climategateFollow

Fine, call it whatever the fuck you want to call it, that's not the important part. It still needs to be kept in check.

Greater government control over industry and by extension the people who rely on it. I thought that was obvious.

Is it just par for the course now for conservatives to be conspiracy theorists?

Joph asked what the end game was. I assumed he meant: "Why would anyone do this?". I was answering the question. Just as it does not require a conspiracy for private companies to seek greater profit, it does not require conspiracy for governments to seek greater power. The core difference is that some of us realize this, while some of us do not.

Modern Conservatives (originally "Classical Liberalists") have always opposed bigger government. It's not about conspiracy theories. It's about the reality that every single government action results in a decrease in personal liberty. Thus, we should limit government actions to those things which are most necessary.

True or False? Passage of Cap and Trade in the US results in government having more control over industries in the US?


The question then becomes one of necessity. Is that necessary? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? My answer is "no".

Which does not change the fact that the IPCC was created and exists solely for the purpose of finding and reporting on the impact of human activity on climate. Period. Is anyone surprised that they are able to find science out there which shows this?


If we created an organization who's sole purpose was to determine the impact of cow manure on the results of standardized test scores in k-12 education, and funded them with enough money, how much do you want to bet they'd be able to produce massive reports showing all the different ways in which cow manure levels affect test scores? Of course they could.


You've heard of the concept of a push-poll, right? Its the idea that just by asking the question in a poll, you can influence the public opinion on a given issue. Well, this is "push-science". By spending the time and money collecting science on a given thing, you create the perception that this science is significant. And along the way, you create more of the very science you're looking at (go look at funding for climate change science over the last 15 years to see this).

Why be surprised that so much of the science shows exactly what the political folks asked it to find?

You're correct. Government actions which actually eliminate past government actions do result in an increase in personal liberty.


Governments cannot increase the range of actions you are free to do. They can only limit them. Laws don't tell you what you may do, but what you may not. You get that, right? But governments are necessary in order to protect us from even greater infringement of our liberties, thus we must accept an amount of government as "necessary".


It's sad to me how many people today simply don't grasp this. Do you really believe that government can act to increase your liberty?

Yes. Because collectively, he and the other members of Congress will be able to extend more control over those industries, requiring them to come to them for permission to do X or Y or Z. This creates a need for those companies to spend money lobbying him and others for preferential treatment. And if/when he's replaced by someone else, that person will gain equally by the process.


There's no one guy with a monocle and a persian cat Joph. I'm not the one who called this a conspiracy. In fact, I've consistently said it's *not* about conspiracy. It simply is what it is. Each factor in government benefits if government has more control and influence over the market factors. Thus, even though each factor of government may gain very little over time, the overall trend is to support more government control.


The only check to that trend is private citizens constantly standing up and saying "no".

You realize that none of this is "obvious" except from an incredibly simplistic perspective, right? This is the sort of plot you get out of a Three Investigators novel -- sounds good at the time (when you're eight) but falls apart when you actually think about it.


You can deny that all you'd like. You're saying that the entire ACC thing is created to allow a group of people to control industry and thus control our lives. And not just created by that group, but is a global network of governments all working together and funding scientific organizations around the world to create data allowing them to grasp control. Government in Uruguay and scientists in Singapore, working together so that House Democrats can seize power over the industries for a couple years before giving it over to the Republicans.

Saying "I never called it a conspiracy!" is cute but... well, that's all it is. Cute.

Ah. But "They're all doing it for the good of the planet!" isn't simplistic and naive at all...

Really? Call me jaded, but if I'm to choose between politicians as a group doing something because it benefits their own careers and them doing it because it's the right thing to do, I'm going to go with the "obvious" choice.



It's a collective body Joph. Each has their own direct reasons for agreeing to something, but typically consensus is reached in such bodies by each member finding something they believe they will gain from it as a result. The entire UN didn't do it so that Democrats in the US would be able to run on it as a platform or something. Each member state involved supported the formation and goals of the IPCC for their own reasons.


When looking for a reason, one might consider which ones represent the most universal "gain" for each member state. And while I know that the naive call to "protect the planet" sounds great to young children, it's rarely going to actually be a sufficient motivating factor for the creation of something like the IPCC.


It's called "politics" for a reason...

That didn't answer the question. Have you read the four reports or no?

Yeah, nice strawman but we're discussing your master plot here. Not the ones you're making up to avoid discussing the one you presented.



So this was your definition of "obvious"? Because you bet it's true because you're so gosh-darned cynical? Well, okay then. I thought this was the sort of "obvious" that didn't rely on being in your head to notice.


What a lovely coincidence how that just works out that everyone finds out exactly what they want to advance their gains, huh? You'd think that among all these global networks, you'd have more conflict but... nope. All these world governments and the UN and academic bodies and scientific organizations and everyone just came together with a glorious synergy to give everyone exactly what they needed to advance all their own personal agendas.

That's beautiful when you think about it.

You're dismissing my explanation of motive by arguing that it's simplistic. I'm countering with the presumed alternative explanation of motive.

Look. If you think that's a strawman, then by all means provide an alternative reason. Why do you think the UN founded the IPCC? What motivation might there be? If not "We can create this organization which will tell us stuff we can use to extend our own control at home" (for most of the industrialized world at least), then what is that motivation?



Then provide an alternative Joph. If it's not about political gain, and it's not about saving the planet, then what is the political motivation for forming the IPCC, and pushing it's results, and pushing for political action based on those results?

You dismiss my explanation and you deny what I assume to be your explanation. How about you provide one then? Seems fair...