Betraying the Planet

[Felch]

How could I not misunderstand you? You had just said earlier that Krugman was your target. In fact, so did Lori, who you then confirmed it with. Now you're saying something completely different (although it nice that it is what I said your initial target should have been ). You're just being dishonest now. And Lori is just being a jerk. Is this what passes for civil discourse under your moderation Lori? Insults and deceit?

Well frankly, I had no idea what you meant. I answered the question that I thought you were asking. I misunderstood you. Sorry.

[Felch]

Oh please. This is the equivalent of a personal attack to escape having to defend your wrongful (yes, you are wrong) claims. I've not attacked Felch once and have given him plenty of opportunities to explain his side while presenting my own. If you don't like it, there are more mature ways to handle it.

Drama queens are the best.

[DaShi]

Well frankly, I had no idea what you meant. I answered the question that I thought you were asking. I misunderstood you. Sorry.

Well, that's acceptable. I have no interest in continuing with this, especially since now I know what you had intended with the posting of that article and have no issue with it.

Good luck with your earlier question, I am not able to answer it at this time.



Now, Lori was in the same boat as me and proceeded to attack me for it. He should apologize.

[KrazyHorse]

Isn't the part of the point of the LHC to create blackholes in a controlled setting?

No. Mainstream thought does not predict the formation of black holes at the LHC. Some respectable physicists have hypotheses of how it could happen. From what I understand of the models, they're sort of hacky. There's no real reason to believe that (in, say, an ADD model) strong gravity "turns on" at 1 TeV or so (as would be required for the creation of BH at the LHC).

[rah]

I don't think there's much real reason to doubt the scientific basis of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

I do think that:

a) There is a large amount of uncertainty in the actual scale of warming (which even climate scientists will tell you)

b) Even given a number for warming, the economic/ecological/social/political impacts would be far from clear

c) The loudest individuals on the politics of climate change tend to be idiots. Those against any legislation on the issue tend to be "skeptics" while those in favour of legislation tend to be either either complete economic nincompoops or simply dishonest in the extreme.

d) There is a reasonable case for doing nothing about climate change. There is a reasonable case for doing something about it. My major concern on the issue is that in the process of coming to a decision we neither:

i) Sink deeper into a world of navel-gazing politics where inconvenient scientific facts are ignored or ridiculed, further lending to the impression that reality is a matter of ideology, nor

ii) End up terrible climate change legislation for which the deadweight cost is many multiples of what would be inherent in an efficient solution (read carbon tax/fully auctioned carbon permits....and NOTHING ELSE)

Best quote of year (well in the top 10 anyway). Thank you.
Whenever I say something similar, never quite as eloquent, people think I"m stupid since I can't see the "OBVIOUS PROBLEM".

[Felch]

Isn't the part of the point of the LHC to create blackholes in a controlled setting?

No. Mainstream thought does not predict the formation of black holes at the LHC. Some respectable physicists have hypotheses of how it could happen. From what I understand of the models, they're sort of hacky. There's no real reason to believe that (in, say, an ADD model) strong gravity "turns on" at 1 TeV or so (as would be required for the creation of BH at the LHC).

That makes it substantially less awesome.

[Felch]

Now, Lori was in the same boat as me and proceeded to attack me for it. He should apologize.

My DL will never apologize!

[Lorizael]

Well, that's acceptable. I have no interest in continuing with this, especially since now I know what you had intended with the posting of that article and have no issue with it.

Good luck with your earlier question, I am not able to answer it at this time.

*blink blink* Wow, a disagreement on Poly was ended amiably. Kudos.

Now, Lori was in the same boat as me and proceeded to attack me for it. He should apologize.

Like the pope, moderators are incapable of error. However, I may in the future decide that previous statements, while still true, are no longer applicable.

[KrazyHorse]

That makes it substantially less awesome.

Sorry.

The good news is that if the LHC produces BHs we'll probably see them right away (whenever it gets turned on, i.e. Real Soon Now).

[Ramo]

I don't think there's much real reason to doubt the scientific basis of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

I do think that:

a) There is a large amount of uncertainty in the actual scale of warming (which even climate scientists will tell you)

b) Even given a number for warming, the economic/ecological/social/political impacts would be far from clear

c) The loudest individuals on the politics of climate change tend to be idiots. Those against any legislation on the issue tend to be "skeptics" while those in favour of legislation tend to be either either complete economic nincompoops or simply dishonest in the extreme.

d) There is a reasonable case for doing nothing about climate change. There is a reasonable case for doing something about it. My major concern on the issue is that in the process of coming to a decision we neither:

i) Sink deeper into a world of navel-gazing politics where inconvenient scientific facts are ignored or ridiculed, further lending to the impression that reality is a matter of ideology, nor

ii) End up terrible climate change legislation for which the deadweight cost is many multiples of what would be inherent in an efficient solution (read carbon tax/fully auctioned carbon permits....and NOTHING ELSE)

Expecting a 100% auction (or a carbon tax) in the near future is simply not realistic. The House limited the auction to, IIRC, 15% (and 41 Democrats still opposed it from the right). The Senate is not going to make that number any better, assuming that cap and trade can pass at all. The question here is whether forward momentum on crappy legislation (which can be revisited later) is better than nothing at all.

[KrazyHorse]

When you start loading a bill down with crap then what WAS a reasonable question (no legislation versus legislation) becomes tilted far in favour of no legislation.

I have no idea what opposing "from the right" due to lack of giveaways means. Most of the people opposing the bill would oppose it even if all the permits were given away. And why do you consider it rightist economically to subsidize producers?

[DinoDoc]

but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

I thought it was because they felt it would be a large tax increase that would hurt the economy and only serve to ship jobs overseas. All that while failing to achieve its goal of helping the enviroment.

[KrazyHorse]

There is no such ****ing thing as "shipping jobs overseas". I am sick and ****ing tired of people committing this very basic error when analyzing international trade.

[Blaupanzer]

As to global warming, counterfactual items do exist such as thickening ice in antarctica and no actual temperature change worldwide in the last decade. (Measuring the latter seems mind-boggling.)

None of the existing models predicted that temperature result for this decade, so all need to be updated. Note that most of these models are not static anyway. Modifications based on contemporary science are applied either anually or bi-ennially.

All the above is noted within the context that the processes applied to date to identify anthropogenic global warming have brought about a strong positive consensus. As KH noted, no amount of experimentation can establish what all this means politically or what specifically legislatures shold do. In the US House, you can bet the remedies proposed will be ridiculously "out there" in terms of daily life. However, the legislation actually passed will be lukewarm and vague.

[BeBMan]

I feel betrayed by the planet