Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Which Beliefs about Global Warming Are Legal?

 

It seems to me that there are about eight questions that you’d need to ask to learn someone’s full opinion about global warming:

  1. Is the planet currently warming?
  2. To what extent is anthropogenic carbon dioxide responsible for global warming?
  3. How bad will global warming get?
  4. How much time do we have to respond?
  5. When will our understanding of global warming be sufficient to allow us to deal with it effectively?
  6. When will technology be advanced enough to deal with global warming?
  7. How do we handle the economics of dealing with global warming?
  8. How do we handle the politics of dealing with global warming?

I made a list of what I thought were possible, reasonable answers to each of these questions, and came up with two answers for the first, four for the second, five for the third, and so on. Multiplying the number of possible answers for each question I got:

2 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 3 x 5 = 129,600

So there are 129,600 possible combinations of answers. Some of the possible combinations, though, are internally inconsistent. For example, someone who believes that global warming will never get bad at all would not believe that we need to respond right away. Being conservative (because, hey, we’re conservatives), let’s say that only 10 percent of the possible combinations are logically consistent. That leaves us with 12,960 possible opinions on global warming.

An important question for New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, then, is: Which of these 12,960 opinions are legal to hold? This is not a rhetorical question given that Mr. Schneiderman is currently investigating ExxonMobil for the possible crime of holding the wrong opinion.

Note: My “matrix” of questions and answers is available on request. Just send me a Ricochet message. 

There are 48 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. RightAngles Member

    Did you ever think you’d wake up in an America where opinions are illegal?

    • #1
    • November 30, 2016, at 4:22 PM PST
    • Like
  2. Scott Wilmot Member

    Richard,

    As a geologist (I worked for that spawn of Satan Exxon for 33 years), I think the first question people should be asked is if one has ever studied the geologic record.

    If they have, they will see that the earth has warmed and cooled over it’s entire history – what we called the Greenhouse and Icehouse conditions.

    Any opinion may be held, but there are basic facts that must be confronted.

    • #2
    • November 30, 2016, at 4:44 PM PST
    • Like
  3. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer Post author

    RightAngles:Did you ever think you’d wake up in an America where opinions are illegal?

    Schneiderman’s not really saying that holding any particular opinion is illegal, just that voicing certain opinions is tantamount to fraud, so that should make you feel much better.

    I guess we’ll need to live dual inner lives as people in the Soviet Union did. There will be ideas that we’ll have to keep to ourselves and those that we’re able to speak out loud. The next phase will be to provide us with the ideas that we are required to speak out loud.

    • #3
    • November 30, 2016, at 4:46 PM PST
    • Like
  4. blank generation member Inactive

    To get answers you must live in California. It’s all about the cow.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-cow-gas-20161129-story.html

    N.B. I must be a masochist to live in this state, but man does it crack me up.

    • #4
    • November 30, 2016, at 4:54 PM PST
    • Like
  5. MJBubba Inactive

    The answer to the first question is “maybe.”

    The answer to all the rest is “nobody knows.”

    • #5
    • November 30, 2016, at 5:38 PM PST
    • Like
  6. RightAngles Member

    Richard Fulmer:

    RightAngles:Did you ever think you’d wake up in an America where opinions are illegal?

    Schneiderman’s not really saying that holding any particular opinion is illegal, just that voicing certain opinions is tantamount to fraud, so that should make you feel much better.

    I guess we’ll need to live dual inner lives as people in the Soviet Union did. There will be ideas that we’ll have to keep to ourselves and those that we’re able to speak out loud. The next phase will be to provide us with the ideas that we are required to speak out loud.

    But Loretta Lynch was actually looking into punishments for “climate change deniers.”

    • #6
    • November 30, 2016, at 5:50 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer Post author

    RightAngles: But Loretta Lynch was actually looking into punishments for “climate change deniers.”

    Link?

    • #7
    • November 30, 2016, at 5:54 PM PST
    • Like
  8. tigerlily Member

    Richard Fulmer:

    RightAngles: But Loretta Lynch was actually looking into punishments for “climate change deniers.”

    Link?

    I’m aware of this.

    • #8
    • November 30, 2016, at 6:10 PM PST
    • Like
  9. Chuck Enfield Coolidge

    How do I score?

    1. Is the planet currently warming? Probably. It depends on how wide your running average is.
    2. To what extent is anthropogenic carbon dioxide responsible for global warming? I’m sure it’s a contributor, but probably not a driver.
    3. How bad will global warming get? No Idea.
    4. How much time do we have to respond? No idea, but I doubt it’s a crisis yet.
    5. When will our understanding of global warming be sufficient to allow us to deal with it effectively? Not in my lifetime.
    6. When will technology be advanced enough to deal with global warming? No idea, but not soon.
    7. How do we handle the economics of dealing with global warming? Have to achieve #5 first.
    8. How do we handle the politics of dealing with global warming? Attempt to convince people the scientists don’t know as much as they think they do, and that the politicians know even less. I think it’s working, but slowly.
    • #9
    • November 30, 2016, at 6:12 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer Post author

    I have trouble wrapping my brain around the case against ExxonMobil, such as it is. Apparently, some of the company’s employees sent e-mails stating that they think global warming is real and that it’s potentially a big deal. Schneiderman claims that these e-mails are “smoking guns” that “prove” that ExxonMobil “knows” that global warming is real.

