Hodad

Lol. Despite many examples of science not needing a crisis to exist. Entomologists are just entomologists. They don't exist because of the pollinator collapse crisis, and there is no non-industry buying their conclusions. I suppose you think they're funded by "big honey" taking a run at "big sugar."🙄 Again, as to the other poster, your premise is demonstrably false. There was never any money to follow. AGW was a purely scientific discovery that became mainstream in spite of moneyed opposition. There is no "anti-oil" industry set up to oppose "big oil." Nobody was positioned to profit by getting off fossil fuels. Businesses (small by comparison) have spun up around it now that the science is settled, but there was no green energy industry at the time. They're abundant and relatively cheap and we all wish they weren't a problem so we didn't have to change our lifestyles, but alas, facts are facts.

Lol. So I'll take that as a hard yes from you on refusing to learn and quadrupling down. In no way, shape or form does pointing out an overwhelming--nearly unanimous--scientific consensus constitute an appeal to authority fallacy. In no way does pointing out that 99.9% of published research acknowledges AGW constitute an appeal to authority. This a "fact" as much as evolution and gravity. And there is nothing fallacious about pointing it out. Internet kooks who say "Nah, this is a hoax," are as ignorant and unqualified to contradict the scientific consensus as ridiculous as children who think they disappear when they cover their own eyes. I don't "run away" from your bad arguments. They simply run their course. As this one has. I provided you multiple authoritative sources for a definition and you can't manage to acknowledge a straightforward definition? Not really anywhere to go from here. If you're going to create your own "alternative facts" there's not much point in debating matters of opinion or policy. Your true colors are showing, and they aren't pretty.

First, the implication that there is no such thing as objective science--that all science is driven by delivering sponsored outcomes--is both wrong and incredibly rude. And stupid. Second, it's demonstrably untrue. When AGW was initially identified over 40 years ago, there was no politics attached to it, no dedicated funding, and no controversy. The studies clawed their way through conventional thinking the same way that most truths inevitably force their way to the top. And to get there the ideas had to fight through massively moneyed, vested interests. It's actually a beat-for-beat remake of the tobacco industry. Scientists who had no financial stake and no vested interests discovered an inconvenient truth about an incredibly powerful industry. Time after time and study after study independent scientists confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer (or fossil fuels and warming) and at each step they were met with well funded disinformation campaigns from greedy industries--industries who sometimes actually funded pet scientists to muddy the waters. And still the science persevered. And the whole time, both the tobacco companies and the oil companies had their own scientists confirm the harmful effects. They knew the consequences of what they were doing, and still tried to convince people to keep consuming. Were you even aware that companies like Exxon and BP did their own climate research and confirmed AGW ages ago? Scientific American Yes, science requires funding. No, science does not require a crisis.

That's nonsense. Studying the climate is the job, whatever it's doing and whyever it's happening. Do geologists need a crisis? Nope. Biologists? Nope. Archaeologists? Nope. The same is true of climatologists. The study is the job, not the findings.

Your response is dishonest twaddle. You want to play it both ways. You pretend to respect expertise when it's convenient, but when it contradicts your politics you pretend that we shouldn't put stock in the science. Pick a lane. Or better yet, let information dictate your politics rather than trying to have your politics dictate information. The latter doesn't work and you jus tend up looking foolish in the process. And, again, relying on actual authority is not fallacious. Since you apparently refuse to educate yourself, here comes the airplane... Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ^^Oh noes! Authoritative sources that explicitly contradict your argument! What will you choose? A. Learn something and STFU about "appeal to authority" B. Pretend we can't trust these authoritative sources, quadruple down on your misapplication of the term and dishonestly keep at it Based on the past few pages, I have my guess, but every now and then someone surprises me by being decent.

