Who believes in Global Warming?

“Also embrace some global treaties on the matter - don't just walk away or obstruct other nations. You don't like Kyoto, fine, then at least work on something else.”

“I think one of the best things we could do to promote energy conservation is to give people an electricity meter, avaialable in their home, where they can enter their price rate, and it shows them in real time what their electricity bill is going to be.

Then people can all try to find ways to get that figure down, and they are shown immediately how much they save by taking certain measures.”

“YOu had better believe in Global Warming if you want a government grant to study it (LOL). Its like all these scientists have a F Key they hit that puts "And may contribute to Global Warming." in their report (LOL)”

“Las Vegas causes use of more energy than Iraq can produce? Well does it? Hint; every weekend half of California is there or going there or comming home from there.”

“I am well aware of the issue and possible remedial measures

but am just saying to little - to late is going to occur

due to the political and socio-economic structure of the world

to avoid a major catastrophe

with the only real solution being many fewer people consuming much less

a choice which people will not make and which cannot be forced on them by government

but a choice which market and natural forces will implement in due time.
last edited: 4/19/06 1:03:05 PM”

“Exactly.”

“I think even things that have small benefits should betried. In many countries, the political will is there for something to be done. In America it may happen because of energy security fears, and the economic cost of fossil fuels. It's not a problem that's going to be solved overnight - ya gotta chip away at it.

I think where we differ is that I think Government can play a role in this, a little stick and a little carrot. Governments have succssfully reduced 'greenhouse" emissions in several European countries. I think the Dutch are leading the way in this.”

“Originally Posted by Michael Crichton
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
(Excerpted from State of Fear)

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.

These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.

All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.

The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones --- the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the "feeble minded." Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century --- "dangerous human pests" who represented "the rising tide of imbeciles" and who were polluting the best of the human race.

The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded --- Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks --- and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.

As Margaret Sanger said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."

Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against "ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens." Theodore Roosevelt said that "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind." Luther Burbank" "Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce." George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy" by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal --- the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic --- more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.

Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)

Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where "mental defectives" were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.

Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.

After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.

But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. "Feeble-mindedness" could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of "degenerate" or "unfit."

Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one's neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.

Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman speaks of the "active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented." German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.

A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, "solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals." In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.

Lysenko's methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.

Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.

By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience" in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko's ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.

Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.

The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called "the demon-haunted world" of our past. That hope is science.

But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.”

“One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.

Almost sounds like a good argument for retired army personell criticizing the war effort. No?

Thanks for the article, but I'll get my scientific opinions from actual scientists.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/crichton/”

“Dang, I saw that PBS show last night and I almost thought it was satire. Scary music, pretty beaches, and rooms full of "concerned scientists." And all those lightbulbs in the meadow! Bizarre! Just face it people we are all doomed. "Global Dimming" Hold Me I'm Frightened!!!”

“Crichton should stick to writing fiction - wait - he still is.

Omahiker - it was a little dramatic - but it's not global dimming that was the concern, US and Europe have both made up ground on that front - it's the fact that the dimming of previous years may have hidden the potential effects greenhouse gases are having on climate.”

“Using Crichton's arguments put forward there we should be ignoring the scientists. Maybe we can thrown modern medicine and these computer thingys out the window too. They obvioulsy don't work.”

“Y2 - it was the dire predictions about "we have to make changes in the next ten years or it will be too late" that really made me chuckle. Vote Green! Ride your bike to work! Even if they're right nothing's going to change that quickly. I don't know anyone who's ready to give up their car yet. Ironically, these people are the same ones who hate nuclear power plants, the cleanest source of energy ever invented. The logical conclusion of this silly program is that we need more smog to increase "global dimming" in order to slow the progress of "global warming."”

“Well no - you're wide of the mark.

Most aren't advocating getting rid of your car, maybe getting a more economical car and leaving it behind on short journeys. It's better for you as well. Also in cities, a good public transport system is advocated as a better way of getting into the city. Getting stuck on the beltway occasionally convinces me this is by far the better option.

Many people's opinions have also shifted on nuclear energy. It's now seen as a perhaps the only reliable answer. Trends have changed - the low point was following the nine mile and Chernobyl accidents. There will certainly be oposition to new nuclear plants, but you won't find it coming from the climatologists around whose work this was based.

