain expensive (The V-22 Osprey program), and then there's really expensive (The total expenditure of the Social Security program, from inception to 2050).
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    I know... I was making fun of government contracting. I worked for various government contractors for around six years, so I feel like I'm morally obligated to make fun of the whole thing whenever I can.
tome 16y ago
The proposed solutions to GW are [government plans] Supposing that AGW is real and a problem. It is then a global collective-action problem. What options are there to solve something of that scale that doesn't involve governments? I'm genuinely curious.

dmm 16y ago

> No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus Science and govt are inseparable now. Federal grants fund huge amounts of research. This distorts science to a degree not widely recognized. A good example is nutrition. Start with the modern consensus of what constitutes a healthy diet and trace it back to the research that supports it. Gary Taubes did that in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". What he found was a load of shit. Shit that was supported and popularized by (well-meaning) federal entities. A handful of limited observation studies with ambiguous results were blown way out of proportion.

rortian 16y ago
LOL? Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? Nutrition is not at all easy to do as science because doing research with humans is not considered ethical by society. I think it's something we need to address, and it seems short sighted to me. Your example is not at all convincing evidence for you rather sweeping thesis.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? It would be pretty extraordinary if it somehow didn't, wouldn't it?
  - rortian 16y ago
    I'd just be interested in knowing what sort of bias would it have. How would the government like new science to look? Would it be at all productive to fake experiments? The government has its issues, but funding science is a great thing. Sure, I'd like for less money to be controlled by the pentagon. But I'd love to see even money spent on basic research.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  I think you're missing the fact that this is a new libertarian talking point. Laissez-faire approaches tend to result in the tragedy of the commons, where the commons is some environmental factor -- fish stocks, etc. -- and science has been consistently pointing out the problems caused as a result. Therefore, to defend itself, libertarianism must discredit science. The solution is to associate science with government; since, by libertarian definition, anything a government does is wrong, it follows that science is wrong and, by the fallacy of begging the question, libertarianism is right.

anamax 16y ago

> No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many countries. "global warming" may not be a govt plan, but the responses all involve greater govt control and the sum total has almost no predicted effect on global warming. Since the predictions that show no effect come from the same models that are being used to predict global warming....

gyardley 16y ago

It's probably getting up-voted because of the first line: "There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical." This statement I'm in complete agreement with.

rortian 16y ago
Probably right. However, the post outed his as an ideological opponent of government action (with a little fatalism thrown in). This would place him firmly in the denier camp according to the original article.

ErrantX 16y ago

While you're right the GP has a strong smack of "conspiracy" to it I think it is equally naive to believe that GW is not a political arena as well. I'd even go as far to say some of the science has been biased by politicians - or at the very least misused. The hard truth is that there is no real consensus. Enough for us to start adapting and weight options certainly (and who can argue that a greener future is a bad idea!). But not enough for scientific certainty either way We are still at the evidence gathering/observations stage and will likely be there for a while yet. :)