The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Truthseeker]

WHICH government? The one without borders?



PLAN on? Again, which government are you talking about?

What is your definition of "government"?

Yeah, I see your diversion... so, you're saying that the American government screwed it up worse than it was? Meanwhile, would you want to live there?

Diversion? You were the one who first mentioned Somalia. As for living there, I think there are places outside the USA and Somalia I would rather live in. As for the USFG screwing up Somalia, I guess so.

bedtime, will answer the thread remainder tomorrow, maybe.

[Psychic Missile]

Sinclair Lewis was a paid stooge for the meat packing industry. The companies at the top of the heap wanted regulation so it would drive their smaller competitors out of business. Kinda like our current mess, where the insurance companies fell over one another trying to help implement Obamacare.

That doesn't mean those deplorable conditions didn't actually exist, which is what matters.

My dear PM. Comcast is running into competition all over the place. AT&T has been expanding its cable service in recent years and satellite companies have been around, on the cable business for over 20 years now. Might I add, that the cable companies did try to knee cap the satellite companies, with dumb regs (I remember there was some dumb one that they couldn't provide local TV channels, in which the cable companies ensured they were not allowed to do) and nobody had to make AT&T expand into the cable business. They are doing it, on their own (same is true for the cable companies expanding into phone and internet service, nobody made them do it, they did it on their own). I'm not sure about Monsanto and out pricing people isn't grounds for not shopping somewhere else. You still have a choice to shop somewhere else, besides, last I checked, Wal-Mart is far from the only game in town in most places nor are they always the cheapest.

Comcast's business plan was to buy out local cable companies to create local monopolies and drive out new businesses by temporarily undercosting them when they're already forced to sell at a loss. What good is it for consumers when instead of one company seeking local monopolies there's two? Wal-Mart normally has the cheapest prices around, so the people who shop there can least afford to spend a little more money for the choice to shop somewhere else the least. These are just examples of businesses harming consumers and still getting their business. There are other factors that determine how someone spends their money than price and quality.

There is nothing wrong with some regs PM. The problem is that people don't get reelected nor promoted to a better office without making some kind of change regardless of if that change was any better than what was already in place to begin with. Plus, as OBP pointed out, regulations are a great way for rich companies, like Wal-Mart, Comcast, Monsanto, or Bank of America to destroy their local competition. Billion dollar companies could afford the cost of changing things around to meet the new regs because they often have millions or even billions to spare while local or upstarts do not have that luxury and are often ran out of business or prevented from expanding to be a serious threat. Having the government knee cap your competition for you is sure a lot easier than trying to compete with them, on an even floor.

I agree, but this is more a political problem than an issue of regulation existing in the first place.

Yeah, I guess that wouldn't matter to you.

It does not matter to me when an example of deregulation leading to harm for consumers happened.

That's just goofy. So, I HAVE to go to Walmart? I CAN'T shop at Target? Krogers? HEB? Sears?

Depending upon the circumstances, no you can't.

Wow.... so, when I am FORCED to shop in Walmart, I will get caught in a fire and die.

Do Walmarts have Triangle Waistshirt factories in them?

Really? Than why do I have some friends that keep smoking; despite knowing the dangers and knowing the cost. They buy them anyway.

I would assume because statistics aren't based on anecdotes.

Really PM, you said that, with a straight face? What interest, would the food industry and business, in general, have in making people sick or not improving conditions? While there sure is examples of this not happening, I could give you examples that say otherwise.

Profit. That's why businesses exist at all.

We do? So who forced the auto industry to certify mechanics? Oh, they did that on their own. How about the Better Business Bureau? Oh, that are not ran by the government either. Gosh PM, do you want even more examples of that not being true? Business have very little interest in doing things that is going to knee cap themselves. Although ironically, pursuing regulations often does help them to knee cap their competition though. Do you want examples of when that went on, in American history? If can provide it, if you so desire.

None of this refutes what I said. I don't disagree with any of this.

[Truthseeker]

1) You changed the question.
2) No, it was the question asked which I had addressed. You subsequently changed it.

I was trying to make the question better. And would you please stop quibbling and go with the best question.

3) Two words: human nature

I don't quite see what that is a reply to. But certainly to be realistic one must take human nature into account. One aspect we have to keep in mind is that any time the world hands a group tremendous power, it won't use the power to make the world better. Rather, the group will use the power for its own ends as far as it can get away with such use.

4) Man also ate dirt in his food and couldn't heat the house without filling it with smoke - 'they did it' isn't much of an argument.

OK, good point. But you do concede at least that the State is not really necessary.

5) Railroads only go where they can make money - the result was highly underserved areas where large shipping capacity wasn't necessary. See West Alabama - that's what would likely have happened had we relied solely on rails. Don't move there if you plan to find a job.

You failed to address whether building the interstate highways really did make the world better than otherwise.