These weren't greenpeace protesters you were watching - these people reflect the vast majority of scientific opinion.

Those concerned with the environment are not the extremists. Those who seek to paint them as such are now so wide of the general consensus that they themselves are now the extremists.

No - their conclusion was that we need to at least start to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not increase smog levels.

And I don't take this single show as gospel - theremight be many things wrong with these studies - it's just another warning to add to the ever growing pile on this subject.”

“Just remember about nuclear power plants

it takes 10 years of electrical production by the plants just to offset the energy needed to construct them.

Basically the same with large scale hydro.

Of course, with government subsidies, they appear to operate in the 'black'.
last edited: 4/19/06 7:17:06 PM”

“Yep - hugely expensive - but reasonably long operting lifespans - reliable, and once they're built they produce cheap electricity.

At the moment they look like the only answer to providing reliable, large-scale base load generation”

“One other factor no one seems to talk about...the cost to decommission one. If I'm not mistaken, it's never happened in the US.”

“Ontario has decided to bank on nuclear. It recommissioned 4 units at the Bruce B plant. It's also reworking the regional 'stack' to make the dirtiest units the last ones to be called upon.”

“...last few comments proving my point that even the greenest of the green can't agree on nuclear energy, the cleanest source ever invented. So I suppose you all walk everywhere you go? Or are you hypocrites?”

“...the earth was encased in ice (think ice age) and without any contribution from man, the climate warmed to what we have today, so yeah, I believe in global warming. Its been warming since the last ice age.”

““…the political will is there for something to be done.

…a little stick and a little carrot.”



The “political will” is certainly there with the “totalitarian leftists.” How many “little sticks” and “little carrots” will it take for these people to realize that every time they force these government intrusions we loose the freedom to screw up on our own? …

…NEVER!

Totalitarian leftists never seem to see anything wrong with government control. As long as that control is something they believe in.


Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes people make some real whopper mistakes. Every time the totalitarian leftists insist that government take control, we loose freedom to chose. It’s like spoiling your kid. If you try to protect them from every bad consequence, if you don’t let them screw up until the consequences become too uncomfortable to ignore, they never learn the hard lessons. Leftists never seem to learn that you can’t protect everyone from everything.

Of course, human nature takes over and most leftists will completely deny that their well-intended actions have unintended consequences. I just love how they keep pointing to Europe as their example, especially when it comes to universal healthcare. FOLKS the economies of Europe suck!!! And they are getting worse!!! To ignore the fact that this is tied into their universal social safety nets, like government retirement benefits, government healthcare, and government guaranteed jobs, is sticking your heads in the sand.


Is global warming occurring? The science seems reasonably clear even taking into account that we really don’t understand much about global climate change. The information is out there.

Now the ideological discussion becomes, do we let people make their own choices through the market of human interaction, or do we move closer to totalitarian societies by forcing change through increased government control and less individual freedom? Exactly how many “little sticks” and “little carrots” do the totalitarians want before we all suffer some very serious consequences?”

“Talk of the nation was roughly the same subject two days ago. I was surprised to hear that even though the United States did not sign the Kyoto agreement they have reduced whatever it was the agreement agreed to reduce (emissions? Smog? I wasn't paying that much attention), by 12%. The most any of the countries that did sign could do was 10%. The reason sited for the USA not signing was a financial one. According to the guest we have gone on to do what the contract hoped, more than any other nation.

That particular day the guests were from all sorts of environmental groups....Sierra Club, etc.


Here you go...listen for yourself: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5348870
Good bit on the Earthquake of san Fran too.
last edited: 4/20/06 6:32:31 AM”

“Totalitarian Leftists - as stovey would say - lolololololol

Sass - that's not true at all - US emissions of CO2, have actually increased where as Kyoto would have committed the US to reducing CO2 emissions below 1990 levels.

”

“http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8495

Greenhouse gas emissions by the US reached their highest annual total on record in 2004.

A report released by the US department of energy on Monday revealed that the emissions rose by 2% in 2004, from 6983 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2003, to 7122 million tonnes. This output is the highest annual total so far recorded by the US, says the UK’s premier science academy, the Royal Society.

Having said that, nowhere is doing wonderfully at hitting the emissions targets, but some are managing reductions.”

“Well, I guess someone is talking out of their @ss then. =) Surprise, surprise.”

