Friday, March 28, 2008

Speak some ill of some dead

Recent weeks bring news of the death of Fred Seitz and Robert Jastrow. Eli is not shedding a bunch of tears. Rabett Run has described how over three decades Seitz provided cover for the tobacco companies. Together with William Nierenberg, Seitz and Jastrow founded the George Marshall Institute, ostensibly to promote the Strategic Defense Initiative but later to deny the ills of tobacco, ozone depletion, man-made climate change and more. Nierenberg died in 2000

Three new papers deal with our trio (freely available):


One can also look for papers from a recent conference "Dissent in Science".

Lahsen thinks that the three came to their positions through a combination of arrogance and their loss of status as they aged.
In some respects Nierenberg, Seitz and Jastrow are representative of broader categories of which they are partly part. They share common characteristics with other physicists and with a particular subgroup of physicists and governmental advisors in particular, an older generation of elite physicists shaped by nuclear physicists. The Marshall Institute trio has lived through dramatic changes in popular attitudes towards science and the environment. Their engagement in US climate politics can be understood in part as a struggle to preserve their particular culturally and historically charged understandings of scientific and environmental reality, and an associated, particular normative order. The trio has found support for important dimensions of their worldviews and policy preferences within the backlash and among Congressional Republicans, but they must continuously contend with challenges to the privilege to which they had grown accustomed in science and government.
In passing she records a conversation with a young physicist which explains the arrogance
this is a problem with physicists: they think they know everything, because they’re smart. What they don’t understand is that yes, it is true, actually meteorology is a branch of physics. And so you take a physicist, like me, and you can sit him down, and in 2 or 3 years, they could learn meteorology. But physicists confuse being smart and having the ability to learn everything with actually knowing stuff!
Oreskes and Conway are not convinced, if for no other reason that Nierenberg was director of Scripps, and built up climate science there and Jastrow hired Hansen and built up atmospheric sciences at GISS. O&C ask if they would kill their own babies

Indeed, in David Randall's book General Circulation Model Development, (much there that bears on recent conversations) Hansen writes
But at about that time, the director of GISS, Robert Jastrow, concluded that the days of generous NASA support for planetary studies were numbered, and he thus began to direct institutional resourses towards Earth applications.
Still, Eli has heard rumors that Jastrow left GISS when he ran afoul of regulations and was offered a Hobson's choice, without a doubt Nierenberg, Seitz and Jastrow were arrogantly proud, and Seitz was willing to front for the tobacco industry in return for power, money and visibility so he is not convinced totally of Oreskes and Conway's argument on this score.

They prefer another point Lahsen also makes:
The political preferences of climate change "contrarians" including Singer, Nierenberg and Seitz can be characterized as anti-communist, pro-capitalish and anti-government interference. We agree. Indeed, philanthropist George Soros has given this perspective a succinct label: "market fundamentalism". Market fundamentalists hold a dogmatic, quasi-religious belief in unfettered market capitalism, and therefore oppose anything that restrains the business community, be it restrictions on the use of tobacco or the emission of greenhouse gases.

There is something very peculiar about this, because many people believe in the merits of free markets but still accept the reality of global climate change. One can argue the merits or demerits of carbon taxes, emission control, carbon credits and all kinds of other potential responses to cliamte change without denying the scientific facts - and indeed all over the world people are doing just that.
Oreskes and Conway conclude that Nierenberg, Seitz and Jastrow viewed climate change through the lens of the Cold War
The Cold War however is over. We face now not a binary choice between communism and capitalism (if ever we did) but rather the realization that capitalism has had unintended consequences. When humans began to burn fossil fuels, no one intended to create global warming. But they (and we) did. Capitalism triumphed over communism, but now must deal with its own waste products.

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

"They had simply asserted that markets would provide technological solutions, without much pain or dislocation."

Very much like that taxes shall provide solutions, without much pain or dislocation. Without any data whatsoever to validate the claim.

Anonymous said...

The first paper is interesting. The paper relies heavily on numbers generated by mathematical models. Oreskes has previously argued, successfully in some very limited circles, that mathematical models of natural physical phenomena and processes cannot be verified or validated.

Apparently then it is ok to rely on information that is very likely to be incorrect to back one's arguments.

The discussion on hurricanes is already out of date because it has not been generally accepted. Additionally, it is a known true fact that GCMs do not and can not be used to suggest that the weather will change. And especially cannot be used to suggest isolated extreme weather events. GCM results after all must be averaged over time periods of over 30 years in order to be valid. So we've been recently told.

tamino said...

