Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Different Worlds

Recs

7

November 30, 2009 – Comments (22)

David in Qatar and I definitely live in different worlds.

from the website of Spencer Weart, 'The Discovery of Global Warming'.

It is an epic story: the struggle of thousands of men and women over the course of a century for very high stakes. For some, the work required actual physical courage, a risk to life and limb in icy wastes or on the high seas. The rest needed more subtle forms of courage. They gambled decades of arduous effort on the chance of a useful discovery, and staked their reputations on what they claimed to have found. Even as they stretched their minds to the limit on intellectual problems that often proved insoluble, their attention was diverted into grueling administrative struggles to win minimal support for the great work. A few took the battle into the public arena, often getting more blame than praise; most labored to the end of their lives in obscurity. In the end they did win their goal, which was simply knowledge.

The scientists who labored to understand the Earth's climate discovered that many factors influence it. Everything from volcanoes to factories shape our winds and rains. The scientific research itself was shaped by many influences, from popular misconceptions to government funding, all happening at once. A traditional history would try to squeeze the story into a linear text, one event following another like beads on a string. Inevitably some parts are left out. Yet for this sort of subject we need total history, including all the players — mathematicians and biologists, lab technicians and government bureaucrats, industrialists and politicians, newspaper reporters and the ordinary citizen. This Web site is an experiment in a new way to tell a historical story. Think of the site as an object like a sculpture or a building. You walk around, looking from this angle and that. In your head you are putting together a rounded representation, even if you don't take the time to inspect every cranny. That is the way we usually learn about anything complex.

He also provides a timeline of events directly and some indirectly related to the study of Climate Change.

Hardcore global warming deniers might find that the plot to discuss, disprove, and account for climate information began in 1824 with the discovery that the earth with be much colder without an atmosphere.

Skeptics and the concerned might find this a useful history to help understand the evolution of our understanding of the climate.

Believers might find this to be confirmation of what they understand to be correct.

David in Qatar will see it as part of the Gov't plot to control our lives, kill our Grannies, and take our property.

Please remember to say hello in the replies, The Motley Fool is contributing $.10 for every post and reply from now until Jan 10.

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 30, 2009 at 12:49 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

David in Qatar will see it as part of the Gov't plot to control our lives, kill our Grannies, and take our property.

Please indicate where I have said this and provide quotation, otherwise kindly retract the statement.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On November 30, 2009 at 1:09 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"Please indicate where I have said this and provide quotation, otherwise kindly retract the statement."
Please show us instances where you retracted statements of yours that were proved wrong.

@devoish,
"David in Qatar and I definitely live in different worlds."
Yep, it's the whole division between the reality-based community and the faith/ideological-based community.

Report this comment
#3) On November 30, 2009 at 1:17 AM, ease1 (91.06) wrote:

Weart uses the "hockey stick diagram" in his book.  I think this may have even led to the discovery that hockey stick was falsified.

Hum, another suckling at the tainted data teet.

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "...[W]e've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance..."

Yet can we say with any certainty we've every seen somthing this important with this much impact both monitarily (trillions upon trillions) and from a way of life standpoint, be pushed upong society not from a scientific standpoint but rather from an activist role?

They knew it was bunk 180 years ago.

Just my $.10 worth 

Report this comment
#4) On November 30, 2009 at 1:25 AM, ease1 (91.06) wrote:

lucas1985

Which category would the CRU or IPCC folks fall into?  The data is off so they fudge it, yet the believe it's man induced global warming.

You can pimp all the pretty graphs you want, none of it matters now.  As these criminal's have now proved, you can make a graph conform to your agenda whenever you want.

Now it's my $.20 worth 

Report this comment
#5) On November 30, 2009 at 1:44 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

In this recent zloj post you connect Gov't to the climate scandal... 

Government and science have always worked together nobly and ethically. 

Lysenkoism

Eugenics in Germany

How could I ever think that they would betray such a noble tradition? 

David in Qatar

the plot continues...

In this Marshall Institute paper from 2005, they report that $2 billion in tax payer money was shelled out for climate research.  I've read estimates that the total to date is $6 billion.  This is a boondoggle.  Scientists know that they can get research grants more easily by promoting AGW science.  Jones is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities identifies the leading suppliers and recipients of government and foundation resources in climate-based research.

The study compiles and presents publicly available data on grants from the federal government and private foundations. Some of the findings include:

Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.
Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations.
For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.
The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.
In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institution’s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.
Report this comment

David in Qatar

Here you are describing Gov't using Keynes economics to take private property.

The Infamous Chapter 24 - Concluding Notes on the Social Philosophy towards which the General Theory might lead

http://www.marxfaq.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes......

If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. Moreover, the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society.

Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism. I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.

