Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It's apity the imagination of the neo-cons is so limited.

Limiting carbon emission may be as simple a matter as
adding solar panels, increasing lighting efficiency and
improving insulation.

I seem to recall jimmy carter had solar panels on the white house roof, and reagan had them torn down.

That says a lot

Posted by at November 26, 2007 03:29 PM

It's apity the imagination of the neo-cons is so limited.

It's even more of a pity that the imagination of the illiterate anonymous morons who post here is so limited as to imagine that anyone who disagrees with them is a "neo-con."

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 03:35 PM

Limiting carbon emission may be as simple a matter as adding solar panels, increasing lighting efficiency and improving insulation.

Sounds like Glenn Reynolds.

The funny part is he calls our host a neo-con, but the people who seem to have problems with lighting efficiency is the folks at dailykos. What's annoying is the moron doesn't realize that if my home was as inefficient as it was 3 years ago, it would take about 3 years for me to come close to Al Gore's quarterly carbon footprint. Anonymouse Moron should go protest Al Gore's home.

Rand, I recommend keeping the blog clean running and efficient.

Posted by Leland at November 26, 2007 07:35 PM

I thought anonotard was banned?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 26, 2007 08:29 PM

Oddly enough one guy whose house in Texas is very efficient is one George W. Bush. And his dad just put in a windmill at the house in Maine. But one supposes that it is easier for left wingers to talk green than it is for them to be green.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 26, 2007 10:03 PM

The anon moron troll boy must have one of those IP switching software pckgs running. Rand blocked him but he's back, again. It's gotta be the same twit. The wording and patter are the same.

Hey, pecker head why do you, and all leftist idiots, assume that non-leftists are not worried about the environment? I'd just like to hear your reasoning. Not rhetoric or BS.

Tell me why you think the average non-Democrat is anti-earth. Or give me some facts and figures to prove to me that non-Democrats are anti-earth.

Posted by Steve at November 27, 2007 06:11 AM

if you are interested in the GOP track record on
the environment just look up ANWR, global warming
and the league of conservation voters

Posted by at November 27, 2007 08:42 AM

ANWR was created under President Eisenhower's administration.

The EPA was created under President Nixon's administration.

The Department of the Interior was pushed by the Whig's in 1849.

Posted by Leland at November 27, 2007 11:14 AM

I think for questions like "why are Republicans perceived as being worse on environmental issues?" it is best if the Republicans do the talking.

"Environmental Reversals Leave Moderate Republicans Hoping For Greener Times" from 2001. First sentence: "These are not easy days for the greener wing of the Republican Party."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E4D71F3FF937A35757C0A9679C8B63

"Nature Is Not A Liberal Plot" by Senator John McCain, 1996.
First sentence: "As Republicans prepare to begin a second term in control of Congress, a deep skepticism exists in the electorate about the party's commitment to protecting the environment."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4D8163DF931A15752C1A960958260

I don't have time for any more comments today (this blog is a guilty pleasure), but briefly I would answer: Kyoto & pugnacious attitudes about global warming. I think that the American public believes that the Republicans not only rejected the Kyoto protocol, but also didn't agressively pursue a better treaty that would address Republican concerns while also addressing Green concerns.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 27, 2007 01:46 PM

Gee, Hillary-Supporter! What party really did reject the Kyoto protocols?

I will give you a hint, it starts with a 'D'.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 27, 2007 01:48 PM

Mike, Ha! I'm not even going to look it up (now), but I expect to find that you're right. I also expect to find that the story is complex. Anyway, try asking people you know - I bet a majority are misinformed, if you're correct. Just talking about perception.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 27, 2007 02:01 PM

H-S, when you finally decide to do research prior to making your opinions, you will find the Byrd-Hagel resolution.

Posted by Leland at November 27, 2007 02:34 PM

Gore has been saying global warming is true, while Republicans and Rand have been saying it's not. It seems Rand has reversed himself a little lately as we don't get "global warming is a religion" as often anymore as it would make him too instantly ridiculous (the other posts about environment have done it only with a delay in the comments section, like what happened with the Prius?) And Inhofe with the "Global Warming is a Hoax" rhetoric is out too.