[Truthseeker]

That's just ignorant. What restaurant or food provider wants to deal with the firestorm of public outrage?

PsychicM was arguing for regulations and the threat of regulations. That is based on the assumption of powerful yet good government. He needs to prove we can have that.

I'm not sure what Cow Poke means by "firestorm." People complaining about not getting good value from a business causes it to get a bad reputation. That possibility can be an effective prod toward providing good value for a business' offerings. Also, simply NOT purchasing a business' offerings any more (boycotting) can weed out bad businesses. That threat is also another prod to treat one's customers well.

[Truthseeker]

No they don't. Look at Comcast, Monsanto, Walmart, and Bank of America.

You do know that the last 3 companies are in cahoots with the federal government? The bank in particular is a "too big to fail" biz. Not sure about Comcast, but it enjoys monopoly privileges enforced by governments.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure what Cow Poke means by "firestorm."

You could always ASK him.

[One Bad Pig]

That doesn't mean those deplorable conditions didn't actually exist, which is what matters.

Not sure they actually existed. It wouldn't have been the last time the truth was embellished to achieve the desired result (see, oh, the main topic of this thread for example).

[Zymologist]

Not sure they actually existed. It wouldn't have been the last time the truth was embellished to achieve the desired result (see, oh, the main topic of this thread for example).

Wait...you mean to tell me that the truth is exaggerated for political ends? I'll believe it when I see it.

[Teallaura]

I was trying to make the question better. And would you please stop quibbling and go with the best question.I don't quite see what that is a reply to. But certainly to be realistic one must take human nature into account. One aspect we have to keep in mind is that any time the world hands a group tremendous power, it won't use the power to make the world better. Rather, the group will use the power for its own ends as far as it can get away with such use.OK, good point. But you do concede at least that the State is not really necessary.
You failed to address whether building the interstate highways really did make the world better than otherwise.

Blast - I lost my answer when it logged me out. I'm sorry, I'm not doing all that work again. Maybe later.

[lilpixieofterror]

Comcast's business plan was to buy out local cable companies to create local monopolies and drive out new businesses by temporarily undercosting them when they're already forced to sell at a loss. What good is it for consumers when instead of one company seeking local monopolies there's two?

That might of worked back in the 90's PM, but it doesn't work anymore for the cable companies. As I recall, they offer 3 things anymore, phone, TV, and internet. The phone has always been offered by phone companies and the rise of cell phones gives you more options there too. Internet is the same way too. The phone companies also offer internet service and wireless providers also offer an internet service too. This just leaves their tradition bread and butter, TV service, but they still don't have that market captured either. They have the satellite companies to deal with and many of the traditional phone companies are expanding their business into TV service as well. So cable is actually a pretty bad example for 2014. While cable monopolies existed pre mid 1990's and you were pretty much forced to either do business with them or else you dealt with rabbit ears or a large TV antenna, you don't have to deal exclusive with them anymore. A much better example would be the electric or gas companies, but the problem you run into there is that those monopolies exist because of the government.

Wal-Mart normally has the cheapest prices around, so the people who shop there can least afford to spend a little more money for the choice to shop somewhere else the least. These are just examples of businesses harming consumers and still getting their business. There are other factors that determine how someone spends their money than price and quality.

I don't know where you've been shopping, but I have discovered Wal-Mart is cheaper on some items, but not all. Also, when it comes to nitch items, Wal-Mart tends to be rather behind in selection, quality, or both. Even then, having cheaper prices does not make you a monopoly. Do you even know what a monopoly is, PM? I should also add there is always examples of business harming customers and their customers end up abounding them. GM only exist today because the government bailed them out. For years, they built crappy cars and ones that were a danger to their customers (see the ignition switch issue that has come back to haunt them this year). As a result, the government had to bail them out or else there would be no GM today. The point is though is that you're totally wrong about Wal-Mart and you end up being wrong about business being dangerous and still end up making money too. Wal-Mart is not a monopoly (being cheap does not make you a monopoly) and they face much stiff competition from other rivals. Target, K-Mart, Sears, JCPenny, Macy's, Amazon, Kroger, other local grocery chains, nitch stores (like Game Stop or Best Buy) etc are just a few of the competitions that Wal-Mart faces in one or more markets. GM nearly went bankrupt from their crappy products and only exist today because they were deemed 'to big to fail'.

I agree, but this is more a political problem than an issue of regulation existing in the first place.