A very important issue to be aware of! Namely, that many if not most of those who oppose the *science* of global warming do so for ideological, not scientific, reasons.

It's also ridiculous to view "free market" solutions as some god-given panacea for all problems, especially problems that threaten to bring uncountable misery, mainly to the world's poor.

How long do you think it'll take for some commenter comes here and says we should be worrying about bringing those destitute poor out of poverty by giving them fossil-fuel-based electric generation? As if they really care!

EliRabett said...

Anon 1 clearly you need to read about the free market fairy

"You know the one where you put your problem under the pillow and during the night the Free Market Fairy visits and your problem is solved the next morning.

..How to fix global warming? Well, first deny it exists for seven years, then when the weight of scientific evidence is completely overwhelming claim it can be fixed, by the free market, even though the free market hadn't solved it over the previous seven years."

But then again you are simply reducing yourself to absurdity by claiming that Eli and the clear thinking bunnies believe taxes are the answer to everything, Taxes, and regulated markets have done well together, but we run into difficulty when the clowns try to say that any one of them is the answer. Krugman had a fine essay on that

"The answer, at a fundamental level, is that we’re paying the price for willful amnesia. We chose to forget what happened in the 1930s — and having refused to learn from history, we’re repeating it.

Contrary to popular belief, the stock market crash of 1929 wasn’t the defining moment of the Great Depression. What turned an ordinary recession into a civilization-threatening slump was the wave of bank runs that swept across America in 1930 and 1931.

This banking crisis of the 1930s showed that unregulated, unsupervised financial markets can all too easily suffer catastrophic failure"

EliRabett said...

Dear Anonymice, please take a number on entering Rabett Run. The help will respond to you in numerical order, but if you are all milling about spilling nonsense, attendants will pass up and down the aisles enforcing order.

That being said, anon 2 brings out some golden oldies and would clearly benefit from reading (and at least to some limited extent understanding Randall's book

Anonymous said...

tamino, can you make any statements about any subjects and not invoke motive. Your contributions have been reduced to a null by your own actions. Address the technical issues.

Some do care. And we know that it is a true fact that economic development has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system ever known on the planet. And that development has been based on applications of natural resources, the most important being for production of energy. Nuclear power is an option that has made important contributions to development while at the same time being very much less 'bad' for the environment.

Eli, can you address some of the technical issues that are apparently incorrect in anon 2's statements? Orsekes is known to have argued as anon 2 stated. It's a true fact.

Which Randall?

tamino said...

"tamino, can you make any statements about any subjects and not invoke motive"

What a load of bull. This whole post is *about* motives. I didn't bring it up, Eli did, so naturally I commented on the subject.

On my blog I address technical issues all the time, often in far greater detail than most.

I suspect I'm not running toward the topic of motives, *you* are running *away* from it.

John Mashey said...

I am promoting a new acronym, which has the plus of being a palindrome, and which especially applies to all these unnumbered anonymice:

IUOUI
Ignore
Unsupported
Opinions of
Unidentifiable
Individuals

as they are Worthless, At Best.

Note that one can at least calibrate the opinions of consistently-used pseudonyms or Googleable handles, and decide whether to assign any weight, positive or negative to opinions thereof.

I.e., EliRabett & tamino have clear online identities, as does Hansen's Bulldog, although the latter is less Googleable, unfortunately.

A handle like Bill Smith maybe even be a real name, but is hard to identify in the noise. Things like Bill S don't help generally, but at least disambiguate within a thread.

"Anononymous" is simply useless, not worth the pixels, electrons, and magnetic domains to have. IUOUI.

Anonymous said...

No one here has yet pointed to any incorrect aspects of anon's statements.

Steve Bloom said...

Sure. The following statement is a meaningless tautology: "And we know that it is a true fact that economic development has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system ever known on the planet." Then again it would be less than fitting for a statement containing the term "true fact" to actually mean something.

John Mashey said...

Regarding Jastrow:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080303

is a gracious obituary by James Hansen.

EliRabett said...

As I said, follow the link to David Randall's book and read about GCMs

John, I have read the obit on the GISS website, it's just that I have some additional info.

John Mashey said...

Yes, maybe I should have said more.

I'd observe that some scientists may contribute strongly for decades, and then go off into non-science. Likewise, some fine scientists, even in their primes, were known to be difficult to work with (Shockley is famous for that.)