“Ok Arclite - the trouble with that is in an ideal world, the market would be able to find it's own balance - but sometimes it needs prompting.

Sometimes people have trouble seeing the big picture, or the long-term picture - how many americans aren't saving enough for retirement, how many americans have too much high-interest credit card debt. Sometimes the government helps things along in this direction, tax incentives for example.

Short of creating an anarchist state, then typically countries have some form of governement - offering incentives guidelines and even some restrictions for the benefit of all doesn't really make a state totalitarian at all - as every four years people have the right to change government. But Totalitiarian Lefties is a nice catchy phrase to try and make the reasonable approach look like an extremist one.
last edited: 4/20/06 10:08:04 AM”

“What he might have been talking about Sass is the US emmissions are declining slightly in comparison to economic growth. It's a twisting of the stats really to show the situation is better than it actually is. We're polluting more, but we've grown more in the meantime. The trouble comes in the fact that we're already putting too much out, so there needs to be an overall reduction, not a technical reduction of fewer emissions in relation to GDP.”

“That chart is proof that someone else did it.”

“Totalitiarian Lefties is a nice catchy phrase

??? it accurately describes a quadrant on a biaxial political continuum.”

“Anarchist Righties being symetrically opposite huh?”

“lol Mutt - but you interpret authoritarian as totalitarian then you may as well label libertarian as anarchist.”

“You're right Y2, "..Sometimes people have trouble seeing the big picture, or the long-term picture..."

And what you and other leftists keep believing is that you should be the ones to do some "prompting."

I have learned not to expect too much from many folks, but you may wish to read the authors listed at the end of this post.


Closed-Minded:

I will believe the information that justifies my preconceived ideas. I will discount all information that disagrees.



I realize that I view the world differently than most. I believe very strongly in the conclusions drawn by David Dunning of Cornell University and Justin Kruger of the University of Illinois- "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." I believe very strongly that people who do very little to educate themselves with diverse sources tend to be very positive about their abilities to understand issues.

For the purpose of this discussion, I differentiate between intelligence and competence. Intelligence is the ability to understand data and to organize it into meaningful patterns. Competence has to do with the willingness to try to improve understanding.

According to scientific measurement, and personal observation, I am better than most at problem solving. This scares me. I am totally unconvinced that I am capable of drawing valid conclusions on my own without a very thorough examination of available data. Even then, I constantly question my conclusions by examining different conclusions and new data as it becomes available.

Why would someone come to unquestioned conclusions without a complete examination of the available information? Why would someone not even make an effort to examine the available information? I don’t have the answer to these questions but I believe that it is related to the aforementioned study. I have observed much incompetent behavior in previous TT discussions (most notably regarding media bias).

I believe very strongly that a good measure of someone’s incompetence is their unwillingness to make an attempt to understand conflicting ideas. I believe very strongly that incompetence is a danger to a healthy democracy.


Sources for a compelling discussion of the connection between government growth and loss of liberty:

Friedrich Hayek-Nobel Prize winner in economics (1974)
Milton Friedman-Nobel Prize winner in economics (1976)
James Buchanan-Nobel Prize winner in economics (1986)
Gary Becker-Nobel Prize winner in economics (1992)
Vernon Smith-Nobel Prize winner in economics (2002)
last edited: 4/20/06 11:03:00 AM”

“Here 3.9% of the worlds population creates out of proportion problems , but the left -right BS seems to still be all that surreally matters.”

“Yep this part of the globe is warming.

Oh wait it is Spring, warms up every year, then gets cooler in what Y2 calls Autumn.

What part of greenhouse gasses are caused by methane from farting? too many people and cows in the world. Or from volcanic activity and wildfires.

I do agree that the US pechant for having highways lit like day when there is hardly any traffic, and places like LasVegas with the excessive light and water wastage has no excuse.

Another waste is not using passive solar for water heating everywhere in the world from 45N to 45S, outside of that there may not be enough sunlight to make it worthwhile.
Water heating is a large percentage of household energy costs.”

“Arclite - But does an altering or tightening of already existing government regulations on industry consitute a growth of Government and a loss of liberty?

These areas are already controlled and have been from some time. For example, power plants already have pollution restrictions, changing the levels of pollutants allowed would not necessarily involve a growth of Government. Eliminating them altogether might create a reduction though.

