Princeton professor is wrong; Trump is right on climate

[usmbguest5318]

Lol,

Is this thread a joke or what? The princeton professor is somehow wrong to a raving idiot that doesn't have a clue about basic climate. lol

I'm no "raving idiot" and I too can tell Singer's essay and thesis , though not incoherent or strange, is nonetheless weak. Among people who are inclined to reject anything having to do with nations, most especially their own country, earnestly undertaking productive and proactive initiatives to abate the anthropomorphic causes of global warming, few are likely to be swayed, if not at all, even incrementally, by Singer's argument. His argument may be coincidentally interesting, even somewhat instructive with regard to "how muches" and "by whoms," to people already convinced about the need to abate AGW's progression and impacts; however, even to keen and critical thinkers in that class, the essay cannot be seen as compelling as a catalyst for acting on that need.

 

[cnelsen]

I get the "ethical" construct Singer has raised, and I accept its ethicality and appropriateness within the context wherein he's constrained his use of that line of argument. I also, however, see that line as being, at best, tangentially germane to overall argument about whom should bear what costs and discomforts, and to what extent, associated with abating the rate of global warming due to anthropogenic causes. (Obviously, most people in every nation are going to advocate that they should bear less of the costs than others think fitting.)

I think we are out in very soft ground when we talk about the ethics of nations, which quickly turns to outright quicksand when we attempt to structure a supranational body tasked with distributing economic benefits according to some ethically informed formula. In the first place, countries like China see the role of the state in its relations with foreign governments in a far less idealistic way--a position I happen to admire. Whose system of national ethics should we use? Ours, theirs, or Zimbabwe's (and, yes, Zimbabwe is shorthand for sub-Saharan Africa and/or least developed, most corrupt, etc.)

Secondly, who is to decide which approach is to be taken to reduce emissions? I showed that of all the variables I looked at, the single worst policy for world carbon levels is the mass migration of poor people from the Third World to the First World in search of higher consumption levels, or, as the New York Times would put it, in search of a better life. But I'd bet you a cup of coffee at La Colombe in Blagden Alley that the topic of migration doesn't even come up when the world's Professor Singers all fly in for another conference on climate change--that, in fact, anyone who even noted the impact would be the skunk at the carbon-spewing five-star picnic.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I get the "ethical" construct Singer has raised, and I accept its ethicality and appropriateness within the context wherein he's constrained his use of that line of argument. I also, however, see that line as being, at best, tangentially germane to overall argument about whom should bear what costs and discomforts, and to what extent, associated with abating the rate of global warming due to anthropogenic causes. (Obviously, most people in every nation are going to advocate that they should bear less of the costs than others think fitting.)

I think we are out in very soft ground when we talk about the ethics of nations, which quickly turns to outright quicksand when we attempt to structure a supranational body tasked with distributing economic benefits according to some ethically informed formula. In the first place, countries like China see the role of the state in its relations with foreign governments in a far less idealistic way--a position I happen to admire. Whose system of national ethics should we use? Ours, theirs, or Zimbabwe's (and, yes, Zimbabwe is shorthand for sub-Saharan Africa and/or least developed, most corrupt, etc.)

Secondly, who is to decide which approach is to be taken to reduce emissions? I showed that of all the variables I looked at, the single worst policy for world carbon levels is the mass migration of poor people from the Third World to the First World in search of higher consumption levels, or, as the New York Times would put it, in search of a better life. But I'd bet you a cup of coffee at La Colombe in Blagden Alley that the topic of migration doesn't even come up when the world's Professor Singers all fly in for another conference on climate change--that, in fact, anyone who even noted the impact would be the skunk at the carbon-spewing five-star picnic.

the mass migration of poor people from the Third World to the First World in search of higher consumption levels

Yes, well that's definitely not going to be encouraged or happen. LOL I don't think anyone even wants it to.

 

[cnelsen]

Take, for example, my own carbon footprint. It is notably lower when I'm at home in D.C. and when I am in most places I go in Western Europe, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok and NYC, among other places. It goes up considerably when I go, for instance, to Los Angeles, Aspen, Tahoe, Jackson Hole, Jupiter, FL, China, St. Moritz, Barcelona/Ibiza, St. Barts, and the towns in which my kids are/were in school.

