War Crimes or Thought Crimes?

Wed

Feb 14 2007

12:42 pm

By: Number9

Over at a slightly less progressive place I examine the issue of freedom of speech and thought.

Are Global Warming Skeptics criminals?

Topics:

Number9's blog
Login or register to post comments

You're back!

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 1:20pm.

What? No comments about the McClung Fire? Nothing about Council passing that fascist south waterfront code?

What happened to you while you were gone? Are you ok?

No big thing...

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 1:59pm.

What happened to you while you were gone? Are you ok?

Just took a week off.

Nothing to say about the fire until the Fire Marshals report is filed. Sometimes you learn more by listening.

I actually am more concerned about the Transit Center than the South Knox Waterfront code. 27 million dollars for a Transit Center for a County with a population of 400,000 people and an annual ridership of supposedly 3.5 million seems quite insane. So does the location.

I wonder what the annual operating costs of that monster will be?

Sometimes you learn more by

Submitted by Andy Axel on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 2:04pm.

Sometimes you learn more by listening.

Oh, my God. A moment of self-awareness?

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH #9?

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Analytically there are many

Submitted by Sven on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 1:43pm.

Analytically there are many problems with both the theory and the consensus.

Criminally stupid, perhaps.

...Sorry, that was uncivil. I just finished arguing with a dear, deranged friend who was convinced the IPCC was invalidated because polar bear populations "are increasing," something he read in the WSJ opinion page.

Sven,

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 1:53pm.

Disagreeing is not uncivil. It is not illegal either. At least not yet.

This is uncivil.

Well, Actually...

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 1:52pm.

Ok, I'm going to ignore the obvious fact that 9 examines absolutely nothing at that other site and merely copies other winger posts making similar noises.

Now! Let's ask this question in parable form.

When the Twin Towers were on fire after having been struck by airplanes people were streaming down the stair wells trying to escape. Those that made their way down and out of the building were saved from the impending collapse of the buildings.

And yet, incredibly, Some person went into the stairwells with a bullhorn and announced that things were under control and told the people to go back to their offices and wait. Some people did exactly that.

The person with the bullhorn apparently died along with the few people who believed his message. Had he managed to survive, would he be a criminal? Would he be guilty of causing the deaths of the folks who heard him and went back?

The Right wing is dependant upon a liberal interpretation of Freedom of Speech that permits them to lie, and lie repeatedly. Here is an example that parallels this so called examination very nicely:

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
— President Abraham Lincoln

This has been repeatedly quoted by the right wing. It is not a quote from Abraham Lincoln but was made up by a conservative commentor. It is a lie. And...this statement, which is a lie, has been repeatedly used to call for opponents and critics of Bush war policy to be tried and maybe hanged for treason.

Since the Conservative case cannot be made with facts, they are reduced to lies in the theory that repeated enouh times a lie will become the truth. Such is the case for Global Warming opponents.

If you want to take your bullhorn and retreat back into your little cubicle and hope things will be just fine, that is one thing. But when you repeat lies in order to prevent the truth from being known and people will die as a result...Isn't that some sort of crime?

The common example of the limits of Free Speech is "Shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater."

Conversely, Shouting "There is no fire, it's just the popcorn machine smoking a bit" and causing folks to lose that precious little amount of time required to reach safety is also a violation of the right to Free Speech.

Steve

Steve,

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 2:07pm.

Ok, I'm going to ignore the obvious fact that 9 examines absolutely nothing at that other site and merely copies other winger posts making similar noises.

You can post on Uncle's site. The TCP/IP protocol will filter any conservative or libertarian cooties.

I thought we should try to keep this site "progressive".

But if you insist, I guess we can converse over here.

So basically you agree that these "bastard deniers" should be arrested and prosecuted for "Crimes against Humanity"?

Well, actually...

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 5:39pm.

Actually, if you were correct in your assumption then what you would have is speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, not speech that is in violation of that Amendment. No speech can be in violation of the Amendment, because the Amendment does not spell out what speech is allowed. The Amendment and the case law interpreting it only govern what speech can be prohibited by government. Different speech is entitled to differing levels of protection (commercial speech, for example, is generally entitled to less protection than political speech), and some kinds of speech are entitled to no protection at all (e.g., obscenity and "fighting words.")

