We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
I cannot understand why I watched the *Whole* Dopen Video above…
Byron,
This will (probably) be my last post tonight, but I’ll be back tomorrow if you miss me. 😉
You said:
“You think the private sector is corrupt I think government is corrupt. Wendy’s cant take my liberty but governments can and do.”
No, I think the private sector is amoral. I certainly wouldn’t deny that there is corruption in the government, although I don’t believe that it is totally corrupt – the question is, what has/is corrupting government? The answer is: the private sector. The private sector acts amorally to increase profits by exerting influence on government (which corrupts it). If we break the private sector’s influence on government, then the system will work (at the very least it will work much better than it does now). Why is the status quo better? (Especially when the status quo is unsustainable.)
And now you know. SHHHHHH don’t tell all your friends, only tell the closest ones.
Byron,
I in no way assume that all companies are run by unethical people (I do, however, assume that SOME companies are run by unethical people). I see that you still have no answer to my question about why taxing pollution is bad. I’d have more respect for you free market guys if you actually understood capitalism a little. The free market is amoral. It will only behave in a moral fashion if EVERY player acts morally (I think you will agree that this isn’t going to happen) or if morality is imposed from without (i.e. by the big, bad government). The government has moral obligations (i.e. to protect citizen’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). Therefore the government has an obligation (indeed, a DUTY) to impose morality on corporations in defense of its citizen’s rights. You, sir, are taking an immoral, unethical, and dysfunctional point of view. If you ever wonder why some people here so passionately argue against you, this might be why. You don’t seem to believe in a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy everything American like Bdaman, so why do you support this position? And if you do oppose taxes on pollution, then why can’t you rebut my arguments? If I so badly misunderstand things, then attacking my arguments should be child’s play.
bdaman:
is that you?
Slarti:
“and the government gets a short term boost of cash (which could be used to, say, pay down the debt). In exactly what way is a tax on pollution a bad thing?”
just that government would not use the money to pay down the debt. Think 200 billion TARP money that is going to be spent in violation of the TARP law.
You think the private sector is corrupt I think government is corrupt. Wendy’s cant take my liberty but governments can and do.
Slarti:
you assume that all companies are run by unethical people, they are not.
Slarti:
maybe if they had put anti-lock brakes on their cars they would not be owned by Uncle Sam.
Just because a couple of executives are stupid is not an indictment of capitalism. It is an indictment of stupid executives.
Even Marx gave credit to capitalism in the manifesto saying that it had done the most for mankind in a short period of time. He was right it did and it is still doing so.
Which goes to a pet peeve of mine, namely that most executives could be easily replaced but they have the Board of Directors thinking they walk on water. Some do most don’t and are not worth their multi-million dollar salaries.
Note to Boards of Directors, make sure you are getting your monies worth before agreeing on a salary.
Byron,
You said:
“Industry is trying to reduce it’s energy costs so that it can be more profitable.”
What happens when we artificially suppress a cost? Industry acts in an inappropriate way. If there is no cost to dumping arsenic in the water and a profit can be made by doing it (both true), industry is going to dump, baby dump. If there is a cost to polluting, then industry will correctly account for it AND work to eliminate it in order to maximize profits. Industry cleans itself up, the environment is protected (which I believe is held in trust by the government for the people), and the government gets a short term boost of cash (which could be used to, say, pay down the debt). In exactly what way is a tax on pollution a bad thing?
I think we should stop all rockets for satellites and stop all space exploration. Stop test firing missiles. The burning of rocket fuel must contribute to global warming.
Oh and all guns.
Byron,
Who protects me from having arsenic dumped into my drinking water? (For many Americans and many more people worldwide, the answer is “no one”.)Who should be protecting me from having arsenic dumped into my drinking water? I am against pollution. I’ve made my case that carbon reduction is desirable EVEN IF THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ARE CORRECT. No one has provided a counter argument. You’ve said that you hold yourself to higher standards than OSHA (which is admirable), but do you believe that everyone in your position does the same? If not, don’t we want OSHA around to enforce some minimum standard? And if that minimum standard isn’t good enough, shouldn’t we raise it instead of getting rid of it?
As an interesting aside on vehicle safety: Did you know that GM invented anti-lock brakes? (along with a lot of other innovations in the industry) but they didn’t think that they could make money putting them on cars, so they didn’t put the technology into cars. Fortunately, Mercedes-Benz felt differently. Is this the American capitalism that you think is so wonderful that it will fix everything if we only let it be?
Bob Esq:
“And what is industry but a bunch of physio-chemical systems concerned with maintaining a set equilibrium with itself as opposed to nature. Witness the smokestack.”
Industry is trying to reduce it’s energy costs so that it can be more profitable. It is not trying to maintain equilibrium (0 sum profit) it is trying to reduce energy costs. They do this by capturing waste heat and recycling it. There is a physical limit on efficiency but the less energy used the more profitable.
As I said above the more technological advancements the cleaner the planet. If you are going to do something with GW you better make darn sure you aren’t going to screw something else up, the law of unanticipated consequences.
Here’s another one (i.e.-raw data versus “adjusted data”):
http://thedogatemydata.blogspot.com/2009/12/raw-v-adjusted-ghcn-data.html
The government forced them to produce cleaner emmisions. The two fold part of the question is that they could of cared a less about fuel efficency.
bOB Esq:
Why do we need to act right this very minuet? There is an honest difference in opinion.
Byron I knew thats what you were talkin about. It’s not so much the Government as it was the Institute for Highway Safety. The free market drove the industry to produce safer cars.
bdaman/Slarti:
how much of the safety equipment you mentioned has it’s genesis in a government regulation?
the point I was trying to make is how much can government actually do to protect society and how much does it cost and are the results worth the cost? Same with global warming.
If you spend, say, an additional 5,000 dollars on every car to save 23,000 lives (1961 deaths normalized to 2009) is it worth the cost? Obviously if you died it would be worth it. But did all of that money need to be spent or is there one particular safety device that would have saved those people for a 1,000 dollars.
Before you spend billions and billions of dollars I think we need to figure out if GW is actually taking place and if it is, what gives us the most bang for our buck. Do we need to spend billions and billions or would a few 100 million do the trick.
Here’s a great examination on some of the “data” from the sacred text:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
This is just one sites of course. I’m totally sure the books are cooked at only one site. The rest of the data is still good. Politicians and the public can’t be THAT gullible.
Cletus,
I don’t know, the Enquirer is probably more accurate than Fox News…