AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Everyone is full of compliments today!

On the contrary I was making a very serious point. You merely dismissed James Morrison's comments about critics Al Gore and others as lacking knowledge of science. In fact in many cases the opposite is true, Moreover recent revelations and some butt covering statements from the principal "scientific" protagonists in the UK and the IAEA reveal a pattern of lies and distortions on their part all involving the previous assertion that things they regard now as either flat wrong or merely possible were undoubtedly true. THAT is not science.

Moreover I seriously doubt your competence as a judge of scientific or even engineering proficiency - though in your dismissive rejoinder you certainly imply that you do have such competence.

Who of us is functioning "at a fifth grade level"?

I'll just say that I have a graduate degree in Fluid Mechanics; did a dissertation at Caltech on the numerical simulation of turbulent fluid flows; am a graduate nuclear engineer; and have directed the project activities of engineers, geologists, biologists and chemists for the past twenty years.

You have just yourself demonstrated the close minded prejudices and intolerance of which you so liberally accuse others.

Really? It's shocking to me, then, that you could act so willfully ignorant, re: the paucity of evidence behind the anti-global warming 'science.' Surely someone as learned as yourself can see that nitpicking at a theory is not the same thing as building an actual and well-supported counter-case - something which has not been done, and certainly isn't done by attacking Al Gore and engaging in politics.
Cycloptichorn

I think you confuse "building a case" with thinking for yourself and actually understanding the principals involved.

Moreover I doubt you have the ability to understand - or the intellectual curiosity to discover - the limitations of the pseudo science that is too often put forward by folks interested in advancing their careers, riding the gravy train and benefitting from a popular but highly exaggerated & distorted enthusiasm.

Which prejudices did I demonstrate, by the way?

My initial position stands: Inhofe, Coburn and the Republican mouth-breathers in Congress know nothing whatsoever of climate change science. They are engaged in a political struggle. They deserve to be laughed at when they raise such objections. And that is exactly what Obama and the Democrats can and should do.

Nobody gives a **** what your ideas or opinions on GW are - that is why 'thinking for yourself' doesn't get your side of the argument very far. Instead, building a case - many, multiple and independent sources all arriving at similar conclusions - is much stronger. But, as a learned man, you already knew that, didn't you?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Which prejudices did I demonstrate, by the way?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

My initial position stands: Inhofe, Coburn and the Republican mouth-breathers in Congress know nothing whatsoever of climate change science. They are engaged in a political struggle. They deserve to be laughed at when they raise such objections. And that is exactly what Obama and the Democrats can and should do.

QED!

You didn't answer what prejudices you think I am displaying; I'd love to know. Because I think you are talking out your ass with that accusation.

Cycloptichorn

Which prejudices did I demonstrate, by the way?

My initial position stands: Inhofe, Coburn and the Republican mouth-breathers in Congress know nothing whatsoever of climate change science. They are engaged in a political struggle. They deserve to be laughed at when they raise such objections. And that is exactly what Obama and the Democrats can and should do.

Nobody gives a **** what your ideas or opinions on GW are - that is why 'thinking for yourself' doesn't get your side of the argument very far. Instead, building a case - many, multiple and independent sources all arriving at similar conclusions - is much stronger. But, as a learned man, you already knew that, didn't you?

Which prejudices did I display there? That is an accurate description of the situation, based on an examination of their words and actions. Perhaps you could be more specific?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You didn't answer what prejudices you think I am displaying; I'd love to know. Because I think you are talking out your ass with that accusation.

Cycloptichorn

It isn't necessary, since you so readily display them so vividly.

QED indeed !

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19029&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
PRICE CONTROLS BY ANY OTHER NAME
This week President Obama proposed giving the federal government the power to regulate insurance premiums. Undoubtedly, this will be politically popular -- at least, in the short term. However, attempts to control prices by government fiat ignore basic economic laws -- and the result could be disastrous for the American health care system, says Michael Tanner, a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute.

Insurers unable to charge more for an increasingly expensive product can be expected to trim costs in one of two ways, says Tanner:

They can drop their most expensive customers -- in this case, the sickest, who consume the most health care.
Many companies are already doing this, a major source of dissatisfaction with the health care system.
In fact, the president wants to prohibit companies from doing this.
Or:

They can cut back on their reimbursement rates to hospitals and physicians.
But neither doctors nor hospitals, any more than insurance companies, are willing to operate at a loss.
If payments fall below their costs, they'll simply stop taking patients.
One only has to look at government programs like Medicare and Medicaid to see how this works, says Tanner:

Medicare already reimburses at roughly 80 cents on every dollar of actual costs; Medicaid pays even less.
As a result, more than a third of physicians have closed their practices to Medicaid patients; 12 percent no longer accept Medicare patients.
If private insurers begin similarly to cut back their reimbursements, some hospitals may go out of business, and some doctors may close their practices. Retirement in Florida may begin to look a lot better than another snowy New York winter. Others will stop accepting insurance or set up "concierge" practices in which they see only a small number of privately paying patients. Thus, price controls on insurers will ultimately lead to rationing (the lack of available health care goods and services), says Tanner.

Source: Michael D. Tanner, "Price Controls by Any Other Name," Cato Institute, February 23, 2010.

For text:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11241

You also chose not to answer my question regarding whether or not cap-and-trade, or stricter emissions regulations of any type, harm your company or your financial position. I would guess the answer is yes, but you realize that stating so out loud is harmful to your position. How do you reconcile the fact that, in your opinion, scientists who have a stake in the GW argument are acting in a corrupt fashion, but businessmen who argue against it are not doing so? This seems rather contradictory.[Cycloptichorn

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
370
Aeronautical engineer Bob Edleman, former Chief Engineer of Boeing's Electronic Systems Division who also worked as a software engineer in data reduction and flight simulation, expressed skepticism about man-made climate fears promoted in former Vice President Al Gore's film. "My conclusion is that the movie is mostly misleading and, yes, we'd better stop the ideological wrangling and consider the facts," Edelman wrote on October 4, 2007. "There is no consensus. Even if there were it would have no value in science. Proof leads to consensus, not the other way around," he added. (LINK)

371

OK. Here goes.
Cap & Trade would hurt everyone; raising the prices of everything we consume due to higher energy costs. Business growth would be hurt due to the legal sanctions that would misallocate capital to relatively non productive economic activities.

we have a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting that unrestrained CO2 emissions could cause major problems with our climate patterns and overall Earth temperature (especially in the face of an ever-growing population), it is once again clear that the correct course of action is to take a Conservative approach to managing the environment - in a more classical sense of the word then the one you guys use to describe yourself.

I have provided a great deal of evidence that we do not have "a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting that unrestrained [human caused] CO2 emissions could cause major problems with our climate patterns and overall Earth temperature (especially in the face of an ever-growing population)."

Perhaps you have "a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting that unrestrained [human caused] CO2 emissions could cause major problems with our climate patterns and overall Earth temperature (especially in the face of an ever-growing population), "

If you do have such evidence, then provide it here, or identify a link or links that reveal that evidence.