Possible refutation of human influence on climate change

[Samuel]

Lord of Abyss got it covered, but I cannot but help to reiterate the bizareness of the situation- we ate a hole in the atmosphere that helps protect us from cancer using spray cans and refridgerators. And we only found out about it by accident- people kept on correcting the data they were getting because they thought the numbers were anamolous.

[bobalot]

So the side that acknowledges the problem is worse than the side that outright denies its existence? How exactly does that work? A half-hearted attempt to solve the problem is better than ignoring it's existence, I would have thought.

Yes, a halfassed fix will only delay the problem, not solve it. If the Republicans keep acting like the anti-intellectual idiots that a large portion of them are, nothing will happen, but the issue will still be up in the air. If the Democrats push through something like the Waxman-Markey bill, which already passed in the House, it wont solve the problem, but the public, with its generally short attention span, may very well move on to the next issue of the week.

Why is adopting something that halfway attempts to solve the problem while leaving the door open for further improvement worse than doing nothing at all? You pointed out that adopting "solutions that may actually have some benefit" would "alienate a huge chunk of the electorate".

Incremental improvement has a far better chance of success than whining that the public won't adopt radical measures. It's not like such a strategy hasn't been used before for other issues.

(2) Where is your evidence that cap and trade will "kick the economy while its down economy"? (This makes the assumption that the Democrats are seriously advocating implementing such a scheme right now)

Considering that a discussion of economics will likely devolve into right leaning economists being called shills for big oil and left leaning economists being called commie sympathizers, which, while entertaining, won't be particularly useful, so here is an article by the CFR that presents both sides fairly. However, it will cause the expectation that energy costs will increase, which is rarely a good thing. As to the seriously implementing it part, well, it already passed in the House.

So you made a claim and have absolutely no proof to back it up (bit in yellow). I can't say I'm not surprised. I still notice that you still make the assumption that the democrats want such a scheme implemented immediately while the economy is a fragile state. I looked up that bill you refer to, and the cap and trade part is only implemented in 2012. The bill has yet to be passed by the senate.

As for your claim about increasing energy prices being bad. Are you serious? The whole point is to make dirty cheap sources of energy more expensive. Currently, emissions are an unpriced externality. By putting a price on emitting pollutants, you use the market mechanism to encourage the use of less polluting sources of power (like nuclear).

That source you posted offers no proof that a cap and trade scheme would damage the economy. A few commentators made the observation that implementing such a scheme during a recession is inadvisable. However, as I pointed out above, this is not the case.

(3) Where is your evidence that cap and trade will do "absolutely nothing"?

Cap and trade will only shift emissions around, not eliminate them, as has already happened in Europe, demonstrated here, created a lobbyist's paradise and helped some of the biggest polluters as shown here. If you think that there will be any less lobbying in the US after the Citizens United case, you are an utter idiot.

You do realise that lobbying will be an issue with every tax legislation in America? Congratulations for pointing out the obvious. Do you realise that this problem also will apply to any of your own "solutions" to reducing emissions?

In response to (4), you fail to show a direct tax on meat and agriculture would be superior and make a new unsupported claim that economic difficulty would be kept to a minimum because it is one of the smaller sectors in the US economy. You fail to take into account what effect raising the prices of food would have on the rest of the economy... or poor people.

Meat is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gasses, and even a small tax would help curb it, or even just eliminating some of the massive agribusiness subsidies might help. The net effect on consumers would not be particularly large, shown here. I'm dreadfully sorry, I had the temerity to assume that someone getting involved in a debate might actually posses some small amount of knowledge on it, my mistake.

1) You have still failed to show why it is superior. The cap and trade system will also put a price on emissions from the agricultural sector. Instead of unfairly singling out a single sector, it spreads the burden.
2) While agriculture produces a significant amount of emissions in the U.S, it is not the largest.

If you go to the Energy Information Administration and look up:

Carbon - The biggest sources of carbon emissions in 2007 was Transportation (33.6%), Industrial (27.3%) and Residential (20.8%). [5990 Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Total]
Methane - The biggest sources of methane emissions in 2008 was Energy sources (40.1%), Agriculture (30.5%) and Waste Management (28.8%). [737 Million Metric Tons of Methane Total]

Your proposal would only target a part of the emissions problem.

s Libertarianism so fragile that it can't stand criticism?

No, it's not, but SDN isn't generally where I come to talk politics, it's where i come to read discussions about 7 foot tall superman shooting mini rocket launchers <snip>

Fair enough.

