[QUOTE=davar55;259850]Why yes, if the soviet scientists promoted milk, I'd be worried for the kids and would have decreased my milk consumption on principle.[/QUOTE]That's just stupid.

[quote]These are just a few odious totalitarian suggestions I deplore, and the rest are similar.[/quote]Where did you [B]ever[/B] see someone who was instrumental in setting forth the AGW theory make totalitarian suggestions?

You've shown that (1) you value your own political motives more than truth, (2) you're careless about facts, (3) you're quite willing to spread false statements about AGW without any regard for their truthfulness -- as long as they coincide with your personal political motives -- and (4) you are willing to make a false accusation about participants in this thread even though any reader of this thread can see it's not the truth.

[quote]Also I don't follow url links unless I get thru the whole post and find a reason to.[/quote]What an amazing attempt to weasel out of being responsible for your own words!

Where is your apology for your false accusation that "no one bothered to address my personal POV, namely a little global warming would be good for us"?

I DID PERSONALLY ADDRESS THAT ISSUE in post #821, immediately after you raised it for the first time in post #820.

Where is your apology for lying about me right out here in public?

- - -

Show some integrity. Tell the truth. Apologize for telling falsehoods.

Didn't your parents teach you those things?

- -

Is there a crank score between aleph-nought and C?
 

[QUOTE=davar55;259850]Why yes, if the soviet scientists promoted milk, I'd be worried for
the kids and would have decreased my milk consumption on principle.

Requiring cars to be electric or hybrid rather than letting the free
market rule, putting carbon emission limits into a trading card system,
not allowing oil exploration and drilling in a free market method
(on this one I do think zoning is appropriate), etc, etc.

These are just a few odious totalitarian suggestions I deplore,
and the rest are similar. Green technology is not free technology.

And I stop reading long posts as soon as I hit two wrong or offensive
ideas. If you really still have a point to make, try to be brief.

Also I don't follow url links unless I get thru the whole post
and find a reason to.

But that's just me.[/QUOTE]

Davar:
You are espousing more conservative propaganda, right off of Fox News. Start reading whole posts, because there are invisible demons that will hurt you if you don't. Starting with the fact that Soviet scientists *did* encourage consumption of milk. They also encouraged consumption of meat, tea, and water.

Also, do you *really* think the market is free? What about the presence of about 100 thousand US troops in one of the prime oil-producing areas of the world, namely Iraq, paid for by the US taxpayer, who is coerced in to paying income tax to support it? Why is this kind of collective action not odious or totalitarian?

Finally, it is becoming clear that a "free" market has left some poison in your food supply (remember melamine?) and you need a doctor to help you think more clearly. I'd suggest vitamin D, on the basis of personal experience.

In his defense, I don't think that Davar55's concerns concerns about governmental opportunistic exploitation of calamities is meretricious. I think that Naomi Klein has identified a prevailing mechanism employed by big business, governments and policies in her book [URL="http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews?page=1"]"[I]The Shock Doctrine[/I]."[/URL]

[QUOTE=only_human;259868]In his defense, I don't think that Davar55's concerns concerns about governmental opportunistic exploitation of calamities is meretricious. I think that Naomi Klein has identified a prevailing mechanism employed by big business, governments and policies in her book [URL="http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews?page=1"]"[I]The Shock Doctrine[/I]."[/URL][/QUOTE]So, davar55's response to his (non-meretricious) concern about possible governmental opportunistic exploitation of a calamity is ... to deny that a possibility of the calamity exists, and certainly to take no action to avert the calamity?

The idea being that he'd rather be shown to have been right (about the coming governmental exploitation of AGW) than to take any action to prevent the government from having that opportunity?

I guess that does have the advantage of not having to put his principles on the line, doesn't it?

-

[QUOTE=cheesehead;259879]So, davar55's response to his (non-meretricious) concern about possible governmental opportunistic exploitation of a calamity is ... to deny that a possibility of the calamity exists, and certainly to take no action to avert the calamity?
-[/QUOTE]
Right. That is exactly my take of the situation. Because of obvious gaming of the system and opportunistic pushing of agendas conflated with times that actions must be taken and suspicion that some of the crisis are actually manufactured or overemphasized, he is unwilling to rationally examine the actual evidence. Certainly evidence has been manipulated and flat-out lied about in the past, as in the case of tobacco business interests.

davar55,

I'm waiting for your apology.

This has gotten far too personalized.

On the one issue, my POV is that a little global warming
might actually be a benefit to humanity and its planet.

Since "a little" is unspecified, I don't see how that POV
can be controversial.

The climate status quo that AGWers seem to want to
maintain or return to isn't that much different.

