"In fact, in Feelingstown, facts become insults: If facts debunk feelings, it is the facts that must lose." Ben Shapiro
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Great Moments in Unintended Consequences
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This is a great video. The ethanol one is the one I like because it PROVES the whole global warming movement is a political beast not a scientific study. I mean, anyone with an ounce of sense can do a carbon budget and prove that ethanol releases more CO2 than it absorbs. Where was the science? Where was the critical thinking? If they can't be relied upon to validate the ethanol math, then how can they be relied upon for a global study with 100 times the variables?
It's actually easy to see how this happens. Start with the private enery companies. Exxon hires some scientists to do a global warming study. Those scientists derive benefit from a reliance on Exxon's product, energy. They conclude that man made GW does not exist. I admit, anyone would be suspicious of reports originating from Exxon's payroll.
But now realize that the government is also a "company" and its employees benefit from a larger reliance on it's "product" or regulation and wealth transfer. The government employs scientists. Why should we not be suspicious of their conclusions as well? Especially when every government scientist also implies that something political must be done about it, usually expressing annoyed for taxes and wealth transfer. These guys have a huge bias to interpret the numbers a certain way, just like the Exxon scientists do. Just a different boss telling them what to conclude.
I'm with you. I'm trying to get people who hate corporations to take a good hard look at the US Federal Government as just another corporation. They have a "product" (wealth transfer) and revenues (taxes). They are subject to all the same negatives as an Exxon but times 100, since they are a monopoly and are so huge.
4 comments:
This is a great video. The ethanol one is the one I like because it PROVES the whole global warming movement is a political beast not a scientific study. I mean, anyone with an ounce of sense can do a carbon budget and prove that ethanol releases more CO2 than it absorbs. Where was the science? Where was the critical thinking? If they can't be relied upon to validate the ethanol math, then how can they be relied upon for a global study with 100 times the variables?
It's actually easy to see how this happens. Start with the private enery companies. Exxon hires some scientists to do a global warming study. Those scientists derive benefit from a reliance on Exxon's product, energy. They conclude that man made GW does not exist. I admit, anyone would be suspicious of reports originating from Exxon's payroll.
But now realize that the government is also a "company" and its employees benefit from a larger reliance on it's "product" or regulation and wealth transfer. The government employs scientists. Why should we not be suspicious of their conclusions as well? Especially when every government scientist also implies that something political must be done about it, usually expressing annoyed for taxes and wealth transfer. These guys have a huge bias to interpret the numbers a certain way, just like the Exxon scientists do. Just a different boss telling them what to conclude.
Just common sense would tell you that converting food to fuel doesn't pass the laugh test.
As far as Exxon v the government, If Exxon screws up they may have a tort liability on their hands.
When the government screws up and people are harmed it's... oops.
I'm with you. I'm trying to get people who hate corporations to take a good hard look at the US Federal Government as just another corporation. They have a "product" (wealth transfer) and revenues (taxes). They are subject to all the same negatives as an Exxon but times 100, since they are a monopoly and are so huge.
Post a Comment