I observe that Hansen cannot have been pleased with Jastrow's Marshall role. Of course, I have no juicy inside info.
[I helped design a lot of computers used by various parts of NASA over the years, but they never collected gossip for me. :-)]

Anyway, I hope I never have to write an obituary or similar commentary for somebody I respected for years, or who helped me a lot, and ended up less-than-happy with.

Hence, "gracious" applies to Hansen's writing, not necessarily to Jastrow.

bi said...

Re: "IUOUI"

I believe Blogger has an option to turn off anonymous comments, or even comments from unregistered users. (Anyone who has anything worth saying can surely spare a few minutes to get an account on Google; in fact, I already have one.) However, if Rabett intends to move this blog elsewhere some time soon, that may be unnecessary for now...

"No one here has yet pointed to any incorrect aspects of anon's statements."

Oh yeah, it's somehow our duty to answer every unrelated fluffy talking point lobbed our way by folks who can't even bother to put a name on their own verbal diarrhoea.

But anyway, I find it hilarious that folks like Lomborg, the CEI, etc. oppose a carbon tax, and then claim that there won't be enough money to stop global warming. Apparently any money that's collected from carbon taxes will be used to finance terrorists or something.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

Anon. 2 said:

"Additionally, it is a known true fact that GCMs do not and can not be used to suggest that the weather will change. And especially cannot be used to suggest isolated extreme weather events. GCM results after all must be averaged over time periods of over 30 years in order to be valid. So we've been recently told."

Are you conflating two (or more) issues here? Or perhaps your language usage here is imprecise and I've misinterpreted what you're trying to get at.

I'll fully accept your second point, but by whom have "we" been told about the rest?

Not by Reddy and Pachepsky and not by Chase and Barry. And what do you think the UKMO use to prepare their various seasonal and annual forecasts (e.g. seasonal weather forecasts, annual global temperature, tropical storms (see also GloSea))?

Anonymous said...

Oops! Anon 5:49 was me. Hit post rather than preview before I was ready to send! I think I got the links right.

Cymraeg llygoden

Anonymous said...

"A very important issue to be aware of! Namely, that many if not most of those who oppose the *science* of global warming do so for ideological, not scientific, reasons."

This is unfortunately true on both sides of this great debate - there are many also who advocate the truth of AGW because they want it to be true for ideological motives, and they want CO2 emissions limited and controlled because they approve of those measures on other grounds.

Neither point of view is in any way helpful in advancing the science.

The Oreskes paper is a little chilling. Not because of its criticism of the Marshall Institute, about which I know nothing, but about the openly ideological hostility to anyone challenging the consensus.

It is one thing to say they are mistaken and give arguments why. It is quite another and a very unpleasant thing to lapse into this mode of condemning those who are misleading the gullible masses. We have been there and seen that. It was not pretty.

If Oreskes was right, and the truth of AGW established beyond all doubt, and if there were no such thing as sincere evidence-based doubts about its truth, there would not be so much debate and argument on the issue. It would not be so divisive.

Shouting at sincere doubters with ever increasing stridency and ever more absurd attributions of malicious motives that 'the debate is over' is not going to end the debate, which you can see to be alive and well today. Its just going to get their backs up and stiffen their resolve. What you need to do is convince them by rational argument. If the case is good enough, it will happen. If not....not.

anon 11:17

bi said...

"Not because of its criticism of the Marshall Institute, about which I know nothing, but about the openly ideological hostility to anyone challenging the consensus."

Please, continue to know nothing.

If you profess to know nothing, then we need answer to nothing.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

Eli, I was referring to this article by Oreskes and others:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/5147/641


And from: http://tinyurl.com/27d9ez

"Numerical models may be viewed as complex, untested, hypotheses. An untested hypothesis is by no means useless; it can be a heuristic tool, useful for guiding further study, and it can help to focus the direction of future data collection. But if one confuses scientific models for scientific knowledge, the problems may arise. Scientific knowledge implies reliability; the predictions of a well-confirmed theory are expected, ceteris paribus, to come true. But if models are untested, then the reliability of their predictions is an open question. At best, they can provide insight into possible outcomes given various courses of actions. At worst, they can be used in the public policy arena to justify faulty and potentially dangerous decisions."

Within the framework of untested models, I strongly disagree with, "At best, they can provide insight into possible outcomes given various courses of actions." Untested models are worthless.

And it is this part, "At worst, they can be used in the public policy arena to justify faulty and potentially dangerous decisions." that many so very troubling. Especially as the 'dangerous decisions' have the potential to significantly damage the health and safety of the people who can least afford them.

