Comments on: Simonizing http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/simonizing.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Gil http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/simonizing.html/comment-page-1#comment-189742 Gil Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:41:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7177#comment-189742 The big point being . . .? The free market were going to end whaling anyway so when governments passed legislation it was just water off a duck's back? Or something like that? The big point being . . .? The free market were going to end whaling anyway so when governments passed legislation it was just water off a duck’s back? Or something like that?

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/simonizing.html/comment-page-1#comment-189741 Anonymous Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:26:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7177#comment-189741 OK, I read the article on the other end of this link. I noted that the American Chemical Society was one of the signatories. The ACS, on its own site, describes itself as "a congressionally chartered independent membership organization which represents professionals at all degree levels and in all fields of chemistry and sciences that involve chemistry." I won't suggest that congressionally chartered and independent are incongruent because that will only start a fight.Before I get to the quote in the article, I just want to point out that "consensus" is a political (in the loosest sense of the word) conceit, not a scientific one. I don't require the consensus of leading scientists to assert that the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System is fact, or that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186 thousand (and some change) miles/second. These things are not only provable, but demonstrable. Regardless of the consensus, I have yet to encounter a sound piece of science that causes all other interested scientists to challenge or prove the hypothesis in question. Which brings me to the strangely vague quote from the so-called consensus letter...“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.” Gosh, where to begin. "Rigorous scientific research" has been done on cancer, but there are no absolute proofs of (all of its) causes (as seen in the "consensus" science of nutritionists, who have given the FDA ill guidance for decades), with notable exceptions like the demonstrable presence of radiation. What's worse is that there is still no cure. But we are to believe that science -- suddenly and magically funded by advanced Earth governments -- will solve problems involving millions of variables from solar activity to methane from dog poop?Whenever you hear "contrary assertions are inconsistent" from a so-called consensus group, what they are telling you is that they are better organized than their opposition and are drawing a rhetorical line in the sand. Those four simple words are inconsistent with the natural humility that stems from the practice of real science. Every scientist worth his degree will tell you he'd love to be proven wrong, but that until he is, he's right. Proclaiming that opponents are wrong in the absence of an informed (i.e., non-political, non-hysterical) dialog with them is not scientific. It's political.So, I join other skeptics about climate change and am not interested in letters to Congress from its supporters. I'd rather see the science. OK, I read the article on the other end of this link. I noted that the American Chemical Society was one of the signatories. The ACS, on its own site, describes itself as “a congressionally chartered independent membership organization which represents professionals at all degree levels and in all fields of chemistry and sciences that involve chemistry.” I won’t suggest that congressionally chartered and independent are incongruent because that will only start a fight.Before I get to the quote in the article, I just want to point out that “consensus” is a political (in the loosest sense of the word) conceit, not a scientific one. I don’t require the consensus of leading scientists to assert that the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System is fact, or that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186 thousand (and some change) miles/second. These things are not only provable, but demonstrable. Regardless of the consensus, I have yet to encounter a sound piece of science that causes all other interested scientists to challenge or prove the hypothesis in question. Which brings me to the strangely vague quote from the so-called consensus letter…“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.” Gosh, where to begin. “Rigorous scientific research” has been done on cancer, but there are no absolute proofs of (all of its) causes (as seen in the “consensus” science of nutritionists, who have given the FDA ill guidance for decades), with notable exceptions like the demonstrable presence of radiation. What’s worse is that there is still no cure. But we are to believe that science — suddenly and magically funded by advanced Earth governments — will solve problems involving millions of variables from solar activity to methane from dog poop?Whenever you hear “contrary assertions are inconsistent” from a so-called consensus group, what they are telling you is that they are better organized than their opposition and are drawing a rhetorical line in the sand. Those four simple words are inconsistent with the natural humility that stems from the practice of real science. Every scientist worth his degree will tell you he’d love to be proven wrong, but that until he is, he’s right. Proclaiming that opponents are wrong in the absence of an informed (i.e., non-political, non-hysterical) dialog with them is not scientific. It’s political.So, I join other skeptics about climate change and am not interested in letters to Congress from its supporters. I’d rather see the science.

]]> By: Seth http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/simonizing.html/comment-page-1#comment-189740 Seth Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7177#comment-189740 By definition, yes. Thankfully, for all of us that's a bogus question. Like asking what if gravity repelled, rather than attracted. By definition, yes. Thankfully, for all of us that’s a bogus question. Like asking what if gravity repelled, rather than attracted.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/simonizing.html/comment-page-1#comment-189726 Anonymous Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:14:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7177#comment-189726 An excellent example of planning can be found here: http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/09/new-londons-carefully-consider#comments An excellent example of planning can be found here:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/09/new-londons-carefully-consider#comments

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/11/simonizing.html/comment-page-1#comment-189660 Anonymous Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:07:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=7177#comment-189660 Yes, thanks for the correction, I think. For past performance may in fact provide no indication at all in this case. Liquidating the planet of fossil fuels, biodiversity and fertile soils has allowed us to so far grow our economy and population. The fact we found technofixes in the past is in my view a pretty shaky footing on which to bet the future of our children. We may have run out of miracles. Yes, thanks for the correction, I think. For past performance may in fact provide no indication at all in this case. Liquidating the planet of fossil fuels, biodiversity and fertile soils has allowed us to so far grow our economy and population. The fact we found technofixes in the past is in my view a pretty shaky footing on which to bet the future of our children. We may have run out of miracles.

]]>