Would you advocate the removal of all industrial, corporate and consumer legislation? This would seem to be the only way of ensuring the market is free from legislative tyranny.

Following the withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, the Bush Administration called for voluntary emissions reductions as a way of preventing future legistlation and has also recently advocated voluntary reduced consumption from consumers and businesses alike.

The trouble is, these, and the other free market solutions haven't worked in reducing emissions or consumption, in fact they have increased - and I see no evidence to suggest any reductions will be achieved on a suitable timescale. If you accept there is a problem, and the free market is providing the necessary solutions in time, then I don't feel the answer is to shrug and to label and measures a contry makes as a drift toward totalitarianism.

For someone who examines all the evidence using your above-average problem solving skills, you seem to fall back on the classic tactic. You seek to isolate a particular opinion you disagree with, give those who support those idea an extremist derogatory label, like 'totalitarian leftists', often without basis in reality, then start to throw stones at it.

All the while you do this you offer few solutions other than do nothing and let the matter sort itself out. As a firm advocate of the free-market solution I can see why you'd hold this view - but I differ from that in that I feel some tinkering if often needed to prompt the market in one way or another. Rather like you see tax cuts or even flat tax rates as a way of promoting economic activity.

I do find it interesting that you feel the need to point out how smart you are in every debate you take part in. Though this time you like to say how smart you are, but in this case your research is the key.

I'm assuming this was directed at me rather than at yourself? I believe very strongly that people who do very little to educate themselves with diverse sources tend to be very positive about their abilities to understand issues.

The funniest part of this Arlite, is the fact that my entire work day, at this moment in time, is spent talking to people in, and analyzing news and data in, the energy business!!!!! ;op

I suggest you read: Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments again with this in mind.

I hate to tell you this, but unless you're spending eight, sometimes ten or twelve hours a day (between TT ;o) of course) covering the vast range of news, data and reports relating to the energy business, then you would be the one suffering from less time spent educating yourself on the matter at hand - and conseqently the one having difficulty in judging your own abilities.”

“Manuka - I agree, I think there's problems like that which can be adressed without harming the US economy or having stormtroopers marching into town halls across America ;o)

Things are changing slightly, many new housing and retail developments are now including sidewalks, so you don't have to get into your car to drive 200 yards to get to the next store or otherwise have to risk your life crossing an eight lane road.”

“Cant win for losing huh guys

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4880328.stm”

“A market that sells beer is 224 yards from my chair to the beer cooler door.”

“National Climate Data Center

Climate and Radiation Branch -- NASA, GSFC
last edited: 4/20/06 5:17:01 PM”

“quit posting facts tilt, ya bastard!”

“Did I hear correctly that Lead, South Dakota got 59" of snow earlier this week?

Climate change will be typified by extremes in weather events.”

“Or Not (LOL)....gotta remember that F key Control that places "Which significantly contributes to global warming." In your paper for a grant (LOL).

Hey guys what happened to 3 MILLION homeless of the 1980's???? I remember seeing grant application studies out the wazoo had the tag line "Which contribute to the growning homeless problem." Did they disappear or did you ride that horse to death? OH WAIT Unemployement is at 4.7%....lets see I think the previous administration trumpeted 6% because they said it was impossible to get below 5%.

I love your predictability.”

“You're very convincing act of belief in those figures is very real. Have you tried their tooth fairy tales?”

“Once again you show that all you care about is your own opinion, Y2.

You won’t bother to examine the correlation between government growth and loss of liberty will you?

You won’t read The Road to Serfdom or Free to Choose will you, Y2?

I have learned to expect very little from you. I expect you won’t even answer that question.





You’d much rather prattle on about how you educate yourself through “analyzing news and data in, the energy business.”

Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.. snort…bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha. That is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Journalists constantly show their ignorance by reporting all sorts of junk science about which they lack any comprehension. I have been quoted in our local paper four times. They’ve misquoted me every time. Some of it is informational (and much is misinformational), but there is little about journalism that is educational.




“Would you advocate the removal of all industrial, corporate and consumer legislation?”

Absolutely not. I have never advocated anarchy. That’s a red herring. But I would remove much of it. Do you have any idea what was the price of pharmaceuticals before the FDA? Want to fathom a guess how many people died because the FDA delayed, for years, the release of Beta Blockers in this country? Consumer legislation my arse.


