I posted this link: Polar Ice Rapture Misses Its Deadline
blogs.forbes.com
Global warming alarmists have more explaining to do.
Harold Camping isn't the only alarmist making false predictions...
S.B.: so, Rich -- do you deny that the earth's climate is warming? or that mankind bears a significant share of the responsibility? Just curious what your point is here...
Me: My point is that false predictions aren't confined to religous kooks.
S.B.: No, neither is sensationalistic reporting of fringe people and issues. I know very few Christians who took the whole Harold Camping thing serious in the least -- I think it got coverage primarily because it became such a big internet meme, and hence a part of popular culture that far outstripped its actual importance.
The same happens from time to time in science. There's no doubt about that -- having worked in science for 27 years, attended literally hundreds of scientific conferences and listened to and read thousands of scientific papers, I can tell you that most scientists don't know how to get media attention, and most don't really crave it. That makes it easy for those who DO, to get attention that exceeds the import of what they have to say.
Though, make no mistake -- while the extreme predictions are just that -- extreme predictions -- the facts are that polar ice, particularly in the arctic, IS melting, WILL have serious consequences, and will cost us dearly. The extreme weather events of the past few weeks are a good example -- while they cannot be tied directly to global warming, they are consistent with what happens even under relatively mild warming that is occurring. What this means is that we can expect, with statistical certainty, that they will occur MORE often, and with more severity, as the earth continues to warm.
Some talk about the cost of dealing with global warming, but they generally fail to acknowledge that there is a huge cost, too, of inaction.
Me: Perhaps you didn't read the article. Alarmists have predicted specifically and directly that the polar ice cap would totally melt, not that it will someday, or that it is in the process.
My remarks are confined to that and that alone.
S.B.: no, I read the article. But the author does what many climate change skeptics do (and I suppose, religious skeptics do, as well -- I don't know because I don't pay much attention to them -- I am a non-believer myself but have no desire to dissuade others of their Faith) which is to attempt to taint the legitimate science with the hyperbole of the extremists.
When the author says "The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream." he is clearly using the fringes of science to do this. By reposting the blog, you are essentially doing the same.
I'm simply pointing out that you can ignore the science all you wish, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter that global warming IS occurring, it IS having severe, real-time, current day impacts on people, economies, ecosystems, and will continue to do so, at an accelerating pace, so long as we chose to ignore it.
Me: you just admitted that the story took on a life of its own. Why do you think that was? Clearly it was to brand all Christians as kooks and extremists.
I guess the issue is, whose ox is being gored.
S.B.: I don't think I agree with your characterization, Rich. I had plenty of Christian friends who were ridiculing the predictions while simultaneously disavowing themselves and their Faith from Camping. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are also making fun of the Incan predictions for the end of the world in 2012 -- part of a world-wide conspiracy to brand all indigenous peoples as kooks and extremists?
Or simply some gallows humor for dark times?
Me: But the rapture is a mainstream belief of a large portion of Christianity. And the polar ice caps melting is a widely held tenet of global warming.
That places them on the same footing, and ridicule of each is fair game.
S.B.: Rich, if you REALLY think that religious/spiritual predictions and scientific ones ought to be held to the same degree of scrutiny, or even discussed as remotely similar -- I think we understand both world views quite differently from one another.
The similarity between the two is quite superficial, and I think you're smart enough to know that. But if you want to claim an equivlance here, then I'll cede the point, because I can't argue with a red herring argument.
Me: You consistently want to take this to a higher level of analysis that is not warranted by the context. The sole basis of your objection seems to be that science is somehow sacrosanct, while religion doesn't rise to the level of intelligent thought.
I don't accept the premise that global warming alarmists can't be mocked because it is science.
S.B.: If you read my earlier post, I said that I have no argument that some extreme predictions are not worth mocking. But the author goes beyond that and in the quoted section suggests that the extremists ARE the mainstream
And that is bullshit, and deserves to be countered.
R.W.: I want to jump in but am enjoying the discussion too much to ruin it.
B.R.: Ditto.
Me: I guess the profanity seals the argument.
S.B.: no, just expresses my frustration at the effort to equate science and religion too closely, Rich. They are entirely different ways of dealing with the world, and attempts to treat them too much alike does neither of them any favors.
Science's JOB is to make predictions about the world -- and it does it very well. We can make accurate predictions about the position of a sattellite, even accounting for relativistic effects, and that allows us to use that sattellite as a channel for communications -- if the predictions made by science (and it's cousin, technology) weren't right nearly all of the time, then we wouldn't be having this discussion right now because we'd have no way to reliably exchange information.