What makes for the difference? When I'm in the former locales, I walk or use public transportation almost exclusively, and even when I don't, the trips I find myself taking by private car are very short. In contrast, when I'm in the latter group of places, nothing of the sort is the case.

I'm the same way here in DC, as I'm lucky enough to live halfway between Gallery Pl and Union Station. Professor Singer won't be sending me any "attaboys" but even my travels are the occasional eco-friendly train ride to exotic Baltimore. Eventually, however, humanity will have to face population growth and migration. The sooner, the better. The most effective policy to reduce our carbon emissions by far could be done tomorrow and it would actually save us money.

1. End the migration epoch like we ended the pioneering/expansionist epoch.
2. And, for every lovely on the dole, mandatory birth control.

But neither of those two common sense doable policies would transfer power to Professor Singer and his ilk, so, despite the myriad benefits, neither is likely to happen in our day. Future generations will pay the price.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Take, for example, my own carbon footprint. It is notably lower when I'm at home in D.C. and when I am in most places I go in Western Europe, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangkok and NYC, among other places. It goes up considerably when I go, for instance, to Los Angeles, Aspen, Tahoe, Jackson Hole, Jupiter, FL, China, St. Moritz, Barcelona/Ibiza, St. Barts, and the towns in which my kids are/were in school.

What makes for the difference? When I'm in the former locales, I walk or use public transportation almost exclusively, and even when I don't, the trips I find myself taking by private car are very short. In contrast, when I'm in the latter group of places, nothing of the sort is the case.

I'm the same way here in DC, as I'm lucky enough to live halfway between Gallery Pl and Union Station. Professor Singer won't be sending me any "attaboys" but even my travels are the occasional eco-friendly train ride to exotic Baltimore. Eventually, however, humanity will have to face population growth and migration. The sooner, the better. The most effective policy to reduce our carbon emissions by far could be done tomorrow and it would actually save us money.

1. End the migration epoch like we ended the pioneering/expansionist epoch.
2. And, for every lovely on the dole, mandatory birth control.

But neither of those two common sense doable policies would transfer power to Professor Singer and his ilk, so, despite the myriad benefits, neither is likely to happen in our day. Future generations will pay the price.

I'm fine with the second of your two proposed actions. I'm not sure what I think of the first.

 

[cnelsen]

Yes, well that's definitely not going to be encouraged or happen. LOL I don't think anyone even wants it to.

I blame the media. It is criminal that this fact is unknown:

 

[cnelsen]

I'm fine with the second of your two proposed actions. I'm not sure what I think of the first.

Historically, immigration has come in waves.

 

[cnelsen]

and the towns in which my kids are/were in school.

Not Princeton, NJ, I hope!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, well that's definitely not going to be encouraged or happen. LOL I don't think anyone even wants it to.

I blame the media. It is criminal that this fact is unknown:

On the face of it, I don't know what to make of that chart, in part because I have no idea of what countries are poorer than Mexico. I realize I can look up that metric. I suspect the U.S. is at or near the top of countries ranked by a variety of "wealth" measures.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm fine with the second of your two proposed actions. I'm not sure what I think of the first.

Historically, immigration has come in waves.

That I'm aware of.

 

[usmbguest5318]

and the towns in which my kids are/were in school.

Not Princeton, NJ, I hope!

Against all my encouragement that they do so, none accepted offers from Princeton even though each of them received them. LOL They have all but one, at least through high school, attended schools that require me, at least in part to take some form of chartered air transportation plus a car ride to visit them and keep to my life's schedule.

 

[polarbear]

So what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?
That countries like the US and even Germany are "guiltier" than China?
Energy consumption per capita has no correlation with pollution and China is by far the biggest polluter....downtown Beijing:

Downtown Los Angeles:

Downtown Berlin:

Houses in Germany:

And according to this "bio-ethic" crap the people living there (in Freiburg)are accountable (with megabuck$) to China because they use more energy per person than the 14 billion Chinese who for the largest part cook their meals by burning fuel on open smoke&fume belching cook stoves.
What a load of crap, no matter what kind of pseudo erudite verbiage you use to spin that "bio-ethic" yarn.

 

[cnelsen]

Yes, well that's definitely not going to be encouraged or happen. LOL I don't think anyone even wants it to.