It sounds as if you are suggesting that speech which advocates a course of action that - someone? not sure who - deems to be "dangerous", then it would be consistent with the Constitution to ban such speech. I doubt that you would find much support for that position in law.

It sounds as if you are

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 7:11pm.

Nope! Not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that if you lie to people about global warming, and people die as a result, that you must bear the responsibility for your actions.

it is not that you guys are discussing climate change...you've staked out a position and are defending it at all cost. some of those costs are that people will die and for that you may need to be responsible.

Steve

The far left liberal pathology

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 9:31pm.

Nope! Not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that if you lie to people about global warming, and people die as a result, that you must bear the responsibility for your actions.

Lie? You want to assign responsibility for lying? And who then will be the arbiter of truth? You Steve? Al Gore? A jury of ones peers?

You are suggesting thought police. What punishment should skeptics, or in your words deniers, be subject to? Should they be tried? Should they be shunned? Should they be exiled?

When you speak of “you guys”, do you see how creepy that is? Do you see how other people might question if there is a pathology at work?

Anyone that has any training or education in science understands the problem at hand. There is no such thing as a denier in science. Deniers exist in religion not in science.

There is a consensus from scientists about man made Global Warming. We do not know if this consensus is scientific or political. Considering how higher education has been infiltrated by far left liberal dogma this supposed consensus should and must be questioned on both scientific and political grounds.

The new cry for punishment of thought crimes should raise a red flag to any thinking person. This is hysteria. The game afoot is to declare any one that questions the orthodoxy of Global Warming as a person suffering from cognitive dissonance or just a simpleton liar or a liar for big oil and other members of the “denier industry”.

I do not understand extremists. However, Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD does and has written extensively on the issue.

only smokes when it blows

Submitted by rikki on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 2:27am.

We do not know if this consensus is scientific or political.

That's a lie. There is no political consensus.

Scientists agree on certain explicit claims, but not the claims you attribute to them. Science is a limited field. Only some of the meaningful universe is covered by science. Science does not produce solutions, only a context in which problems and solutions can be better understood.

The scientific consensus is that human activity is producing enough emissions to disrupt the climate. Scientists recommend stabilizing and trimming emissions, but leave the details to the political realm. They attempt to explain the possible consequences of climate disruptions, but readily acknowledge predictions are sketchy and vary from minor to major economic and social disruptions.

Meanwhile, the technological side of science has been inventing cleaner and more efficient motors and machines whose adoption will stimulate our growth-oriented economy, ease health costs and stall emissions. Politically, there are solutions that actually improve market dynamics rather than hinder them.

But there is no political consensus because lies about what the science says and pointless blathering dominate the popular conversation, and market fundamentalism is wielded like a firecracker to the mailbox of rational thought.

That's a lie.

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 8:47am.

That's a lie. There is no political consensus.

I think the political consensus is easily demonstrated. How would you explain the punishment for "thought crimes" listed here?

Weather Channel climatologist Heidi Cullen said, "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS [American Meteorological Society] shouldn't give them a seal of approval."

Lawmakers in Oregon, in 1991, created the state climate office at Oregon State University. Climatologist George Taylor holds the top position, and he says, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities, and I don't believe that's true."

As a result, Gov. Kulongoski wants to make Taylor's position a governor-appointed one. "[Taylor] is Oregon State University's climatologist," said Kulongoski. "He's not the state of Oregon's climatologist. I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'" University of Alabama's state climatologist, John Christy, sees a disturbing trend: "It seems if scientists don't express the views of the political establishment, they will be threatened, and that is a discomforting thought."

This is uncivil

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 1:59pm.

I agree, 9, that's a terrible picture of you.

There you go again...

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 6:40pm.

I agree, 9, that's a terrible picture of you.

As you well know Steve it is not a picture of me. It is a man currently in the Knox County Jail.

Do you have a split personality?

Submitted by Rachel on Wed, 2007/02/14 - 11:31pm.

It's tough for me to see how the same person could write these two sentences in the same post:

I do not understand extremists.

Considering how higher education has been infiltrated by far left liberal dogma

Are you irony impaired or just putting us on?

And BTW, thanks for the link to Dr. Lassiter - it was good for a belly laugh. Here's a link to his own website - where he opines that all liberals are crazy. "The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas.."

You're really asking me to take this guy seriously?

9 made a funny...

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 7:40am.

