Weather Channel Founder says"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History

[owsley]

As long as it's voluntary, and not "we are taking your resources for your own damn good", that is perfectly fine. In fact it's more than fine, I would probably be in support of something like that if given the choice. But the implication of what a lot of posters are saying seems to be that someone has to force people to adopt "government research", or else magical stuff like computers and the internet and solar power aren't possible. That is untrue and immoral for several reasons.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not even adressing my argument at all. I'm not saying the government should control everything, I'm not saying the market is useless. Information simply does not always spread as readily and quickly as you seem to imply. I'm talking about a very specific issue and you keep praising the market in a pointlessly general sense.

People do know, roughly speaking, what energy sources can replace oil. With some concerted social efforts, this country could easily be less dependent on oil than it is now. Might this reduce the standard of living to some degree? Quite possibly. It might not be the "most efficient" energy source. But the long term costs (even short term, see Iraq War) of oil dependence are simply ignored because unlike space shuttle explosions, the facts aren't slapping people in the face.

[/ QUOTE ]

You want the same government that will spend $2 trillion to keep us safe from Iraq to solve our energy problem? You are assuming too much of what those in power can decide what the solutions are to our problems and how to solve them. When oil is expensive enough alternatives will appear, in the meantime its a cheap supply of energy.

[xorbie]

Do you even read my posts?

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you even read my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You say the government isn't the answer the markets aren't bad I have a mystical belief in markets and I give no specifics.

You believe energy independence can be solved quicker through a large capital infusion by the Government. I have attempted to point out why I do not believe this and the fact that solar may not eventually be the answer. I believe the great market economy that has brought us so many goods and services that a planned economy like the USSR could never provide (despite enermous reserves of oil and natural resources)will bring to us energy alternatives. Governement has a dismal track record of providing value for money spent.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

You believe energy independence can be solved quicker through a large capital infusion by the Government. I have attempted to point out why I do not believe this and the fact that solar may not eventually be the answer. I believe the great market economy that has brought us so many goods and services that a planned economy like the USSR could never provide (despite enermous reserves of oil and natural resources)will bring to us energy alternatives. Governement has a dismal track record of providing value for money spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who got into space first? I mean, you act like the USSR just started up and crapped out immediatly. It's like... market provides everything automatically, despite the fact that historically the "common man" has been pretty bad at responding to public good issues like environmental harm.

You ignore the fact that government funded research has acheived a lot. I don't know what world you operate in, but it's not nearly as black and white as you make it seem.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There seems to me to be an implicit assumption that efficiency is very important. Clearly it is important, but only one of many factors that is used to take the measure of society. Even if government funded research is less efficient somehow, that isn't necessarily the be all and end all of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you need basic research, not just applied research. And profit organizations tend to prefer applied research. It gets too easy to say that 'the market would see the need for basic research' when little supports that notion. Esp. when you consider things such as patents and copyright it can get horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy. Nobody is talking about outlawing non-profit research.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You believe energy independence can be solved quicker through a large capital infusion by the Government. I have attempted to point out why I do not believe this and the fact that solar may not eventually be the answer. I believe the great market economy that has brought us so many goods and services that a planned economy like the USSR could never provide (despite enermous reserves of oil and natural resources)will bring to us energy alternatives. Governement has a dismal track record of providing value for money spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who got into space first? I mean, you act like the USSR just started up and crapped out immediatly. It's like... market provides everything automatically, despite the fact that historically the "common man" has been pretty bad at responding to public good issues like environmental harm.

You ignore the fact that government funded research has acheived a lot. I don't know what world you operate in, but it's not nearly as black and white as you make it seem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government can build an escalator to the clouds. It would be a great achievement. So what? You are the one who is short on specifics. I offer as evidence of the power of free markets all the great industries, products & services brought to us by the profit motive. You cite an environmental concern. Our air is healthier today then it was 30 years ago! There is agreat concern about the environment and their are laws that protect the environment from harm. I support governments role is protecting rights and property not not in allocating resources.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about a dictator? I think decisions like this should be left in the hand of competent decision makers, proven leaders and the scientific experts of their respective fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said those are mutually exclusive?

I think the decisions about what type of tree I should plant in my yard should be made by an expert arborist. You just want to pick a tree and plant it yourself.

Why must one of these two opinions dominate the other?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
wacki,

I agree with you completely. Academia-centered research is an area that is often gnored by free market advocates, despite the fact that results seem to historically be pretty good.

I'm simply saying that even if that weren't the case, wealth efficiency isn't the be all and end all of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think academic research is incompatible with a free market?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

People who are concerned about generating greenhouse gases are talking steps to reduce. If enough people think it is a problem green house gases will be reduced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you at least accept the fact that there might be bad results? Unlike the market, the laws of nature don't really respond to individidual preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Decisons in life are not made with certainty by anything or anyone. There are probabilities and estimates of costs and benefits. Nature and humans are in a constant state of adjustment to maximize utility. To have one person or a small group decide for the good of all when it comes to allocating resources does not seem to be as good as a market based solution. With a market based solution adjustments are constantly made to new information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep repeating this. Do you accept that some people know these probabilities and risks better than others? Do you accept that allowing the masses (who are uninformed, short sighted and greedy) to make decsions that affect everyone (including those who are more informed, doing the "right" thing) is a bit "unfair"?

You say that the market responds to new information, but there is always a large lag. In the case of environmental damage, this lag may be sufficient to move things into the "too late" case. Your faith in the market borders on religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you coming up with the "right" response faster than the market? For every case of "environmental damage" there may be a "correct" response, but there may also be several incorrect responses (from "experts" no less) that will actually make the situation worse. How is your selection process going to weed these out better than the market does and do so faster?