Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming?

This doesn't make any sense, we're all free-marketers.


There are fiscal extremists on the far right, however, reactionaries hostile to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause who incorrectly conflate 'free markets' with GCC issues, where one has nothing to do with the other.


And that there are fiscal extremists on the far right who would blindly reject facts concerning GCC just as they blindly reject the fact that regulatory policies in general are Constitutional comes as no surprise.

Uh huh.

 

[Crick]

Having a very large majority of the experts in a field believing the same thing makes that thing very LIKELY to be true - much more LIKELY than what they do NOT believe.

How many experts believed the world was flat?

There were people in ancient Greece that believe the world to be spherical and made reasonably accurate estimates of the size of the globe. And when a flat Earth was a common viewpoint, there were no experts. Anywhere.

Probabilistically, a consensus among experts has a greater likelihood of being correct than does a view for which no consensus exists. I hope you are aware of the differences between stating that something is true and that something has a greater likelihood of being correct; those differences are logically significant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There were people in ancient Greece that believe the world to be spherical and made reasonably accurate estimates of the size of the globe. And when a flat Earth was a common viewpoint, there were no experts. Anywhere.

Probabilistically, a consensus among experts has a greater likelihood of being correct than does a view for which no consensus exists. I hope you are aware of the differences between stating that something is true and that something has a greater likelihood of being correct; those differences are logically significant.

So because the experts ended up being wrong they were never experts? That's a convenient argument. Of course we have experts in physics studying string theory, but I doubt they'd say their opinion is anything other than that: an opinion. If they turn out to be wrong are they not experts?

 

[Crick]

No. Because when flat Earth was common, no one on this planet KNEW enough about the Earth or the rest of the universe to be considered an expert.


Do you see the difference between "A is true" and "A is more likely to be correct than B"?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. Because when flat Earth was common, no one on this planet KNEW enough about the Earth or the rest of the universe to be considered an expert.


Do you see the difference between "A is true" and "A is more likely to be correct than B"?

One could easily argue that we, including the experts, know nothing compared to what there is to know, so why should we listen to the "experts" even now?

 

[Crick]

Why not say that Ardipithecus Ramicus had all the intellectual capacity and foundational knowledge as do we and thus his ideas as to how the Universe worked are precisely as likely to be correct as are ours today. Sound like bullshit? That's cause it is.

Let us know when you have something real in the way of an argument cause this one's a waste of time for anyone beyond the third grade.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why not say that Ardipithecus Ramicus had all the intellectual capacity and foundational knowledge as do we and thus his ideas as to how the Universe worked are precisely as likely to be correct as are ours today. Sound like bullshit? That's cause it is.

Let us know when you have something real in the way of an argument cause this one's a waste of time for anyone beyond the third grade.

That's also not my argument. At the time, these were the experts, and they were spectacularly wrong. We have experts now who probably know less than 1% of what there is to know in the entire universe. That the same thing couldn't happen is simply a conceit that today we're so much smarter or whatever. In ten years we'll look back at ourselves and laugh, let alone 100 or several hundred. In that time there'll be somebody arguing that our experts today couldn't possibly be actual experts because they didn't know anything and had so much wrong.

 

[Crick]

If you think ignoring the experts is the proper choice, just make certain you ignore them all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you think ignoring the experts is the proper choice, just make certain you ignore them all.

The point I'm actually making isn't that difficult to grasp, but somehow you keep missing it.

 

[Crick]

I don't think I am.

You are stepping out into a street. A voice nearby yells "Look out for the bus !!!" They could be wrong. What action do you take?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think I am.

You are stepping out into a street. A voice nearby yells "Look out for the bus !!!" They could be wrong. What action do you take?

Well, you're either missing it, or willfully ignoring it.

 

[Crick]

We have experts now who probably know less than 1% of what there is to know in the entire universe. That the same thing couldn't happen is simply a conceit that today we're so much smarter or whatever.

I read this to mean that you believe we should assign no more trust in "the experts" than we would assign to the people who believed the Earth was flat. How would you read it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I read this to mean that you believe we should assign no more trust in "the experts" than we would assign to the people who believed the Earth was flat. How would you read it?

The point isn't to ignore them, merely to say that experts today are as fallible as at any other point in history.

 

[jc456]

I don't think I am.

You are stepping out into a street. A voice nearby yells "Look out for the bus !!!" They could be wrong. What action do you take?

Several, one is to look where the bus is coming from. Once you know that you move the correct direction to get out of its way. It is observed and action applied. That isn't so in your climate science though. So your analogy fails.. Which doesn't surprise me.

 

[jc456]

I read this to mean that you believe we should assign no more trust in "the experts" than we would assign to the people who believed the Earth was flat. How would you read it?

The point isn't to ignore them, merely to say that experts today are as fallible as at any other point in history.

or are human and make mistakes.

A four hundred hitter in baseball still fails 60% of the time. And to date, only 28 professional players have done that. So the majority of professional baseball players, the experts, fail up to and over 70% of their at bats.Yep the professionals.

 

[elektra]

Experts? Good thing they don't have to prove it.