I blame the media. It is criminal that this fact is unknown:

On the face of it, I don't know what to make of that chart, in part because I have no idea of what countries are poorer than Mexico. I realize I can look up that metric. I suspect the U.S. is at or near the top of countries ranked by a variety of "wealth" measures.

I use the CIA World Fact Book. We come in at number 20. I first did this chart back in 1999, and there were 4.9 billion people in countries poorer than Mexico, I updated it in something like 2005, when it came in at 5.6 billion. I just now reran the numbers and it came in at 5,787,339,543 people itching to come here and increase their carbon emissions.

The richest country is Lichtenstein, whose 37,937 citizens pull down a sweet $139,100 per year each. The poorest is Somalia, whose 10,817,354 inhabitants get by on $400 per year. Somebody somewhere decided that 323,995,528 isn't nearly enough Americans, so we are movings scads of Somalis to frigid Minnesota where they can each consume 140 times more than they were back in Somalia. In return for turning them into American level carbon emitters, they provide us with crime, welfare dependency, high birth rates, endless chain migration from Somalia, and, most importantly, non-whiteness.

The most populous country is China, of course, with a per capita income of almost exactly a quarter of ours and a population four times the size. China is gaining on Mexico but is still, with its 800 million nong chang ren, 23 places below our friends to the south, which probably is part of the reason we import more Chinese than Mexicans. (We import even more Indians than Chinese no doubt because, since Indians have only about half the income as Chinese, the impact on the global climate of importing an Indian is twice as harmful as importing a Chinese).

And all this despite polls (the honest not-Washington-Post polls) consistently showing Americans think we now have an adequate number of Americans to consume all the carbon emissions we are entitled to by Professor Singer.

(FWIW, the smallest country is the Pitcairn Islands, whose 54 citizens win reelection to Congress every two years in a 1-0 blowout).

 

[IanC]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions.

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

 

[usmbguest5318]

So what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?
That countries like the US and even Germany are "guiltier" than China?
Energy consumption per capita has no correlation with pollution and China is by far the biggest polluter....downtown Beijing:

Downtown Los Angeles:

Downtown Berlin:

Houses in Germany:

And according to this "bio-ethic" crap the people living there (in Freiburg)are accountable (with megabuck$) to China because they use more energy per person than the 14 billion Chinese who for the largest part cook their meals by burning fuel on open smoke&fume belching cook stoves.
What a load of crap, no matter what kind of pseudo erudite verbiage you use to spin that "bio-ethic" yarn.

what exactly is that graph supposed to prove?

It's a chart. It doesn't aim to prove anything. It exists to impart information, not to prove something.

 

[skookerasbil]

Progressives with their human racism.........its getting prolific.

 

[IanC]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions.

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions.

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

 

[IanC]

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions. How stupid do you have to be to publicly release a photo that makes you look so foolish?

Does anyone still believe that there is going to be that much warming? Apparently the Princeton boys do.

Here are the Princeton climate scientists making their predictions.

Those men are not, and were not when that photo was taken, Princeton scientists. They are, from left to right:

• Mort Webster
• Adam Schlosser
• Ronald Prinn
  
• Sergey Paltsev

They all worked at MIT in 2009 when that photo was taken.

That wheel you see is part of what they called "Climate Change Roulette." You can read about it in Popular Science's article, "Global Warming: a Controversial Bill, And a Game of Roulette."

Sorry. I found the photo by googling Princeton climate scientists predict warming.

If it was actually MIT then the scenario is still correct but the relevance to the thread title is weakened.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Yes, well, if one reads the article to which I linked and that contains the explanation for what the wheels are for, what precious little relevance there may have been will flag more surely than a post coital penis.

I didn't read the article. I am criticizing the photo.

These authority figures are giving the public a choice between 3C warming and greater than 7C warming, with the probability of something like 5C being likely. That is what the photo implies.

Is that a reasonable prediction? It matters not if they equivocate the prediction in the fine print (if they even do), it does not match the reality of doubling CO2 or the increase of temperature out to 2100. Especially now that climate sensitivities have steadily declined.

I find the photo to be yet another misdirection and exaggeration that is so commonplace in climate change propaganda.

I am disappointed that leading scientists would be willing to expose the public to this sort of garbage.