So that's where we stand and now Rand concentrates on Gore's personal CO2 production.
Yeah, Gore is somewhat hypocritical (for all I know, he might not care about this anything and does all for political profit, but still the science he presented is mostly just fine), that's what I agree. But in a bigger view, he's still done much more good than bad in my view.

Instapundit too talks about the private jets at the Bali climate convention and how he thinks this shows global warming is not serious.

Someone else has anyway summarized the basical fallacy behind both these points better than I could.
Benjamin Franz, commenting at Stoat (I won't em the whole chapter as it's so long):
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/11/ill_believe_its_a_crisis_when.php#comments

begin quote
-

This recurring meme ("people worried about global warming fly a lot and so it must not be a serious as they claim") is just an attempt to distract and is actually a combination of logical fallacies: Tu quoqu ("you too") and ignoratio elenchi ("irrelevant conclusion") to be specific.

To see this replace the argument with something else requiring investment of resources to achieve a goal of increaing those resources. For example, using oil burning machinery to drill a well. "But they are using oil to drill!!!!"

Well, duh. The real question is "but what is the return on investment" (ROI)?

If you burn say 10,000 tons of carbon in a year flying to conferences that result is to only reduce the overall world burning of carbon by 10,000 tons per day the ROI is is better than 360 to 1.

That is a fantastic deal and a superb investment of resources.

Arguing that you shouldn't "invest money to make money" is a stupid argument.

-
end quote

Also, since the atmosphere is not controlled by anyone, those who can exploit it the fastest, get the most benefit (expel most CO2 there), while often completely others have to pay the cost. So, exploitation of the atmosphere does not mean there won't be costs to come, it's just that the same people who do it think that they themselves will not pay so much costs (because they are divided to more people or entities) that it makes a difference.
That's why global pacts would need to be done. It's a classic tragedy of the commons example, a case where actually co-operation works better than competition.

Posted by mz at November 27, 2007 05:50 PM

Gore has been saying global warming is true, while Republicans and Rand have been saying it's not.

I have never said that global warming isn't true. My position on global warming (and particularly on the nostrums that are being pushed to solve it) is the same as my position on the existence of God.

But then, many people who read me have problems with comprehension.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 27, 2007 06:08 PM

Leland said "H-S, when you finally decide to do research prior to making your opinions, you will find the Byrd-Hagel resolution."

Leland, do I detect hostility from you every time you reply to me? Is it just playful sarcasm? I can't tell.

Anyway, Leland, I don't really understand your rebuke - the conversation was about about public perception, and for that, researching the facts is hardly the point!

The Hagel-Byrd resolution was a non-binding sense of the Senate against the US signing the Kyoto protocol. It was passed 95-0 in 1997, before the final draft was written. In other words, both parties rejected the treaty, before it was ready to be presented to them. Senator Hagel said the resolution wasn't intended to prevent the US from ever signing the agreement - it was intended to influence the negotiation of the Kyoto agreement. Vice President Gore symbolically signed the agreement. In 2001, Bush said that he was against ever signing Kyoto-like agreements. He did propose substitutes but there is a lot of controversy over the worth of these proposals. As I expected, the real story is pretty complex.

I wonder (honestly) what would have happened if Gore had become president in 2000 -- I wonder if he could have wrangled support in the Senate for the Kyoto agreement. I also wonder if he would have managed to wrangled support in the international community for a better agreement. I don't have to wonder, though, whether Gore would have made climate change a greater priority than Bush!

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 27, 2007 09:01 PM

Leland, do I detect hostility from you every time you reply to me? Is it just playful sarcasm? I can't tell.

To me, it's a written acknowledgement to the obvious. You tell us your opinion regularly now, and on every subject, you seem not have researched the topic. Perhaps considered it, but you made up your mind without all the facts.

Also, I don't wonder what Al Gore would have done as President. He didn't win because he supported Kyoto. The Senate voted 95-0 to because they knew they would lose to if they supported Kyoto.

Posted by Leland at November 28, 2007 06:01 AM

From the December 2007 Scientific American, in an authors reply to a letter:
"...the CCSP (Climate Change Science Program) reports less consistency among the long-term observational and model-predicted trends in tropospheric lapse rates for tropical regions. ... The explanation favored by the CCSP is that these discrepancies arise from 'significant nonclimatic influences remaining within some or all of the observational data sets' rather than 'errors common to all models'"

In other words, "the models are fine, there's a problem in the data." I take it as a given that there's a selection bias in the models accepted. Ideally the models are selected by fit with the data. But if the data is bad, how do we really know which models are reliable?