    But a company is a collection of individuals – each of whom have their own opinions and ideas. Does the fact that some employees agree with Schneiderman mean that the company agrees with Schneiderman?

    In any case, Schneiderman claims that the company committed fraud because – even that it knows global warming is real and a looming crisis – it contributed to organizations whose principals believe that global warming should be called “global luke-warming,” that it’s not apocalypse now, and that we can adapt to it.

    He’s comparing this to cigarette companies who denied that smoking was bad for people’s health even though they knew they were lying. It seems to me, though, that real people were dying of lung cancer. So far, all the climate alarmists have are computer models – models, by the way, that have been unable to accurately predict actual temperature changes.

    So, how much does anyone actually know about climate change? And why are they so sure about what they know that they’re willing to throw people who disagree with them into prison? And who gets to say which of those 12,960 possible opinions are illegal? And hadn’t they better tell us up front rather than telling us in court just before they lock us up?

    • #10
    • November 30, 2016, at 6:12 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer Post author

    Chuck Enfield: How do I score?

    We’ll be in the same prison cell.

    • #11
    • November 30, 2016, at 6:15 PM PST
    • Like
  12. RightAngles Member

    Richard Fulmer:

    RightAngles: But Loretta Lynch was actually looking into punishments for “climate change deniers.”

    Link?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/18/ed-feulner-democrats-would-punish-climate-change-d/

    http://www.jdjournal.com/2016/03/11/lynch-turning-against-climate-change-deniers/

    But then some senators told her she can’t do that:
    http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/05/26/senators-loretta-lynch-no-you-cannot-punish-climate-change-deniers

    • #12
    • November 30, 2016, at 6:16 PM PST
    • Like
  13. RightAngles Member

    Chuck Enfield:

    1. How bad will global warming get? No Idea.

    By the time they figure it out, we’ll be in another cooling phase and they’ll have to change all their memes and posters. Think of all trees that will die.

    • #13
    • November 30, 2016, at 6:49 PM PST
    • Like
  14. RightAngles Member

    Time Magazine June 1974:

    global-cooling

    • #14
    • November 30, 2016, at 7:03 PM PST
    • Like
  15. JosePluma Thatcher

    Richard Fulmer:It seems to me that there are about eight questions that you’d need to ask to learn someone’s full opinion about global warming:

    1. Is the planet currently warming?
    2. To what extent is anthropogenic carbon dioxide responsible for global warming?
    3. How bad will global warming get?
    4. How much time do we have to respond?
    5. When will our understanding of global warming be sufficient to allow us to deal with it effectively?
    6. When will technology be advanced enough to deal with global warming?
    7. How do we handle the economics of dealing with global warming?
    8. How do we handle the politics of dealing with global warming?

    I go through a similar process when discussing Global Warming. My first two questions are basically the same. The third is this:

    3. What are the costs and benefits of global warming? Who is better off and who is harmed? Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

    From there I go on to:

    4. What are the current methods of mitigating global warming? How effective are they? Who benefits and who is harmed? Do the harms outweigh the benefits?

    5. What are the proposed ways to deal with global warming? Who potentially benefits and who is harmed? Do the harms outweigh the benefits?

    Usually, the discussion comes to a dead stop on item 3.

    • #15
    • November 30, 2016, at 7:07 PM PST
    • Like
  16. Chuck Enfield Coolidge

    JosePluma: Usually, the discussion comes to a dead stop on item 3.

    The response I usually get to your question 3 is, We don’t know, and that’s why we can’t risk it.

    • #16
    • November 30, 2016, at 7:13 PM PST
    • Like
  17. RightAngles Member

    Ha. As I recall, in about 1990 Ted Danson said we had 10 years to “do something” or the earth would come to an end.

    • #17
    • November 30, 2016, at 7:15 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer Post author

    RightAngles:Ha. As I recall, in about 1990 Ted Danson said we had 10 years to “do something” or the earth would come to an end.

    Wow, so we’re all dead. Who knew?

    • #18
    • November 30, 2016, at 7:32 PM PST
    • Like
  19. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer Post author

    Richard Fulmer:

    RightAngles:Ha. As I recall, in about 1990 Ted Danson said we had 10 years to “do something” or the earth would come to an end.

    Wow, so we’re all dead. Who knew?

    Do you think Schneiderman would prosecute Danson for fraud?

    • #19
    • November 30, 2016, at 7:34 PM PST
    • Like
  20. Biggles Member

    Why would you ever even consider putting questions 3 through 8 on the table?

    If questions 1 & 2 are not answered then all you have done is concede the premises to the warmists.

    You are then on defence.