Green Energy is a Carbon based industry. The largest hog of natural resources ever known to man.

How much of the world's resources go towards the heavy industry that manufacturers Green Energy?

Not too many agw nuts or experts bringing this up, why?

We know at the least, $ 1 trillion, with much more needed.

how much co2 is that, how much oil was burned, how much gas, how much silica, how much copper, iron, cement.

seems like the only industry doing well in this recession is green energy, does that not mean all co2 is now the result of green energy.

experts, yea, right, lots see them at least, release their papers.


what does green energy do to make the earth better, being a massive heavy industry all by itself.

 

[Crick]

I read this to mean that you believe we should assign no more trust in "the experts" than we would assign to the people who believed the Earth was flat. How would you read it?

The point isn't to ignore them, merely to say that experts today are as fallible as at any other point in history.

Really? In which of the following fields would you actually suggest that no progress, no improvement in fallibility, has been made over the last few centuries:

Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Animal Breeding
Animal Nutrition
Poultry Science
Animal Science
Agronomy & Crop Science
Agricultural & Horticultural Plant Breeding
Plant Pathology/Phytopathology
Plant Sciences
Food Science
Food Science and Food Technology
Soil Chemistry/Microbiology
Soil Sciences
Horticulture Science
Fishing and Fisheries Sciences/Fisheries management
Forest Sciences and Biology
Forest/Resources Management
Wood Science & Pulp/Paper Technology
Natural resources/Conservation
Forestry & Related Science
Wildlife/Range Management
Environmental Science
Agriculture, General
Agricultural Science
Biochemistry
Biomedical sciences
Biophysics
Biotechnology
Bacteriology
Plant genetics
Plant Pathology/Phytopathology
Plant Physiology
Botany/Plant Biology
Anatomy
Biometrics & Biostatistics
Cell/Cellular Biology and Histology
Ecology
Developmental biology/Embryology
Endocrinology
Entomology
Immunology
Molecular Biology
Microbiology
Neuroscience
Nutrition science
Parasitology
Toxicology
Genetics, Human & Animal
Pathology, Human & Animal
Pharmacology, Human & Animal
Physiology, Human & Animal
Zoology
Biology/Biological sciences, General
Biology/Biomedical sciences,
Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology
Environmental Health
Environmental toxicology
Health Systems/Service Administration
Public Health
Epidemiology
Kinesiology/Exercise science
Nursing sciences
Pharmacy
Rehabilitation/Therapeutic Services
Physician Assistant
Veterinary Medicine
Health Sciences, General
Health Sciences
Aerospace, Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering
Agricultural engineering
Bioengineering & Biomedical engineering
Ceramic sciences
Chemical engineering
Civil engineering
Communications engineering
Computer engineering
Electrical, Electronics and Communications
Engineering Mechanics
Engineering Physics
Engineering Science
Environmental Health Engineering
Industrial & manufacturing engineering
Materials science
Mechanical engineering
Metallurgical engineering
Mining & Mineral
Nuclear engineering
Ocean engineering
Operations Research
Petroleum engineering
Polymer & Plastics engineering
Systems engineering
Engineering, General
Engineering,
Computer Science
Information Science and Information Systems
Robotics
Computer and Information sciences
Applied Mathematics
Algebra
Analysis & Functional Analysis
Geometry/Geometric Analysis
Mathematical Logic
Number Theory
Statistics
Topology, Foundations
Computing Theory & Practice
Operations Research
Mathematics/Statistics, General
Mathematics/Statistics,
Astronomy
Astrophysics
Atmospheric chemistry and Climatology
Atmospheric physics and Atmospheric dynamics
Meteorology
Atmospheric science/Meteorology, General
Atmospheric science/Meteorology
Analytical chemistry
Inorganic chemistry
Organic chemistry
Medicinal/Pharmaceutical chemistry
Physical chemistry
Polymer
Theoretical chemistry
Chemistry, General
Chemistry
Geology
Geochemistry
Geophysics & Seismology
Paleontology
Mineralogy & Petrology
Stratigraphy & Sedimentation
Geomorphology & Glacial Geology
Geological and Earth Sciences, General
Geological and Earth Sciences
Acoustics
Atomic/Molecular/Chemical physics
Particle (Elementary) physics
Biophysics
Nuclear Physics
Optics/Photonics
Fusion and Plasma physics
Polymer physics
Condensed Matter/Low temperature physics
Applied Physics
General Physics
Physics
Hydrology & Water Resources
Oceanography, Chemical and Physical
Marine Sciences,
Ocean/Marine Sciences

Eh?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I read this to mean that you believe we should assign no more trust in "the experts" than we would assign to the people who believed the Earth was flat. How would you read it?

The point isn't to ignore them, merely to say that experts today are as fallible as at any other point in history.