[QUOTE=Christenson;259863]Davar:
You are espousing more conservative propaganda, right off of Fox News.
...
Also, do you *really* think the market is free?
...[/QUOTE]

I don't "espouse propaganda", I'm just conveying my conclusions.
If the media says the same thing, it's just a coincidence.

And all markets should be free. Of course.

[QUOTE=davar55;259979]On the one issue, my POV is that a little global warming might actually be a benefit to humanity and its planet.[/QUOTE]If you'd go to the link I provided, you'd see a list of several benefits but also many drawbacks.

[quote]Since "a little" is unspecified, I don't see how that POV can be controversial.[/quote]Answer: when it's one-sided, like you present it, never mentioning the negative effects.

Is that because you know the negative effects, but are deliberately not mentioning them? That seems highly unlikely to me. Or is it (as I think more likely) because you aren't aware of the many negative effects of GW once it gets beyond just a degree or two? If the latter, then if you'd follow the link I provided, you'd get information about the negative side that you aren't mentioning now.

If you were truly as "independent" as you claim, you would already have done some reading on responsible (not sensationalist) AGW sites such as [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/[/URL] and [URL]http://www.realclimate.org/[/URL]. But you never mention stuff that such sites would inform you about, so it seems that all your supposedly "independent" research has been quite one-sided and biased.

(Just as you obviously never bothered to go back to post #821 to actually check whether anyone had responded to your POV at #820, before posting in #878 your false accusation that no one had yet responded to #820. And so far, you haven't had the grace to apologize for that carelessness!)

[quote]The climate status quo that AGWers seem to want to maintain or return to[/quote]I think you'd find that AGWers just want to avoid the severe negative effects that are quite possible if we continue on our present course.

What is underappreciated by many anti-AGWers is that the climate effects of anthropogenic GHGs will last a _long_ time, and that because of feedbacks, measures to limit the effects have to be started well before the average person, not using scientific studies and measurements, will notice much change in everyday life.

It's sorta like how long it takes a cruise ship to stop or turn around -- if you wait until you're within a stone's throw of the dock before you shift the engines to full astern, the ship will just keep right on going to smash into the docks.

Suppose someone points out on a map that there's a reef five miles ahead. You can't see it yet with just your unaided eyes. If you wait until you can plainly see it with your eyes, it'll be too late to turn the ship enough to avoid the reef. So you have to start the turn _now_.

Both a cruise liner's course and the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not able to be changed if you wait until the average person not paying attention to the scientific measurements would perceive a danger ahead. Instead, one has to be familiar with how long a lead time is needed for starting a course correction, in both cases.

I wish you had experience with the system I played with when I was young. The object was to keep a pointer centered, but your input was only a control knob that affected the third derivative of the pointer's position. When you first saw the pointer move to one side, you had to start turning the control knob in the other direction right away, because it would take 30-40 seconds for this to show up as a change in the pointer's speed. But before the pointer had changed much, you had to twist the knob in the opposite direction right away in order to keep the previous input from overcorrecting. You had to think ahead about where the pointer would be 45 seconds in the future.

Same principle with anthropogenic GHGs. If we're going to keep from having disastrous effects, we have to start curbing them long before the disastrous effects start to appear obvious to the average person.

(Or do you _want_ most of Florida to be covered with seawater by a century from now?)

However, careful scientific measurements and observations _can_ see the beginnings of the negative effects happening now, so _now_ is when we have to start changing course to avoid their becoming catastrophically worse.

- - -

All I'm asking you to do is be courteous, fair (unbiased) and honest.

[QUOTE=davar55;259980]I don't "espouse propaganda", I'm just conveying my conclusions.
If the media says the same thing, it's just a coincidence.

And all markets should be free. Of course.[/QUOTE]

davar, *should* and *is* are very different.

And as for that coincidence, can you kindly provide us some *evidence* that you aren't simply repeating propaganda you heard on the media? How about a bit of analysis of the objective properties of something, based on *evidence*, such as the example below.

There are some very definite limits on markets. Why do we throw heroin dealers in jail? These people are, after all, just trying to create a free market...

P.S. Isaac Newton was a communist, but we know that Newton's law of gravity is very, very good. How?

[QUOTE=Christenson;259775]Mellifluous words, all nonsense ...
Your willful ignorance ... invisible demons that you don't think threaten you will kill you, unannounced ...

And, if you wonder what's on the AGW'ers short list, wonder no more: They want living descendants, for a long time, that aren't miserable and don't have to live in fear or poverty -- that is great-great-great grandchildren, same as you.[/QUOTE]

To the first part: attacking the person, not their words per se.

To the second part: I wondered what societal changes
to eliminate AGW that these socialists want most.
(Socialist an epithet? If you mean as a criticizing label,
then you're absolutely correct, that's what I intended and intend).