Religion doesn't have such a track record. Perhaps one day we'll find that the predictions it DOES make, turn out to be true -- but it exists largely in a sphere outside/beyond proof.
So while science is not sacrosanct, and certainly scientists do make errors in both fact and judgment -- it has proved remarkably effective at making predictions about the world that are both verifiable, and incredibly precise.
I think if anything, one of the things that brought Camping so much attention and ridicule is his effort to predict, with scientific precision, that which most Christians will tell you the Scriptures say cannot be predicted: the time at which the end arrives.
Me: I have resisted your efforts to "...equate science and religion too closely..." I have made no assertions regarding the issues of veracity. I have made no claim about religion.
It is you who wants to conflate the two on the simple basis that someone is mocking your sacred cow.
Scott, there is no part of science that should not be mocked. Certainly no part of religion has escaped mocking.
I really don't care how good science is at predicting things. It is irrelevant to the conversation. I really don't care if religion hasn't demonstrated scientific rigor. None of it matters.
Science has assumed this mantle of unquestionable veracity and gravitas that is worthy of parody. Indeed, this untouchable status is ultimately bad for science as dissenters are beat down and silenced.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Walter E. Williams - My Hero explaining wealth creation
Understanding the liberal vision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2011
By Walter Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me two pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart; Bill Gates founded Microsoft; Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 18, 2011
By Walter Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.
Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won't do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.
A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it's the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars, or what some people call income redistribution.
The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one's fellow man. The greater one's ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.
Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, "Give me two pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced." In effect, the grocer asks, "Williams, you're asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?" I reply, "Yes." The grocer says, "Prove it."
That's when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as "certificates of performance." They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man's lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What's the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that's an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one's fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, "You don't have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We'll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me."
Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart; Bill Gates founded Microsoft; Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?
Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They've already given.
If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who've used Congress, including America's corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn't bode well for its future.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Editorial, extreme evironmentalism
The Bozeman City Council recently passed a green initiative, and that got me thinking. No reasonable person is in favor of pollution. Everyone wants a clean environment. So why is there acrimony over this issue? I conclude that it is really about a clash of world views.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
Let’s start with the conservative/libertarian worldview. It is based on property rights, the foundational concept of our society. The 5th Amendment makes specific mention of our right to the lawful possession and enjoyment of our property, unencumbered by undue governmental interference.
But unfortunately, some people pollute. Or rather, everyone pollutes, but some exceed an “acceptable” level of pollution. Polluting violates property rights by diminishing and devaluing property. And property is not just our stuff, it is also our bodies, and by extension, our health. Essentially, the polluter is a thief, stealing the use of other peoples’ property.
We have recourse for property rights violations. Prosecuting criminals is one of the proper functions of government. But alas, The City Council’s green initiatives exceed this simple duty, yielding unfortunate side effects. These initiatives will negatively impact commerce and individual liberty, while simultaneously imposing an indirect tax, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the end consumer.
They have aligned themselves with extreme environmentalists. and it is that worldview we need to worry about. Extreme environmentalists do not seem to be particularly concerned with government intrusion or property rights. In fact, they welcome the coercive power of government to further their objectives, and can’t imagine solutions that don’t demand a government program.
This means the average citizen, pursing his private, legal interests, takes a back seat to someone else’s priorities. Property rights are actually an obstacle: “Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can…” Government takes precedence in it its holy, enlightened goal of preserving the environment - - well, the environment in its present form.
Ah, yes. This is key. The species and ecosystems we have now are regarded as optimum. Human-caused change is arbitrarily deemed unacceptable. Thus, any change in the environmental status quo is prima facie evidence of environmental destruction.
The extreme environmentalist therefore charges humankind with the moral responsibility to save the planet as it is now. Certainly, the moral values of the extreme environmentalist are happily imposed on others.
This moralism is almost religious in nature. According to this religion, humans are regarded as pollutants, a hostile life form, something that impedes the natural order of things. More specifically, it is western society, namely America., which is the real problem.
These moral obligations are quite arduous in their specificity. Conformity to environmental dogma is demanded. Yet the goals themselves seem nebulous and vague, if stated at all. For example, what is the optimum global average temperature? How much do we need to shrink our carbon footprint? What level of carbon emissions is acceptable? Has the City Council even asked such questions?