It's a not-so-dirty little secret that Keynes had a fondness for the economic policies of the Nazi Socialist Party. In fact, while the American Left rejected Nazi social policies, rightfully so, they have continued to embrace the folly of Nazi economics, particularly the glorious ideal of full employment.

Make no mistake about it. These lunatics have shaped our current economic system for the last seventy years. So why do they keep blaming all of our problems on free markets? The only alternative would be to tell the truth. America is not a capitalist country. It's a mixed economy, where the government, using Keynesian theory, involves itslef at every opportunity and has done so for decades.

So from where do Keynes' ideas originate:

Abolition of Private Property - As I've already documented, not only is private property held to be inviolabe on Christian ethical grounds, but our current monetary system is indeed a violation of private property.

Heavy Progressive or Gradual Income Tax - Strongly supported by Keynes on the false notion that it stimulates employment.  See Chapter 24.

Centralization of Credit in the hands of the State - Keynes' believed that free market credit was exorbitant, and thus it was up to the State to lower interest rates whenever possible. The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle explains how this policy is responsible for the boom and bust we are living through.

Equal liability of all to labor - We call this the national debt. As Keynesian economist Abba Lerner once quipped: "We owe it to ourselves."

Where have you heard these ideas before?

and this;

Unfortunately the story doesn't stop there.  Once we take an evolutionary approach to society, we see a historical pattern:

1. Banks and big business using their power to extract rent from the government.

2. A government happily engaging in the duplicity in order to reap a benefit and expand its power.

3. An army of intellegentsia arising to legitimize all this deceit ex post facto.

And thus are your origins of Keynesianism.  It is not the free market that is the text book science, my friend.

David in Qata

I'll retract the Grannie comment. It may have been someone else.

 

Report this comment
#6) On November 30, 2009 at 2:00 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

Lucas,

@whereaminow,
"Please indicate where I have said this and provide quotation, otherwise kindly retract the statement."
Please show us instances where you retracted statements of yours that were proved wrong.

Lucas, I cannot be guilty of knowing an answer and being silent on this, David apologized, for bringing us and vehemently defending, the Ashton Lundbey story a few months ago. It is the only time I know of that he retracted a story.

It was also another example of David describing the Gov't as stealing from us, in that case our freedoms.

Report this comment
#7) On November 30, 2009 at 2:04 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

Readers,

Please do not be distracted by David and my ahh... conflicting world views, that part was intended as entertaining, though it seems I failed. Please visit the website and see if it makes sense to you.

Report this comment
#8) On November 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Lol, thanks for the recognition.

These are all matters of historical fact. The last comment, concerning fractional reserve banking, is probably not related to global warming and socialism, but thanks for bringing it up again. 

However, where it concerns the global warming debate, let me be perfectly clear. The proper term for Climate Gate is "Boondoggle."  Although, I will accept the term "Global Incompetence" as a subsititute.  More on this to come...

Any scientist that accepts $22.6 million in government grants becomes a government scientist whether he likes it or not.  In fact, any person in any profession that gets upwards  of $20 million from the government for work, becomes a government worker.  People who accept $2 billion per year of government funding become government workers.  Same situation applies to corporations that accept government money.  From that point on, they work for the government.  Look around you.  The banks that accepted TARP money, the car makers that took bailouts, etc etc.  You may like this arrangement. In fact, it may be an ideal fit with your ideological belief system. 

But it's certainly not a conspiracy.

It's called reality.

Thanks for retracting the grannie killing statement.  I'm pretty sure free market supporters don't have a history of that.  Socialists, however, certainly do.

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#9) On November 30, 2009 at 2:33 AM, ajm101 (31.84) wrote:

I was going make a tongue in cheek posting that 'carbon dioxide proven to cause greenhouse effect, planetary warming' and then link to some information on Venus.

In case anyone in the thread cares to see rational discussion about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

Anyway, doesn't matter, the north pole ice is melting.  There's not much that can be done.  Assuming good health, a lot 'skeptics' here will live to see how wrong they were.

Report this comment
#10) On November 30, 2009 at 2:33 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

Did you just say that Gov't plots to kill Grannies?

Report this comment
#11) On November 30, 2009 at 2:35 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@devoish,
"Lucas, I cannot be guilty of knowing an answer and being silent on this, David apologized, for bringing us and vehemently defending, the Ashton Lundbey story a few months ago. It is the only time I know of that he retracted a story."
That's fine. I still think that I could bring a long line of wrong statements from whereaminow which weren't retracted. That's how the world works: some take the moral high ground and others pretend that they do the same.