The barrier to holding an intelligent conversation here is posts like that. The barrier is going back and forth for several pages about a misapplied logical fallacy--the misunderstanding of which you could resolve just by opening a book or authoritative website. But oh noes, those things are written by authorities and you can't be bothered to believe them! And there's no such thing as truth or knowledge outside of the self so everyone's opinion about facts are equally valid and we can all drown in the pit of solipsism together! The only thing you can know for sure is that your wife--if she isn't a manifestation of your subconscious--shouldn't receive a lobotomy. And for once, I agree--if I'm not a manifestation of your subconscious--because it's so gross when couples get all matchy-matchy. 😵‍💫

If markets were perfectly and linear and always had competitive domestic options, that would be true. Many trade goods don't have ANY practical competition from US manufacturers. And manufacturers won't be able to start up until they have some expectation of profitability. And even in cases where we do have domestic production, a US widget priced at $10 doesn't get more competitive if identical widgets produced abroad are $7 rather than $5. It's still just plain not competitive. You could argue that some sentimentalists at the margin would spend $3 more fore an identical widget if it had a USA label on it, but they weren't willing to spend $5 more for the same label. But then you're talking about extreme, hypothetical margin cases. We still get far more harm than help.

Lol. The "chess with a pigeon" admonition has come home to roost. I should have known better. You are as far from being able to sufficiently understand climate science as you are from doing your own bloodwork or monitoring your own food supply. I don't mean that you'd be incapable of learning those things, but no one can become expert in all things, so we rely on the expertise of others--on knowledge gathered and shared--to make better decisions. We trust our doctors to help us make better decisions because they have training and expertise and specific knowledge. We trust engineers and our FDA monitors for the same reasons. Relying on that expertise is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy. That's a misapplication of the term. An appeal to authority is only fallacious if it's an attempt to use an authoritative endorsement in lieu of a logical argument. It does not apply to invoking actual experts sharing actual knowledge of a subject. And it's certainly not fallacious when proposed actions are backed by an overwhelming scientific consensus. Now you can stick with your bogus claim--and ignore the FDA warnings about contaminated lettuce, or take up smoking, or drive a car with a recalled fuel pump because "Whadda those experts know?!?"? Or you can crack open a philosophy reference and brush up on what an appeal to authority actually means, and why it's a logically sound to rely on expert information and recommendations to make more informed decisions.

It's as I described in my first post. It does drive up the costs for goods from the foreign nations but there is no guarantee--or even probability--of that making domestic goods more competitive. Because there aren't infinite options or choices in a marketplace, markets aren't linear. Rather, they are stepped or driven by tipping points. If making a widget in the US costs $10 and importing a widget from China costs $5 then there is a $5 gap before the US version becomes competitive. If the government levies a $2 tariff on Chinese imports the goods become more expensive, hurting consumers, but they still have a $3 advantage over US goods. So US manufacturers aren't really any more likely to eat the startup costs and enter the market at a $3 price disadvantage. And it gets even less likely when we consider that it's a global marketplace. Chinese widget $5 Vietnamese widget $7 US widget $10 So if the government imposes a $2 tariff on Chinese goods, likely nothing happens. If it's a $3 tariff, importers are just switching to the Vietnamese manufacturers. Importers and retailers are disrupted (hurt) and consumers are hurt, and there is no benefit to US manufacturing. That's a pretty basic version. There are other considerations, like how the tariffs collected are reinvested (or not) in US manufacturing and other interests like strategic or military interests. So to recap, that's why broad tariffs are generally frowned upon. They have historically caused more pain than benefit. To be effective tariffs need to be strategically focused and scaled.

Nah, what I expect from you is uninformed mudslinging. For example, you're trying to call me a "hypocrite," because it sounds like an insult, but you don't Even know what the word means.

A target like shooting an arrow haphazardly up into the air and claiming the air is the target? Okay The point remains, that that kind of unfocused protectionism hurts Americans without yielding the promised gains. Economics isn't new and protectionism isn't new. It's been tried many times before. No mystery there.

Ah, the erudite, nuanced commentary we've learned to expect from you.

The "yen" is too broad a target. Which makes the real target American consumers, who paid hundreds of billions more to maintain the same standard of living. Those of you whining about inflation should take note. They were too broad and too shallow to have ever done much. They made your TVs more expensive, but not so much more expensive that an American-manufactured brand can rise up, buoyed by the advantage. Do you see the difference? We have a nascent EV industry in the US. China can scale production quickly and cheaply enough to hurt or even kill it. A focused tariff would be one strategy for protecting it. -- Protectionism that tries to protect everything just ends up harming everyone.