I suspect that there are no benchmarks to determine success because success is not the goal. The goals are to obtain an artificial naturalness, to remake society, and especially, to minimize humanity. This hostility to humanity is hinted at every time an environmentalist talks about population control, using euphemisms like “family planning,” “carbon footprint,” and “sustainable living.” One might justifiably wonder if they think the ideal number of humans is zero.
The extreme environmentalist even wants to go so far as to give the planet itself rights. Bolivia is considering legislation, called the Law of Mother Earth, which would grant preeminent rights to the planet. Earth is an entity with feelings, emotions, and now, rights.
These are extreme views. Contrasted with the more balanced, thoughtful, conservative viewpoint, the environmentalist recognizes no limit in what is allowable for the sake of the planet. Using the excuse of a worthy cause, he embraces totalitarian means to achieve his end.
Sensible people naturally reject such extremism. Good for them.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Things not to do for retirement saving - MSN Money
It's so rare that I find something of value on my MSN home page, but here is some good stuff:
Many of us should be ramping up our efforts to save for retirement. But not all methods of saving money are worth the cost. Here are five retirement saving strategies that could actually leave you worse off in retirement.
Neglecting your health. Never neglect your health in exchange for saving more money. If you aren't healthy, there's really no point in having a bunch of money. When you feel dizzy and tired all the time, watching a bank balance with a bunch of digits is not going to help at all. A big part of a comfortable retirement involves having a healthy body. So consider what you are really sacrificing when you skip preventive care or eat unhealthy food to save a few dollars now.
Saving instead of paying off credit card debt. Whether you should save for retirement or pay off debt is an age-old question. But high-interest credit card debt should always be eliminated first. It doesn't make sense to try earning a modest return while paying 20 percent a year or more for interest.
Saving in ways you can't openly talk about. If you can't comfortably talk about how you are saving money for your retirement, then it might not be worth the cost. It would be difficult to live a comfortable retirement knowing you had to cheat others to obtain it. If you have to steal or scam your way into your millions, you will eventually regret it. You will enjoy your retirement more knowing that you obtained it through honest and legitimate hard work.
Making today miserable. Saving for tomorrow involves accepting the idea of delayed gratification. But while the future is important, you need to have some fun today, too. Don't forget about retirement, but also remember that you have to live a little. Money isn't for hoarding.
Never giving. Practically everyone in our society can afford to give. If money is tight, we can probably afford to donate our time through volunteer work. We are truly lucky to have a hot meal on our table every day and have many luxuries in our lives that we often take for granted. Giving will bring you a lifetime of incredible memories, which is much more meaningful than a few numbers in a bank statement. Retirement planning is an important aspect of our lives. But contributing to a 401k account should never be your No. 1 priority, unless you want to miss out on a lot in life.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/5-worst-ways-to-save-for-retirement-usnews.aspx
Many of us should be ramping up our efforts to save for retirement. But not all methods of saving money are worth the cost. Here are five retirement saving strategies that could actually leave you worse off in retirement.
Neglecting your health. Never neglect your health in exchange for saving more money. If you aren't healthy, there's really no point in having a bunch of money. When you feel dizzy and tired all the time, watching a bank balance with a bunch of digits is not going to help at all. A big part of a comfortable retirement involves having a healthy body. So consider what you are really sacrificing when you skip preventive care or eat unhealthy food to save a few dollars now.
Saving instead of paying off credit card debt. Whether you should save for retirement or pay off debt is an age-old question. But high-interest credit card debt should always be eliminated first. It doesn't make sense to try earning a modest return while paying 20 percent a year or more for interest.
Saving in ways you can't openly talk about. If you can't comfortably talk about how you are saving money for your retirement, then it might not be worth the cost. It would be difficult to live a comfortable retirement knowing you had to cheat others to obtain it. If you have to steal or scam your way into your millions, you will eventually regret it. You will enjoy your retirement more knowing that you obtained it through honest and legitimate hard work.
Making today miserable. Saving for tomorrow involves accepting the idea of delayed gratification. But while the future is important, you need to have some fun today, too. Don't forget about retirement, but also remember that you have to live a little. Money isn't for hoarding.
Never giving. Practically everyone in our society can afford to give. If money is tight, we can probably afford to donate our time through volunteer work. We are truly lucky to have a hot meal on our table every day and have many luxuries in our lives that we often take for granted. Giving will bring you a lifetime of incredible memories, which is much more meaningful than a few numbers in a bank statement. Retirement planning is an important aspect of our lives. But contributing to a 401k account should never be your No. 1 priority, unless you want to miss out on a lot in life.
http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/5-worst-ways-to-save-for-retirement-usnews.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)