@whereaminow,
"Any scientist that accepts $22.6 million in government grants becomes a government scientist whether he likes it or not.  In fact, any person in any profession that gets upwards  of $20 million from the government for work, becomes a government worker."
That's only true in your bizarro world. The facts are that:
- a scientist receiving taxpayer money still has to submit his claims to the whole research community. Scientific claims stand on their merits (logic and evidence) and not on the source of research money.
- governments finance big chunks of science. If this fact means that science made on behalf of the taxpayer is tainted we should dump every scientific achievement and discovery of the past half-century in a dustbin. This includes the computer you're using to write your baseless diatribes.

Report this comment
#12) On November 30, 2009 at 2:36 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

ajm101,

I know. I'm staying where there is plenty of fresh water.

Report this comment
#13) On November 30, 2009 at 2:36 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

Nope. I said it is a matter of historical fact that Socialists have murdered their citizens, in the hundreds of millions, and probably a few grannies were among those.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#14) On November 30, 2009 at 2:39 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

lucas1985,

The computer I write on was invented through government research?  Huh. Didn't know that.  

History of computers

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#15) On November 30, 2009 at 3:00 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"The computer I write on was invented through government research?  Huh. Didn't know that. "
Yup. Key components of today computing paradigm [1, 2] were discovered partially or totally on behalf of the taxpayer.
I'm sure you know how many spin-offs produced the space program or how data collected by the government is used to save lives and property and generate wealth.

"Nope. I said it is a matter of historical fact that Socialists have murdered their citizens, in the hundreds of millions, and probably a few grannies were among those."
Capitalism is also responsible of hundreds of millions of deaths but this is not proof that liberal democracy and free-markets are genocides.

Report this comment
#16) On November 30, 2009 at 3:24 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

lucas1985,

LMAO. That book is hysterical. I can see why it was so wildly popular :)  I didn't know that the slave trade was a product of Capitalism. I'm pretty sure it's been around since the beginning of time.  Learn something new every day!

History of Slavery 

A great deal of technology has come from other fields of research. I agree that space research and military research often lead to other break throughs.

However, all of those breakthrough are built upon previous innovations, just like the computer industry. 

Furthermore, as I said before, if the government had a monopoly on the production of toilets, that doesn't mean I should thank them every time I take a dump, or that humans wouldn't figure out how to remove waste efficiently without government, or that I should feel blessed from all the great spinoffs from the government's Toilet Research Institute.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On November 30, 2009 at 4:36 AM, ozzfan1317 (79.25) wrote:

Hello Instead of grannies can we offer ex GF's to the govt?...lol..;)

Report this comment
#18) On November 30, 2009 at 7:05 AM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

Nope. I said it is a matter of historical fact that Socialists have murdered their citizens, in the hundreds of millions, and probably a few grannies were among those.

David in Qatar 

Wow. If that's not saying Gov't killed Grannies, than it cannot be said.

Report this comment
#19) On November 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM, dudemonkey (39.48) wrote:

I hate that ideology is more important than truth. 

Report this comment
#20) On November 30, 2009 at 9:52 AM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Devoish - Is there any form of government regulation of citizens lives you do not support?

Report this comment
#21) On November 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"LMAO. That book is hysterical. I can see why it was so wildly popular :)"  
That book was a reaction to the silliness found in parts of another book called "The Black Book of Communism"

"I didn't know that the slave trade was a product of Capitalism. I'm pretty sure it's been around since the beginning of time.  Learn something new every day"
Why do you have to distort other people's words? Slavery has been around us since the dawn of history but this doesn't excuse the thousands of capitalists who took advantage of it to bolster their profits.
You must stop viewing the world through a one-dimensional lens. Reality is complex and nuanced.

"Furthermore, as I said before, if the government had a monopoly on the production of toilets, that doesn't mean I should thank them every time I take a dump, or that humans wouldn't figure out how to remove waste efficiently without government, or that I should feel blessed from all the great spinoffs from the government's Toilet Research Institute."
You don't have to worship government in the same way you shouldn't worship the free market or private enterprise. You only have to give credit when credit is due. It's that simple.
You don't use the same tool to solve different problems. There are lots of situations where private enterprise maximizes welfare in the most efficient way and government interventions usually worsens the outcome. At the same time, there are situations where the lower cost of capital, pricing power or democratic accountability of government make it a good tool to maximize welfare or supply public goods.


@chk999,
"Devoish - Is there any form of government regulation of citizens lives you do not support?"
I'll speak for myself. I'll support every government intervention that's evidence-based and produces the maximization of the general welfare at the lowest possible cost without degrading the democratic and legal foundations of a free society and it's accountable to the citizens.
Basic example: mandatory vaccinations, a policy clearly supported by public health evidence and cost-benefit analysis, accountable, welfare maximizing and free of harmful effects to the legal/democratic foundations of a free society.

Report this comment
#22) On November 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, devoish (98.56) wrote:

Devoish - Is there any form of government regulation of citizens lives you do not support?

Sure. Is there any form of government regulation of citizens lives that you do support?

Excellent. Let's work in between then.

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement