Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Politics And AGW/GW

Recommended Posts

I have made a few posts with links lately which seem to get lost in the cut and thrust of the scientific side of the matter. So, I thought I'd start a new thread with regard to the "political" side of things.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7710

Dr. Joanne Simpson Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA says, inter alia:

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receive funding, I can speak quite frankly".

Dr. Simpson is not the first scientist/meteorologist to speak out along these lines.

I maintain that those experts who do not toe the currently "fashionable" line are ostracised, dismissed as some sort of "nutters" and ridiculed. What ghastly human traits these are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article...

Atmospheric Physicist James A Peden.....

"Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears) without having their professional careers ruined."

US Govt Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B Goldenberg....

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted the following some time last year and Dr Tim Ball has also used it in the article linked to in my opening post. It goes hand in hand with James A Peden's comments above:

Tolstoi (y?) some time ago (naturally!) wrote;

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others and which they have woven, thread by thread into the fabric of their lives."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all about control. One way or the other.

What is?

I don't feel controlled, never have - because I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's post this again which shows that, once confronted, the skeptical accusations of political bias against them fall apart....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

If you want to talk about the real politics of AGW, the most influential lobbying and the largest amount of funding can actually be found on the skeptical side. That is where the political pressure is coming from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10...ate-censorship/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...thicalliving.g2

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2008/0...limate-cha.html

Which makes me wonder how, even with the backing of the most influential and richest businesses and people on the planet, they still cannot disprove the general consensus of AGW science? Hmmmmm......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is?

I don't feel controlled, never have - because I'm not.

...but you do have to pay the 'green taxes', pay the 'Congestion Charge' in London (and soon other major cities). In some places, what you put in what bin is heavily controlled, to the point of being fined by the Local Authority. Indeed, there have been a number of court cases over this very issue...

I could go on, but I think you get the idea... :whistling:

I think the point being made is that we seldom have a choice as to whether we are controlled or not, and it's sometimes ever so subtle...

7&Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but you do have to pay the 'green taxes', pay the 'Congestion Charge' in London (and soon other major cities). In some places, what you put in what bin is heavily controlled, to the point of being fined by the Local Authority. Indeed, there have been a number of court cases over this very issue...

I could go on, but I think you get the idea... :whistling:

I think the point being made is that we seldom have a choice as to whether we are controlled or not, and it's sometimes ever so subtle...

7&Y

So, you think you should be able to heave whatever you want into your bin without any controls?

I'm afraid, short of anarchy, there will, in a society of millions, have to be rules. To see that as a problem is to my mind very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you think you should be able to heave whatever you want into your bin without any controls?

I'm afraid, short of anarchy, there will, in a society of millions, have to be rules. To see that as a problem is to my mind very odd.

ahh.. - no, Dev, what I sought to say is that though we don't like the idea of being controlled, most of the time we have to be, for the very reason you give. But, after all, it was you who claimed to be not controlled. What you cite here is where control and desire go in the same direction, so there is no conflict, and you don't feel 'controlled'.

Believe me, I know people who do think just that - they can't be bothered, and do 'heave' whatever they want into their bin!

7&Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also very odd, the congesion charge isn't really anything to do with AGW, recycling waste is all about reduced landfill.

Some people seem hell bent on saying that AGW is the evil to everything.

Let's look at politics, which countries governments benefit from ramping up the effects of AGW, and which will suffer.?.

Why does the IPCC keep watering down the predictions from the science when the reports are given ?.

Which newspapers are anti AGW.? and why ?, (Murdock, please stand up !).

If AGW is used as an excuse to raise taxes then why is that the fault of AGW and not just politicians behaving as they normally do ?.

IF AGW were not used as an excuse then the taxes would have to be raised anyway and another excuse would be used....

The taxation of carbon is simply to include the negative externalities caused by the production/use of carbon. Hence is fully coherant with free market economics.

I would like to reply to the cooling thread but my appologies I just don't have the time due to the latest banking crisis, which is recking havoc with my climate reading..

Finally James has been attacking AGW for ages, it was brought out of retirement by Spencer and Christy because he had formally a Climate related role.

