But he does have a Ph.D (physics) and wrote his dissertation on "gas turbulence." I think he should pull my finger.
He made some comments about global warming on the Big Dog forum and provided a link to an article he wrote on his blog. When I went to his site and responded to his article he censored my comments. Three so far. So he's a big talker except when it comes to defending his stuff, then he's a big walker.
Anyway, I am going to try and make some points and cross post stuff here. He says he very much wants to talk to people who believe in Global Warming but they "just refuse to discuss it in any way." [correction, it was a friend of his who he shared my censored post with who said this]. Since he has censored my every attempt except for one short one complaining about him censoring, I wonder who it really is who isn't up for discussing this issue?
In this article (a new one) he is arguing that we probably can't do anything about Climate Change since it is in "the commons" and no one owns it individually.
***
“Climate Change” And The Tragedy Of The Commons
FRANCIS: "...the sole effective approach to defending a commons that cannot be made into someone's private property, such as the atmosphere, would be the inculcation in all of Mankind of the conviction that that commons is worth defending, even at cost to us as individuals. That conclusion applies uniformly to all sufficiently large commons...but how we might implement the indicated approach is, to say the least, massively unclear.">>
DAR
Is it really unclear? We've done it many times before. A few examples:
When we learned lead in the gasoline was making the kiddies stupid, we banned it.
When we learned the harm of CFC's to the atmosphere, we invented new products and phased out the old.
We require coal plants to scrub their waste even though it pours into "the commons."
There are no end of examples of course.
You note that:
"Some firms are allowed to discharge noxious effluents into certain rivers..."
The fact that there are exceptions, and/or laws are broken, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have these laws or that they aren't overwhelmingly beneficial to our environment by being successful in reducing harm. While it's against the law in most states to burn your garbage, lot's of people still do it (like my republican neighbor) but this doesn't mean great utility doesn't come from it being against the law.
Darrel
Update: Francis censored the above comment and says:
"[FWP: This time around, “Darrel” has chosen to respond off-topic, without addressing any of the substantive points made in the essay. Perhaps he’s a bit slow on the uptake, but I don’t tolerate that here.]
Posted by Darrel (url) on 02/13/2010 at 01:25 AM | Comment#: 11942
***
Ah, one got through the censorship wall....
***
Excellent. You let my third post through, where I finally responded to having two censored.
I will be glad to stick to the topic and be perfectly polite as well (even though all of your material is positively brimming with ad hominem and hatred).
I've slandered no one, that's absurd and you know it.
FRAN: I’m a scientist, and this is a scientific controversy.>>
DAR
Good point. Yes it is. And overwhelming the scientists with knowledge in this field agree with me. With good reason.
FRAN: You won’t be permitted to say anything that derides or demeans others for not holding to your position.">>
DAR
Fine. But of course YOU will do this, constantly, as you do above. What is it about a fair and level playing field that scares you?
FRAN: I am so tired of leftists - and warmistas... refusing to discuss this matter in any way,>>
DAR
What? I would love to talk about this matter. Will I even be *allowed* to? No one has mentioned anything in this thread that I am not very familiar with. I would like to respond. The errors are shiny and quite rudimentary. Let's see if you will allow informed, polite, dissent or will instead hide behind censoring me because you disagree with my positions.
Let's begin.
D.
***
Francis censored my comment (one above the last) and says it was off topic (!). Here is my response:
***
You don't need to put my name in quotation marks, my name is really Darrel.
I responded directly to your main point and gave several counter examples showing why your claim is untenable.
We have many instances of collectively allowing actions, as a society, which we later learned were harmful to "the commons." Rather than foolishly thinking nothing could be done, we proceeded to take action and make the necessary changes.
There is no reason this cannot be don't with climate change.
My response directly addressed your topic. I can think of no reason why you could censor my comments other than you find them too difficult to respond to. It's safe to say you didn't censor it because you have a good response!
Again:
FRANCIS: "...the sole effective approach to defending a commons that cannot be made into someone's private property, such as the atmosphere, would be the inculcation in all of Mankind of the conviction that that commons is worth defending, even at cost to us as individuals. That conclusion applies uniformly to all sufficiently large commons...but how we might implement the indicated approach is, to say the least, massively unclear.">>
DAR
Is it really unclear? We've done it many times before. A few examples:
When we learned lead in the gasoline was making the kiddies stupid, we banned it.
When we learned the harm of CFC's to the atmosphere, we invented new products and phased out the old.
We require coal plants to scrub their waste even though it pours into "the commons."
There are no end of examples of course.
You note that:
"Some firms are allowed to discharge noxious effluents into certain rivers..."
The fact that there are exceptions, and/or laws are broken, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have these laws or that they aren't overwhelmingly beneficial to our environment by being successful in reducing harm. While it's against the law in most states to burn your garbage, lot's of people still do it (like my republican neighbor) but this doesn't mean great utility doesn't come from it being against the law.
D.
------------
Cross posted to our freethinker forum which fearlessly allows intellectual dissent, no exceptions.
