Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by John Kosowski

0
0

“Pseudoscience wins. There is absolutely no scientific justification for calling it a threat to public health. The claim they used that carbon dioxide causes global warming is false.”

Sure there is. Here is the “scientific” proof:
1. We have experienced unusual warming.
2. The models show that it is caused by CO2.
3. We can’t explain it any other way.


Comment on Republican(?) brain by Eli Rabett

0
0

FWIW the question is backwards. It’s not that being Republican in the US makes people stupid, it’s that stupid people are attracted to the Republican party

(OK, this is a troll, but think about the principle)

Comment on Republican(?) brain by P.E.

0
0

You hit the key word: reactionary. The environmental movement in general, and the climate movement in particular are reactionary.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by RiHo08

0
0

Here I go again. Now I am confused. I can’t remember if I am a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Trotsky-ite… I guess I’ll need a functional MRI to figure that one out.

Its bad enough that I have multiple voices having unrelated conversations going on in my head all day; these voices don’t seem to be talking with one another. I have to go to sleep at night to shut out the outside world for a while allowing these voices a chance to take turns and complete a thought. Having read the tread last night, I have slept on it. I find that my opinions on climate change are not only not my own, but belong to a subgroup of can’t change fanatics. How devastating.

Once upon a time I understood that labels such as Conservative (husbanding ideals of the past) and Liberal (free from restraint) were self-described narratives, agenda driven, and carried as placards in a war to influence public opinion. These labels filled the print and electronic media and used as insults, hurled as if paving blocks across a divide.

There does seem to be some distinction between Social Conservatism and Political Conservatism as there is Social Liberalism and Political Liberalism. Individually, one might self label as any combination of the four: Socially conservative and politically liberal: etc.

I tend to think that Social conservatism usually became a function of human aging. Men/Women with white hair are revered and speak as elders: viewed as one’s with lots of experience and dispensers of wisdom. Political conservatism seems to be imbued with fiscal issues.

Social Liberalism has a certain expedience quality to it; plow ahead for the cause is good, just, etc. Political Liberalism: not strictly literal nor exact; relativism.

Now here’s the rub. We have Political Conservatives saying that the government should stay out of people’s business. Social Conservatives saying that government needs to intervene in people’s bedrooms. Social Liberals charging ahead risking not only their own, but will to risk other’s well-being for “the” cause. And Political Liberals restraining people’s behavior.

We’re mixing and matching labels and behaviors until nothing makes sense to me.

I vote for doing away with canned labels; set down the metaphoric paving blocks, and go off on a tangent: investigate how nature works; bring technical expertise to energy collection, extraction, distribution, efficient utilization, and forego noble cause tirades. Here! Here! (another voice)

Comment on Republican(?) brain by harrywr2

0
0

Considering I am ‘conservative’ I don’t find my premise inaccurate.

There is nothing at all wrong with taking a ‘wait and see’ approach to ‘new theories’. Most of them end being up wrong.

As far as ‘new deal’ economics I don’t see a lot of conservative opposition to ‘Social Security’ for the elderly. Some conservatives will argue that it shouldn’t be ‘means tested’, even fewer will argue that it shouldn’t exist at all.

The vast majority of conservatives have accepted ‘some portion’ of ‘New Deal’ economics as necessary. The discussion has moves from ‘should we have a social safety net’ to ‘the size and shape’ of the social safety net.

Too generous a safety net produces a lot of free loaders and a resulting loss of productivity which makes us all poorer…too small produces a lot of unnecessary suffering.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by P.E.

0
0

Precisely. Environmentalism at it’s core is reactionary. What makes it appeal to the left is the potential for acquisition of power. Ideologically, it’s quite the opposite of the progressive faith in humanity. It’s a tool. No more.

With that in mind, the acceptance of the narratives follows. Here’s a question that shines a lot of light in this: how many Democrats v.s. Republicans think the Treyvon Martin case is about race? Perception of facts is absolutely about supporting narratives, which in turn are about supporting the respective teams. Somewhere in this case are some absolute facts, and you an I both know that the public will always be split on what the facts are, no matter how the Grand Jury rules.

Was OJ Simpson guilty? Depends on your politics, doesn’t it?