A small plane crashed in Gainesville this week. The headline in our “liberal” rag read:

PLANE HAD OUT OF DATE INSPECTION

I know you see nothing unusual about this Y2. Let me give you the perspective of someone who is definitely more educated, obviously more intelligent, and probably better at seeing the big picture (being an ENTJ personality type) than you.

Where are all the news headlines that shout: PLANE CRASHES WITH VALID INSPECTION?

We know that many more planes have crashed, even after having been government inspected and approved, than the small number of planes that manage to skip this legally mandated procedure. So why don’t these journalists make a point of giving us that information? How about food poisoning cases where government inspected foods were involved? Why don’t journalists report on the consumer costs involved with all of these government inspections? Certainly it’s not because these journalists want to create the impression that government controls are better than free market solutions? That would show a left-leaning bias. And explaining a left leaning media bias to you is like explaining physics to a three-year-old.


You want ideas to ponder? Read some of the sources I’ve mentioned. Educate yourself I’m not your professor. I’ve talked with you in the past and you usually ignore what I say. I don’t teach special education to people such as you, Y2.

You sound wonderfully content to believe that knowledge of “the energy business” gives you a complete understanding of the relationship between governments and liberty. You must be extremely blissful.


I measure my arrogance and competence (as it relates to the Dunning and Kruger study) in this way: I don’t believe that I should be using the blunt tool of government for "prompting" people who may not see the “big picture” as well as I. I believe in limiting government’s power over individual choices. And yes, there are some undesirable consequences that come with that belief. But I don’t feel qualified to make most decisions for others.


Where do you get off being so pompously arrogant, that you believe you see the “big picture” so well, that you can “prompt” others to behave as you wish through government?

Inquiring minds want to know.




…Oh yeah, just ignore answering anything I have asked you that has to do with Hayek or Freedman. I know you won’t bother to educate yourself about the government/ liberty concept anyway. It’s comforting to know that some things never change.
last edited: 4/21/06 8:32:04 PM”

“The funny thing is being called 'pompously arrogant' by someone who feels the need to start every conversation with how smart he is - then drops in the personality type he aspires to - insecurities surfacing there as soon as your views are questioned? Or is it some sort of comedy self-parody?

To be honest, if you want to start a right wing book club then do so. I personally don't want to follow your recommended reading list, as most wouldn't.

Why is it that you assume people who don't agree with your views on the world are 'closed minded'? What's the basis to this therory - if everyone were as smart, and as well read as yourself, then they'd agree with you?
To be honest, I'd describe them more as weak minded if they all came to the same or similar conclusions. There is more to opinion-forming than the reading of a few books.

Arclite - you seem to deal in theories rather than practicalities. Someone puts together conclusions ready made for you to either accept or reject based on your view of the world based from your own own individual experience. Maybe if you'll try to accept that your views stem more from this personal experience, than the validity of these 'theories' you promote - which seem so conclusive to you - then you'll stop feeling so threatened.

By trying to put everything down to intelligence and reading, you feel that - anyone who matches you on these things, where you feel you are superior than the vast majority - will agree with you. In reality this is not the case. Maybe your are the smartest guy you know, but personally I'd put Karl Marx up there as being smarter than you, simply by the influence, originality and all-embracing nature of his work - yet his views couldn't be much further from yours.
Marx is far more intelligent than I could ever dream of being, yet I find his views on the world well wide of the mark.

Personally I'd rather look at the evidence myself. You seem to feel the need to drop names to justify yourself and your intelligence and reading.

You want to know how looking at the energy sector ties in with this conversation?

Like for example the federal and state emissions regulations and effects they have on utilities, their stock prices, their profitability, their dealings with shareholders - which ties in fairly well with the conversation on Global warming here, and maybe even with the way you want to take the conversation - but maybe I'm just being narrow minded?

Ok, you want to broaden it a little.

Your use of the term "totalitiarian leftists' would seem to indicate - correct me if I'm wrong - that you associate government regulation with fewer freedoms for the individual. I'd argue that as long as your elections are free and fair, and that people decide to vote for a government which offers whatever degree of higher/lower protection/restrictions the population feel they need - then there is no danger of slipping into totalitarianism, so the term you use is irrelevant. You could perhaps more aptly call it a 'Tyranny of the Majority'.