When you speak of “you guys”, do you see how creepy that is? Do you see how other people might question if there is a pathology at work?

I do recognize the creepy factor, 9, and I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a pathology at work here. You might want to have your dosage adjusted.

And Rikki, I wish I'd written this:

Well done!

Steve

He's so good!

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 8:48am.

Rikki: "...market fundamentalism is wielded like a firecracker to the mailbox of rational thought."

Ain't it the truth, Steve! I actually wrote it down with every intention of passing it off as my own rhetoric sometime later!

If you can't stand the heat,

Submitted by edens on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 9:03am.

If you can't stand the heat, argue about global warming.

Got your number

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 9:31am.

Apparently somebody's tired of not being able to sway anyone, so he rips a page from Karl Rove and the Mighty Wurlitzer Noise Machine. It's not about global warming--it's about liberal-fascists.

Now I know he's just jerking the chain.

No need to be swayed

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 9:40am.

It's not about global warming--it's about liberal-fascists.

No, it is about thought crime. I don't care what you believe. As long as you don't persecute or prosecute those who believe other ideas.

Alan Caruba wrote a very interesting article "Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!" where he writes:

Too many journalists have remained steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.

Anyone who challenges the "truth" of the global warming charlatans is demonized and compared to Holocaust deniers. Others are routinely accused of being in the pay of corporate interests. My own background as a public relations counselor has been cited as "proof" that I cannot be trusted. However, in nine years of writing a weekly commentary, my credibility would be in shreds if my facts were wrong.

Is this new generation of journalists indifferent to the truth? Do they arrive at their job imbued with a mission to save the world? Do they believe that inconvenient facts can and should be ignored? This is not journalism. It is advocacy. The former belongs in the news columns, the latter on the editorial and opinion pages.

Calling all thought police

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 10:11am.

9, you can think stupid stuff all you want and no one cares. When you go around repeating transparent and obvious lies like this:

Too many journalists have remained steadfast to this greatest hoax of our times, publishing the most astonishing nonsense about the North Pole melting or all the polar bears disappearing. Anything can be attributed to Global Warming, but the premise of a rapidly warming Earth is baseless. The Earth warmed barely one degree Fahrenheit from 1850 to 1950 and there is no evidence of further warming.

I have to wonder how tenuous a grip you have on the real world? What you are doing is wrong and destructive. Ultimately, you are contributing to the desecration of the planet I and my children must share with you. This is a problem for me.

Next time one of your lucid moments rolls around, think about that, would you?

Steve

I don't think you or anyone else...

Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 12:20am.

who disputes the science of global warming should be punished in the least. But those of us who want the world to get down to the business of fixing the problem and finding solutions reserve the right to laugh in your face when you come asking for food and a dry patch of ground to sleep on.

The cause of global warming is no longer relevant. What is relevant now is, What are WE going to do about it? Last time I checked...THIS IS THE ONLY PLANET IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HUMAN BEINGS LIVE ON. IT DIES, WE DIE. The End.

And yes, I said WE...because the solution is going to involve ALL OF US, whether YOU like it or not. It will be done either voluntarily or involuntarily, but it WILL be DONE.

You would be better served to shut your mouth and start really LISTENING to people who actually have a couple of working brain cells that are TRYING to come up with solutions.

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Fine

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 1:49pm.

That is fine, just as I would have the right to laugh at those that don't save for retirement. The initial point of this, I think, was that those that disagree should not be treated as criminals.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

I think you've just got a bug up your

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 10:06am.

Aren't there any examples that don't have to do with GW? Maybe even some from the right?

You don't believe there's a concerted effort at the highest political and PR dollar levels to muzzle and discredit scientists who have presented science on this issue?

I thought you were in favor of clean energy including the reduction of CO2?

What gives?

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 11:25am.

I thought you were in favor of clean energy including the reduction of CO2?

I am for CO2 reduction. Increased CAFE standards on trucks and SUVS. Low sulfur coal and diesel. Scrubbers on coal fired power plants. I am glad Heath Shuler is going after TVA about air quality. At least someone has enough guts to do it.

There are plenty of good reasons to do all of those things and do them now. And to do them in a way that won't wreck the economy or cost millions of jobs. Why not do these things for cleaner air and water? With an aging population why should that be difficult? The heath reasons alone are justification enough.

