Why do conservatives deny Global Warming?

[_Droopy]

[quote]

[_Moniker]

Droopy, I don't know what is melting or not melting. I have no idea.

I didn't think so.

Is that a point for you? I never said I knew anything about this topic from a scientific standpoint. Can I ask you to translate something in Russian for me now? Will that work? How about I ask you to perform some physic equations? Just pull questions outta thin air? Then I'll go "aha I didn't think you knew that!".

I trust scientists to determine what is occurring and to help shape policy from their scientific observations.

This statement is all I need to see to understand who it actually is that does not know, and apparently does not care to know, what they are talking about.

What in the world are you talking about? I NEVER said I understood the science. I don't! I have repeatedly said (in other threads) I am happy to go with scientific consensus. I'm not a scientist, and unlike you, don't pretend to be one!

Now, your turn to admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Although the difference between you and I is that I can admit when I lack knowledge in something -- I don't run and immerse myself in right wing rant, piecemeal it together, and attempt to make an argument that is not in the least cohesive or reflect reality. :)

I've followed, studied, and read upon the subject of climate science and AGW for upwards of 15 years now.

Yanno, Coggins, you say you're an expert in all sorts of things then you trip over yourself when you are actually confronted with someone knowledgeable in the actual field. You may fool some, yet, you don't fool those with even a bit of expertise or ability to discern a poseur when they observe one. I don't know about this field, yet, I sure as hell know that you don't know what the hell you're talking about with other conversations.. and you know I know! :)

Conversation ended.

Run, Run, Away! Hey! Hey! Hey!

[_EAllusion]

Just as, in the past, most of your philosophical positions always seem to nest on the Left. Then you deny it. Then you argue from the Left again.

I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative - i.e. a libertarian. I'm not all that different in positions I take than other libertarian minded folks like those behind South Park or Penn and Teller to take two popular examples. You see "the left" boogieman in far too much. Like many commies I also breath air and am a consequentialist. Ditto for John Stuart Mill and Milton Friedman. Again, my posting persona isn't outside of what you'd find on major libertarian publications. Oddly enough, you sometimes claim libertarian association while typically arguing things that are an affront to typical libertarian thought. You are more often than not a worldnetdaily bot, which is pretty darn far from libertarian thought. Heck, one of my fav libertarian bloggers, Ed Brayton does a fun job of trashing them, and by extention a fair amount of what you say, on occasion. Heck, the same is true of Reason's blog.

[_Droopy]

Oddly enough, you sometimes claim libertarian association while typically arguing things that are affront to those same publications.

I claim to associate with some of their main positions, and not with others. I have never claimed otherwise. I do not associate with the anarchist Rothbardian wing of the movement, nor do I agree with the social philosophy of some of its adherents.

I am not a consequentialist; I do not believe that the ends justify the means, which is, all philosophical colorations of this philosophy aside, a classic leftist position (if not simply an attitude, for many on the Left), and is directly derivative of the Left's value relativism (yes E, like it or not, Utlilitarian ethics are conceptually related to value relativism, as both regard moral and ethical choices as ultimately subjective and grounded in either situational context (leftist) or a culturally and socially contingent outcome (value relativism says that morality is arbitrary, while Utilitarianism says that, while not purely arbitrary, is embedded strictly within social context or personal value determination, which makes it different than relativism only in that Utilitarianism looks at the function a choice serves for the larger society, while relativism tends to be centered only in the autonomous self)).

The ends may justify the means both for a Utilitarian and a moral relativist because both are derived, in part, from a core philosophical assumption (that their is no ultimate authority or ground of morality beyond human conceptions of it).

[_EAllusion]

Consequentialism runs across the political spectrum from the most conservative to the most liberal. The same is true of deontology. It is true of contractarianism. It's probably true of virtue ethics. There's nothing inherently leftist about it.

I already listed a notable libertarian consequentialist: Milton Friedman. How about another? Richard Epstein. Another? Friedrich Hayek. There's also libertarian-minded political philosophers like John Stuart Mill. Since their black, black hearts are pumping with leftist ooze and you have no problem referring habitually positively referring to at least two of those libertarians, you can grant me the same credit.

yes E, like it or not, Utlilitarian ethics are conceptually related to value relativism, as both regard moral and ethical choices as ultimately subjective and grounded in either situational context (leftist) or a culturally and socially contingent outcome (value relativism says that morality is arbitrary, while Utilitarianism says that, while not purely arbitrary, is embedded strictly within social context or personal value determination, which makes it different than relativism only in that Utilitarianism looks at the function a choice serves for the larger society, while relativism tends to be centered only in the autonomous self)).

This has absolutely no relationship to what the words you are using means. You have no idea what you are talking about. I think you first ought to get some sense of the differences between normative theory and metaethics to disentangle this. There are college beginners texts out there what will suffice.

[_Droopy]

Thanks for retreating into your usual shell of magic mirror intellectual snobbery and demonstrating yet again what an intellectual hack you really are.

Keep up the pose E, and thanks for the obvious.

[_EAllusion]

Utilitarianism is a normative theory. It is a means of figuring out what is right and wrong. Relativism is a metaethical theory. It concerns what terms like "right" and "wrong" actually mean. While most utilitarians adopt some variant of realism that is secular and not relativist, utilitarianism is compatible with any number of metaethical views.

The idea that the rightness of an action depends on situational context is not "relativist" so long as answer, in a given context, is the same for all people being judged and doing the judging. It is a view that can be held by any normative theory, including deontology, virtue ethics, libertarian rights theory, etc. Moreover, the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the situation is utterly trivial and accepted by anyone who has given the subject a modicum of thought. Whether it is Ok to push someone can vary on factors like whether there is a car heading towards them without their knowledge.

The term "value relativism" isn't even proper terminology, but relativism doesn't tend to focus on an autonomous self, but rather tends to focus on the traditions and convictions of a given culture.

The idea that one must make moral judgments for oneself isn't relativist, it can be held by just about any normative theory. Even if you think moral truth is contingent on God's will, if you think you ultimately are responsible for figuring out what God's will is, then you still would think this.

But this all has nothing to do with the tangent anyway. The point is that consequentialism is not inherently leftist and indeed is held all over the political spectrum. On my end of the spectrum, it was held by people like Hayek and Friedman, who Droopy routinely brings up as counters to "leftism." The is completely inconsistent with calling consequentialists leftists.

[_Droopy]

[quote="Droopy"][

[_Droopy]

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975).

Nothing has changed. Although we know relatively more now than we did then, the above statement is still perfectly accurate, and is the main reason why Realclimte's position on AGW is bogus. The empirical science just isn't there, never has been, and they know it (which is why they spend much of their time trying to rehabilitate the discredited computer models from which the entire edifice of AGW was originally erected).

And AGW fell, and great was the fall of it...