Re: OT: Chicago's record cold proves no global warmin

On Sep 25, 12:52 pm, "da pickle" <jcpick...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bob T."

Social engineering with the tax code is a bad thing. Period. It hides
costs and is inefficient.

I completely disagree. There are many cases where such social
engineering can accomplish goals that free markets will never acheive,
because free markets do not take the common good into account.

There you go again. I am beginning to believe you have no nuance, Bob.

I am beginning to think that you are stubborn beyond the point of
sense, Pickle.

There are indeed many "good" tax credits that accomplish goals that you and
I might agree are "good goals." The problem is that we do not get to decide
which are good and which are not. No way to get rid of the bad ones ... get
rid of them all and accomplish what you want to do with your money and
people who think like you. You see, it all comes down to your wanting to
use my money for your purposes.

This is exactly how all governments operate. Right now, our
government is using our money to give tax breaks to oil companies. I
would prefer they give tax breaks to solar energy. You would prefer
to live in an alternate universe where the government gives no tax
breaks to anyone.

I have no trouble with you getting with
others that find a good idea worth pursuing and putting your money where
your ideas are ... just don't make me pay for your ideas ... let me ask you
if you want to participate in my ideas with your money and let you decide
whether you like it that much or not. You have no respect for the market.
You do not think that the market can solve problems without "significant"
help from the government.

You are misquoting me. I said that _some_ problems will not be solved
by the market, but your rephrasing implies that I said that_no_
problems can be solved by the market.

It is the point where you think the government
should intervene and I think the government should stay out that we
disagree. It is all about money.

I don't like earmarks either ... even the ones that would benefit me
personally.

I still don't like earmarks.

You just quoted yourself to agree with yourself... OK, we get it, you
don't like earmarks.

I should have said "major asteroid strike that kills a significant
number of people", although that was obviously implied.

How many is significant?

Who cares? You made a ridiculous comparison of global warming to
asteroid strikes. Everybody with any sense knows that global warming
is much more likely to kill a significant number of people in the next
century, however you define the term "significant".

There you go again. Perhaps you do not equate saying that I have no "sense"
to calling me a "moron," but it seems to be a close call. I made no
comparison of global warming to asteroid strikes.

Bull***. You said:

"I think there are other scenarios. I think there is no consensus on
what "excess" means. I think there is no consensus on the number of
alternatives. What are the odds that an asteroid hits the earth and
kicks up a large amount of dust? Is that in the model for the next
hundred years? Why not?"

Where do you come up with
things. You are starting to rant with your "everybody with any sense"
stuff. That is the very definition of "hysterical." Everybody knows no
such thing. There are those that think that everybody knows, but they are
getting a little hysterical.

Arguing with you is making me hysterical. You can't even remember
where I could possibly have come up with the comparison of global
warming to an asteroid strike, when you are the person who introduced
that goofy comparison, and then repeated it.

I do not know to what your 100% refers.

The chance that man-made global warming will affect the climate this
century.

This is just like your "significant" number above. Of course man-made
contributions will "affect" the climate. Is it significant? Define
"significant." Makes no sense at all. Very frustrating. This is sort
of
dance that happens when one asks what the "consensus" is actually a
consensus on.

No, this is the sort of dance that happens when someone is being
obstreperous. The information that you purport to request is easily
available, at any level of detail you want. There are news stories
every day about the effects of global warming. Of course, if you
prefer to keep your head in the sand you can continue to ask for
irrelevant definitions.

There you go again ... you "assume" that man-made contributions are
"significant" and therefore they become significant. Sounds like a circular
argument to me. (At the risk of being offensive to someone, I would compare
it to the argument that the Bible says something and the proof is given by
proof texting the Bible.)

Nonsense.

I only asked what you considered "significant." There are indeed news
stories every day purporting to show the "effects" of global warming. I
even remember after the hurricane season of 2005 that 2006 and 2007 were
really going to be bad. It is NOT on the news every day, of course. Only
the hysterical prediction of the day makes the news ... never that it was
"wrong." You are correct ... every day someone finds something that is
caused by global warming. That does not make the "finding" correct.