Maybe not everyone likes to get constantly savaged over their views or get dog piled? I am not justifying any of his views but not everyone wants to try and debate them.

PS: In fact he is just in it for the Science/Sc Fi/Math

I just can't help but notice that the last few libertarians who tried to present their case for Libertarianism failed so spectacularly they either stopped posting or got banned for repeated refusing to answer their opponents points and simply repeating axioms (see kinnison). I have yet to see a significant defence of Libertarianism.

[Iosef Cross]

I just can't help but notice that the last few libertarians who tried to present their case for Libertarianism failed so spectacularly they either stopped posting or got banned for repeated refusing to answer their opponents points and simply repeating axioms (see kinnison).

To present a libertarian case to the 90% social democrats with sympathy for socialism of SDnet is like preaching Islam to a crowd of Catholics. The outcome is bound to not be good.

And ideology is not quite a science: Being libertarian, liberal or conservative is a matter of belief to most people.

I have yet to see a significant defence of Libertarianism.

Like a ardent Catholic has yet to see a significant defense of Islam. He always will...

I became a classical liberal (you can say libertarian that isn't minarchist or anarchist) after many years of study of political theory, law and mostly, economic theory.

Considering that we have Nobel Prize level Social Democrats, Conservatives and Libertarian (the ones that aren't minarchist and anarchists) economists, I know that it is a really complex issue: Even the best minds in the social sciences cannot agree on what is the best economic and political system.

The only consensus that we have is that socialism doesn't work. And we don't have even a consensus about exactly why socialism doesn't work.

[Formless]

To present a libertarian case to the 90% social democrats with sympathy for socialism of SDnet is like preaching Islam to a crowd of Catholics. The outcome is bound to not be good.

Are you accusing us of being biased? When have we ever dismissed someone's argument out of hand?

I became a classical liberal (you can say libertarian that isn't minarchist or anarchist) after many years of study of political theory, law and mostly, economic theory.

I don't believe it for a second. Not from someone as pitifully idiotic as you have been on multiple occasions.

The only consensus that we have is that socialism doesn't work.

Europe thinks you're a moron.

[Iosef Cross]

To present a libertarian case to the 90% social democrats with sympathy for socialism of SDnet is like preaching Islam to a crowd of Catholics. The outcome is bound to not be good.

Are you accusing us of being biased? When have we ever dismissed someone's argument out of hand?

Of course you are.

I became a classical liberal (you can say libertarian that isn't minarchist or anarchist) after many years of study of political theory, law and mostly, economic theory.

I don't believe it for a second. Not from someone as pitifully idiotic as you have been on multiple occasions.

You are the worst type of stupid: Anything that falls outside your sphere of understanding is considered idiotic. On other words, you are the platonic idiot.

I have the tendency to give a very strong opinion about a subject were nobody has the same attitude. Since you people are quite dogmatic, you tend to react very strongly, like savages. A civilized man is tolerant.

I have been studying the social sciences and specially economics intensively for about 7 years. I have dedicated about 10,000 hours to it.

You in the other hand, knows so much about social sciences that you doesn't even know what socialism is.

The only consensus that we have is that socialism doesn't work.

Europe thinks you're a moron.

And you don't even know what socialism is....

Europe doesn't have anything like socialism. The only case of pure socialism in history is the USSR of 1917-1921. See: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/boettke1.pdf.

[Formless]

To present a libertarian case to the 90% social democrats with sympathy for socialism of SDnet is like preaching Islam to a crowd of Catholics. The outcome is bound to not be good.

Are you accusing us of being biased? When have we ever dismissed someone's argument out of hand?

Of course you are.

Evidence, please. Show me an example of someone dismissing the libertarian argument out of hand. Further, if you can do this, show me that it is a trend. Otherwise, cut the bullshit. No one thinks its cute.

I became a classical liberal (you can say libertarian that isn't minarchist or anarchist) after many years of study of political theory, law and mostly, economic theory.

I don't believe it for a second. Not from someone as pitifully idiotic as you have been on multiple occasions.

You are the worst type of stupid: Anything that falls outside your sphere of understanding is considered idiotic. On other words, you are the platonic idiot.

*Yawn* Rather than bluster, howabout you actually demonstrate what you've learned in those years of study? You know, make an argument rather than grandstanding about it? I've called your bluff. Now show me your cards.

The only consensus that we have is that socialism doesn't work.

Europe thinks you're a moron.