He's made so many mistakes in his accusations about AGW, most political in nature that he's roundly viewed as another Spencer. We go through the same old things again and again but what would be the point.?

i.e taking a 1998 baseline to show cooling(when it was the largest El Nino for 50 years and we know El Nino is the most important driver for short term global temp flucuations.)

i.e Co2 isn't significant as 95% of the GHG effect is caused by Water etc. When it's actually put at 65-85% and water is shown to be an actor not a driver of climate i.e increase temperature you increase the ability to hold water. It's very basic physics yet he chooses to ignore it and quote a figure which is just wrong, which for an atmospheric scientist is frankly unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ahh.. - no, Dev, what I sought to say is that though we don't like the idea of being controlled, most of the time we have to be, for the very reason you give. But, after all, it was you who claimed to be not controlled. What you cite here is where control and desire go in the same direction, so there is no conflict, and you don't feel 'controlled'.

Believe me, I know people who do think just that - they can't be bothered, and do 'heave' whatever they want into their bin!

7&Y

I don't think it's control or controlled - leave those words for dictatorships imo. This is a a democracy, people can protest, people can vote. Indeed, people can put what they like in the bin, they just have to face the consequences. I don't think there is any way 60 million people can all have every freedom they want, but I don't think that means we are 'controlled'. If it did, it would mean that we are controlled because we can't flap our arms and fly - but some things just aren't possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...<sigh>... Sorry, Iceberg. Dev claimed he wasn't being controlled. I suggested there were ways in which he was...nothing to do with AGW/GW per se, just putting up a suggestion that all is not necessarily as it would appear from 'freedom' point of view...

7&Y

I don't think it's control or controlled - leave those words for dictatorships imo. This is a a democracy, people can protest, people can vote. Indeed, people can put what they like in the bin, they just have to face the consequences. I don't think there is anyway 60 million people can all have every freedom they want, but I don't think that means we are 'controlled'. If it did, it would mean that we are controlled because we can flap our arms and fly - but some things just aren't possible.

Thanks for your views, Dev, but I'll stop here as I'm in danger of going off topic...unless I can swing a political/AGW/GW angle :whistling:

Cheers, 7&Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, people can put what they like in the bin, they just have to face the consequences.

I can't find a link but the Discovery Channel had an episode on a recycling plant in the US that could take mixed waste. Government investment in such technology could have resolved the problem but instead what we got was an inefficient system of separating waste, additional collections, additional staffing and a burden on the public.

Recycling then wouldn't have been such an issue. Was it political ineptitude or was it politically useful? The last part of your sentence certainly makes it seem like a useful tool to achieve public compliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And let's post this again which shows that, once confronted, the skeptical accusations of political bias against them fall apart....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

Thanks very much for that link, Roo: I completely missed it when/if you posted it before.

Here, too, is a post I made in November about the NOAA's Chris Landsea's publication of not-very-supportive-of-AGW research (sorry, don't know how to link to an old post):

'.....a further thought about the research that your interesting quote - "There is nothing in the US hurricane damage record, that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along the US coast" - was about.

You found it on the NOAA website - one of those terrible US Government Depts that systematically lie, distort or supress the truth about (A)GW, we are told. How interesting that they initiated and/or funded the research in the first place. And when the research team, one of whom actually works for the NOAA, came back with results that did not support the 'repressive orthodoxy' in US science & government, what did they do? They published it and put a big news item about it on their website. So much for the conspiracy of silence theory. Or do we think all the authors will now lose their jobs? Here are their names, poor terrified fellahs that they must now be: Roger A. Pielke Jr. (University of Colorado), Joel Gratz (ICAT Managers, Inc.), Chris Landsea, Douglas Collins (Tillinghast-Towers Perrin), Mark A. Saunders (University College London), and Rade Musulin (Aon Re Australia).

I invite anyone here who believes that the researchers of the world are so scared of losing their jobs that they will not speak the truth about Climate Change to see if these six men are still in their jobs in a year's time.........?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar, you are, I take it, opposed to socialism (as, on the whole, am I - though you have to define your terms.....even you probably completely accept a degree of what would have been described a hundred years ago as rabid socialism). You are convinced that those who believe in AGW (and think we need to address it as a problem) are mainly socialists. You are in danger, I'd have thought, of not accepting AGW mainly because it is being preached at you by the "enemy", and they must be wrong.

The problem with that logical sequence - quite apart from it making it impossible to look at the science objectively - is that it is based on an untruth: many, perhaps most socialists accept AGW (and, yes, enjoy the opportunities it affords for regulating still more of our lives); but many, perhaps most of those who accept AGW are not what I would define as socialists. Yes, I believe in the existence of, and threat posed by AGW. No, I do not consider myself a socialist. I know many other thinking people in the same position. I am by instinct both a libertarian and a liberal, and I regret greatly the unavoidable restrictions on our freedom of choice that follow an acceptance of the dangers of climate change. In the same way I accept, but regret that I cannot drive at 100 mph while drunk if I choose, or more mundanely have to wait in a long queue at the Post Office when I am in a hurry: my 'right' to do what I want needs to be balanced with the rights of those who may be adversely affected by my behaviour.

I am also reminded of the Britain-fully-in-Europe arguments. While it is true that most socialists are in favour these days, most people who who are in favour are not socialists. It is the more extreme fringe on both Right and Left who are opposed. Similarly with AGW there is an unholy alliance of opponents-on-essentially-ideological-grounds: the ultra-libertarian Right who do not want their own lives and freedom interfered with, and Leftists who are passionately opposed to rich countries' attempts to curtail the development and empowerment of poorer ones. Please note that I am referring to ideological positions on the subject: I am not for a minute suggesting that all opponents of the AGW think what they think because of a violent antipathy to its political consequences.

I do think, however, that we all need to look carefully at why we are drawn to believe one camp or the other, and try and put that firmly away while we examine the science from as close to the horse's mouth as possible. Simply to follow the opinions of columnists whose politics we like is probably not a good way to go - and we get a lot of links to such commentators offered on here.

Ossie

PS Thanks, Noggin, for the thread: a very good idea indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to me, that most of those who support AGW, tend to have socialist ideologies.

Really? And what about the other side? Gun-toting right-wing zealots, all of them? Of course not, so let's not typecast?

But, in general, I will say this: that with the 'sceptics' the respective politics precludes any other but the stated point of view: i.e. a right-wing philosophy necessitates a 'winner take all and 'laisse faire' perspective on things, leading to the inevitable - 'I take what I want, do what I want, have what I want. And the grandkids can sort out the consequences...

But, it's not always the case. Take the present governer of Texas as an example. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose their are not many 'in it for the money' scientists out their. Should they have turned their attentions to economics in 6th form, and then spent the next 12 years studying the markets they'd be well positioned to rake in millions instead of the mere thousands they do. Had they used their potential for learning toward P.R. they could, by now, be raking in multi millions from business wishing to foist un-necessary goods on an unthinking market.

I wonder why they stuck with their passion and not their head? Maybe it's a character trait......possesing an acceptable range of emotional responses that can include empathy and compassion maybe it is also a character trait/defect to lack the ability to emote another's position? if you want to consign folk to the streets because of financial hardship, refuse Medicare to the needy (because of financial hardship), feel education is a birthright (and not just a right).

Maybe the difference between conservative and socialist (for many) is this ,almost Asberger like, quality.

I'm not saying that at times ,in society, these qualities prove useful but ,IMHO, to have this type of persona holding the reigns leads us to the inequitable planet we see today.

In the same way we rid ourselves of 'alpha male', 74 thousand years ago, when the changes blight the planet we would do well to have a 'top down' re-arrangement and allow the folk who care to feel more for others than self have a crack. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solar, you are, I take it, opposed to socialism (as, on the whole, am I - though you have to define your terms.....even you probably completely accept a degree of what would have been described a hundred years ago as rabid socialism). You are convinced that those who believe in AGW (and think we need to address it as a problem) are mainly socialists. You are in danger, I'd have thought, of not accepting AGW mainly because it is being preached at you by the "enemy", and they must be wrong.