Yes. At whatever level of detail you would like to understand the
consensus, the information is available to you.

No clear concise statement of the consensus is available. Sounds less like
an consensus all the time.

Now you've just got your head up your ass. I posted a clear, concise
statement of the consensus. You may find it and re-read it, upthread.

There is no consensus on the range of possible outcomes ... there is a
list
of possible outcomes and each submitter of an outcome indicates that "IF"
the assumptions are correct, the model seems to be a good one. Others
have
different models, different assumptions and different predictions and
ranges
of predictions. The conglomerate indicates that if one of the models is
correct, then it is correct.

There are many models. By examining the results of all the different
models, and comparing them to real-world data, scientists have
prepared predictions that include a range of possible climate change
outcomes, with assigned degrees of confidence. Climatology is a
statistical science, like sociology.

At least we discover that "climate" science is accurate as social science.
(It is not generally sold in the current press that way.) Anyway, if there
were a few test runs that actually predicted something and the prediction
actually happened, we would be in a better situation. Let's see: We can
predict the climate in most parts of the world this afternoon and tomorrow
with pretty good confidence. Next week, not so good, but we are right some
of the time ... next month ... who knows ... next year, geeez, who do you
think we are. The next decade, crap we can't even do anything next month,
what do you expect. BUT, in a hundred years we are pretty darned sure that
maybe one of our predictions might be true ... unless one or two of our
assumptions are incorrect ... that screws up everything.

You are extremely good at being pig-headed when you want to be,
Pickle. I find it very frustrating because I like you as a person.

You do not like possible asteroid strikes, but you like weather
predictions.
So, we do not include asteroid strikes in the weather prediction models.

This is really quite a silly point.

Let's see ... an asteroid strike is very difficult to predict with any
current model, but we know that there have been such strikes in the past and
we know that it is almost 100% certain that there will be one in the future.
Even though there are reputable scientists that spend their life making such
risk analysis and there are actually people taking such things seriously,
for purposes of our man made global warming estimates, we will just ignore
that risk ... because we want to. It might change a confidence factor or
two in one of the many sub models.

You are going to extreme lengths not to understand my point of view.
I find it hysterically frustrating.

Most if not all of the models do not include cloud cover assumptions
because
such complications are just too ... well, complicated.

First you proclaim igorance about the consensus. Now you are claiming
that you have detailed knowledge about the workings of the various
models, and you have declared them flawed based on your superior
knowledge of cloud cover assumptions. I am skeptical.

Consensus and models are two entirely different concepts. There are lots of
models and each one is made up of sub models and sub sub models that all
have parameters and assumptions and have to work together. When a given
model starts to actually predict the future and the future comes and
measurements are made and the model's prediction actually works, then we
will be on to something. As long as the model is shown to correlate with
past measurements and then when new data are added, the model is adjusted to
now correlate with the new data, we do not have much. We don't have any
model right now that predicts the weather very far into the future. We have
a lot of smart people trying to figure out what it all means. They should
keep trying because they might be on to something. Those that seek their
own political results have jumped into the mix and are using this important
study for their own purposes. It is sad.

It is sad that you think "save the planet from possible disaster" is
nothing but a "political purpose."

I think global warming is real ... I think we don't know enough to get
hysterical. As long as no one gets hysterical, I am with you.

Yeah, but you define "hysterical" to include people who want to give
tax credits for solar energy.

No I don't, Bob. Geeze.

You have called me hysterical, and tax credits for solar power is the
sort of policy I am advocating. You called ruylopez hysterical when
he made a wisecrack. I am tired of this conversation now. I don't
know whether you are being obstreperous on purpose or not, but I am
growing increasingly frustrated with your debate style. Why don't you
go back and re-read the thread as many times as it takes to figure out
what I mean by the "consensus", and who was the first to make a
comparison between global warming and an asteroid strike.

- Bob T.

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast