How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

If you did get money from state government, then your state income tax would go up. It's got to come from somewhere.

The problem is some townships get state money and we don;t.  So we're paying for those state taxes and not getting any back.  Our representatives are morons who can't get their act together and fight for us.  Yet, people keep re-electing them.  More morons.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

America has had a long history of anti-intellectualism...

Indeed:

[Chris Kern]

The government is getting out of the business of decided what kind of housing can be built where. Let the market decide.

Too bad the subtitle debunks the "deregulation" intention:
"Minneapolis’s answer to rising prices is meant to foster density and racial equity."

Actually, I think both points-of-view have some validity.

All zoning ordinances are a form of central planning.*  As long as they remain in place, the governmental entity that enacts them is making authoritative decisions about how the privately-owned land within its boundaries may be used.  Making the zoning rules less restrictive in certain areas of a city, as Minneapolis, Minnesota, is doing, increases the influence of market forces in those locations.  However, the city's decision was driven by policy considerations: to make housing more affordable for young people and ethnic minorities who were effectively precluded from moving into certain "single-family" residential neighborhoods by the price of land.

Whether the policy will have its intended effect is an open question.  Areas currently zoned for single-family homes in Minneapolis are composed of parcels of land that can only accommodate small two- or three-family buildings.  This change in the zoning rules may not provide sufficient economic incentive for developers to purchase those parcels and invest in the construction of small multi-family residences.

―――――
*For those unfamiliar with U.S. land use practices, the individual states typically delegate to their governmental subdivisions (counties, cities, towns, etc.) the authority to enact land-use regimes, typically called "zoning ordinances," which regulate the way parcels of land within their boundaries can be used.  The categories vary, but may include single-family residences, multi-family residences, high-density residences (i.e., large buildings containing many apartments or flats), office buildings, retail buildings, and various combinations of different categories.  These regulations often are designed to preserve the ambience of residential neighborhoods, which arguably is a good thing because it insulates the people who live in those places from what may be unwelcome change, but they also restrict what can be done with a property if its owner decides to sell it, which arguably is a bad thing because it reduces that value of the land and, therefore, the selling price.

[Peter McLennan]

More morons...

Everyone's a moron except you three, right?

[Alan Klein]

Actually, I think both points-of-view have some validity.

All zoning ordinances are a form of central planning.*  As long as they remain in place, the governmental entity that enacts them is making authoritative decisions about how the privately-owned land within its boundaries may be used.  Making the zoning rules less restrictive in certain areas of a city, as Minneapolis, Minnesota, is doing, increases the influence of market forces in those locations.  However, the city's decision was driven by policy considerations: to make housing more affordable for young people and ethnic minorities who were effectively precluded from moving into certain "single-family" residential neighborhoods by the price of land.

Whether the policy will have its intended effect is an open question.  Areas currently zoned for single-family homes in Minneapolis are composed of parcels of land that can only accommodate small two- or three-family buildings.  This change in the zoning rules may not provide sufficient economic incentive for developers to purchase those parcels and invest in the construction of small multi-family residences.

―――――
*For those unfamiliar with U.S. land use practices, the individual states typically delegate to their governmental subdivisions (counties, cities, towns, etc.) the authority to enact land-use regimes, typically called "zoning ordinances," which regulate the way parcels of land within their boundaries can be used.  The categories vary, but may include single-family residences, multi-family residences, high-density residences (i.e., large buildings containing many apartments or flats), office buildings, retail buildings, and various combinations of different categories.  These regulations often are designed to preserve the ambience of residential neighborhoods, which arguably is a good thing because it insulates the people who live in those places from what may be unwelcome change, but they also restrict what can be done with a property if its owner decides to sell it, which arguably is a bad thing because it reduces that value of the land and, therefore, the selling price.

Opening up a zone to multi-family housing could raise the value if your home's area is used to build a big building.  It could have the opposite effect if low income housing start to go in and reduces the value your property.  Frankly, I don;t think builders are going to go the cheap route.  They'll build condos which aren't cheap, especially if they're in prime downtown areas.  People making minimum wage still won;t be able to afford these homes.  I'm sure a lot of the push came from developers who stand to make a lot of money from all this.  But it could rejuvenate a lot of downtown areas of many cities that have grown decrepit over the years.

[BernardLanguillier]

Exactly, Alan, and this thread illustrates the fact beyond any doubt.

Interesting. Could you please spell it out Russ? What aspect of this thread do you think illustrates this long history of anti-intellectualism?

Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Interesting. Could you please spell it out Russ? What aspect of this thread do you think illustrates this long history of anti-intellectualism?

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard, to answer your question: This whole thread actually is about politics, as are most threads in The Coffee Corner. The thread pretends to be a discussion about science, but climate “science” is an oxymoron. It’s no more science than “social science,” or “political science.” As I wrote nearly 40 years ago in an essay titled “A Common Cause” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html):

“Meanwhile, seeing the public relations success achieved in fields like physics and chemistry and medicine, some branches of art and philosophy decided to get a piece of the action by proclaiming the application of “scientific method” to their own fields. ‘Disciplines’ such as economics and sociology were born and were christened with the oxymoron: ‘social science.’”

So what we see here is a series of political statements dressed up to appear “scientific.” We even have Bart’s charts and graphs to show the results of processes we actually know almost nothing about. Here’s another extract from that essay:

“The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.

“Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.”

This thread is a living illustration of all this.

[jeremyrh]

Hi Bernard, to answer your question: This whole thread actually is about politics, as are most threads in The Coffee Corner. The thread pretends to be a discussion about science, but climate “science” is an oxymoron. It’s no more science than “social science,” or “political science.” As I wrote nearly 40 years ago in an essay titled “A Common Cause” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html):

“Meanwhile, seeing the public relations success achieved in fields like physics and chemistry and medicine, some branches of art and philosophy decided to get a piece of the action by proclaiming the application of “scientific method” to their own fields. ‘Disciplines’ such as economics and sociology were born and were christened with the oxymoron: ‘social science.’”

So what we see here is a series of political statements dressed up to appear “scientific.” We even have Bart’s charts and graphs to show the results of processes we actually know almost nothing about. Here’s another extract from that essay:

“The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.

“Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.”

This thread is a living illustration of all this.

What a complete load of uninformed rubbish.  Firstly, the topic of the thread - as originally outlined by the OP (Bernard) - was to consider the media coverage of climate change, not to rehearse the arguments for and against, which is of no interest to anybody since the conclusions are clear.

Secondly, to claim that "climate science" is an oxymoron is merely to proclaim your utter ignorance of the field. If you have a substantive point to make then you are free to make it via the usual route - write it down and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, rather than rambling away on your personal website. To pretend that the legions of scholars who have been working in this field are dupes, and that you alone have pierced their disguise with your razor sharp intellect, is conceit of the highest order.

[Alan Klein]

Hi Bernard, to answer your question: This whole thread actually is about politics, as are most threads in The Coffee Corner. The thread pretends to be a discussion about science, but climate “science” is an oxymoron. It’s no more science than “social science,” or “political science.” As I wrote nearly 40 years ago in an essay titled “A Common Cause” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html):

“Meanwhile, seeing the public relations success achieved in fields like physics and chemistry and medicine, some branches of art and philosophy decided to get a piece of the action by proclaiming the application of “scientific method” to their own fields. ‘Disciplines’ such as economics and sociology were born and were christened with the oxymoron: ‘social science.’”

So what we see here is a series of political statements dressed up to appear “scientific.” We even have Bart’s charts and graphs to show the results of processes we actually know almost nothing about. Here’s another extract from that essay:

“The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.

“Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.”

This thread is a living illustration of all this.

But the premise is simple according to global warmists.  Since CO2 is increasing as is the temperature, they leap to the conclusion that the first must be causing the second.  The entire science is based on the faith that a single variable changes the climate.  Now why can't we have such a singular equation to make money in the market?

[jeremyrh]

But the premise is simple according to global warmists.  Since CO2 is increasing as is the temperature, they leap to the conclusion that the first must be causing the second.  The entire science is based on the faith that a single variable changes the climate.  Now why can't we have such a singular equation to make money in the market?

That is completely and utterly wrong. Maybe Bart or Bernard have the patience to explain to you how science works, but I certainly don't, so I will just suggest that you start reading some of the mass of literature published by such unreliable frauds as NASA.

[Alan Klein]

That is completely and utterly wrong. Maybe Bart or Bernard have the patience to explain to you how science works, but I certainly don't, so I will just suggest that you start reading some of the mass of literature published by such unreliable frauds as NASA.

Do I have to look at Bart's CO2 graph again?

[jeremyrh]

Do I have to look at Bart's CO2 graph again?

Look at what you want. Here is a simple start from those amateurs at MIT:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610225/what-the-hell-is-a-climate-modeland-why-does-it-matter/

[Alan Klein]

The physical property of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas has been known [/font][/size]since 1896[/font][/size] and those measurable properties have not changed.[/font][/size]Historical records (obviously) agree with physics. Most of the modeling required, is focusing on assumptions of how slow Humans will reduce their emissions, or destroy forrests, or change the way they grow enough food to feed the world ...Cheers,Bart

I figured I'd saved Bart the trouble.  Here's his chart.

[RSL]

What a complete load of uninformed rubbish.  Firstly, the topic of the thread - as originally outlined by the OP (Bernard) - was to consider the media coverage of climate change, not to rehearse the arguments for and against, which is of no interest to anybody since the conclusions are clear.

Secondly, to claim that "climate science" is an oxymoron is merely to proclaim your utter ignorance of the field. If you have a substantive point to make then you are free to make it via the usual route - write it down and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, rather than rambling away on your personal website. To pretend that the legions of scholars who have been working in this field are dupes, and that you alone have pierced their disguise with your razor sharp intellect, is conceit of the highest order.

As the duke said, Jeremy: "If you believe that, you will believe anything."

[Alan Klein]

Look at what you want. Here is a simple start from those amateurs at MIT:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610225/what-the-hell-is-a-climate-modeland-why-does-it-matter/

So they confirmed what I said.  A single variable, CO2, is responsible for climate change.  Nonsense.  They should go back to the drawing boards.

[jeremyrh]

So they confirmed what I said.  A single variable, CO2, is responsible for climate change.  Nonsense.  They should go back to the drawing boards.

Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.

[Alan Klein]

Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.

Your personal attacks are going to get the thread closed down.  If you disagree with my conclusion, just provide your counter statement and let it go. 

[faberryman]

Your personal attacks are going to get the thread closed down.

Promise?

[jeremyrh]

Your personal attacks are going to get the thread closed down.  If you disagree with my conclusion, just provide your counter statement and let it go.

Personal attack? Just a quote from Schiller.

As for counter statements, this thread is full of them, which you have completely ignored, just repeating your ignorant mantra.

[Alan Klein]

Personal attack? Just a quote from Schiller.

As for counter statements, this thread is full of them, which you have completely ignored, just repeating your ignorant mantra.

You're just a rude person.  Have a nice day.