The problem with that logical sequence - quite apart from it making it impossible to look at the science objectively - is that it is based on an untruth: many, perhaps most socialists accept AGW (and, yes, enjoy the opportunities it affords for regulating still more of our lives); but many, perhaps most of those who accept AGW are not what I would define as socialists. Yes, I believe in the existence of, and threat posed by AGW. No, I do not consider myself a socialist. I know many other thinking people in the same position. I am by instinct both a libertarian and a liberal, and I regret greatly the unavoidable restrictions on our freedom of choice that follow an acceptance of the dangers of climate change. In the same way I accept, but regret that I cannot drive at 100 mph while drunk if I choose, or more mundanely have to wait in a long queue at the Post Office when I am in a hurry: my 'right' to do what I want needs to be balanced with the rights of those who may be adversely affected by my behaviour.

I am also reminded of the Britain-fully-in-Europe arguments. While it is true that most socialists are in favour these days, most people who who are in favour are not socialists. It is the more extreme fringe on both Right and Left who are opposed. Similarly with AGW there is an unholy alliance of opponents-on-essentially-ideological-grounds: the ultra-libertarian Right who do not want their own lives and freedom interfered with, and Leftists who are passionately opposed to rich countries' attempts to curtail the development and empowerment of poorer ones. Please note that I am referring to ideological positions on the subject: I am not for a minute suggesting that all opponents of the AGW think what they think because of a violent antipathy to its political consequences.

I do think, however, that we all need to look carefully at why we are drawn to believe one camp or the other, and try and put that firmly away while we examine the science from as close to the horse's mouth as possible. Simply to follow the opinions of columnists whose politics we like is probably not a good way to go - and we get a lot of links to such commentators offered on here.

Ossie

PS Thanks, Noggin, for the thread: a very good idea indeed.

I did say mostly! But the trouble is AGW as become the tool of politicians, who see it as an justifiable way of getting more money out of it's citizens. Then there are certain environmentalist, who will stop at nothing to see the destruction of capitalism, Science shouldn't be about one's own agenda, but a search for the truth. And climate science falls well short of this ideology!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did say mostly! But the trouble is AGW as become the tool of politicians, who see it as an justifiable way of getting more money out of it's citizens. Then there are certain environmentalist, who will stop at nothing to see the destruction of capitalism, Science shouldn't be about one's own agenda, but a search for the truth. And climate science falls well short of this ideology!

That's rich coming from someone who simply wont consider anything but an absolute dismissal of any role for CO2 whatsoever in climate. Look to yourself before you criticise other for having agendas, or read up some science on CO2 and stop denying reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar Cycles's post only holds true for the fringe extremists. Most of the pro-AGW extremists probably are socialists, who use the AGW argument to further their agendas of bringing us towards Communism. Similarly, those on the far economic right tend to be anti-AGW as curbing the risks from unsustainable development and possible resultant anthropogenic climate change poses serious questions to the philosophy "unregulated free markets are the solution to everything". Many of the links that Solar Cycles, Noggin and Laserguy post up feature people in the second category writing articles.

But for those in between, there is probably little correlation between political ideologies and belief in AGW. It is sometimes used as a tool by politicians to further other agendas, but so are many other things, some of which are questionable, while others are indisputably truths.

On the politics front it annoys me when people who support capitalism label anyone whose views deviate from "unregulated free markets are the solution to everything" as a "Marxist", and yes I've been called a Marxist numerous times on this forum. On the contrary, I do not support Marxism simply because it is likely to leave everyone at the lowest common denominator. I see markets as a part of the solution, but also feel that some kind of outside regulation/intervention is also needed in cases where the markets would otherwise go all-out to maximise profits at the expense of everyone and everything else, or prevent constructive action from being taken due to laissez-faire getting in the way.

With regards personal liberty there has to be a balance struck between the rights of the individual and the protection of the collective good of the population. I argue that striking such a balance is the best way to maximise freedom, as if we give people too much personal liberty, it allows people to impinge heavily on the freedoms of others. I also argue that the same applies to economic as well as personal liberty. I do have concerns that we are sliding towards authoritarianism, but not because of AGW or lack of it, rather because of agendas that I've raised numerous times in other threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that TWS.

AGW is apolitical and aeconomical.

I am as strident a free marketeer as your likely to find, work in investment banking thinking up new ways to make money.

But AGW fully fits in with every free market economist you can think of be it Adam Smith or Friedman. A free market will only and can only work when all the costs of production of x are factored in to it's price.

What we have seen over the last 30 years is a subsidy in effect whereby those effected by Carbon production are subsidising the users of the carbon.