    • #20
    • November 30, 2016, at 8:41 PM PST
    • Like
  21. Misthiocracy grudgingly Member

    Apropos of Nothing – Here’s the North American forecast map up to December 10:

    download

    A huge blast of cold air from the Arctic will freeze the United States solid.

    However, the temperature in much of Northern Canada (and Greenland, where the icesheets are) will be positively balmy.

    This will be reported as evidence of climate change.

    • #21
    • November 30, 2016, at 8:50 PM PST
    • Like
  22. RightAngles Member

    Misthiocracy:Apropos of Nothing – Here’s the North American forecast map up to December 10:

    download

    A huge blast of cold air from the Arctic will freeze the United States solid.

    However, the temperature in much of Northern Canada will be positively balmy.

    This will be reported as evidence of climate change.

    It kills me how they suddenly realized nothing was really warming so they started calling it “Climate Change,” which covers everything.

    • #22
    • November 30, 2016, at 8:52 PM PST
    • Like
  23. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    I am having trouble with this whole global warming we are all going to die thing. I was in school in the 70s and remember our teachers teaching us that the world was entering a new ice age and we were all going to freeze to death by 2000. I remember the films, the articles, our homework assignments and my teachers hysterics. Now I am 40 years older and we are all going to fry because of the same stuff that was going to make us freeze. Color me skeptical. I was fooled once, not interested in being fooled again.

    • #23
    • November 30, 2016, at 9:43 PM PST
    • Like
  24. The Reticulator Member

    Richard Fulmer:

    It seems to me that there are about eight questions that you’d need to ask to learn someone’s full opinion about global warming:

    1. Is the planet currently warming?

    2. To what extent is anthropogenic carbon dioxide responsible for global warming?

    3. How bad will global warming get?

    4. How much time do we have to respond?

    5. When will our understanding of global warming be sufficient to allow us to deal with it effectively?

    6. When will technology be advanced enough to deal with global warming?

    7. How do we handle the economics of dealing with global warming?

    8. How do we handle the politics of dealing with global warming?

    I like to tell leftists that I’ll take global warming that seriously when they do and when President Obama does. So far the only thing they’re serious about is more money and power. (Actually, I do take it seriously. But they don’t.)

    • #24
    • November 30, 2016, at 11:19 PM PST
    • Like
  25. Chuck Enfield Coolidge

    The Reticulator: I like to tell leftists that I’ll take global warming that seriously when they do and when President Obama does. So far the only thing they’re serious about is more money and power. (Actually, I do take it seriously. But they don’t.)

    Case in point:

     Washington State voters rejected a proposal for the nation’s first carbon tax Tuesday…
    …it was unpopular with many social justice, environmental and health advocates who sought to use the revenue for renewable energy, mass transit and other green infrastructure projects, and to aid communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution or climate change.

     The proposed tax was revenue neutral. The lefties opposed a potentially earth-saving approach to reducing carbon emissions because they wanted the revenue to go to their pet causes.

    • #25
    • December 1, 2016, at 1:28 AM PST
    • Like
  26. I Walton Member

    If there is warming or cooling all species must adapt and will. What kind of human system is more adaptable? One where a small clique of political/commercial/bureaucrats direct resources from the center, or one where individuals, families, business and communities figure out how to adapt on their own as costs and opportunities appear, prices change, and knowledge, which is always emerging on the edges not in the center, grows. One where the government points us toward remedial technologies or one where tinker, tailor, scientists are free to innovate and commercialize their innovations? The answer is pretty obvious. It doesn’t matter if the issue is bogus or real the solution is the same.

    • #26
    • December 1, 2016, at 4:08 AM PST
    • Like
  27. Viator Member

    The first thing one needs to do is define global warming. Global warming is a scheme contrived to attack capitalism at one of it’s weakest points, energy.

    • #27
    • December 1, 2016, at 4:30 AM PST
    • Like
  28. Stina Inactive

    Chuck Enfield:

    it was unpopular with many social justice, environmental and health advocates who sought to use the revenue for renewable energy, mass transit and other green infrastructure projects, and to aid communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution or climate change.

    The proposed tax was revenue neutral. The lefties opposed a potentially earth-saving approach to reducing carbon emissions because they wanted the revenue to go to their pet causes.

    This may actually be a good place for solid, conservative rhetoric: lower federal taxes gives you and your state more freedom to pursue these projects.

    Personally, I want abandoned strip malls torn down and have community gardens installed.

    • #28
    • December 1, 2016, at 4:31 AM PST
    • Like
  29. The Reticulator Member

    Chuck Enfield: The proposed tax was revenue neutral. The lefties opposed a potentially earth-saving approach to reducing carbon emissions because they wanted the revenue to go to their pet causes.

    I didn’t know that happened. But it’s what I have been predicting for quite a few years now. Vindication!

    • #29
    • December 1, 2016, at 5:06 AM PST
    • Like
  30. RightAngles Member

    This should be on the main feed.

    • #30
    • December 1, 2016, at 7:32 AM PST
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2