Anonymous said...

re: bi at 3:02 AM

A most excellent focus on the technical issues there, bi. And you failed to point out a single incorrect point.

anon 7:11

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way. Can anyone here cite a single example for which taxes alone have significantly modified the consumption of a natural resource?

And for Part B, name a single natural resource, one that is essential for the health and safety of all people, for which the consumption of the same has been significantly modified by taxation.


anon 7:11

bi said...

Anon 7:11,

"A most excellent focus on the technical issues there, bi."

What technical issues are there to focus on? Anon 11:17 proudly proclaimed that he knew nothing.

Maybe he (and you) should start actually learning some stuff, then we can start having a discussion without wasting everyone's time.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

David B. Benson said...

anon 11:17 wrote "... there are many also who advocate the truth of AGW because they want it to be true for ideological motives, ... "

I doubt this is so.

Cite evidence.

Anonymous said...

No folks, anon 11:17 knows nothing about the Marshall Institute or any of the other allegedly right wing political foundations. Other stuff he knows lots about, including climate.

He does not visit these sites and is not inspired by them. He does not believe in creationism. He is not a member of the John Birch Society, the Minutemen. He has spent no time in mental hospitals. He does not vote Republican. He has a science degree. He is a small town social liberal and an old fashioned middle of the road Democrat. Though he has to say that Al Gore as candidate would have given him a very difficult choice, as would Hilary.

He is undecided about AGW based on his reading of the IPCC, Real Climate, Tamino, CA, Pielke, and numerous journal articles.

He is pointing out that the article starts out with the assumption that the science is settled. It don't look settled to him. It then goes on to suppose we have to find some non-rational motive for not accepting that its settled. This is chilling. We don't. People are just not convinced, some of them. Its not their problem, its your problem. You are not convincing them, and acting like 9 year olds on the Internet and shouting anonymous insults is not going to convince them any time soon.

bi said...

Hahahahahaha, the same old tired platitudes of un-denialism with no verifiable facts whatsoever that's been trotted out a thousand times. One whole paragraph on how you're really just a typical liberal and how you really want to save the earth, another whole paragraph referring vaguely to the sources on the AGW "debate" which you've consulted, and a final paragraph explaining why, despite being a typical liberal, you think all other typical liberals are being closed-minded and that's of course very bad. Optionally, sneak in a mention somewhere that you have a science degree, preferably from an unnamed prestigious university.

Nothing new here.

Here's some advice for you: if you want to build a career around sockpuppetry, you should really avoid sticking to tried-and-tired formulas. It shows, it really shows.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

bi, you have made my point more forcefully than I ever could have hoped to make it myself. Your remarks are a classic instance of the problem. I am compiling a small study in which the rhetoric of the AGW movement is deconstructed, and look forward to using some of your more colorful remarks in it. It would have been impossible to make them up.

TCO said...

I find these papers chilling. Can we write a similar paper and get it into peer-reviewed literature that discusses Mike Mann being a young Turk, dancing from school to school, jumping on fads to advance himself and also flirting with Daily Kos to show his politics?

I mean all it is, is an editorial or such. Maybe even a juicy, interesting one. But in the literature? That's too post-modern for me. Reminds me of that (leftist!) physics professor who published a joke science post-modern deconstruction paper.

Oreskes and Pielke are camp followers. Putting out for the real men who fight in battle. Real men do math and physics and chemistry. Oooh-motherfucking rah!

Dano said...

bi, you have made my point more forcefully than I ever could have hoped to make it myself. Your remarks are a classic instance of the problem. I am compiling a small study in which the rhetoric of the AGW movement is deconstructed, and look forward to using some of your more colorful remarks in it. It would have been impossible to make them up.

The quality of comedy writing on The Internets sure has gone down since the Hollywood strike ended. Don't quit your day job.

Best,

D

EliRabett said...

Dano, it is April 1 somewhere already. Cut em some slack on this festive occasion.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse

Obviously the whole "environmental" movement has been politically driven from the begining. The leftist fellow travellers to the Commies are the "usefull idiots" who do the Communist International dirty work of bringing the Capitalistic Democratic system down from the inside.

As private profit and private ownership of Capital is wrong in Marxist Theory, (and Christian theory), then all Capitalistic entities must be "wrong", ie Oil, Tobacco, Nuclear, Automotive, Defense Industry, Landlords, Big Food, Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Big "Anything".

But strangely only in the West. "Nationalised" Big Oil is OK in Russia, and China is prostituting herself to any outlaw nation who has oil.

Global Warming hype is just another way of attacking Capitalism. Everything that produces CO2 is bad. Perfect. No energy, no modern civilised life, Back to the Stone Age. The Commies don't even have to nuke you.

