Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAs if we didn’t already have enough evidence of the evil and perfidy of those diabolical Koch brothers. Turns out, they funded a study by a climate change skeptic that ends up confirming previous temperature studies cited as proof for global warming.
John Stewart covers the scam of science.
“Pretty soon, you’ll be hooked on that grant money. Looking for that next big score. Is that what you want?”
“Yeah.”
Filed under: global warming, koch bros | Tagged: climate change |
All Things in Moderation 
My question for all, it it could be proved that the warming was not caused by mankind, should measures still be taken to attempt to reverse the warming?
LikeLike
OT — is it possible to post a PDF to the site? or is that like crossing the streams and bad?
LikeLike
NoVA:I don't see why you shouldn't be able to link to a PDF, if that is what you mean.
LikeLike
McWing:it it could be proved that the warming was not caused by mankind, should measures still be taken to attempt to reverse the warming? Certainly not the measures that are currently being taken.
LikeLike
If it could be proven 100% beyond any doubt that humans have nothing to do with global warming then I doubt anything we do could reverse it. That doesn't mean though that we should continue to deplete natural resources if we have an alternative that doesn't harm the environment or the water supply.
LikeLike
Scott — I've got a file, but no link. it's a CRS report that's bouncing around today via email.
LikeLike
scott, out of curiosity, which measures do you object to?
LikeLike
NoVA…I'm not sure how to make that available for all to see. But if you have know of a way, give it a shot. What's the worst that can happen?
LikeLike
lms:Any that are aimed at mitigating the effects of human activity. Like, to take a currently topical example, legislating away the existence of a class of lightbulbs. Or subsidizing so-called "green" technology. It just seems logical to me that if human activity is not the cause, what's the point in trying to mitigate the effects of human activity?
LikeLike
"Scott — I've got a file, but no link. it's a CRS report that's bouncing around today via email."Please don't forget the new cover sheet for the TOS report.Do you want me to forward you the email?
LikeLike
NoVA–try inserting it into a new post as an image. I've never tried it, but it seems to me that that should work. Like Scott said, what's the worst that can happen? 🙂
LikeLike
Troll — crap, i went with the ghostbusters joke above when office space right there. i must be slipping. and, for the record, you can not upload a pdf as an image. this just means I'll do a post about CRS' take on budget sequestration and PPACA.
LikeLike
Sorry, the TPS report. The TOS is short for Tools of Satan. That's what us 'Baggers call ourselves in private. 😉
LikeLike
Tools of Satan. That's what us 'Baggers call ourselves in private. 😉You must have picked that up from the Plumline.
LikeLike
"You must have picked that up from the Plumline."penicillin will take care of that.
LikeLike
lms:If it could be proven 100% beyond any doubt that humans have nothing to do with global warming then I doubt anything we do could reverse it.Don't be too sure. Indeed, these are the type of economical, efficient, and non-coercive solutions that ought to be pursued even if any warming is due entirely to human activity.
LikeLike
Any that are aimed at mitigating the effects of human activityYes, I'm sure the free market will magically protect us all.
LikeLike
lol, NoVA
LikeLike
scott, interesting, I'm all for economical and efficient, non-coercive doesn't always work out though.
LikeLike
lms:Yes, I'm sure the free market will magically protect us all.Protect us from what? Recall that the very premise of the question was that warming was not being caused by human activity.And, of course, the theory of free markets doesn't pretend it will protect "us all" from anything, magically or otherwise. Free markets are simply an efficient way of allocating scarce resources and meeting diverse sets of values in the most efficient way possible.I have to confess that I don't quite understand the purpose of this gratuitous snark about free markets, unless you are simply expressing a general disdain for the concept. Which would be equally puzzling to me.
LikeLike
lms:non-coercive doesn't always work out though.Neither does coercion. In fact it rarely does. Hence my aversion to it.
LikeLike
"You must have picked that up from the Plumline."penicillin will take care of that.NoVA for the win!
LikeLike
scottSorry, I was thinking along the lines of environmental degradation and the inability of the free market to exercise restraint in damaging the environment for future generations. I mentioned, I think, the depletion of natural resources above. The free market thinks in short term while some would like to balance that with long term conservation of water, air and fossil fuels. I personally haven't seen evidence of this in libertarian dogma. But maybe I'm wrong.
LikeLike
gratuitous, lol. As someone who is much less a purist than you are I have trouble understanding your adherence under any and all circumstance to your ideology or faith in the individual. That seems much more gratuitous to me and quite convenient really now that I think of it.
LikeLike
lms:I have trouble understanding your adherence under any and all circumstance to your ideology or faith in the individual.I'm not sure what you mean by faith in the individual, or whether I actually have such a thing. But I will say that princples (whether ideological or otherwise) are not really any such thing if they are easily ignored when they don't produce preferred results. It's easy to be for freedom when it's your freedom to do what you like. It's not so easy when it is someone else's freedom to do something you don't like. I work hard at being consistent whether I like the outcome or not. I don't view that as a vice.This topic (ie ideological "purity") is worthy of its own post. Maybe I will try to put something together.
LikeLike
"I personally haven't seen evidence of this in libertarian dogma"this is really hard. when it really started to be a problem, meaning the industrial revolution, property rights were chucked in favor of the public good. whether you can close that Pandora's box now is a good question.
LikeLike
That's sort of the point I've been trying to make with scott. There are some environmental regulations enacted in terms of public safety that inhibit certain abuses by industry. I don't believe we'll ever live in a world where the free market will address these long term issues without interference. Hence, saying let's do away with the EPA for instance sounds ideologically consistent within a libertarian framework but is simply against the will of the people or the interest of the people in this case. So purity becomes either a convenient stand from which to blame the government for excessive regulations or claiming the rights of property owners supersedes the interest of people living downstream so to speak. Obviously, over-regulation can be a problem but no regulation isn't realistic so someone will have compromise their purity. I'm more than willing to compromise my position when the situation demands it, but scott and other libertarians don't seem willing to do that.
LikeLike
i think the purist would say "let's eliminate EPA, strictly enforce property rights and see what happens." It's hard for libertarians to compromise, i think, because the ground has shifted so far from what where talking about. "rights of property owners supersedes the interest of people living downstream so to speak"this is the issue. pure libertarian society — or any society that respects property rights — those owners don't supersede the interests of those who live down stream. you have to either compensate them or stop the polluting. this hasn't been the case for a long time; and, courts basically told those damaged to go away and that the public good of industry was more important than their pollution problem. this deserves its own post and more time that I can give you right now. (you really are a client — but I have to say one of my favorites)
LikeLike
Yeah, I need to get back to work and after re-reading my last post I see I need both an editor and more time to compose my thoughts. I'm always just typing on the fly around here, yuk.
LikeLike
later!
LikeLike
"My question for all, it it could be proved that the warming was not caused by mankind, should measures still be taken to attempt to reverse the warming?"If by measures you mean "taxes", then . . . why the heck not? Daddy needs a new armored limo. 🙂
LikeLike
NoVA, try docs.google.com. We use it occasionally at work but I cannot help you set it up as I have never initiated anything there. Our students do it effortlessly. Note that the docs will not be secure, but then if you were going to post it here it would not exactly be private anyway.
LikeLike