The political Global Warming cabal is not the way. The hysteria of this movement is not the way. You don't gain anything by compromising principles for the sake of an issue. The ends do not justify the means.

Coal gasification and solar are two technologies that the US Government could give a boost to. Wheatgrass is another. But this idea of credits as the mechanism to reduce emissions is very fuzzy. Kyoto in its present form is another impediment. I think the Global Warming movement is a distraction to positive steps to accomplish cleaner air and water.

I also have no faith in Al Gore to accomplish anything. But he will win the Oscar and will probably win the Nobel Peace Prize. He is in many ways the greatest distraction of all. The Democrats have bungled this in every way by jumping on the hysteria bandwagon. The Republicans are tone deaf to the entire issue. A complete failure of leadership from both sides of the aisle.

I'm with you up until

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 1:03pm.

I'm with you up until your third paragraph, when you fall on the big conspiracy canard on one side, yet have no fears about a similar conspiracy occurring from the other side, one that I strongly feel is much more real.

I share some skepticism about credits, but that's not because of the science or possible conspiracy behind them. It's because they're being promoted as the market solution by finance and accounting types, which I have less trust and understanding about. But my reservations don't blind me to the point that they may work, and most probably will be an improvement over the current status quo, which is NOT working.

Kyoto in its present form is another impediment.

Kyoto was killed by the right. Practically the only mention I hear of Kyoto is by the denialists who use it to promote their canard. So your statement makes little sense to me.

I think the Global Warming movement is a distraction to positive steps to accomplish cleaner air and water.

But if you don't believe in GW, what does reducing CO2 have to do with cleaning air and water, other than to reduce GHGs? Trees and plant life even like the stuff.

I also have no faith in Al Gore to accomplish anything.

He's in no position of power to accomplish the things that are needed to achieve the environmental goals you and I want, even aside from GW. Without a government to take leadership responsibility, or a media that used to be the people's watchdog yet has become a lapdog for fluff and Fair and Balanced BS, we have desperately needed someone to champion this cause and unite the scientists, the people, and government. A lot of PR must be involved. And Gore, no matter what your opinion of him, has stepped up to this and been very successful, so far. I've heard several personal anecdotes where he has inspired people from all walks of life to make it a priority to work toward real solutions. If we progress, it's thanks to him.

He is in many ways the greatest distraction of all.

If you're a believer (in a cleaner environment), there's no reason he'd be a distraction unless it's your problem. If not, again, he is changing hearts and minds in the way no one else has. For the good, I would argue.

The Democrats have bungled this in every way by jumping on the hysteria bandwagon.

If they're jumping on, you're one of the drivers of that bandwagon.

Global Warming does not need

Submitted by tma on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 2:19pm.

Global Warming does not need one to believe in it to be true.

Okay tma,

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 5:36pm.

Global Warming does not need one to believe in it to be true.

Sort of a if a tree falls in the woods kind of statement...thanks for playing.

This just in:

A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

Newswise — A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of geography and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

So easy to scam true believers

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 1:07am.

David Bromwich isn't on your team

Team? Which team? You mean the Exxon team? You may not have heard, they want to play ball. You mean Team McCain? You may not have heard, they also want to play ball.

And the ball they want to play is Three Card Monte. Carbon emission credits.

I am on team skeptic. In fact I am on team Randi Skeptic. Which if you remember anything I write you already know. We have been down this path before.

Why am I skeptical? Because if man can affect climate it will be by more than just carbon dioxide emissions. We still do not understand the mechanism of climate. But John McCain is ready to accept an arbitrage game that will make millions and perhaps billions in commissions for financial traders. But what will it do for the environment? Think that is why Wolfowitz is on board?

I have a lower carbon footprint than most people on this board. There are many tests you can take. Take one. The power plant built last week in China will dwarf anything a single family will do.

If you read the fine print in the McCain story the legislators want a new Kyoto. Just like me. Skeptics are needed to keep this straight. The real enablers are the ones who believe that the cure is carbon emissions credits.

If CO2 is the villain then show the mechanism. Show how it works. Create a real Kyoto that makes all countries take meaningful steps to affect the problem. Which should include methane and sulfur dioxide. Neither of which will be easy to do. In fact they both may be very difficult to do.

If CO2 is real, then increase CAFE standards and require scrubbers on smokestacks. But make the requirement for all nations. Because if it is real it is Global. Right?