And you don't even know what socialism is....

Alright, lets hear it. What, in Iosef's world, is socialism? I could use a good laugh.

[Iosef Cross]

Do you claim that nobody in SDnet is biased? Well, at least you are.

You are biased. For example, here I come, say a thing or two about the complexity of ideology, that not all social democrats are social democrats because science has proved that "socialism" is the only system that works well. And you come and automatically, call me an idiot.

You are like an ardent Catholic reacting to someone claiming that Jesus never existed.

Your two posts here prove that you are biased.

[Iosef Cross]

Alright, lets hear it. What, in Iosef's world, is socialism? I could use a good laugh.

Socialism is the State property of the factors of production. Is a centrally planned economy.

You think that the EU is a centrally planned economy?

You have to be almost retarded to think that.

Anyway, it is not productive to talk to people here about politics. Like it is not productive to talk to ardent Catholics about religion.

[Formless]

*more bluster*

Evidence, please. Show me an example of someone dismissing the libertarian argument out of hand. Further, if you can do this, show me that it is a trend. Otherwise, cut the bullshit. No one thinks its cute.

That wasn't an idle challenge, moron. You made the claim that we're all biased, you made the claim that you've studied political theory, you made the claim that socialism doesn't work. Put up or shut up.

Socialism is the State property of the factors of production. Is a centrally planned economy.

That's communism you retard.

[Samuel]

Even the best minds in the social sciences cannot agree on what is the best economic and political system.

Generally democracy is agreed to be the best because, even when authoritarian rule would be better, choosing said authoritarian doesn't usually work.

And we don't have even a consensus about exactly why socialism doesn't work.

Because it replicates the failings of large organizations (information problems, incentives, planning) across the entire economy. For markets that use oligopoly or monopolies it can work okay, but for ones that more closely appromiate perfect competition it starts to have serious efficiency costs compared to capitalism.

Europe doesn't have anything like socialism. The only case of pure socialism in history is the USSR of 1917-1921. See: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/boettke1.pdf.

Than how is socialism relevant if nothing anyone is proposing or doing is remotely similar?

that not all social democrats are social democrats because science has proved that "socialism" is the only system that works well.

Of course not (well I don't actually know what I am agreeing to). Corporitism, nearly unlimited capitalism and state property also work as well- they just don't work as well for insuring stability and growth.

Socialism is the State property of the factors of production. Is a centrally planned economy.

So workers syndicates aren't socialist?

[bobalot]

I just can't help but notice that the last few libertarians who tried to present their case for Libertarianism failed so spectacularly they either stopped posting or got banned for repeated refusing to answer their opponents points and simply repeating axioms (see kinnison).

To present a libertarian case to the 90% social democrats with sympathy for socialism of SDnet is like preaching Islam to a crowd of Catholics. The outcome is bound to not be good.

Wow, you really are full of shit.

Left Wing members have been banned from this forum for failing to present for their arguments, retard. Nobody gives a shit if you are libertarian, conservative or liberal as long you provide evidence for your claims. Like the last few Libertarians who have failed so spectacularly on this forum, you fail you provide any evidence for your claims.

[Jeremy]

Anyway, it is not productive to talk to people here about politics. Like it is not productive to talk to ardent Catholics about religion.

I am Catholic, I am libertarianish, etc--I have no problem here. I think you will find it very productive to "talk" here. Samuel is fairly pleasant, you should try "talking" with him.
An even better idea is to "read" what your intellectual betters have to say.

To present a libertarian case to the 90% social democrats with sympathy for socialism of SDnet is like preaching Islam to a crowd of Catholics. The outcome is bound to not be good.

If you "believe" that, what do you think saying that will accomplish?
Try "talking" instead of "preaching".

[Iosef Cross]

Jeremy, there are much better forums to talk about the social sciences/problems than here. The good thing about SDnet is the scifi and natural science/technology areas.

An even better idea is to "read" what your intellectual betters have to say.

The only thing that I have noticed here is that the majority of the people here doesn't know shit about the social sciences and yet, have vociferous opinions on the subject. That's the worst kind of situation possible: They don't know that they don't know. Like "Formless" here, he doesn't have the most basic notions, he is to the social sciences what a 2nd grader is to math, but still have vociferous opinions about these subjects.

While Samuel is quite good, way above the others. But still, if I am looking for talking about economics, I can talk to the PHD's in my university and on in many blogs and email.

I have limited knowledge of the natural sciences/technology, and that's the area where I can learn something here.