John Mashey said...

Markeymouse: Good parody of watermelon-accusers.

April 1 is bringing out the good stuff all over blogland!

bi said...

I thought the "watermelon" metaphor -- green on the outside, red on the inside -- was originally formulated as an attack on Esperantists?

Oh wait, I hate Esperanto with a passion. So I guess I can now portray myself as an independent thinker in classic Anon 11:17 style. After all, I hate the phrase "mi parolas esperanton", I prefer to write in any language other than Esperanto (like, say, English.. or Ido... or Latin...), and I realize that Esperanto has been accused of being a worldwide communist conspiracy which is a very very bad thing indeed. Therefore my opinions on global warming are obviously based on pure rational thought seraphically free from even the slightest taint of any sort of ideology. Res ipsa loquitur, quid pro quo, sine qua non, lorem ipsum.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

Mashey, it's not a parody, it is reality. You are being played, but don't know it.

John Mashey said...

Markey mouse:
convince us you know anything about productive American capitalism.

Otherwise:
IUOUI.
(Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable Individuals)

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

LOL.

Capitalism works through the efficient allocation of capital, directed by profit. All those things are absent in non Capitalistic systems, and particulary absent from Marxist/Communist ones.

Feel free to resume your ostrich position.

John Mashey said...

Sigh.
MarkeyMouse is afflicted by one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger Effect I've seen, and apparently can't use Google either. He gives us a definition of capitalism from a textbook, and if he'd bothered to look me up he might guess I actually know something about capitalism.

Oreskes is no more a commumist than I am or Governor Arnold is.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse sats:

When did I mention Oreskes? I was talking about people like you. The "fellow travellers", the "useful idiots".

And no, I didn't look up Capitalism in a text book, please don't be presumptuous. And if you do know anything about Capitalism you will know what I gave was a very fair brief definition.

Phsychologically, I think you are displaying projection, "a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."

Here is Lenin describing you:

"The so-called cultural element of Western Europe and America are incapable of comprehending the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....
A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but forms a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparation for their final victory...

We must: (a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf-mutes will believe it. (b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.

Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above-mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide."

Please learn about yourself.

EliRabett said...

Ooooo the free market fairy comes to visit again.

"You know the one where you put your problem under the pillow and during the night the Free Market Fairy visits and your problem is solved the next morning. . . .

How to fix global warming? Well, first deny it exists for seven years, then when the weight of scientific evidence is completely overwhelming claim it can be fixed, by the free market, even though the free market hadn't solved it over the previous seven years."

Anonymous said...

Eli says: "The weight of evidence is overwhelming"

MarkeyMouse says:

Please Eli, anyone who studies this knows that is not true. And no free market straw men please. I said the Global Warming hype was politically motivated by the usual suspects. Nothing to do with the free market.

John Mashey said...

Eli: Are you feeding the mice hallucinogenics in the cheese?

bi said...

John Mashey, my guess is they're smoking a particularly powerful type of tobacco from the tobacco lobby.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

But there is no substance to your dispute? Could it be projection again?

bi said...

MarkeyMouse, care to tell us about the multi-trillion-dollar business you successfully founded with your profound knowledge of the free market?

-- bi, Global Warming

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

bi. Diversion. Always worth a try, but still just a diversion.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/accounting-for-enso-cochrane-orcutt/

Read and learn.

EliRabett said...

John, please don't step in the free market fairy dust. If it gets on your shoes you have to sell them at a loss.

No Markey, the fact is that there are multiple ways out of this mess none of which free market fairies believe in. The base issue is that free markets don't do anything about external costs, so regulation or taxation has to be used to hit the fairy over the head with and get her attention.

The fairy objects to being hit over the head, but sadly that is the ONLY way to get her attention, because she LOVES to pig out on costs born by others.

Ask me if I favor more research (ok), regulation (ok), increased efficiency (ok), carbon taxes (ok) and other mechanisms that have been proposed that I have not heard of (ok). OTOH procrastination costs are headed to infinity, and we need to do stuff now.

Oh yeah, have you really read that link because you have a very immature read on it. You know, when Eli was young he too thought he was Harrison Bergeron, but when he grew up he realized he was just another snarky bunny. Grow up Marky.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

This is an imaginary mess created by fellow travelers. No need to call in the free market.

But please be aware of worldwide food riots as a direct consequence of the diversion of food staples to fuel production.

Law of unintended consequences.