It won't happen. What will happen is farmers will be paid to do no till farming on a carbon emission credit scam that will not be verified.

All of this nonsense about tipping points and deniers is pure politics. Only sheeple and true believers will buy it.

This is not science, it is politics. And more importantly it is a con. Follow the money, who gets rich on carbon emission credits?

Outstanding

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 9:04am.

Your citation of David Bromwich: I am presenting a paper at the same conference as him in April ((link...)). I am going to his session and, afterwards, I am going to ask him if he thinks that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

Economics is not climate. I get your point but do you see the difference? Probably not.

Ask Bromwich how carbon emission credits will accomplish any meaningful reduction in CO2. Ask him how allowing coal plants in China to pollute and then having farmers do no-till farming will even out CO2 emissions.

I will be looking for the YouTube. Have him give a shout out to Number9.

Going to play rope-a-dope?

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 12:26pm.

But carbon emissions are economics. Carbon emissions affect the climate. What????

Cat got your tongue?

Al Gore is in the drivers seat...

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 3:12pm.

You got your wish.

Al Gore for President.

Cue the Fleetwood Mac song.

Don't stop believing in new taxes,

Don't stop caring about the planet,

Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.

Why not think about times to come,
And not about the things that youve done,

If your life was bad to you,
Just think what tomorrow will do.

Vote for Captain Planet,
He'll save the day.

Chorus

Dont stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Dont stop, itll soon be here,
Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.

All I want is to see you smile,
If it takes just a little while,
I know you dont believe that its true,
I never meant any harm to you.

Dont stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Dont stop, itll soon be here,
Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.

Umm, Don't Stop was

Submitted by Rachel on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 4:10pm.

Umm, Don't Stop was Clinton's theme song, not Gore's.

Be careful...

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 5:45pm.

You got your wish.

No, you got yours. You helped get ExxonMobil's puppet, the Decidinator in power instead. And now there are far too many scandals, lies, broken international treaties, debt, and wars to even try and keep track of.

Do you honestly think we as a country are better of than we were 6 years ago?

9, I have the perfect book

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 10:08am.

9, I have the perfect book for you. It's called The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites

9, I have the perfect book for you

Submitted by Number9 on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 10:17am.

Sven, I know about LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche is craaazy. L Ron crazy.

I read that book

Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 1:48pm.

9, I have the perfect book for you. It's called The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites

I didn't find anything really new in it.

Y'all are making my

Submitted by Socialist With ... on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 10:24am.

Y'all are making my prophetic dream come true. Nine, ever been to Fulton County, Tennessee?

--Socialist With A Gold Card

"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler

Oh nos! The bastards got

Submitted by Sven on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 10:29am.

Oh nos! The bastards got Wolfowitz!

Eh, on second thought he ain't that hard to get.

The Linkinator

Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2007/02/15 - 5:50pm.

You apparently think the one who links the most wins the debate. You're getting to be an embarrassment. At least I'm embarrassed to be wasting any more time on you.

Actually I think we are all wasting our time.

Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 12:25am.

And I for one am just not going to even bother to read any more drivel from the digit. I have better things to do and better plants to save.

"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

Agreed

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 12:56am.

And I for one am just not going to even bother to read any more drivel from the digit. I have better things to do and better plants to save.

Well, you said it in writing. I expect you to keep your word.

Hey 9...

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 7:49am.

Go back in the building...the authorities have it all under control. There's nothing to worry about. Go back to your office in the building and just wait...

Close to home

Submitted by Up Goose Creek on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 8:12am.

Here's a little personal family background, 9:

Grandpapaw is one of the smartest people I know. He has studied carbon cycles for 50+ years and has been jetted throughout the world to present at countless conferences and share his views on global warming. Even in retirement.

A few other observations:

I've never known Grandpapaw to lie.

He is a big believer in capitalism.

Tax avoidance is a favorite hobby, I can't imagine him wanting to raise taxes.

So when I read your comments I take it as a personal & family affront. He's still with us and living in the area if you want to talk to a real live expert who's not a member of some mysterious Cabal.

Global warming is very real to him and he has the facts and figures and scientific background to back it up.

situational science and vertical parks

Submitted by Number9 on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 4:13pm.

Oh behave.

For the viewing audience that doesn't understand the "vertical parks" reference, that was a well received metaphor of mine from a few years back about how public money should be spent. Obviously not universally well received.

In those days I was accused of being a "Greenie", a leader in the Green Party. Times change. I am now accused of being a Libertarian.

Back to our regular programming.

Anyone out there see how carbon emission credits will work?

Anyone?

Anybody?

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 11:42pm.

Anyone out there see how carbon emission credits will work?

Plenty of people understand how they work. It's simple market dynamics. You likely can understand how they work, were you to try. Companies buy credits for the emissions they generate. Instead of polluting the air we all breathe for nothing, they pay for the privilege. This gives them an incentive to be cleaner, and demand for clean technologies (many of which exist already) rises.

Europe has been operating an emissions market for a few years. They sold the credits too cheaply and are tweaking the system, and any sensibly designed market would work that way, erring low and ramping up the credit price gradually and predictably.

It is trivially easy to build an emissions market whose economic benefits outweigh its disruptive potential if people who understand math, not politicians, design the market.

With the current crop of corporatists inhabiting Congress, we could very well get a dipshit version of the solution, but even the corporate world now understands the risks of rising sea levels, altered rainfall patterns and more energetic storms (whether those storms are hurricanes or blizzards). Most corporations prefer predictable taxes on behaviors they can control, like emissions, to the volatility of permits, fines and changing climate. Also, the existing permitting system provides an infrastructure for credit markets, making their adoption easier still.

Let me rephrase the question for added clarity

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 2:46pm.

Most corporations prefer predictable taxes on behaviors they can control, like emissions, to the volatility of permits, fines and changing climate. Also, the existing permitting system provides an infrastructure for credit markets, making their adoption easier still.

When I asked, "Anyone out there see how carbon emission credits will work"; what I was asking is how a system of carbon emission credits will accomplish any meaningful change in the reduction of CO2 levels?

The idea that a polluting coal fired plant in China can sell carbon credits to a farmer in Uruguay to do no-till farming is pretty goofy. Who will verify if the farmer actually complies? Second question, wouldn't installing scrubbers on the Coal fired plant in China be not only simpler but much more effective?

But noooo, then there would be no Far Left Liberal Utopian tax system in place. Isn't this just another World Government tax system via the United Nations? Isn't it just another goofy transfer of wealth tax system?

Reducing air pollution is a good thing no matter where it is done. The idea of carbon credits makes little sense in improving local or regional air quality. Isn't this just paying for a certificate to pollute?

Hence the Three Card Monte analogy.

I await your illumination as I am sure you can explain this.

Did you ever read Nelle's

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 3:22pm.

Did you ever read Nelle's link? Can you name three kinds of market failure?

rikki,

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 3:37pm.

Did you ever read Nelle's link? Can you name three kinds of market failure?

I have answered that a couple of times obviously not to your satisfaction. Still stuck in the k2k world of tricks aren't you? Call Cafkia, you need backup. Call the pack, you need a little help.

Those that have to insult people and play little debate games show the shallowness of their convictions and that their greatest fear is that they cannot support their ideology.

I see you are a hard core adherent of this.

I have answered that a

Submitted by Rachel on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 4:19pm.

I have answered that a couple of times obviously not to your satisfaction. Still stuck in the k2k world of tricks aren't you? Call Cafkia, you need backup. Call the pack, you need a little help.

Those that have to insult people and play little debate games show the shallowness of their convictions and that their greatest fear is that they cannot support their ideology.

So is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Dodging a question is not

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 5:08pm.

Dodging a question is not the same as answering it. I've asked that question a few times. The closest you've come to an answer is "I thought it was a rhetorical question."

What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?

Okay, I’ll give it a try. I am guessing as to what you want here

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 12:56pm.

Dodging a question is not the same as answering it. I've asked that question a few times. The closest you've come to an answer is "I thought it was a rhetorical question."

What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?

Three types of market failures: Monopoly, Oligopoly, and Cartel.

How is “market failure” related to either carbon credits or carbon taxes? rikki I believe will make the case that the current market conditions are a “market failure” now because they do not efficiently allocate goods and services since there is not a tax for “bad behavior”.

I get the idea. I do not however agree with this contention. It depends on who is the decider.

Who is the authority whether coal fired power plants or gasoline fueled automobiles efficiently allocate goods and services? Number9 or Al Gore? Al Gore will tell you that since there is NO carbon tax that the allocation of goods and services are not efficient. Number9 will tell you that you cannot tax you way to prosperity.