Is that anymore of an issue than speed limit laws needed to exist when most people should know what a safe speed limit is, in more areas? Laws or regulations exist for some pretty good reasons. Dishonest and bad people exist and the same is true for businesses. There is such thing as a dishonest or bad business, so you need laws and regulations to deal with them. Also with the reality of the international community, you need to let companies that primarily exist outside the US know what the expeditions are to do business here. You also need to set clear standards for local companies (face it, not everybody has sense). Of course, the biggest problem I find with regulations today is how they are used to knee cap smaller business to prevent them from becoming big ones to rival the traditional ones that already exist. The billion dollar companies can afford to hire a few new people, keep lawyers on staff to keep up with changes in laws, or make other changes to keep up with these regs. Companies that don't have billions sitting around, can't do that. Thus big business has effectively knee capped its competition and prevented them from being serious threats.

I would assume because statistics aren't based on anecdotes.

You didn't present any statistics, you presented something you claimed X group said, but nothing to back up that claim. If somebody wants to smoke, they are going to do it, no matter how much you end up changing them. I've seen people pay out the nose, just so they could smoke.

Profit. That's why businesses exist at all.

And is it going to be very profitable, in the long run, for a company to make a living out of screwing over its customer base?

None of this refutes what I said. I don't disagree with any of this.

You claim we need the government to keep things in check. Business seem to often go out there and do things to regulate themselves so they don't need the government to do it for them. ASE is a great example of this and a pretty big success story at that. They have, pretty successfully, regulated the car mechanic industry without the government to do it for them.

[Truthseeker]

Wait...you mean to tell me that the truth is exaggerated for political ends? I'll believe it when I see it.

Wow, someone who believes pols tell the truth most of the time. Or were you kidding?

[Psychic Missile]

You do know that the last 3 companies are in cahoots with the federal government? The bank in particular is a "too big to fail" biz. Not sure about Comcast, but it enjoys monopoly privileges enforced by governments.

You think people can take their business elsewhere if they are unhappy. I don't see how government involvement factors into the reasons that they can't. In my response to LPoT in post #302, I outlined how these companies' business plans were to specifically limit competition.

Not sure they actually existed. It wouldn't have been the last time the truth was embellished to achieve the desired result (see, oh, the main topic of this thread for example).

There was a federal investigation.

[One Bad Pig]

There was a federal investigation.

Source: TR's speech

I call special attention to the fact that this report is preliminary, and that the investigation is still unfinished. It is not yet possible to report on the alleged abuses in the use of deleterious chemical compounds in connection with canning and preserving meat products; nor on the alleged doctoring in this fashion of tainted meat and of products returned to the packers as having grown unsalable or unusable from age or from other reasons. Grave allegations are made in reference to abuses of this nature. Let me repeat that under the present law there is practically no method of stopping these abuses if they should be discovered to exist. Legislation is needed in order to prevent the possibility of all abuses in the future. (June 4, 1906 speech)

During our investigation statements of conditions and practices in the packing houses, together with affidavits and documentary evidence, were offered us from numerous sources. Most of these were rejected as being far from proving the facts alleged and as being beyond the possibility of verification by us. (June 2, 1906 report)

© Copyright Original Source

I also note in section III of the report that the investigators inspected a slaughterhouse in New York City of which they very much approved. Did you read what you linked to? It confirms, not disputes, my contention.

[Zymologist]

Wow, someone who believes pols tell the truth most of the time. Or were you kidding?

[John Reece]

Back to the thread topic...

From John Hinderaker at Powerline:

ON EVAPORATION, THE SCIENTIFIC BATTLE RAGES

Since they lose pretty much every argument, the global warming fraudsters try to tell us that the science is settled, and we should all just shut up. In fact, however, debates over various aspects of climate science are constantly raging. This one is a great example: “Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates.”

But first, let’s set the stage. It is generally accepted that ceteris paribus, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will tend to increase global temperatures, slightly. The problem–from the warmists’ standpoint–is that the increase is trivial, 1 degree C tops. So the only way the alarmists can create frightening scenarios is by hypothesizing positive feedback effects that will increase that one degree to six or seven. It is easy to devise a model that incorporates extravagant feedback assumptions, and therefore will kick out scary predictions. Fantasy in, fantasy out.

In fact, there is a vigorous debate about feedbacks: What are they? Are they positive or negative? If positive (or negative), what is their magnitude? Science does not yet give us the answers to these questions. So the debate goes on. This analysis suggests that the alarmists’ models have failed to deal properly with evaporation, and that may account for the fact that they have proved to be wildly inaccurate. It is instructive to read the entire post, and then the comments. Having done so, contemplate the liberals’ hysterical insistence that the debate is over. In fact, as any rational observer can see, the debate has barely begun:

[See here for Hinderaker's selected excerpt from “Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates.”]

There is much, much more, replete with equations and calculations. Is this analysis correct? I am not competent to judge, but it is obvious even to the casual observer that all of the real climate science is currently being done by the realists, not the alarmists. Far from being complete, our understanding of the Earth’s climate is in its infancy. The last thing we should do at this point is be guided by politically-motivated charlatans who try to shut down the process of scientific inquiry.