Now I expect you will tell me your Dads bigger than my Dad etc.....zzzzzz

bi said...

Ego scripsi:
"MarkeyMouse, care to tell us about the multi-trillion-dollar business you successfully founded with your profound knowledge of the free market?"

MarkeyMouse scripsit:
"bi. Diversion. Always worth a try, but still just a diversion."

Hahahahahaha. Talk the talk, can't walk the walk.

Libertarianos can talk about the "lore of uninvited constipations" till the cows come home, but they know zilch about actually creating value for money. When was the last time the CEI actually made a profit by creating a real product? Um wait...

-- bi, Global Warming

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

bi. Why do you have to keep diverting. Do you have Attention Deficit Disorder?

bi said...

Ego dixi:
"MarkeyMouse, care to tell us about the multi-trillion-dollar business you successfully founded with your profound knowledge of the free market?"

MarkeyMouse dixit:
"bi. Why do you have to keep diverting."

Um yeah, I'm "diverting" in the sense that I draw attention to facts instead of your pie-in-the-sky "lore of uninvited constipations" and "efficient allocation of capital, directed by profit" claptrap.

Because it's glaringly obvious by now that you and your denialist brethren don't know squat about actually making any sort of "profit".

Just like the capitalism-loving CEI, when they have $2 million of "capital", they "efficiently allocate" it for "profit", and the way they do this is by sinking the money into idiotic ad campaigns which are quickly forgotten except for their idiocy. Woohoo.

bi said...

Meanwhile, those filthy anti-value, anti-profit, anti-capital pinko Islamopinkocommunoenvironaziwatermelonists such as George Soros actually manage to make a profit.

If the denialist think-tanks actually knew anything about this "efficient allocation of capital" crap, they should've out-earned Soros long ago, no?

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

bi. I see you fit the term "Useful Idiot". But I'm not sure what use you'd be to anyone though.

By the way, Soros is a speculator of the very worst kind. Does that make him a bad Capitalist, or a bad Communist?

I'll let you be the judge.

bi said...

"By the way, Soros is a speculator of the very worst kind."

Fact: Soros makes a profit.
Fact: The oh-so-capitalist and oh-so-profit-oriented CEI doesn't.

And neither do you. You're just empty vessels.

Actually I was also going to bring up how the oh-so-capitalist CEI, Heartland Institute, etc. who claim to know so much about "efficient allocation of capital, directed by profit", should also have out-earned Al Gore's GAM by now... but I was worried that mentioning Gore would trigger another case of Gore-induced apoplexy. Oops, too late.

-- bi, Global Dumbing

TCO said...

I didn'tread thehead post but free market rawk and so does the US. LEt's get some Al Queda and literally hang them.

bi said...

"I didn'tread thehead post"

*laugh* Which is more hilarious, the fact that TCO couldn't space his words, or the fact that TCO couldn't bother to read the blog post he was commenting on?

-- bi, Global Dumbing

Anonymous said...

jeez ... the noise-to-signal ratio on this blog is damn near infinity.

John Mashey said...

eli:
Here in the world center of Venture Capital and entrepreneurial technology business, despite the fervor with which entrepreneurialism is pursued, there's actually little of that magic free market fairy dust around. That's for people who theorize business, or "slash-and-burn" businesses who want to use it as a cover for what they do.

Did the "trio" actually work in companies in the competitive market? Did they ever build businesses, create jobs, ship useful products, and do IPOs?

No?
If not, how did *they* get to spokesmen for free market capitalism?

They did found a lobbyist entity, right on K-Street, but they lobbied on behalf of a tiny fraction of companies (and some related very rich family foundations), that often profit by shifting their costs to the environment, their own employees, the public, or government, and they did it by using scientific reputations gained while (mostly) being paid by taxpayer money.

Companies are normally distributed, and even within the same industry, there are good ones and bad ones. Which ones did these guys help?

No tears here either.

guthrie said...

As someone who would have no trouble being called a communist sympathiser, I find markymouses comments regarding "reds" to be so laughable as to make good entertainment.

Is is usually a good idea to get to know your enemy, rather than rely upon childishly stupid stereotypes. In this case, the idea that communists want to bring capitalism down from the inside and take us all back to the stone age. Even a cursory reading of The communist manifesto would reveal that no, the evil commies actually want more production for the good of everyone. And the revolution is to be accomplished not by destroying other societies but by ongoing revolution within the societies.

By the way, markey, you do know that global warming is happening not just because of CO2?

John Mashey said...