I believe rikki will say that government mandates for higher CAFE standards and scrubbers on smokestacks are an indirect tax because those costs are passed on to the customer.

The problem is this, you see that taxing “bad behavior” is good economics. I question who is it that gets to define “bad behavior”. Again the collectivist viewpoint is much different than the individualist viewpoint. And before you start, the individualist viewpoint does not automatically mean Libertarian. Conservatives also can take the individualist viewpoint.

If I want to fly to Sandestin instead drive how is that “bad behavior”?

what's my favorite color?

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 2:06pm.

Why would you speculate as to what I might believe when I'm right here and can save you the trouble by telling you directly?

Is it because you are a saboteur out to destroy conversations?

Mr. Neal or Mr. Moderator, are Niner's efforts to ascribe ideas and positions to me by sheer guesswork a violation of site rules for which he should be warned?

if you don't want "guesswork"...

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 2:32pm.

What market failures are pertinent to a discussion of how to reduce emissions?

Then ask a question that doesn't take a mind reader to answer.

I have no idea what you are looking for. I made a good faith effort to meet in the middle and now you want a warning issued. Nice touch though calling for the moderators.

You remind me of some of the TA's I had at UT. Speak English and stop whining.

You are attempting to play chess on a checker board. You're just mad I see where your little game is going. Maybe I should just cut to the chase and let the audience in on this end game.

rikki is using "competition" [actually the lack of competition] as a validation of carbon credits and carbon taxes.

Nice try. You telegraphed the punch. I have a lot of liberal friends. I saw this coming long before you made your play.

It is an interesting gambit. I could make a case for it. It doesn't really hold water but it is rather brilliant as a diversion. You do know the tricks. You must have been hell back in the old days.

So we have covered science, faith, superstition, religion, and now economics.

What next rikki? How about numerology? Heh, that was a good one.

Sadly, moderation abuse has occurred

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 3:37pm.

One of the moderators has over stepped the boundary and removed a comment that did not violate the site rules.

You can go to Say Uncle to pick up what was deleted.

I see it takes a pack to discuss this issue. One of the most gutless transgressions yet. Again, no email, no warning, and no explanation.

Whoever you are, you are a coward.

The user agreement is a two way street. You have violated your own rules.

Pertinent excerpts from the

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 3:56pm.

Pertinent excerpts from the site rules:

"Stick to the facts. Don't post gossip or rumors that are hurtful to others or that will get you in trouble. Don't post private information about anyone else without their permission...Violators of these rules will have the inappropriate material removed, and their user ID, e-mail address, and/or IP address banned."

"Such posts and comments are subject to being deleted or unpublished by management, all decisions are final, and management is under no obligation to explain their actions."

Instead of whining, maybe you should apologize for trying to speak for me.

rikki

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 4:03pm.

Instead of whining, maybe you should apologize for trying to speak for me.

I have not in any way tried to speak for you. I have asked for clarification on your question. I would like to discuss it as it is both pertinent and interesting. However, I cannot answer a question if I do not understand it. It is too broad of a question. I asked you for further explanation.

You don't want me to guess, then explain the question with enough detail so I can attempt to answer it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I would like to learn what your argument is. And maybe I would learn something. Meet me half way and the discussion can resume.

rikki are you a moderator?

You obviously don't

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 4:49pm.

You obviously don't understand what I say when I use words that seem clear to me, so I'm trying to figure out where YOU are coming from so I can explain things in YOUR terms. That's why I'm asking you questions. There is no need to guess what my argument is. I have already stated it, but you did not understand. I'm trying to find a common language in which to be understood.

You said you know what market failures are, so why are you so bewildered by my question? I'm sure you know what the words "emissions" and "pertinent" mean. Where is the problem?

The Nelle link I keep bugging you about is a description of market failures as they pertain to emissions, btw.

And no, I'm not a moderator. But I sure as hell can recognize when someone is trying to speak for me. It's phrases like "rikki will say" and "rikki I believe will make the case that" that tip me off. It's too bad for you the moderators republished your post since it so blatantly contradicts your denial.

You can go to Say Uncle to

Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 4:19pm.

You can go to Say Uncle to pick up what was deleted.