[Iosef Cross]

For example:

The definition and explanation of Socialism second to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
by Robert Heilbroner

"Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall."

Compare to what "my intellectual betters" here say about it:

"Socialism: modified form of capitalism in which a significant proportion of the aforementioned economic activity is regulated and actively owned by the government, usually for the purpose of flattening out wealth disparities and providing a social "safety net"."
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16334

People here doesn't know the most basic stuff.

[Andrew J.]

Those definitions aren't inconsistent, the second one just talks about the goals of socialism more and the first has a lot of unnecessary editorializing.

[Formless]

The only thing that I have noticed here is that the majority of the people here doesn't know shit about the social sciences and yet, have vociferous opinions on the subject. That's the worst kind of situation possible: They don't know that they don't know. Like "Formless" here, he doesn't have the most basic notions, he is to the social sciences what a 2nd grader is to math, but still have vociferous opinions about these subjects.

Once again, Iosef, the only idiot here is you. What part of "demonstrate your knowledge rather than grandstanding" is so hard for you to grasp? All you've done in this thread is bluster about how we're all biased and don't know what we're talking about, but you've never demonstrated that this is the case! No examples, no evidence, nothing but meaningless bullshit and baseless accusations of bias. For starters, if you weren't anything more than a trained monkey you would know that I never claimed to be some genius about politics, and I only occasionally get into such discussions, yet you keep acting like I did and do! That's completely dishonest of you, and shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if your attacks on my integrity were true, that says nothing about the forum at large or whether or not there are other people around here who do in fact have this knowledge.

Frankly, I've seen this behavior before. What you really mean to say is no one agrees with you, therefor we must be idiots. Which is about as cowardly, stupid, and biased as it gets.

The definition and explanation of Socialism second to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
by Robert Heilbroner

"Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall."

See, this is what I'm talking about. Instead of demonstrating knowledge of your own, you make a textbook appeal to authority fallacy to try and prove that we are the ignorant ones. No one gives a shit about what this douchebag thinks, we want to hear the facts. The logic. The critics of an ideology are NOT the people who get to define the ideology. The people who follow that ideology DO. Wong, being a socialist, is not the one in the wrong here. You are.

[Samuel]

I think the problem is if you use that definition of socialism, it is useless. As you said only from 1917-1922 was it a valid description of a government... which makes critizing it rather difficult. Because it was enacted during a bloody civil war which sort of messes with social systems and their stability.

Most members use it to refer to large scale government interventions in the economy (excluding the military). Corporatism would be if the government is in bed with the companies and interferes heavily with labor but doesn't run them. Communism refers to when all major industries are run by the government. The technical definitions are slightly different but as long as every agrees to what the definitions mean and uses them consistantly, it doesn't matter.

[Formless]

Indeed, that is why I think that a "centrally planned economy" is more indicative of a communist state. Hell, he basically said as much as "socialism = communism" when he said:

Europe doesn't have anything like socialism. The only case of pure socialism in history is the USSR of 1917-1921.

which is pure BS. Even in Communist thought, where Socialism is the midway point between Communism and Capitalism, the two are distinct terms, and Europe today most certainly counts as an example of relative socialism.

And he thinks *I* have no idea what I'm talking about. He has no idea.

[Akkleptos]

Regarding the OT:

First off, "meat" doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses. The rearing of livestock produces 9% of anthropogenic CO2, 65% of nitrous oxide, and 37% of methane

If the 37% figure is indeed right, then it is quite significative, given that methane has a Global Warming Potential of 72 calculated for a 20 year period (that's 72 times the GWP of CO2 itself, which is the base unit for the scale).

Methane - The biggest sources of methane emissions in 2008 was Energy sources (40.1%), Agriculture (30.5%) and Waste Management (28.8%). [737 Million Metric Tons of Methane Total]

Still, Agriculture here represents a good chunk. Assuming it includes cattle, it's quite significant; though not as great as what reportedly comes from energy production.

The thing is that methane should not be overlooked because "Hey! It's not like it's CO2!". Indeed it isn't. It's worse.

[bobalot]

<bluster>

Iosef Cross blusters some more and fails to produce any evidence for his claims. What a surprise.

Hey douchebag, I'm still awaiting evidence for your claim that this forum has a bias against Libertarianism.