Guthrie:

Well, of course, Communism was one of the best examples of one of my favorite old saws:

"In theory, theory is the same as practice, but in practice, it isn't."

Amazing how many turned into dictatorship / personality cults, sometimes inheritable.

I visited Prague a few years after the Wall came down, was driving around with with our local computer distributor, who was somewhat down because of the years they'd lost. However, he had great stories, like: "This is called the street of silence - that building was the local KGB office. Over here was the Marxist-Leninist Institute, now it's a school for female sports teachers - much better use."

Of course, attacking someone's argument by claiming they were a Communist went out years ago, although it has seen a slight resurgence with the watermelon attack that started this.

[Watermelon: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.]

Of course, markey managed to display amazing silliness in labeling as a communist:

1) Someone with a unique name who has a Wikipedia entry.

2) And the entry shows that I worked for one of the world's largest corporations, and then was a
Director or VP at 3 different (venture-capital-funded) computer companies and now consults for venture capitalists.
===
Actually, I live 5 miles from the world's center of Venture Capital, am a Limited partner in one VC fund, advise a bunch of startups, have helped get several funded, and occasionally have done angel or alongside investing, and occasionally do talks on entrepreneurialism & venture capital.

From firsthand knowledge, there are a bunch of good VCs around here who are *seriously* concerned about both climate change and energy issues.

An interesting discussion topic might be the right roles and non-roles in climate/environment/energy for:

governments at various levels
universities
existing corporations
venture capitalists
startups

Anyway, I did get a good laugh out of this, and so will some of my VC neighbors. :-)

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

Silly Guthrie. The Communist Revolution is to be the result of the natural (according to Communist theory), collapse of the Capitalist system (and the resulting dislocation) and the destruction of the bourgeoisie. Obviously the Communist task is to use any means to hasten the revolution.

No John.

I am pointing to the role of "useful idiots" and "fellow travelers" in this whole sorry saga.

guthrie said...

Silly Markey- the Capitalist system, not the goods and factories.
Nobody mentioned destroying the factories and putting us all back to inferior modes of production. One of the points about what Marx was on about was that he thought people working for their own good, in association with others, being unalienated workers, would be able to produce plenty of stuff.


Anyway, those who have seen me posting on here for a while will have seen that i do not mix politics and science.
You, on the other hand, make yourself a laughing stock by doing so. please, dazzle us with your amazing grasp of science disproving AGW.
The very fact you have focused upon your hallucinatory politics demonstrates that you have no science to back you up.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

Fellow Traveler Comrade Guthrie

The Capitalist system, ie allocation of resources according to the profit motive is what makes prosperity.

There have been plenty of examples from the Russian Revolution to Zimbabwe, where taking land from private ownership results directly in mass starvation. Where factories are built, but produce goods no-one wants, eg Moskovitch and Skoda cars. Where productivity is low because no-one has any personal interest in working harder or smarter. Remember Cambodia, where anyone who knew anything had their heads stoved in? That is what you sympathise with, by your own admission.

Blind refusal to see realty is a symptom of the Global Warming propagandist.

For example, refusal to see that the MBH Hockey Stick is debunked. That the US is in fact no warmer now than in the 1930's, that there has been no real warming for 10 years. That the temperature data has been adulterated and is un-reliable, that data has been kept secret for 20 years etc.

Propaganda is an age-old tool of the Communist; the furry Polar Bears jumping off small ice patches to extinction, except there are more now than ever.

Sinking islands like Madagaskar? No. Not happening.

Higher temperatures in the Troposphere? No

Un precedented levels of CO2? No.

Warmest ever? No.

I'm afraid politics and science can't be separated. There is a right and wrong, and you and the rest off the useful idiots are in the wrong on this.

guthrie said...

Wow, once again the anonymous misses the point, by pointing to why state capitalism in a centralised bureacratic state is inneficient. (Although it is very handy in wartime) What this has got to do with proving that communism takes you back to the stone age I don't know.

Then we get back to the real issue, which is your own stupidity regarding global warming.
Aside from an amusing spellnig mistake, spelling reality "realty", which somehow seems appropriate, you then claim that the MBH hockey stick is debunked.
Not so. There is a page of them on the latest IPCC report. The thing which brain dead denialists all avoid is that even if you do the analysis the way Wegman et al said you should, you still end up with a hockey stick. The only way you can not get a hockey stick is by taking temperature records from one area, such as the Sargasso sea.

Then we have the claim that the USA is no warmer now than in the 30's. Conflating one record high year with a whole decade of such temperatures is the sure sign of an idiot.
As for no real warming for 10 years, only idiots say that, given that there is still a statistically significant warming trend even from 1998, as demonstrated by Tamino at his site.

