 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 13:19:27 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Mark Dohle
E-mail: dohle.mark(at)gmail.com
I have just posted an interesting article on climate prediction. I compare and analyze two investigations. One investigation was based on climate observation(Lindzen)and another was based on climate model prediction(University of California). In the end I discuss the political consequences as they are manifested in the upcoming Copenhagen treaty.
"...A 2004, University of California investigation titled, “Increase of carbon cycle feedback with climate sensitivity: results from a coupled climate and carbon cycle model”, performed under contract W-7405-Eng-48 of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was used in this argument to show what the consensus determined and how the knowledge was formulated. This investigation was contrasted with another (DOE) funded investigation titled, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data” presented by Lindzen and Choi in July 2009. The comparison revealed the contrasts between the methods and results obtained by climate modelers and climate observers..."
"...the political leaders of the world are meeting and attempting to create a governing body that will force every person on Earth into action. The global government proposes to collect taxes, redistribute wealth, regulate new and old industry and enforce policy without anyone’s vote. Below is a glimpse of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as it was drafted on September 15, 2009.
The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following…(UNFCCC Annex I par. 38)
“The government will be ruled by the (Conference of the Parties) COP.”(UNFCCC Annex 1 par.38) Whatever the COP actually is, it is not a government by the people and for the people. A word check was unable to find the words “freedom” or “vote” in the entire document.
The funds will be raised by the financial mechanism. “ The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows…”(UFCCC Annex I par. 38) “[Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.]” (UNFCCC Annex II par. 41) What does that mean?..."
Please read the entire article at http://markdohle.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/on-climate-prediction-mod ...
I'd like to know your thoughts. |
|
| Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 13:33:20 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: madmax
Was Ayn Rand a "soft atheist"?
Adam Reed in this very interesting essay argues that, like Laplace, she was and that given her context she had to be.
http://solohq.solopassion.com/Articles/Reed/The_Ontology_of_Informa ...
I'm not sold on this though because in ITOE Rand essentially argued that the concept 'God' was an epistemological impossibility. While Rand never came out and said "God does not exist" (hard atheism) I always thought that Objectivism implied this.
Thoughts? |
|
| Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 13:59:12 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Richard
A pretty good article about environmentalism and "overpopulation":"Too many people? No, too many Malthusians"
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7723/ |
|
| Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 19:04:26 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Lynn W
E-mail: LynnWdow at gmail dot com
How does one find a doctor in these times? I have a great dermatologist who I spent a large part of my last appointment with in debate about socialized medicine. (I was carrying Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to read and he mentioned that he had always meant to read Atlas Shrugged) I sent him a hard copy of Peikoff's "Health Care is Not a Right". I am in need of a general practitioner and have no idea how to look for one.... I live in a highly socialized state (Vermont)and want a Doctor who does not ascribe to the "low fat" conventional wisdom..... Ideas and referrals are highly appreciated, along with questions to ask a prospective M.D. |
|
| Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 23:09:17 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://mabadar.blogspot.com
Madmax -- Objectivism's rejection of god is not a case of proving a negative. Ayn Rand doesn't treat the (anti)concept in a philosophic vacuum, rather she brings her metaphysical and epistemological principles to bear on the issue. Thus, if god is defined as Omnipotent and Omniscient, the law of Identity rules that out. It tells us that anything that exists is what it is and hence limited.
From this perspective, one CAN make the positive claim: God DOESN"T exist. Or rather: God cannot exist. |
|
| Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 1:47:29 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
I thought you all might like to see my letter to my two state senators. It's probably a futile exercise, given Boxer and Feinstein's voting records, but if nothing else, it was an interesting exercise in writing. My goal was (a) to focus on arguments against health care "reform" with some salience to liberal Democrats but (b) without compromising any essential moral positions. Comments on how well I succeeded, and how it might have been done better, are welcome.
"One of the principal stated purposes of the Democratic Party's proposed health care legislation is to better meet the health needs of those who are currently uninsured. As a self-employed man of 59 who cannot afford health insurance, I am strongly concerned with that issue, and have followed it closely over the past year and a half. I regret to say that the passage of the proposed legislation will make my situation worse, rather than better. I urge you to protect the uninsured by voting against it.
The reason I'm uninsured is that health care, and therefore health insurance, costs too much. But the proposed legislation would require me to purchase health insurance from the same insurance industry that is now failing to restrain the growth of health care costs, either from the uncompetitive private firms that now dominate it, or from a government-run system that is likely to charge even more. It offers subsidies for this purchase so inadequate that they would be laughable, if not for the real hardship they will inflict on people who pay them. And when the many people who still can't afford insurance remain uninsured, it fines them nearly $1,000 yearly . . . which will only make it harder for them to get health care. The CMS estimates that of the uninsured people who won't be eligible for Medicaid, 12 million will become insured, but 18 million will remain uninsured and suffer punishment for it.
Advocates of this punitive approach attack the irresponsibility of people who remain uninsured, and who depend on emergency rooms for health care. But under this bill, the people added to Medicaid will largely continue to do exactly that, as most doctors don't want to take patients at Medicaid rates. And the many millions of people who can't afford insurance will often have to do the same . . . until they are diagnosed with some serious and costly illness, when they will be able to sign up for insurance, and insurance carriers will be compelled to accept them despite their "preexisting conditions," further driving up insurance costs and premiums. And in any case, the reason many self-employed people and employees of small businesses don't have insurance is not irresponsibility, but fear of financial ruin if they have to pay for it.
If buying health insurance remained voluntary, and you came up with a system under which it cost too much, the uninsured could remain uninsured, and at least not be any worse off . . . and send you a message that your efforts weren't good enough. By resorting to compulsion, you are making it a violation of law to send that message. And that very fact is the strongest reason to believe that your plan will not make health care affordable, but make its costs even more ruinous.
I urge you to reconsider, and reject this proposal." |
|
| Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 8:21:56 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
WHS... thank you for pointing out yet another flow of unintended consequences there.
Although some might criticize this for not raising the moral argument I believe it that it does, implicitly. And sometimes pointing out an unintended consequence is enough to turn the little lightbulb on in someone's head. Though Boxer and Feinstein probably know it already and don't care.
Steve
PS nitpick: a "state senator" is someone who sits in the state senate (in your case in Sacramento) and I will bet you personally have exactly one of them--the one for the district you live in; I believe you meant "my state's senators" which sounds the same but looks very different. (Better yet: "My state's two senators") And at least one of mine is a lost cause too, Bennett is on record as willing to lose his job to shove this thing down our throats.) |
|
| Friday, November 27, 2009 at 1:03:46 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
Steve,
You are, of course, perfectly correct about that point of terminology.
Thanks for the supportive comments. I think you're right about the implicit moral argument; since the purpose of morality is to enable us to live and achieve our goals, any valid moral principle must distinguish between effective and ineffective ways of doing so, and conversely, any demonstration that something does not work in practice must imply a moral argument against it.
In presenting an argument to someone who does not adhere to Objectivism or anything akin to it, there are three options: We can state the moral objection to an undesirable action, as a simple assertion; we can state the moral objection and present a theoretical argument for it; or we can focus on the practical issues, leaving the moral principles mostly implicit. The second option takes more time than a senator confronting a major piece of legislation is likely to spare. The first, addressed to a person of mixed premises, is likely to come across as a floating abstraction irrelevant to the actual goals (if the senator could understand why it is relevant, they would have a very different view of the issues). The third can be too concrete-bound, but it does call attention to the actual harmful consequences of morally objectionable laws.
Of course, it may well be overoptimistic to imagine that either Boxer or Feinstein has mixed premises, rather than being solidly malignant. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