Comment on Republican(?) brain by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

0
0

So who is an authoritarian, someone who accedes to EPA regulations or one who does not? Who is authoritarian, one who accepts the claims of “climate consensus” or one who points to the limitations in the knowledge?

A subset of liberal social scientists can be counted on to define words the way they want, unthinkingly, and then to deduce a negative trait of some kind in their political opponents. This looks like an example, where “authoritarian” has been redefined to mean reluctance to obey self-appointed (or politically appointed) “authorities”.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

0
0
Eli Rabbitt: <i> It’s not that being Republican in the US makes people stupid, it’s that stupid people are attracted to the Republican party </i> There are plenty of stupid people in both parties. If you have not noticed that the people who vote with you include a lot of stupid people, then you have not been paying attention.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by Ryan Maue

0
0

I am really confused.

Say you are a conservative and/or evangelical like Dr. Kerry Emanuel or Dr. Katarine Hayhoe that believes wholeheartedly in the AGW policy proscriptions. How do we explain their arrival at the so-called truth?

I am trying to envision the Venn Diagram of believers/non-believers and where liberal/conservative intersect. I need to appropriately lump scientists in their respective bloc or constituency so I can effectively pander.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by P.E.

0
0

Yes, that’s a troll. Now go back in your bunny hole.

Herbivores are dumber than carnivores, btw. Scientific fact.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by JJ

0
0

The crap Mooney is spouting is nothing more or less than the Horoscope Effect (e.g. ambiguous and flattering commentary about Libras is judged by Libras to be unexpectedly insightful) expanded into an elaborate ad hominem argument.

That we reject pseudoscience propped up by ad hominem is also why we dismiss “global warming” catastrophism. Maybe Mooney should spend some time figuring out what brain defect makes liberals prone to fear mongering and name calling.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by cui bono

0
0

“They are consistent with findings that liberalism, as a political orientation, is associated with higher IQ, relative to conservatism” (p890).

Duh, doc, dose pretty picture things on page 887, dum, is, like, ‘A’ librals thinking and ‘B’ conserves thinking, ‘cos librals do much more red stuff. Or is men and phwooor women thinking? My brain hurts now thinking like.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2

0
0

Actually, people that know they don’t know everything are attracted to the Republican party. People that think they know everything are attracted to the Democratic party.

Strong language and it is commercialized.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by Grzejnik

0
0

Boy that Moonie is a barking idiot….

Comment on Republican(?) brain by jim

0
0

The AUG, putting Mooney on the board, has spoken for themselves.


Comment on Week in review 3/31/12 by R. Gates

0
0

Of course it stands to reason that skeptics would shy away the kind of logical analysis and perspective on extreme climate events such as presented by Dr.Trenberth. But as the extremes continue occur in ever greater frequency, true skeptics will understand and appreciate Trenberth’s perspective, and the only thing left will be the pseudo-skeptics who maintain their pseudo-skepticism not for scientific reasons but political and probably even personal.

Comment on Republican(?) brain by David Springer

0
0

WebHubTelescope | March 30, 2012 at 9:53 am | Reply

“Are the academics smart? Of course they are. Are the smart enough to plan our lives? No.”
—————————–
They plan your life more than you know. If you graduated from college and didn’t flunk out, the academics were the gatekeepers who decided whether you got a diploma.
——————————–
The context is engineering. While there are some basic education requirements where there are no right or wrong answers and the professor has more leeway in grading there’s not much leeway for professors teaching hard sciences, math, and engineering.

To the basic question “are academics smart” is a relative one. Relative to what? Relative to cab drivers? Yes. Relative to highly successful engineers in the commercial sector? No. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach become liberal arts professors.

Comment on U.S. greenhouse gas regulations by ppirila

0
0

Peter

The extra energy is coming from the back radiation. Based on S-B you can calculate the change in gross radiation, not that in the net.

Comment on Week in review 3/31/12 by Latimer Alder

0
0

Can somebody remind me why I should give a t**s about how much sea ice there is ..whether increasing or decreasing?

I really don’t care much about the fate of the polar bears which are not the cute and cuddly things of childish imagination, and there are only 25,000 or so of them anyway. Apart from them, I think I am pretty much unmoved one way or the other.

So what is all the fuss about?

Comment on Week in review 3/31/12 by Political Junkie

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images