Oh and your plane crash example - well to be honest that's paranoia on your part, the 'reds under the bed' once more.

Is it a weekly paper or a daily? When did the plane crash happen? Was their an offical document or comment coming after the crash indicating that it had failed the test? How long did this come after the crash?
Was this the main headline, or a strapline above or below the main headline?
Was there another story on the crash that had appeared previously? Would most of the people picking up the paper have been aware of the actual plane crash, through other media outlets?

To be honest your use of this example shows your lack of real knowledge of how any news organization, left or right, works. It shows you all that reading you've done on media bias has been largely wasted. A day walking in another's shoes would offer you more knowledge on the subject matter than all the reading you seem to have done.”

“wow,

yawn”

“lol - shush now Roam, I'm playin. This is a pissing match you know.
last edited: 4/21/06 10:58:12 PM”

“Y2, once again all you offer is opinion.

Let me offer mine:


Why would I have possibly mentioned intelligence? It has to do with the study by Dunning and Kruger. A study which, knowing your aversion to education, you probably have not read. It has to do with the definition of competence. In fact the title of the study stated the word competence, remember? Try to follow me here, I know you have a difficult time with complex concepts.

Competence can be defined as: The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified, ability. There are a few ways to view competence (intelligence being but one) as it relates to the discussion we were having about your comments that you felt you needed to “prompt” people because of your ability to view the “big picture.” We were discussing your belief and how it relates to your views on government. Can you follow me so far?

I explained how I was defining the difference between intelligence and competence when I said:

“For the purpose of this discussion, I differentiate between intelligence and competence. Intelligence is the ability to understand data and to organize it into meaningful patterns. Competence has to do with the willingness to try to improve understanding.”

Can you understand what I’m saying?


As it relates to the study by Dunning and Kruger, I tried to be clear about the fact that I have certain factually measured abilities and yet do not feel confident that I have many answers when I said:

“According to scientific measurement, and personal observation, I am better than most at problem solving. This scares me. I am totally unconvinced that I am capable of drawing valid conclusions on my own without a very thorough examination of available data. Even then, I constantly question my conclusions by examining different conclusions and new data as it becomes available.”

This clearly explains that I do not have an “Inflated Self-Assessment" of my abilities. By extrapolation it also says that I do not have an “Inflated Self-Assessment" of my ability to make choices for others. Are you following me so far?

Obviously, my point was that I was defining competence as a willingness to educate ourselves, from many different sources, because we have a clear understanding that we do not already have all of the answers.





You want to talk intelligence, Y2? Picture what it is like when you talk to someone who is mentally retarded. This may be a very nice person. This may be a person who means well. The only difference between you and him may be a measurable difference in intelligence.

Now understand that is what it is like when I talk with you. The measurable difference between you and I might very well be the same as the case between you and someone who is considered mentally retarded.

Does this make you want to send me to sensitivity training? What about diversity training? Do you think any amount of anger, denial, rationalization, or righteous indignation on your part will change this fact? Do you feel this fact makes you an emotional victim of my cruelty?



Get over it. And then I say (for purposes of this discussion) so the flop what! I merely used that fact to make a point. For purposes of this discussion, you are incompetent if you refuse to end your rationalizations and to educate yourself.



The point (which you so clearly could not comprehend) was that you are totally convinced that you are competent enough to control the behavior of others through government. And that your continuing calls for control over individual choices clearly shows that you have an “Inflated Self-Assessment" of your abilities to determine what is best for us all.

Maybe your dysfunctional behavior includes codependency as well. I’m not qualified to make that determination.



You became indignant about my use of the term “totalitarian leftists” after I said:

”Now the ideological discussion becomes, do we let people make their own choices through the market of human interaction, or do we move closer to totalitarian societies by forcing change through increased government control and less individual freedom?”

Do you understand the definition of totalitarianism? Do you understand the popular usage of the term “leftist”? I don’t understand your indignation. Why does the correct usage of terms and definitions bother you so much?

You ought to try an honest self-examination as to why these things bother you.
last edited: 4/22/06 12:08:14 AM”

“I saw a news program last week that showed coral dying in the oceans from what else? Increasing water temperatures from global warming. They said it takes hundreds of years for it grow and it looked bleached white and dead.”