Ahh yes, the unreliable temperaature data, which is indeed so unreliable that the denialists cannot find anything wrong with it...

As for more POlar bears now, I doubt there are more now than there were 1,000 years ago. Stopping hunting of them guarantees an icnrease in population over the last few decades, but only a moron would not work that one out. All the population ecologists I've ever seen comment on polar bears fully expect serious population loss over the next 50 years.

And since when was Madagascar supposed to be sinking due to warming?

You do know what the troposphere is, right? ITs that bit of the atmosphere that the surface stations and the satellites and balloons all show is warming.

We do have unprecedented levels of Anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases though, which is important, because that is what is driving the warming.

Please tell me you don't have a science degree. If you do, go back to the university and ask for your money back, they clearly failed to do their job.

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says:

Example of organised fellow travellers:

John Reimann Says:
7 April 2008 at 9:32 AM
I am on an international social(i)s(t) commentary e mail list. We have had discussions on global warming on that list, and I must admit that a few of those on the list have been taken in by the deniers. I have had some very sharp debates with them. In any case, one person posted the following note, which quotes an article from the “Guardian” newspaper. Can somebody explain this for me? Thank you.

RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/target-co2/

bi said...

"social(i)s(t)"

Oh noes, the expert FBI cryptolololologist MarkeyMouse just cracked our state-of-the-art Soviet cryptosystem.

(Hahahahahahahahaha.)

-- bi, Global Warming

guthrie said...

I see markey mouse continues his paranoid ramblings.
Of course, to him, one socialist means its all a commie plot (Never mind that communism and socialism are not quite the same).

Of course, from my point of view, we have multinational corporations scrounging funding by claiming to be trying to do things about global warming, and Al Gore happens to have invested in companies which would benefit from the things done to combat global warming. Of course this means that global warming is a capitalist plot...

Anonymous said...

MarkeyMouse says: Well, Fellow Traveler Comrade Guthrie and the other crypto Commies, what have you to say about Russia stationing its Peacekeeping thermonuclear capable missiles in Georgia? Or perhaps you could comment on the threat to nuke Poland?

Something along the lines of, "It's for their own good", or "They deserved it"..../sarcasm. Sheesh how thick you are.

Aaron said...

I fear that the truth is in Inhofe's statement that he believed in climate science until he discovered how expensive it was. Basically, he went into denial.

My expectation is that denial is a normal reaction to the terror of global warming. Denial is not about lack of intelligence, it a species survival function. "Denial" is what evolved to allow animals to continue feeding and nurturing young even as certain death approached. And, just as a scientist can become an addict (nicotine, alcohol. . .), they can go into denial about global warming.

In fact, I think I would be happier if I could just go into full denial right now.

Ed Darrell said...

Some wise mouse or bunny said: But anyway, I find it hilarious that folks like Lomborg, the CEI, etc. oppose a carbon tax, and then claim that there won't be enough money to stop global warming. Apparently any money that's collected from carbon taxes will be used to finance terrorists or something.

Coming very late to this thread (through very circuitous route), but let's note that the purpose of carbon taxes is NOT to raise money to raise an army to fight global warming, but instead to discourage harmful, global warming activities. In generally free markets and mixed economies, the usual free-market philosophy is that things that are taxed diminish or go away, and things that are subsidized proliferate.

Odd as hell, to me, that so many nominal, self-proclaimed free marketeers forget the theory they claim to love, or abandon it, when confronted with real life problems and realistic, pragmatic solutions.

Denial can aid survival, if denial doesn't promote speedy death. When denial prevents the solving of problems whose solutions will prolong life, it becomes dangerous.

Aaron said...

Ed,
I assert, that denial does not solve problems or reduce risk, it is merely a way of reducing the physiologic damage from excessive risk. For example, denial helps avoid the daily vomiting caused by stress which tends to rot the teeth.

I thought that a carbon tax was a very good idea starting about 1969.

However, now we may have set things in motion, that carbon tax(s) per se are not likely to stop.

Brian G Valentine said...

How long do you think it'll take for some commenter comes here and says we should be worrying about bringing those destitute poor out of poverty by giving them fossil-fuel-based electric generation?

Not very long, I just did it now.

Anonymous said...

"Not very long, I just did it now."

Erm, you wouldn't happen to have a vested interest in fossil-generated energy, would you...?

And do tell us if you can prove your protested concern for the destitute with some documented largesse.


Bernard J.