Really? In which of the following fields would you actually suggest that no progress has been made over the last few centuries:

Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Animal Breeding
Animal Nutrition
Poultry Science
Animal Science
Agronomy & Crop Science
Agricultural & Horticultural Plant Breeding
Plant Pathology/Phytopathology
Plant Sciences
Food Science
Food Science and Food Technology
Soil Chemistry/Microbiology
Soil Sciences
Horticulture Science
Fishing and Fisheries Sciences/Fisheries management
Forest Sciences and Biology
Forest/Resources Management
Wood Science & Pulp/Paper Technology
Natural resources/Conservation
Forestry & Related Science
Wildlife/Range Management
Environmental Science
Agriculture, General
Agricultural Science
Biochemistry (see 539)
Biomedical sciences
Biophysics (see 565)
Biotechnology
Bacteriology
Plant genetics
Plant Pathology/Phytopathology
Plant Physiology
Botany/Plant Biology
Anatomy
Biometrics & Biostatistics
Cell/Cellular Biology and Histology
Ecology
Developmental biology/Embryology
Endocrinology
Entomology
Immunology
Molecular Biology
Microbiology
Neuroscience
Nutrition science
Parasitology
Toxicology
Genetics, Human & Animal
Pathology, Human & Animal
Pharmacology, Human & Animal
Physiology, Human & Animal
Zoology
Biology/Biological sciences, General
Biology/Biomedical sciences,
Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology
Environmental Health
Environmental toxicology
Health Systems/Service Administration
Public Health
Epidemiology
Kinesiology/Exercise science
Nursing sciences
Pharmacy
Rehabilitation/Therapeutic Services
Physician Assistant
Veterinary Medicine
Health Sciences, General
Health Sciences
Aerospace, Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering
Agricultural engineering
Bioengineering & Biomedical engineering
Ceramic sciences
Chemical engineering
Civil engineering
Communications engineering
Computer engineering
Electrical, Electronics and Communications
Engineering Mechanics
Engineering Physics
Engineering Science
Environmental Health Engineering
Industrial & manufacturing engineering
Materials science
Mechanical engineering
Metallurgical engineering
Mining & Mineral
Nuclear engineering
Ocean engineering
Operations Research (See also 465, 930)
Petroleum engineering
Polymer & Plastics engineering
Systems engineering
Engineering, General
Engineering,
Computer Science
Information Science and Information Systems
Robotics
Computer and Information sciences
Applied Mathematics
Algebra
Analysis & Functional Analysis
Geometry/Geometric Analysis
Mathematical Logic
Number Theory
Statistics (See also 690)
Topology, Foundations
Computing Theory & Practice
Operations Research (See also 363, 930)
Mathematics/Statistics, General
Mathematics/Statistics,
Astronomy
Astrophysics
Atmospheric chemistry and Climatology
Atmospheric physics and Atmospheric dynamics
Meteorology
Atmospheric science/Meteorology, General
Atmospheric science/Meteorology
Analytical chemistry
Inorganic chemistry
Organic chemistry
Medicinal/Pharmaceutical chemistry
Physical chemistry
Polymer
Theoretical chemistry
Chemistry, General
Chemistry
Geology
Geochemistry
Geophysics & Seismology
Paleontology
Mineralogy & Petrology
Stratigraphy & Sedimentation
Geomorphology & Glacial Geology
Geological and Earth Sciences, General
Geological and Earth Sciences
Acoustics
Atomic/Molecular/Chemical physics
Particle (Elementary) physics
Biophysics
Nuclear Physics
Optics/Photonics
Fusion and Plasma physics
Polymer physics
Condensed Matter/Low temperature physics
Applied Physics
General Physics
Physics
Hydrology & Water Resources
Oceanography, Chemical and Physical
Marine Sciences,
Ocean/Marine Sciences

Where did I say that "no progress has been made over the last few centuries" in any scientific field?

 

[Crick]

When you said "The point isn't to ignore them, merely to say that experts today are as fallible as at any other point in history."

A field which does not decrease the number of its errors is not making progress. Perhaps you actually meant to say something else.

 

[skookerasbil]

There were people in ancient Greece that believe the world to be spherical and made reasonably accurate estimates of the size of the globe. And when a flat Earth was a common viewpoint, there were no experts. Anywhere.

Probabilistically, a consensus among experts has a greater likelihood of being correct than does a view for which no consensus exists. I hope you are aware of the differences between stating that something is true and that something has a greater likelihood of being correct; those differences are logically significant.

So because the experts ended up being wrong they were never experts? That's a convenient argument. Of course we have experts in physics studying string theory, but I doubt they'd say their opinion is anything other than that: an opinion. If they turn out to be wrong are they not experts?

LOL......brilliant. This post made me laugh my balls off.

There are no experts in terms of global warming science, and that's the whole point with this debate........unless you could consider somebody like a good dart board player an "expert".

The AGW crowd only supports their experts......100% of the time I might add. Any evidence produced that doesn't conform to "their" experts is immediately rejected.

Whats fascinating is......we see these experts being wrong ALL THE TIME on their prediction stuff while they are calling it "science". These mofus hit the reset button all the time......unquestioned by the climate science religion. They even rig the data ( admitted by the IPCC ) and not a single climate crusader is moved.


Which reminds me.......... The Green Agenda

The people of the religion are beyond hope but those curious about this debate need to enlighten themselves about the motives for blind support for rigged "science.