Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Glenn Beck Writes Books

Picking through Beck's An Inconvenient Book today. The man is an idiot.

But just to clear something up, can I get a hands up from anyone who supports responsibly addressing America's carbon emissions only as an engine to push their secret subversive socialist agenda?

Hmm. No hands.

Definitely an Idiot.

17 comments:

  1. Have you seen this?

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/71011

    Or this?

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3281925

    Gore is pushing global warming alarmism, which isn't true in itself, and all his proposed solutions do nothing to actually help the environment, and only serves two purposes: to redistribute wealth through taxes and to fatten the bank accounts for the alarmists like him who own or have investment in the companies that they are saying we need to go to for implementing his solutions.

    The alarmists openly talk about this, but it doesn't get reported. Want to hear some quotes?

    From Canada's former environmental minister, Christine Stewart:

    "Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

    From Stephen Schneider:

    "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."

    Who is Stephen Schneider? He was the lead UN IPCC report author and climate alarmist.

    Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental."

    Jacques Chirac: Kyoto is the first component of an authentic global governance.

    Prince Philip, World Wildlife Federation: "If I were reincarnated, I would come back, return to the Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

    George Monbiot, environmental author last year: "Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh airline executives should be dragged out of office and concerned."

    Helen Cox, Union of Concerned Scientists: "Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process. Capitalism is destroying the Earth. Every time you turn on an electric outlet, you are making another brainless baby."

    Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund: "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We cannot let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the U.S. we must stop third world countries right where they are."


    Explain to me again how this is actually about the planet?

    ReplyDelete
  2. First off, Rick, I have read both articles you link to in your comment, and cannot for the life of me understand their relevance in this thread. Second, quoting public figureheads is a horrible was to make discriminating policy choices, let alone environmental choices. Is this how you do everything?

    Test us on this one. Find as many global warming "alarmists" on the street as you can, and ask them to honestly explain why they want to see global warming addressed.

    Then take a second to stop back here and let us know how many of those "alarmists" say they don't care so much about protecting the planet and their children's future, they're just in it for the socialism.

    After all of this, Glenn Beck will still be an idiot, but you may have learned something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The relevance is to your reference on the validity of the global warming claims, as well as the link to someone claiming that Gore isn't pushing global warming alarmism to make money.

    I'm referencing statements of those who are pushing the alarmism, as they state that it's about agenda, not science, and you try to ignore it. Sorry, but that is the "subversive socialist agenda" you referred to.

    I've talked to a lot of alarmists, and they all say it's about protecting the environment. But the funny thing is that none of their proposed solutions actually do that, they only enact redistribution of wealth.

    That's the difference between what they say and what they actually want to do.

    Beck isn't an idiot, and it's not me that needs to learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rick,

    You are still missing a point here (but as you are defending Glenn Beck, we'll cut you some slack, you've got enough on your plate).

    Beck's claims are that the entire movement is a ploy to push a socialist agenda, but if you speak with global-warming activists (yes, including Gore) they will tell you they are concerned for the future of our planet, and our species. I do not have the authority you have given yourself to differentiate between "activists" and "alarmists" but the fact remains, activists become activists because of concern for the agenda, and to suppose a larger, more sinister "socialist" agenda is nothing short of... well for want of a better word, idiotic.

    And for the sake of argument, can you site a specific solution proposed that "does nothing to help the environment" and instead promotes a subversive socialist agenda?

    Eagerly awaiting your response.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, Beck does NOT say it's the entire movement. He clearly talks about those who, such as Gore, who hype the alarmism in order to make money, and also clearly talks about those who are using global warming as a vehicle to enact social change.

    The difference between activists and alarmists is likely just semantic.

    It's not idiotic to claim that there are people who are using this topic to enact social change because of two reasons. First is that these people are openly talking about it (see the quotes I first provided). The second reason is that none of the solutions that the alarmists/activists have come up with to deal with global warming actually do anything to help the environment. If there is a solution that isn't about redistribution of wealth, please let me know.

    You want an example? Carbon credits.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rick, I’ve got to give you credit for toeing that Glenn Beck line, but you and I disagree on quite a few things.

    Carbon credits would redistribute wealth from entities creating large amounts of emissions to those that create fewer emissions. This would give a financial incentive for companies to cut emissions, which is one of the best ways to make a large company address its environmental impact, by making it show up in their bottom line.

    If wealth is being redistributed from polluters to non polluters (relatively), the polluters clean up their operations to save themselves money, which . . . . wait for it . . . . helps the environment.

    As much as we'd all like to clean up the world based on a good will effort from all of us, some will need a financial prodding to play along (I don't see many oil companies jumping at the opportunity to cut their own profits to make our air cleaner). My question to you is why do you have a problem with wealth redistribution from companies that do greater harm to the environment to those that do little harm. There's incentive for all companies to become more environmentally friendly (dirty companies want to have to buy less credits; clean companies want to be able to sell more). How else are you going to effectively stop polluting companies?

    As far as people making money off of 'alarmists' you would have to apply the same logic to the Black Water's and Halliburton's of the world. They've made quite a profit off of people being 'alarmist' about the threat of terrorist attacks coming from Iraq. If you’re going to use the no profit off of alarmism logic, you’ve got to apply it across the board (I’m not saying you don’t, just throwing it out there). But calling it alarmism is just semantics (as you suggested). If someone like Al Gore really thinks there’s a problem to be dealt with, wouldn’t he talk as though it were a very serious issue? Wouldn’t anyone?

    Also there is a great deal of room for innovation when it comes to improving our environment, shouldn't this innovation be compensated to the extent it deserves, as determined by the market. If people weren’t convinced of the need to clean up the earth, there wouldn’t be any money going to those that are trying to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Rick, I’ve got to give you credit for toeing that Glenn Beck line, but you and I disagree on quite a few things."

    We'll see just how much you actually disagree.

    "Carbon credits would redistribute wealth from entities creating large amounts of emissions to those that create fewer emissions."

    Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Thank you for agreeing with me.

    "This would give a financial incentive for companies to cut emissions, which is one of the best ways to make a large company address its environmental impact, by making it show up in their bottom line."

    But they wouldn't care, they'll just write that into their fixed costs and pass that cost on to their customers. Rather like what Gore is doing. He's paying a lot in carbon credits (albeit to himself), and he's not reducing motivated to reduce emissions at all. It just becomes another business expense, like higher gas prices.

    Carbon credits are a "feel good" policy for the payer, assuages their conscience, and doesn't create any actual incentive to change any behavior. There is no evidence that any company paying carbon credits is actually reducing their emissions.

    "If wealth is being redistributed from polluters to non polluters (relatively), the polluters clean up their operations to save themselves money, which . . . . wait for it . . . . helps the environment."

    That's how it's marketed to the public, but it doesn't work that way in reality. Furthermore, the companies receiving the money from the wealthy aren't non-polluters, they just don't pollute as much. But guess what happens when they get more money? It becomes more operating capital for them, so they can expand their business, and. . .wait for it. . .they can pollute more.

    And redistribution of wealth is socialism, which is . . . wait for it. . . socialism.

    "As much as we'd all like to clean up the world based on a good will effort from all of us, some will need a financial prodding to play along"

    So show me a company that is paying carbon credits that has actually reduced emissions. (Hint: you'll have a really hard time finding one, because there is no actual incentive to do that)

    "My question to you is why do you have a problem with wealth redistribution from companies that do greater harm to the environment to those that do little harm."

    Because it's socialism. Because it doesn't actually help. Little things like that.

    "There's incentive for all companies to become more environmentally friendly (dirty companies want to have to buy less credits; clean companies want to be able to sell more)."

    There is no incentive, because those credits just become additional operating costs.

    "How else are you going to effectively stop polluting companies?"

    Capitalism. We have the choice to deal with companies that act responsibly. The way to actually make companies take notice is affect their income. If they start losing income, they will change behavior. If they can just continue as is, with the additional operating expense of carbon taxes, which just get rolled up into the costs they pass on to the consumer, then they have no reason to change that behavior. And, surprise, that's what's actually happening. Nothing positive is happening for the environment, and carbox credit costs just get passed on to the consumer.

    "As far as people making money off of 'alarmists' you would have to apply the same logic to the Black Water's and Halliburton's of the world. They've made quite a profit off of people being 'alarmist' about the threat of terrorist attacks coming from Iraq."

    Nope, sorry, they aren't the ones talking about the threat. They are being hired by people and governments are talking about the threat.

    "If you’re going to use the no profit off of alarmism logic, you’ve got to apply it across the board (I’m not saying you don’t, just throwing it out there). "

    The logic I'm using is the pushing of false and misleading information in order to make a profit. I'll criticize anyone who does that, left or right. BlackWater and Haliburton are not the ones pushing any information like that.

    "If someone like Al Gore really thinks there’s a problem to be dealt with, wouldn’t he talk as though it were a very serious issue?"

    Talking about it and talking factually about it are two different things. Gore is pushing a lot of information which isn't factual. For example, ocean level rise. The IPCC said in 2001 that the ocean may rise 19". In 2007 they said 15". In his movie, Gore claims that ocean levels will rise240". That's more than 10 times higher than people who said the IPCC's estimates were too conservative.

    "Also there is a great deal of room for innovation when it comes to improving our environment, shouldn't this innovation be compensated to the extent it deserves, as determined by the market."

    Absolutely, but do it honestly. How many people know that Gore owns the major carbon credit transaction company in the world? How many people believe that man-made global warming is a proven fact, when it is nothing of the sort? In effect, Gore is a con artist, a snake oil salesman. He's selling a false bill of goods, and making a lot of money off it.

    And in the process, he's effecting socialism through redistribution of wealth. So you agree with me on that point.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rick,

    Again, in responding to Craig, you are not addressing my original point that warming activists are activists for the sake of a greater good, not just to promote socialism as Beck claims (albeit Beck attains notoriety for his abrasive personality, not his intelligent parsing of the facts, his words, and their intellectual dishonesty were the intent of the original post).

    Regardless, taking at look at what you've just typed, you are missing more than my point, you are also failing to grasp 1. what socialism is and 2. how the US economy actually works.

    1. Redistribution of wealth is NOT socialism. It may be an aspect of traditional socialism, but it is also a large part of our own form of functional capitalism (stock market circuit breakers, trade caps, etc). I have two recommendations for you: read a book about socialism, and read a book about economics (and you would be better served if neither were written by Glenn Beck).

    2. Our economy, a capitalist economy, has historically made short change of corporations who have simply "passed the cost on" to their customers, rather than reacting to change through innovation. If the Coca-Cola Corp were a large polluter, and thus experienced increased expense due to a credit policy that reduced the production cost of a similar product without polluting as much, those companies would simply sell at a lower price than Coke, garnering more of the market than their competitor "passing the cost" along.

    Whalla! Capitalism!

    Also, on the point of proven scientific fact, Global Warming has not been DIS-proven either. You are welcome to wait for "proof" in the hopes that you will still have time to do something pro-active should your confidence in the fallacy of the theory prove misinformed. But circulating back to my original point, and something you touch on: let's keep the debate honest.

    By no stretch of a rational imagination can one intelligently, and honestly find backing for the argument that global warming activism finds it's motivation in a secret desire to promote a socialist agenda. Also by no stretch of the imagination can we have an honest debate if we balk at every chance at innovation and positive change every time a bat-shit crazy republican (Beck, not you, but maybe both?) cries "socialism" to fight change.

    One cannot parlay the importance of intellectual honesty with a contrived argument such as what you've attempted here in our comments, nor can one expect to be taken seriously when advocating inaction in the face of possibly irretrievable consequences because one has a tenuous grasp on economic principle and our hybrid (yet functionally stable) market.

    Also, Glenn is still an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, I did respond to that original point by noting that Beck didn't say all alarmists are out to promote socialism, just that some are.

    The redistribution of wealth IS socialism. Think of set theory. All redistribution of wealth is socialism, but not all socialism is redistribution of wealth. Kind of like saying all humans are mammals.

    Redistribution of wealth is not part of capitalism, it has been intentionally added into our capitalist system by the left. That in no way can be called "functional capitalism", as when it includes things like resitribution of wealth it no longer is a truly capitalist system. I have read books on socialism and economics, and they weren't by Beck.

    It is simply not true that we have "made short change" of those corporations who pass the cost on to comsumers. It happens every day. Take the increase in fuel prices, for example. Have you noticed the corresponding increase in food prices, for example? It costs more to harvest, process, and deliver that food to the grocery store, and at every step along the way the costs are passed on to the customer of that step, and the product costs keep rising until they get to the grocery store. When we buy our groceries, we are buying at a higher cost, as the increased cost of the gasoline has been added into the product. You haven't stopped buying food, have you?

    Simply selling a similar product for less also does not mean that costs do not get passed on, nor does it mean that a company loses business to someone selling at a lower cost. If what you say is true, then there would be no high-end luxury cars, as people would only buy the least expensive car on the market. Personal preference has a lot to do with how we purchase. Many people are addicted to Coca-Cola, and would continue to purchase their products regardless of the cost. And since the prices of soda pop has consistently gone up over the years as costs are passed on to the consumer, they have shown they do that. Your argument does not hold water.

    "Whalla! Capitalism!"

    I think it's you that may need to go back and read a book on capitalism and economics.

    "Also, on the point of proven scientific fact, Global Warming has not been DIS-proven either."

    I completely agree with you, except to clarify that the Earth is warming. It also also cooling. The issue is the cause. I fully admit we don't understand enough about the cause to be able to determine the proper steps to take, if any, in response. And if we don't understand the cause, then we must not do anything where it might actually cause more harm than good.

    That being said, it is possible to prove that some of the claims currently being made about the cause of global warming are not true. And that's what I'm talking about. Beck is too. So you're agreeing with him.

    "By no stretch of a rational imagination can one intelligently, and honestly find backing for the argument that global warming activism finds it's motivation in a secret desire to promote a socialist agenda."

    Really. So when I quote leaders of the alarmists stating that very thing, I'm just making it up? And considering how Craig has agreed that things like carbon credits are just redistribution of wealth, and considering how you agree that redistribution of wealth is part of socialism, I'm not sure how you can honestly make the claim that you are.

    "by no stretch of the imagination can we have an honest debate if we balk at every chance at innovation and positive change every time a bat-shit crazy republican (Beck, not you, but maybe both?) cries "socialism" to fight change."

    I'm not balking at innovation at all. If you want to come up with a green technology and try to make money from that, more power to you. What I'm against is using false and misleading claims to fool people into buying your product. That's like being a snake oil salesman. What I'm against is using something like global warming to push a socialist agenda through things like redistribution of wealth. There are other social change measures that are being proposed as well, redistribution of wealth isn't the only one.

    BTW, I'm not a republican, I'm a conservative. The current republican party no longer espouses my values. Beck isn't a republican, either.

    I have not contrived any arguments. And I'm not advocating inaction, I'm advocating finding the RIGHT action. And if the cause of global warming isn't known, as you state (or imply, if you prefer) above, then it may be the case that man has nothing to do with it, so the actions you would currently have us take could actually cause more harm than good. That is a scenario I am not willing to accept.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rick you're losing me here. I never said that redistributing wealth is socialism. Carbon credits for example would be a marketed equity of sorts between polluting companies, which would make it the most market based socialism I've ever heard of. Marx would be pissed.

    Just this morning I redistributed wealth when the socialist at the convenience store insisted that I give him currency in exchange for coffee. I really would have preferred that the coffee hadn't cost me $20, but the socialist explained to me that they were passing their costs on to me, so what else was I to do but pay it. It's not like there's anyone else selling coffee . . . wait there is.

    You point to price increases across entire markets, as evidence that carbon credits won't work to reduce pollution. If two firms are competing, one increases prices as a result of higher operating costs, and one decreases prices, a result of lower operating costs, which company will be more successful in the market? Yes personal preferences do play a role in what customers buy, but as much as I like Coca Cola, I'm not going to be buying it if it costs double what the alternatives cost, so increasing prices will drive away customers. Which will be a loss of potential income, which could be realized if the company didn't have to buy more carbon credits.

    I also think that companies may be smart enough to see this, and if a carbon credit system were set up, some companies may pro actively cut back on their pollution (which would probably have some impact on the environment), and prevent any redistribution of wealth from taking place. Even if they don't, and redistribution of wealth takes place, it's not socialism any more than my buying coffee, as it would take place in a competitive market, with polluters trying to keep their costs low because they realize that they can't increase their prices without losing customers to their competition.

    You like to think Al Gore is an alarmist, and that he is pushing false global warming information to make money. I like to think Glenn Beck is a ill informed asshole, pushing his assholeness to sell books. So we're on different sides of that argument, and we're on different sides of the carbon credits working argument, and we're on different sides of the all wealth redistribution is socialism argument, and, ironically (since you seem to be much more opposed to socialism) I have more faith in a free market than you would, you seem to not even think customers can find a better deal than paying for the polluting companies carbon emissions while the non polluters are offering their goods much cheaper.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I never said that redistributing wealth is socialism."

    Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention to who I'm replying to, I'm more focused on what is being said.

    That being said, redisribution of wealth is absolutely a key tenet in socialism.

    "Carbon credits for example would be a marketed equity of sorts between polluting companies, which would make it the most market based socialism I've ever heard of. Marx would be pissed."

    Not at all. Carbon credits take from the wealthy companies and countries and give to the ones who aren't as wealthy. That's what redistribution of wealth is about.

    "Just this morning I redistributed wealth when the socialist at the convenience store insisted that I give him currency in exchange for coffee."

    Wrong, that's capitalism. Redistribution of wealth would be if you gave him a $20 for a $4 coffee and he kept the $16 change because he was broke.

    "You point to price increases across entire markets, as evidence that carbon credits won't work to reduce pollution."

    Right. We still have personal preferences for specific brands or types of items, and will pay whatever cost is needed to gain what we desire.

    "If two firms are competing, one increases prices as a result of higher operating costs, and one decreases prices, a result of lower operating costs, which company will be more successful in the market?"

    The one with the better product. People will buy the Lexus over the Yugo because it's what they want, not because of lower costs.

    "Yes personal preferences do play a role in what customers buy, but as much as I like Coca Cola, I'm not going to be buying it if it costs double what the alternatives cost, so increasing prices will drive away customers."

    Do you buy your clothes Target or Goodwill? Do you drive the cheapest, most plain car on the market, or do you purchase the one which is the size and has all the bells and whistles that you like? Do you drink name-brand sodas or do you buy the generic stuff from Sam's Club? I'll bet I know the answer to all those questions, and I barely know you.

    "I also think that companies may be smart enough to see this,..."

    That's the point, they don't care, because they know that they can get us to buy their products regardless, because they know we'll pay whatever it takes to get what we want.

    "...and if a carbon credit system were set up, some companies may pro actively cut back on their pollution..."

    We already have a carbon credit system set up. Show me a company that has reduced their emissions. That's the purpose behind the Kyoto Treaty, and it's failed miserably in reaching it's objectives.

    "...(which would probably have some impact on the environment)..."

    Depends on if the CO2 is actually the problem. Science says it's not, as it shows that CO2 levels trail temperature by up to a 1000 years.

    "Even if they don't, and redistribution of wealth takes place, it's not socialism any more than my buying coffee, as it would take place in a competitive market, with polluters trying to keep their costs low because they realize that they can't increase their prices without losing customers to their competition."

    Again, your coffee example was wrong, and when you take money from a rich company to give it to a poor company, that's redistribution of wealth. No matter how you slice it. And since we've shown that we'll buy things we want regardless of the costs, the companies paying the credits know they can just pass those costs on to us.

    "You like to think Al Gore is an alarmist, and that he is pushing false global warming information to make money."

    I don't think it, I know it.

    "I like to think Glenn Beck is a ill informed asshole, pushing his assholeness to sell books."

    He's well informed, he is fact checked more than much of the liberal media is. You keep complaining about Beck, yet you haven't bothered even trying to show anything he said that is ill-informed. You just hate him. That hate is the problem. We need to re-learn how to disagree honorably and be able to respect others even though you disagree with them. There's no valid reason to use the language you are, it just drives us farther apart.

    "So we're on different sides of that argument, and we're on different sides of the carbon credits working argument,..."

    Because there is no evidence that they actually work.

    "...and we're on different sides of the all wealth redistribution is socialism argument,..."

    You're on the opposite side from pretty much everyone on this one.

    "...and, ironically (since you seem to be much more opposed to socialism) I have more faith in a free market than you would,..."

    No, you just misjudge consumer purchasing.

    "...you seem to not even think customers can find a better deal than paying for the polluting companies carbon emissions while the non polluters are offering their goods much cheaper."

    No, I know they can. They just usually don't.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rick,

    To clarify which of us you are arguing, I'll split us up this way. I (Jason) am the one who hates Glenn Beck, because, as I've asserted, he is an idiot. Craig is the economist, and he thinks you're an idiot, but he says that about anyone who speaks "of" economics without an actual understanding of economic theory, so don't take it personal. Think of us as "good cop, bad cop," fightin' the good fight agin' conservative tripe and misinformation. No offense (I'm bad cop).

    I'll leave the economic specifics up to you two, but I want to address the point in your comment where you state:

    "You keep complaining about Beck, yet you haven't bothered even trying to show anything he said that is ill-informed. You just hate him. That hate is the problem. We need to re-learn how to disagree honorably and be able to respect others even though you disagree with them. There's no valid reason to use the language you are, it just drives us farther apart."

    Do you not recognize the irony of typing this paragraph directly below the sentence where you state you "don't think, but know" Al Gore is an alarmist spreading false information? You also typed this paragraph in the same specific comment where you assert that science says C02 is not a problem. No such declaration has been affirmed by a consensus of the scientific community, you statement is dishonest.

    If you wish to keep this discussion "honorable" as you say, let's do so by sticking to facts.

    To respond to your request for proof that Beck is an idiot, I'll just supply you with a few links that illustrate, in a nutshell, why I have formed that opinion. A few (easy to find) examples, if you will, of Beck's ongoing battle with logical conclusions and factual argument.

    Glenn Beck is confused

    Glenn Beck is dishonest

    Glenn Beck is ethically challenged

    And one not related to global warming, but inarguably an example of comments from someone deserving of the "idiot" label, who's counsel should be as suspect as a ticking suitcase:

    Glenn Beck is a douchebag

    ReplyDelete
  13. "You also typed this paragraph in the same specific comment where you assert that science says C02 is not a problem. No such declaration has been affirmed by a consensus of the scientific community, you statement is dishonest."

    No, it's not, because I never claimed that there was a consensus on anything. I just said there is scientific evidence which shows that CO2 change trails temperature change. So whether or not CO2 is the problem is not known. The lack of consensus is the exact issue I'm talking about. We clearly don't know all that we need to, and until we know what the problem is, it doesn't make much sense to come up with solutions, when those solutions can do more harm than good.

    Gore's graphs tell you this, but he dishonestly keeps them feet apart. If he overlayed them, it would negate his argument. He also makes claims like the oceans will rise 240" if we don't do something. The IPCC in 2001 said there was a potential 19" rise, in 2007 they lowered that to 15". He's pushing false and misleading information.

    "If you wish to keep this discussion "honorable" as you say, let's do so by sticking to facts."

    I have been.

    As for your links, the desmogblog quotes Olbermann, which is a credibility problem in itself, but Olbermann misquoted Beck. Beck was talking about US temperatures, and just said one wrong word. The desmogblog also references a link to one of it's previous articles, which is still making the claim that NOAA says that 1998 is still the hottest year on record in the US. That is a false claim, as James Hansen, whose group at NASA is in charge of that temperature gathering, recently discovered a calculation error and changed their reports. The HuffPo article you references that very fact. So your first article's credibility is challenged by your second article.

    The HuffPo piece is about the same thing, where it's criticizing him for saying one wrong word, when it's clear the rest of his quote was about the US. It also talks about the temperature "peaking" in 1934 in the US. Let's see, if that's the hottest year on record, and all other temperatures are lower, that would be a peak, now wouldn't it. It also talks about that no one "intentionally distorted the temperatures". Hmm, have you seen the reports about where NASA is placing their temperature stations? Finally, it notes that science made a mistake when it made a calculation error, and that happens, and it's ok. Funny that they don't allow the same lattitude for Beck.

    Oh, BTW, the global temperatures haven't yet been recalculated for the same problem which caused the US temperatures to be recalculated, so who knows that the true global temperatures are.

    As for the last one, ya, they weren't victims of violence by choice. But they still do have a choice for how they react. They are still responsible for their own behavior. The people he's complaining about are the ones who are acting badly or acting with an overexaggerated self-importance. That's not a 5 year old boy, but it could very well be his parents. Not the old lady dying in the wheelchair, but the person who was supposed to be their caregiver. That article doesn't talk at all about the actions of those people who were running over their fellow victims to get at ATM cards. I wonder why. Possibly because it's easier to find a scapegoat for the problems of the city of New Orleans, rather than face those problems head on?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rick I was worried you weren't going to reply, I've grown quite fond of our little interaction here.

    The coffee example is perfect, you assume all redistribution of wealth is from rich to poor, but that’s not necessarily the case. The wealth redistribution from carbon credits is not from rich to poor, it’s from dirty to clean with regards to CO2 emissions. If a rich company doesn't pollute, they can sell their credits and get wealth redistributed to them from a poor company that does pollute, that's not socialism, not even close.

    You're claim that consumers will not be affected by producers passing down costs from purchasing carbon credits is, in my opinion misguided. Yes people do have tastes and preferences, and those do affect their purchasing decisions. But if Lexus charges 20,000 more per car because Lexus was polluting and had to pay for it, fewer people would buy Lexus. As to whether they'd jump straight to the Yugo, I can't really say. The point is an increase in the price of something drives consumers away. Not all consumers, but some. If the increase in price is due to an increase in cost of production (like a carbon credit purchase) then the producer isn't getting an increase in profit margin. So the loss of even one customer due to a price increase that is only to cover additional costs has a negative impact on the company’s bottom line.

    You said,"Capitalism. We have the choice to deal with companies that act responsibly. The way to actually make companies take notice is affect their income. If they start losing income, they will change behavior." in response to my asking how we could get companies to stop polluting. Is this not exactly what carbon credits would do? Carbon credits would also carry the added benefit of shifting the business of folks who aren't as environmentally aware as you, I, or Glenn Beck. Because, while some people will buy the more expensive product, some won't. I would imagine more wouldn't because they got more expensive than would if you started some sort of eco boycott of a company.

    Also, cutting CO2 emissions would have an impact on the environment, it would make the air cleaner. You responded to what I didn't say, which is that cutting CO2 emissions would help with global warming (for the record, I think it would). I only point this out because it does seem suspect that you argue against carbon credits, calling them socialistic, promoting persuading consumers, when you aren't convinced there's a problem to be dealt with.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sorry, got busy with something else.

    "The wealth redistribution from carbon credits is not from rich to poor, it’s from dirty to clean with regards to CO2 emissions."

    No, it's not from dirty to clean, it's from dirty to not as dirty. When it comes to not as dirty, it's because the company isn't financially wealthy enough to be able to do more. And when it comes to countries, the proposals explicitly state the carbox tax money will go to countries with lower GDP (I believe that's the criteria, but you get the point).

    "If a rich company doesn't pollute, they can sell their credits and get wealth redistributed to them from a poor company that does pollute, that's not socialism, not even close."

    Name a company with a large carbon footprint that you would consider "poor".

    Name a company that is "wealthy" that does not have a large carbon footprint.

    If your claim is true, then there must be many companies of each type.

    "You're claim that consumers will not be affected by producers passing down costs from purchasing carbon credits is, in my opinion misguided."

    Actually, I've said the exact opposite. I've stated that we wind up paying those extra costs because the companies just work those credits into their fixed costs.

    "But if Lexus charges 20,000 more per car because Lexus was polluting and had to pay for it, fewer people would buy Lexus."

    Really. How many of the celebrities or vocal advocates of global warming alarmism have private airplanes and SUVs? Al Gore does. People don't care, they want the features and convenience.

    "The point is an increase in the price of something drives consumers away."

    Simply not true. Everything rises in prices, for a variety of reasons (labor costs, shipping costs, inflation, etc.) We keep buying things, even as the prices increase.

    "If the increase in price is due to an increase in cost of production (like a carbon credit purchase) then the producer isn't getting an increase in profit margin."

    Yup. And if they don't pass that cost on, like we both know they will, they lose that profit.

    "So the loss of even one customer due to a price increase that is only to cover additional costs has a negative impact on the company’s bottom line."

    The loss of one customer to a billion dollar company is peanuts, and is easily made up through gaining new customers through marketing. The same thing with a $100,000 company, just on a smaller scale. Businesses lose and gain customers all the time.

    "Is this not exactly what carbon credits would do?"

    Nope, because they'll just pass that cost onto the consumer, so it doesn't affect their income. The loss of a few customers is always made up through new customer marketing.

    "Carbon credits would also carry the added benefit of shifting the business of folks who aren't as environmentally aware as you, I, or Glenn Beck. Because, while some people will buy the more expensive product, some won't."

    People continue to buy more expensive products now, even though there are less expensive alternatives. Simply doesn't hold water.

    "I would imagine more wouldn't because they got more expensive than would if you started some sort of eco boycott of a company."

    Ya, because those boycotts really work well, don't they. Just ask the Southern Baptists about Disney.

    Why would you imagine that people wouldn't continue to buy the more expensive version, when that's what they continue to do today?

    "Also, cutting CO2 emissions would have an impact on the environment, it would make the air cleaner."

    Not really. CO2 is a minor player in the makeup of air:

    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm

    Like 0.03%. The portion that emissions from companies and cars and such is only a small portion of that, but for the sake of argument, let's say that we'll ignore all the CO2 that you and I and all the animals of the world, for example, release when we exhale. So if you reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 50%, which is more than even Gore thinks we can do, it's an almost negligible change.

    "You responded to what I didn't say, which is that cutting CO2 emissions would help with global warming (for the record, I think it would)."

    Considering the miniscule amounts involved, it's not likely. And also considering that CO2 changes trail the change in temperature by up to 1000 years (as Gore's graphs will show when you actually overlay them), it's even more not likely.

    "I only point this out because it does seem suspect that you argue against carbon credits, calling them socialistic, promoting persuading consumers, when you aren't convinced there's a problem to be dealt with."

    I'm not sure I understand you here. You're questioning why I'm against something which is a proposed solution to a problem I say may not exist? I don't understand why you would think that is a bad thing, since I'm saying we need to ensure we know what the problem is before we come up with solutions to problems which may not exist and for which the solution may cause more damage than help.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rick,

    Unfortunately, here is where I stop being able to take you seriously.

    What you actually said (scroll up if you've forgotten) was "I don't think, I know..." That doesn't imply a willingness to learn but rather a dedication to a preconceived notion regardless of what facts may be revealed, which makes arguing with you pointless. My advice to you is ask yourself who taught you this, and if that person is more often wrong than right.

    The supposition that Olbermann is "credibility problem" while Beck is not sheds light on your willingness to believe "along partisan lines" rather than an intelligent assessment of the actual situation.

    And you responded to the quotes of ATM cards but not Beck's statements on the 9/11 victims, which is why I supplied the link. Someone who could use such logic as he does with that comment is not a person who's counsel will lead you toward truth.

    My argument is that global warming science is unsure, but could definitely be indicative of a very large problem, and therefore something we may want to address "just in case" even, regardless of paranoid and irrational cries of socialism.

    Your argument quickly decays into "they tell me at Hot Air and Human Events not to believe this and that Keith Olbermann is a liar, so it must be so." And you will believe this no matter how many times Beck himself lies while many others may bring you truth. You have decided, previous to this discussion, what you "should" believe, rather than stepping back and taking a long look at what information actually may exist to be interpreted. Of course one need not interpret when simply towing a line. Parsing the facts often leads to a challenge to one's beliefs, and you have made it apparent that is your goal, the protection of your paradigm, not reaching a greater understanding.

    That is not intelligent, and thus I have to place you in the same group as Beck himself; those who will refuse to learn with great effort, and therefore those who should be ignored while the rest of the adults take action.

    Still, don't be discouraged. Your work here in our comment thread is still valuable in that it reveals the mindset of deniers, and Glenn Beck supporters. The best way to prove a person wrong is to give them a forum in which to speak.

    You have done a fine job of that, and best of luck in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not sure why you'd not take me seriously. The comment of mine you quoted was taken out of context. It was specifically about whether or not Gore is exaggerating the claims he makes. I know he is, and I provided a couple examples.

    That doesn't preclude me from being willing to learn more. It just means that I know Gore is exaggerating his claims. The comment was clearly not about whether or not I'm willing to investigate more about what causes changes in the climate.

    Olbermann has credibility problems for many reasons, not the least of which is his clear liberal bias, which he openly refuses to acknowledge.

    Sorry, I didn't know I need to respond to both examples used in that reference to make my point. The 9/11 widows were also using their unintentional victimhood for their own self-important purposes. They acted like they spoke for all families of victims, they pushed issues that were clearly partisan. They chose to react that way.

    The problem with creating solutions to something we don't know is a problem or not "just in case" is that if we do not understand what the problem is, we may be coming up with solutions that can cause more harm than good. The claims of socialism aren't irrational, they are clear.

    I believe Olbermann is a liar because I can independently verify that he's lying. It doesn't matter who originally notifies me about the lie.

    If you believe Beck lied, feel free to show me. I'd love to see an example. What you provided wasn't a lie. You apparently expect him to be perfect, as do the sources you use to get your information, but allow for others who happen to agree with your positions to make mistakes.

    You are right, I have decided what I should believe, just like you have. I did it because I have looked at the big picture and I have done a lot of reading and evaluation. I'm not toeing any line except the truth.

    "Parsing the facts often leads to a challenge to one's beliefs, and you have made it apparent that is your goal, the protection of your paradigm, not reaching a greater understanding."

    Hmm, wouldn't you and Craig be "guilty" of this same criticism, since you are only interested in protecting your paradigm of believing in man-made global warming, and that Beck is an "idiot"? I keep asking you for more information from you and Craig in order to gain more understanding of the validity of your opinions. I never seem to get that information. I am asking to learn more about where you are coming from, so it's invalid to claim I'm not interested in learning.

    What I see is that you are unwilling to learn anything about the opposing viewpoint. You've already made up your mind, and anyone who presents information to the contrary you attack like this. So who's not willing to learn?

    ReplyDelete