http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432

It’s not a conspiracy, but it is reason. Think about it logically. Which group would get more funding? The scientist who says “hey, this is interesting, but probably not going to kill us all” or the one who says, “We’re all going to die!!!” The argument really is that simple. It also goes to the media as well. How many scares have there been in your lifetime alone that the media has trumpeted without critical examination? Unless, of course, you have mad cow disease, swine flu, West Nile, etc., I think you’re still doing OK.

I agree with you that developing countries have the most to lose from so-called global warming. No one in India or China calls for emissions standards because they recognize that at the margins it is a choice between life and death. It’s not a straw man to argue that increasing the price of fuel will have harmful effects on the world’s prospects for growth. It’s a straw man to imply that we can magically use tax subsidies to get all of our energy from wind, solar, geothermal, etc. (Of course, nuclear is always left out.)

I could direct you to dozens of studies that argue, “hey, maybe we ought to wait on this”, including a panel of preeminent climatologists who refused to sign off on the IPCC. The idea that the scientific consensus is settled is laughable, at best, or that there is a “side” that scientists are on.

Again, we’re talking about climate measured in thousands of years. The peak temperature has actually declined in recent years from a high of in the 90s. Do you see that reported in the government-financed and alarmist because it sells BBC report? Record breaking isn’t that much of a big deal because maybe, just maybe we don’t have records that go far enough back. Just ask the people who failed to buy flood insurance.

As for your final point, I don’t attack people. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. It’s not semi-libelous to criticize someone for having racist and eugenicist views when they actually advocate them in print. I’m just making sure I’m on the right side of history critiquing these policies that I know will fail. You’ll forgive me if I say I told you so on global warming in a couple decades.

It’s not a conspiracy, but it is reason. Think about it logically. Which group would get more funding? The scientist who says “hey, this is interesting, but probably not going to kill us all” or the one who says, “We’re all going to die!!!” The argument really is that simple. It also goes to the media as well. How many scares have there been in your lifetime alone that the media has trumpeted without critical examination? Unless, of course, you have mad cow disease, swine flu, West Nile, etc., I think you’re still doing OK.

I agree with you that developing countries have the most to lose from so-called global warming. No one in India or China calls for emissions standards because they recognize that at the margins it is a choice between life and death. It’s not a straw man to argue that increasing the price of fuel will have harmful effects on the world’s prospects for growth. It’s a straw man to imply that we can magically use tax subsidies to get all of our energy from wind, solar, geothermal, etc. (Of course, nuclear is always left out.)

I could direct you to dozens of studies that argue, “hey, maybe we ought to wait on this”, including a panel of preeminent climatologists who refused to sign off on the IPCC. The idea that the scientific consensus is settled is laughable, at best, or that there is a “side” that scientists are on.

Again, we’re talking about climate measured in thousands of years. The peak temperature has actually declined in recent years from a high of in the 90s. Do you see that reported in the government-financed and alarmist because it sells BBC report? Record breaking isn’t that much of a big deal because maybe, just maybe we don’t have records that go far enough back. Just ask the people who failed to buy flood insurance.

As for your final point, I don’t attack people. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. It’s not semi-libelous to criticize someone for having racist and eugenicist views when they actually advocate them in print. I’m just making sure I’m on the right side of history critiquing these policies that I know will fail. You’ll forgive me if I say I told you so on global warming in a couple decades.

Re: government conspiracies.
Nowhere in your article are hard figures cited. It’s all based off assumptions, which is my main issue in the article. The fact that it’s funded by an organization that has been clearly labeled as anti-environmental and ideological just adds to my doubts. I have thought it through and I’m sticking with the scientists. Because I know if I spent years of my life getting a PhD and doing a post-doc, I know I would want a career in fabricating studies. I suppose linking to articles on PubMed and published in science journals wouldn’t convince you since they’re partially government-funded. I doubt that this is some expensive conspiracy to give the U.S. government rights to issue carbon licenses, but I guess we’re not going to agree on this.

Re: one point of data doesn’t make a trendline. Dude. Read the report.
Also, developing countries have the most to lose from climate change. India depends on the delicate monsoon season which brings a majority of rains. Dry years or massive rains ruin harvest. And it’s been found that climate change has been making extreme weather patterns more likely. Africa has suffered problems from the effects of climate change. Do you know anything about agriculture? It’s more complicated than warm=good.

P.S. Nice strawman with the fossil fuels. I didn’t realize I was arguing for a complete ban of fossil fuels. Oh, wait. I’m not. I’m just saying that that you can’t just assume that warmer temperatures are better for growth.

Re: ad hominem. You really just don’t get it. We’re all your classmates, not your enemies. Some of us disagree with you, but that’s no reason to demonize someone with semi-libelous accusations. It’s obvious that Charlie isn’t a racist. No one’s going to take you to the J-Board for it, but you aren’t going to convince anyone by calling them names and talking in such a condescending tone. Before you started attacking people online, I took your arguments much more seriously.

Re: government conspiracies.
Nowhere in your article are hard figures cited. It’s all based off assumptions, which is my main issue in the article. The fact that it’s funded by an organization that has been clearly labeled as anti-environmental and ideological just adds to my doubts. I have thought it through and I’m sticking with the scientists. Because I know if I spent years of my life getting a PhD and doing a post-doc, I know I would want a career in fabricating studies. I suppose linking to articles on PubMed and published in science journals wouldn’t convince you since they’re partially government-funded. I doubt that this is some expensive conspiracy to give the U.S. government rights to issue carbon licenses, but I guess we’re not going to agree on this.

Re: one point of data doesn’t make a trendline. Dude. Read the report.
Also, developing countries have the most to lose from climate change. India depends on the delicate monsoon season which brings a majority of rains. Dry years or massive rains ruin harvest. And it’s been found that climate change has been making extreme weather patterns more likely. Africa has suffered problems from the effects of climate change. Do you know anything about agriculture? It’s more complicated than warm=good.

P.S. Nice strawman with the fossil fuels. I didn’t realize I was arguing for a complete ban of fossil fuels. Oh, wait. I’m not. I’m just saying that that you can’t just assume that warmer temperatures are better for growth.

Re: ad hominem. You really just don’t get it. We’re all your classmates, not your enemies. Some of us disagree with you, but that’s no reason to demonize someone with semi-libelous accusations. It’s obvious that Charlie isn’t a racist. No one’s going to take you to the J-Board for it, but you aren’t going to convince anyone by calling them names and talking in such a condescending tone. Before you started attacking people online, I took your arguments much more seriously.

Are you really going to cite a government report as evidence of global warming? Don’t you think that a government agency has more of a vested interest in climate change being a reality than say, a libertarian magazine that cites an independent scientific study, especially compared to a government agency that seeks more funds for its research? As you did not likely read my comment where I said that Think it through, please.

As for logical fallacies, I would just point out that one data point does not a trend line make. So what if there was a loss of $4.8 or $400 billion in wheat? How can that be directly attributed to global warming? Again, you cannot and it is the essence of hubris to believe that there is an ideal climate. I can cite examples of forest growth in Russia (and hence more carbon sequestration) due to warmer temperatures, to better rainfall patterns in Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, etc. Human civilization relocates to where there are opportunities. Better to let us use fossil fuels to grow richer, faster.

How will ignoring climate change — again, assuming that there is anything we can do — be harmful for our long term economic growth? How do you know what we’ll be consuming, eating, doing, thinking, reading, working in the future? The problem, of course, is that you cannot know for the same reason that weathermen have such a hard time predicting the future: the variables. Climate is something that’s measured in tens of thousands of years and much of our data doesn’t even go back that far.

Like many of you on this blog, I saw an Inconvenient Truth and read the books of Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Jeffrey Sachs, and Tom Friedman on the topic of global warming. I’ve seen the other side and I’m sorry, but I just don’t find that their evidence is compelling enough to warrant a total restructuring of 1) our entire world economy 2) that even if global warming were happening, which I concede it probably is, that it’s that much of a threat to the world economy.

Kim says she’s pro-growth but is she really? For many people, having access to fossil fuels is the difference between A/C in your workplace (and hence fewer workplace related deaths) and no jobs at all. In the past, the same well-intentioned folks as Kim argued that we were facing a huge, growing, Malthusian overpopulation problem and that governments need to do its best to tamp down the great unwashed from having children. We also heard arguments about global cooling, in reverse that we’re hearing about global warming.

As for Mr. Sprague being in support of racism and eugenicist things, I have only to point to what he’s written on this website. I thank him for his candor and exercise my right to point out that evil consequences of what I’m sure are noble intentions. I have given him multiple opportunities to explain in good faith why his positions would not lead to 1) the killing of old people (with the hopes of rationing care) 2) a racist paradigm that focuses on well-rounded students at the expense of hard-working, studious Asians. He has declined to address either argument and so I must assume that he concedes them.

If that is an “attack” (read: reasoned calling of A as A) as far as many of you are concerned, than I am the greatest assailant on campus. I suggest I be immediately taken before a J-Board. Until then, I’m going to be doing work. Ciao.

Are you really going to cite a government report as evidence of global warming? Don’t you think that a government agency has more of a vested interest in climate change being a reality than say, a libertarian magazine that cites an independent scientific study, especially compared to a government agency that seeks more funds for its research? As you did not likely read my comment where I said that Think it through, please.

As for logical fallacies, I would just point out that one data point does not a trend line make. So what if there was a loss of $4.8 or $400 billion in wheat? How can that be directly attributed to global warming? Again, you cannot and it is the essence of hubris to believe that there is an ideal climate. I can cite examples of forest growth in Russia (and hence more carbon sequestration) due to warmer temperatures, to better rainfall patterns in Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, etc. Human civilization relocates to where there are opportunities. Better to let us use fossil fuels to grow richer, faster.

How will ignoring climate change — again, assuming that there is anything we can do — be harmful for our long term economic growth? How do you know what we’ll be consuming, eating, doing, thinking, reading, working in the future? The problem, of course, is that you cannot know for the same reason that weathermen have such a hard time predicting the future: the variables. Climate is something that’s measured in tens of thousands of years and much of our data doesn’t even go back that far.

Like many of you on this blog, I saw an Inconvenient Truth and read the books of Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Jeffrey Sachs, and Tom Friedman on the topic of global warming. I’ve seen the other side and I’m sorry, but I just don’t find that their evidence is compelling enough to warrant a total restructuring of 1) our entire world economy 2) that even if global warming were happening, which I concede it probably is, that it’s that much of a threat to the world economy.

Kim says she’s pro-growth but is she really? For many people, having access to fossil fuels is the difference between A/C in your workplace (and hence fewer workplace related deaths) and no jobs at all. In the past, the same well-intentioned folks as Kim argued that we were facing a huge, growing, Malthusian overpopulation problem and that governments need to do its best to tamp down the great unwashed from having children. We also heard arguments about global cooling, in reverse that we’re hearing about global warming.

As for Mr. Sprague being in support of racism and eugenicist things, I have only to point to what he’s written on this website. I thank him for his candor and exercise my right to point out that evil consequences of what I’m sure are noble intentions. I have given him multiple opportunities to explain in good faith why his positions would not lead to 1) the killing of old people (with the hopes of rationing care) 2) a racist paradigm that focuses on well-rounded students at the expense of hard-working, studious Asians. He has declined to address either argument and so I must assume that he concedes them.

If that is an “attack” (read: reasoned calling of A as A) as far as many of you are concerned, than I am the greatest assailant on campus. I suggest I be immediately taken before a J-Board. Until then, I’m going to be doing work. Ciao.

Your claim supported by a libertarian newsmagazine that a warmer planet is good for civilization relies on economic analysis based on flawed assumptions. There’s more compelling evidence from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a scientific agency under the Department of Commerce) that outlines how climate changes negatively impacts the United States.

To summarize what the report is saying: higher temperatures are not only bad for cool-temperature produce like lettuce and spinach, but grains (a huge part of the US produce production) have less time to mature in warmer temperatures. In 2002, $4.8 billion was lost in maize, wheat and barley production worldwide because of this mythological global warming. I’m pro-growth too, but I realize that ignoring climate change in the long run will lose us billions of dollars.

P.S. Debate coach is right. Ad hominem attacks not only reflect poorly on you. They are also logical fallacies that most high school students recognize. They do little to advance your argument.

Your claim supported by a libertarian newsmagazine that a warmer planet is good for civilization relies on economic analysis based on flawed assumptions. There’s more compelling evidence from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (a scientific agency under the Department of Commerce) that outlines how climate changes negatively impacts the United States.

To summarize what the report is saying: higher temperatures are not only bad for cool-temperature produce like lettuce and spinach, but grains (a huge part of the US produce production) have less time to mature in warmer temperatures. In 2002, $4.8 billion was lost in maize, wheat and barley production worldwide because of this mythological global warming. I’m pro-growth too, but I realize that ignoring climate change in the long run will lose us billions of dollars.

P.S. Debate coach is right. Ad hominem attacks not only reflect poorly on you. They are also logical fallacies that most high school students recognize. They do little to advance your argument.