Methane - The biggest sources of methane emissions in 2008 was Energy sources (40.1%), Agriculture (30.5%) and Waste Management (28.8%). [737 Million Metric Tons of Methane Total]

Still, Agriculture here represents a good chunk. Assuming it includes cattle, it's quite significant; though not as great as what reportedly comes from energy production.

The thing is that methane should not be overlooked because "Hey! It's not like it's CO2!". Indeed it isn't. It's worse.

Dude, did you even read my post? I even pointed out that agriculture does produce a significant amount of methane.

However, I pointed out there are other sources that produce even more. It doesn't appear to contribute in a meaningful way to carbon dioxide emissions. I was trying to point out that a tax on the production of meat would have a limited effect on the amount of overall emissions.

[Spoonist]

Edit: it would be nice with a split of the politcs part.

The definition and explanation of Socialism second to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html
"Socialism—defined as...

Guess why he has to point out that he uses a special definition here?
Well it is because his definition is culturally prejudiced and rather limited in use to that of the americas. The definition above does not work in a global context since it can not be used as an umberella of different types of socialism. Instead it is so limited that all subcategories of socialism can not be defined within it.
In most of Europe any Social Democrat would consider their economic policies as socialist (as in derived from socialism) without any stigma of soviet communism. That is because socialism is considered as the umbrella definition of socialistic politics. So why most of europe would disagree is because we have a different defintion of the word "socialsim" than you use there.
(Note: In some european countries that is also the case for "liberalism" where liberals are right-wing).


Now why people bash you is because you actually believe that your definition is the right one and everyone elses is wrong. This when it is obvious to most who have done some online debating that lots of political/economical definitions are different in different regions of the world.
This is why lots of people ask others for their definition before starting the flamewars.

Are you accusing us of being biased? When have we ever dismissed someone's argument out of hand?

Of course you are.

Please note that your response here looks like you are replying to both questions.
While I agree that people are biased that can be said to be true anywhere and for everyone who has a political opinion. But your assertion that well founded arguments are dismissed out of hand because of that bias is wrong. It may be flamed or disagreed with, but dismissed, never.

[Darth Hoth]

The thing is, anyone who attempts to advocate or defend an unpopular stance will automatically be fighting an uphill battle, if nothing else because he stands alone against numerous opponents who pool their resources against him. Even if the discussion is completely "fair" and carried out under "Miss Manners" rules (which is usually not the case, around here), not everyone will want to pick that kind of battle.

[Darth Wong]

Do you claim that nobody in SDnet is biased? Well, at least you are.

You are biased. For example, here I come, say a thing or two about the complexity of ideology, that not all social democrats are social democrats because science has proved that "socialism" is the only system that works well. And you come and automatically, call me an idiot.

You are like an ardent Catholic reacting to someone claiming that Jesus never existed.

Your two posts here prove that you are biased.

Accusation of bias is a worthless ad-hominem argument. It does not support or refute anything. Accusation of bias is merely the adult version of a schoolyard argument like "You're wrong because you're a poo head".

[bobalot]

The thing is, anyone who attempts to advocate or defend an unpopular stance will automatically be fighting an uphill battle, if nothing else because he stands alone against numerous opponents who pool their resources against him. Even if the discussion is completely "fair" and carried out under "Miss Manners" rules (which is usually not the case, around here), not everyone will want to pick that kind of battle.

That individual has the option of a Coliseum debate if they want a one on one debate. They can even make that request in the thread itself and I'm sure most people would comply. The moderators are also quick to stop any major dog piling. At the end of the day, if the facts and evidence are on your side, it shouldn't matter how many people are debating against you.

The thing is, this douchenozzle made a claim and then whined about bias when asked to provide evidence for it. He reeks of bullshit.

[Akkleptos]

Dude, did you even read my post? I even pointed out that agriculture does produce a significant amount of methane.

I did read your post. And I don't disagree with your point of view. What I meant is that methane should not be overlooked because, while cattle farming may not contribute in a meaningful way to CO2 emissions, it does produce a lot of methane, which -metric ton by metric ton- contributes far more to global warming than the same amount of CO2. And, as you point out, other sources do produce more methane than cattle farming. Which is bad, like "on-top-of-all-that-CO2 bad".

I was trying to point out that a tax on the production of meat would have a limited effect on the amount of overall emissions.

I'm not directly disputing this, It's only that if methane is 72 times worse than CO2 in the first 20 years, then it's apparently true that even if human-caused methane output is much less than CO2 human caused output, it's still worthy of taking special measures, since its effect is greater than that of carbon bioxide. That's all.