Posted by Peter at November 28, 2007 09:21 AM

"I don't have time for any more comments today (this blog is a guilty pleasure), but briefly I would answer: Kyoto & pugnacious attitudes about global warming. I think that the American public believes that the Republicans not only rejected the Kyoto protocol, but also didn't agressively pursue a better treaty that would address Republican concerns while also addressing Green concerns."

By the by, Hillary-Supporter, I read somewhere we're doing a better job of meeting Kyoto targets than the signatories, and without crippling our economy as Kyoto would have done. Who knew? Probably Google does, I'm sure if you ask he will provide.

And I echo your thoughts on the "guilty pleasure" thing; it's fun time for me to be discussing politics...when I really should be outlining my textbook or something. Lol.

Posted by Math_Mage at November 28, 2007 10:16 PM

I have never said that global warming isn't true. My position on global warming (and particularly on the nostrums that are being pushed to solve it) is the same as my position on the existence of God.

Taking a religious position when scientific evidence is at hand, is foolish.

But this reveals a lot of why you post the things you do. A clue: other people's views about global warming are not necessarily religious, but based on evidence.

For me the 90% certainty on anthropogenic global warming from IPCC is a pretty good statement. It doesn't make it sure, and it requires some trust into those who are behind the science. That's really the same with many other facts of life too.

Posted by mz at November 29, 2007 06:41 AM

Taking a religious position when scientific evidence is at hand, is foolish.

It would be indeed, if that were what I do. Unlike the acolytes of Saint Al, I don't take a religious view--I am a skeptic. I am particularly a skeptic on their recommendations of what to do about it if true, since they seem to have an agenda other than saving the planet.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 29, 2007 07:03 AM

Mz:Taking a religious position when scientific evidence is at hand, is foolish.
Rand:It would be indeed, if that were what I do.

You do:

Rand: I have never said that global warming isn't true. My position on global warming (and particularly on the nostrums that are being pushed to solve it) is the same as my position on the existence of God.

That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence of global warming.

Posted by mz at November 29, 2007 02:49 PM

You do

I don't. Skepticism is not a religious position. If anything, it's exactly the opposite.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 29, 2007 03:03 PM

Hehe, your "scepticism" is not real scepticism, it is the complete opposite of it, a religious adherence to dismission of strong evidence.

The same as with evolution and all the other things, if you're on losing ground with evidence and facts, you say that nothing is certain and that you're a sceptic, as if it were the ultimate defensible position.

Be sceptical of your "doubts" about global warming as well as all the alternative crackpot theories, be sceptical about the uncertainty and conservative estimates. If you're a real sceptic.

Posted by mz at November 29, 2007 05:22 PM

There is a huge amount of scientific evidence of global warming.

There is evidence of global warming and cooling. Perhaps more for warming, but the bigger problems is the mispresentation of such evidence from "the earth is getting warmer" to "mankind is causing the earth to get warmer".

Moreover, if I did think mankind played a major role in global warming, I sure wouldn't listen to a guy who criss-crosses the planet on private jet planes, which "evidence" shows is one of the major contributors to atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Posted by Leland at November 30, 2007 10:28 AM

Leland, your argument is completely childish and fallacious.

Gore flying a private jet doesn't make global warming science untrue. Why are the views of science issues of you people so stuck up on Al Gore? How stupid can you be? He's just one of the many people publicizing the issue. He has taken the initiative himself. It probably includes a lot of self-promotion motives and other things as well.
Nevertheless, you attack global warming as untrue. The science is not dependent on Al Gore. It's mind boggling, I can not relate to what happens in your head.

And all in all he can still do a lot of good even by flying around lecturing, if it lessens the emissions in total.

If you read my first post above, it dissects the fallacy of your (and Rand's) argument completely.

Posted by mz at November 30, 2007 06:39 PM

mz, there's plenty of evidence of global warming. How much for anthropogenic global warming, as opposed to other things like the temperature of the big old fusion reactor in the sky? When CO2 makes up about 3% of all greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (HOH makes up 90% or so), why is an increase in CO2 responsible for all this warming?

Posted by Math_Mage at November 30, 2007 08:04 PM

Post a comment