To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Unequal rights

So I have a question: If a person has the 'right' to deny the validity of climate change, why don't I have the right to deny having my tax money used to bail them out when their property floods? It just doesn't seem fair to me.

Climate change denier wondering why his god went back on his word to never again destroy the earth with water.

So, that U.N. report is a little scary, eh? Well to those of us who think that scientists studying these changes may actually know what they are talking about. To others I guess it's just business as usual. (Maybe Trump always wanted Trump Tower in NYC to beachfront property and this was his way of achieving it?) 




17 comments:

  1. Hi KD,
    One inalienable right you can never deny is peoples right to be stupid or to get in the way of making a buck. It is amazing to me that some people will accept a scientific system that gives them computers, good health, technology, food and water but will deny the same system when it gives warning of imminent global disaster via climate change. If they just opened their eyes and had a good close look the real evidence is undeniable.

    I feel so bad for the worlds children; the first generation in the history of the modern world where the next generation will be worse off than their parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have mirrored my sentiments, Don. The only thing I have thought was that dangerous stupidity should not have to be accepted. Soldiers in Vietnam had a way of dealing with an officer whose stupidity was life-threatening. It was called 'fragging'.

      And the generational issue is of particular pain to me. What a legacy we are leaving! My daughter is on the verge of attempting to have a child and she is so torn over it.

      Delete
  2. Don't get me started on the "conservative" hypocrisy of flood insurance subsidies, crop subsidies, farmers paid not to plant . . . because, you know it's not welfare if it goes to a farmer or to a Republican in Louisiana who lives beside a river that has flooded their home three times, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. It's completely different, not the same at all. THAT money is going to white people and we all know white people don't accept assistance. See? It's so clear. Hell, it BLACK & WHITE!

      Delete
  3. Based on a Ph. D dissertation from James Cook University in 2017, reviewed by people outside of that university.

    An abridged summary is below:
    More than 70 issues are identified, covering the entire process from the measurement of temperatures to the dataset’s creation, to data derived from it (such as averages) and to its eventual publication. The findings (shown in consolidated form Appendix 6) even include simple issues of obviously erroneous data, glossed-over sparsity of data, significant but questionable assumptions and temperature data that have been incorrectly adjusted in a way that exaggerates warming.
    Ultimately it is the opinion of this author that the HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change.

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well I’m sure the people in Kiribati whose homes are now underwater are glad the author got that sorted out. It’s a sad case of affairs this is.

      Delete
    2. There are a bunch of ancient cities that were covered by sea water long before the Industrial Revolution, and remain so. See http://www.earthporm.com/5-mind-blowing-underwater-cities/. Are these too examples of global warming?
      Doug

      Delete
    3. Hi, Doug. Before I say much on this, I'd like to ask you where you found out about this dissertation?

      I will say now that I've never denied that there aren't opposing views on this.........or ANY subject for that matter. (Heck, there were reports coming out decades ago saying smoking was GOOD for you. Remember?) The point of this post was to pose a separate question: If a person is entitled to an opinion that runs counter to the mainstream view, and that opinion ends up wrong......should a person who agreed with the mainstream view have to financially bail out the denier if the opinion comes to pass and results in some sort of disaster?

      Delete
    4. To Jhackov: Thanks for joining the discussion. I will let you two have your own exchange on the submerged cities issue.

      Delete
    5. KD, to your last question, the exercise of free speech is not generally considered a basis for reparation payments when one is wrong. There are exceptions, of course, as with Elon Musk, when he broke the law with his “funding secured” tweet in August, and rightly got in trouble with the SEC. I heard about the dissertation from a friend who has closely examined gigabytes of recorded temperatures data and found lots of problems with this kind of data, such as virtually uncorrelated data from temperature stations less than five miles apart.

      Doug

      Delete
    6. Doug, I didn't ask what was generally considered, or what the current legal position is. I asked if you think it's fair that I should pay to bail out a climate denier in the eventuality that it's true? I mean climate deniers don't want to pay for prevention because they think it's not true, right? Shouldn't that cut both ways?

      As for your source, if he has such damning evidence and is qualified to make these assessments, has he forwarded his findings to climate officials?

      I looked into Cook University and found out some interesting things about Peter Ridd, who was a climate denier and who also was recently let go from the University for other issues. I was just wondering how much of this information, if any, came via James Delingpole?

      Delete
  4. KD. You are more intent in attacking the messenger than the message. You are not concerned about what is true and what is false, but with finding political villains to blame.

    Climate change should properly be viewed as a science question, not a political problem. And as a science question, there are lots of important pieces in the puzzle which simply are not yet in place. Regardless of what Obama says, and perhaps believes, it is not “settled science.”

    Scientific inquiry is well served by a diversity of opinions: After James Clerk Maxwell convincingly established that light is a wave, most scientists thought this was a settled matter … until Albert Einstein successfully explained the photovoltaic effect by interpreting light as particles (photons). This view was not accepted with open arms, but eventually earned Einstein a Nobel Prize. Einstein had come up with a quantum-mechanical explanation of the photovoltaic effect before QM was a tool of physics. And now it is a viewed as a pillar of physics.

    Doug

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides which, I'm doubtful that the future survival of humanity was at all affected by whether light is considered to be a wave or particles.

      As the United Nations has announced, climate change constitutes a dire threat to future generations of mankind, one that is fully believed in by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

      If 97% of engineers examining a highway bridge consider it to be structurally unsound, but a tiny minority insist that it's "no problem," should that bridge be shut down and then rebuilt, or not?

      "Sorry about these seven highway deaths from the bridge collapse, but after all there was this one guy who insisted that it was perfectly safe..." --C.K.

      Delete
    2. True, C.K., but the guy who said everything was fine probably did save the builders money......which for these guys is a very influential factor in assessing veracity. And if the entire planet dies? Well just think of all the money we will save on medical insurance!

      Delete
    3. To quote Lee Smolin, a well-known theoretical physics:
      "When you know the history of physics you are painfully aware of how much each era overestimates the scope of its understanding. Science progresses well, but at each stage, we embrace metaphysical fantasies that seem motivated by the science but come to look silly when people come to know more in the future. As Brian Eno once said, 'Nothing so dates an era as its conception of the future.'”

      The Vietnam era had a "falling domino" conception, which never came to pass. And so will it be the case for the doomsday conceptions spawned during this existing climate change era.

      Doug

      Delete