Free Markets also work on the assumption of total knowledge which we are gradually moving to with AGW and carbon production.

I have yet to find many true socialists that really do support AGW. Though to be fair I have yet to find many true socialists !.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solar Cycles's post only holds true for the fringe extremists. Most of the pro-AGW extremists probably are socialists, who use the AGW argument to further their agendas of bringing us towards Communism. Similarly, those on the far economic right tend to be anti-AGW as curbing the risks from unsustainable development and possible resultant anthropogenic climate change poses serious questions to the philosophy "unregulated free markets are the solution to everything". Many of the links that Solar Cycles, Noggin and Laserguy post up feature people in the second category writing articles.

But for those in between, there is probably little correlation between political ideologies and belief in AGW. It is sometimes used as a tool by politicians to further other agendas, but so are many other things, some of which are questionable, while others are indisputably truths.

On the politics front it annoys me when people who support capitalism label anyone whose views deviate from "unregulated free markets are the solution to everything" as a "Marxist", and yes I've been called a Marxist numerous times on this forum. On the contrary, I do not support Marxism simply because it is likely to leave everyone at the lowest common denominator. I see markets as a part of the solution, but also feel that some kind of outside regulation/intervention is also needed in cases where the markets would otherwise go all-out to maximise profits at the expense of everyone and everything else, or prevent constructive action from being taken due to laissez-faire getting in the way.

With regards personal liberty there has to be a balance struck between the rights of the individual and the protection of the collective good of the population. I argue that striking such a balance is the best way to maximise freedom, as if we give people too much personal liberty, it allows people to impinge heavily on the freedoms of others. I also argue that the same applies to economic as well as personal liberty. I do have concerns that we are sliding towards authoritarianism, but not because of AGW or lack of it, rather because of agendas that I've raised numerous times in other threads.

Fringe extremist!! So if a person doesn't believe, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. Then they are an extremist? And what logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Sorry if I don't swallow what the mainstream spoon feed us all, but I always felt it was best to look at both sides of a coin, before reaching a conclusion. Show me that adding extra CO2 does increase temperatures. It can't be done, simply because it's a theory only!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fringe extremist!! So if a person doesn't believe, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. Then they are an extremist? And what logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Sorry if I don't swallow what the mainstream spoon feed us all, but I always felt it was best to look at both sides of a coin, before reaching a conclusion. Show me that adding extra CO2 does increase temperatures. It can't be done, simply because it's a theory only!

You tell 'em,SC! Me? I'm so far out that I get up of a morning (or night) to go to work to pay for my modest existance and to fund whatever whacky trajectory this country,indeed planet is currently on. Why,I even pay my council tax on time and occasionally listen to the radio (4,if you please) whilst having eggs and bacon for breakfast. Gonna come home from work tonight,read the lad a bedtime story then have an hour or two with the missus before retiring quietly to bed. Hey,that's how extreme I am,life in the fast lane an' all that. Welcome to the white-knuckle world of the denier. If only... it's the AGW barmpots who need to chill and go back to the drawing board. I've looked at both sides of the coin too (in the very early days of AGW's 'public introduction' I actually thought there might be something to it - fancy that!) and it's innards. AGW does not have a leg to stand on.

Meanwhile,fancy a chuckle? Here you go!

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fringe extremist!! So if a person doesn't believe, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. Then they are an extremist? And what logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Sorry if I don't swallow what the mainstream spoon feed us all, but I always felt it was best to look at both sides of a coin, before reaching a conclusion. Show me that adding extra CO2 does increase temperatures. It can't be done, simply because it's a theory only!

Water flows down hill under the influence of gravity. However, I know I can't prove or predict the exact path it will take - I could though make a reasonable prediction based on evidence and calculation. In SC world that uncertainty, that lack of absolute proof means it's not proven water flows down hill...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fringe extremist!! So if a person doesn't believe, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. Then they are an extremist? And what logic did you use to come to this conclusion? Sorry if I don't swallow what the mainstream spoon feed us all, but I always felt it was best to look at both sides of a coin, before reaching a conclusion. Show me that adding extra CO2 does increase temperatures. It can't be done, simply because it's a theory only!

Why are you being so sensitive, SC? Are you saying that the cap fits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...