You know, that's an excellent idea. I appreciate you taking the copyrighted materials over there. Maybe you can take this with you, too?

Just saw this post. Got it.

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 5:15pm.

Just saw this post. Got it.

PhD for the greatest mind of our time

Submitted by Number9 on Wed, 2007/02/21 - 12:14am.

Oscar nomination, Nobel Prize nomination, and now a honorary degree for his work in climatology.

When is the coronation?

pleader of the lack

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 11:40pm.

In those days I was accused of being a "Greenie", a leader in the Green Party. Times change. I am now accused of being a Libertarian.

Actually, you were accused of being a saboteur of the Greens, and now you are accused of being a saboteur of economics, science and mathematics. Things haven't changed all that much.

Actually...

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Sat, 2007/02/17 - 8:09am.

Actually, you were accused of being a saboteur...

Rikki, you prompt me to posit something that follows from your observation.

Is Number 9:

1. Really this dense, erratic, and unstable?
2. A paid operative like JR and CBT
3. Acting on a deathwish?

How else can you explain anyone's pathological opposition to overwhelming Worldwide consensus that Climate Change will have devastating consequences if we don't act universally and immediately?

Steve

Stds of Ev

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sat, 2007/02/17 - 12:01pm.

Remember that your ko0ky klaims are 'facts', and that 'facts' do not require proof.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

The initial point of this, I

Submitted by WhitesCreek on Fri, 2007/02/16 - 3:29pm.

The initial point of this, I think, was that those that disagree should not be treated as criminals.

What about people who lie and cause harm? That was the real thrust on the discussion.

More k00kery: When you're

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 4:16pm.

More k00kery: When you're losing an argument, claim victory!

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Andy, not even a player

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 4:50pm.

More k00kery: When you're losing an argument, claim victory!

There hasn't been enough discussion to even call this an argument. It is mostly name calling and taunts.

I remember when the butterfly wrote you would eviscerate me in a debate. Yet all you have have one liners. At least edens is funny. At least gemini and rikki have passion.

No mas, Andy? Tao of the kOOk is all you've got?

[Of course not, digit. I could resort to vandalizing your posts... --aa]

Okay

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 3:39pm.

[Of course not, digit. I could resort to vandalizing your posts... --aa]

Did you just do that Andy?

Oh lord, Nine, arguing about

Submitted by edens on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 6:34pm.

Oh lord, Nine, arguing about the argument again?

What gets me is that Mr. runs around claiming secret commie cabals of "New Urbanists" are plotting to take your car away and force you to live in a concrete highrise seems blissfully unaware that he and Roberts are heads and tails of the same nutter coin.

Your initial argument, btw, is bollocks. Criticism, no matter how inflamatory, isn't supression of speech, even if said criticism amounts to lobbying for supression. As a citizen, Roberts can demand that the government make farting illegal, if he wants, it's a free country.

This is futile.

Submitted by Andy Axel on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 6:39pm.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

I concur,

Submitted by Number9 on Sun, 2007/02/18 - 6:47pm.

rikki should stop being the John Cleese character. Thank you Andy.

There. There's your comment

Submitted by R. Neal on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 4:12pm.

There. There's your comment back, #9. Happy? Thankfully the world will now not miss out on all this brilliant insight.

Carry on. What it is y'all are doing I'm not exactly clear, but carry on.

P.S. Nine, we're still waiting to hear where you stand on Big Bangism...

Mucho gracias

Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2007/02/19 - 4:18pm.

P.S. Nine, we're still waiting to hear where you stand on Big Bangism...

I like Big Bangism. Not sold on string theory. Oops, I did it again.

Discussing:

Meanwhile... the pandemic (3 replies)
Last day to early vote (7 replies)
The situation (348 replies)
Some random thoughts before the Apocalypse (3 replies)
timeline (11 replies)
Knoxville tourism rates higher than many other states (2 replies)
So it begins, political violence from the Right (1 reply)
Special accommodations for voters with COVID-19 or in quarantine (1 reply)
GOP/Trump 2nd Term priorities - Parody? (4 replies)
Blount County with more COVID-19 deaths per population than Knox (3 replies)
Mask Mandate Impacts on TN Hospitalizations (4 replies)
Questions of our County leaders before tonight (18 replies)

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Comment viewing options

Discussing:

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

Search and Archives

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large:

About KnoxViews

Sections

Local Media

Government