I do. As it turns out, treating every chain email, tweet and random YouTube video as if they are as credible as experts is a very fast way is a good way to form bad judgments--and look like a complete fool to boot.

I take it that logic is not your strong suit. lol. No, citing authoritative sources as reason for action is not fallacious. The "argument" is that if you go and see 10 doctors and they all tell you that your cholesterol is dangerously high and you better adjust your diet, you should adjust your damn diet. Or, you could play the fool and pretend like those are just 10 random opinions because you don't recognize the value of authority. Really dumb, but go for it in your personal life. Just don't expect policymakers to be as shortsighted. Except that they are.

Yes, if a graph is from an authoritative, primary source it's exactly as trustworthy as the data underneath it. If you reject that there are authoritative sources of data and wanna wallow in solipsism that's on you, but don't go opining about it.

To have the desired effect, Tariffs have to be focused and strategic. You have to want to adjust specific consumer behaviors. The problem with Trump's tariffs were that they were neither of those things. Like his tax cuts, they were pushing on the wrong levers, so they cost Americans money without moving the needle economically.

Maybe. Nobody is going to fact check that yarn-on-the-wall conspiracy. Let's stipulate that the facts are accurate, if not the implications. What the author misses is that gender inclusion policies at those institutions are not rare or special. They didn't indicate anything, because most of the big companies in the Western world have the same policies. Pick a few big companies--particularly public companies--and search "gender inclusion policy" and chances are you'll find something very similar. Black Rock (or whichever) isn't mastermind a conspiracy. Rather, like everyone else, they're just doing good business. Strong diversity positions attract better talent, retain better talent and have less friction in the workplace, because everybody knows you have to treat all people with decency and respect. They have a lot more to gain through inclusiveness than exclusiveness. Oh, and as far as makeup and fashion for men, there's huge and only partially activated market. We spent the last 100 years convincing women that natural wasn't good enough and that they needed to buy and use all kinds of crazy stuff. Now it's the men's turn.

WTF is wrong with you? It's from the St. Louis Fed. I gave you the link. Graphs are just visual representations of data. The numbers are what they are. They look how they look. This is why you have no business debating the economy. You won't know anything. You apparently can't learn anything. 🤷‍♀️

It's a single line, on a single graph. A literal child, even a toddler, can look at it and tell you which parts are higher and lower.

My favorite is when Fox News helped conservative America discover U6 unemployment for the first time. Suddenly that was the "real" unemployment number and the media was cheating for Obama by using U3, which, of course, is what's been used almost universally for unemployment figures, unless some specific alternative is called out. And the #3 crowd (despite being wrong about "real" jobs) should be loving Biden, but they won't.

That's an absurd misapplication of "appeal to authority." It should be pretty obvious that people utterly lacking the intellect, training, or time to do their own scientific research on a specific subject MUST rely on authority to inform any decision. Indeed, one would have to be a brainless fool to ignore authority in the acquisition of knowledge. That's would negate the entire competitive advantage of written and oral knowledge transfer.🙄 Aside from that, what you claim is regarding AGW consensus is patently false. There IS an overwhelming consensus on human-driven climate change across all sciences, but especially scientists in the field. There is not a single major scientific body on the planet that rejects the premise. Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. And there is only one non-committal body. Yes, that's right. The Petroleum Geologists moved from "nope" to "no comment." 🙄 Every other body accepts AGW as fact. And the actual research leaves no question. More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change You can be a flat-Earth kook, rejecting all science and sense. That's your prerogative. But you can't successfully pretend that the scientific question isn't settled. It is. Humans are driving climate change. The "if" is over. The details of how much, how bad, how soon, and what we can and should do about it are less settled to varying degrees, but everyone knows it means getting to carbon-neutral or negative ASAP.

That's a great list. That info is freely available to anyone at FRED. This is, generally speaking, a very healthy economy, both in absolute terms and certainly in relative terms. One can cherry pick a weak spot here or there, but people mindlessly repeating that the economy is awful are just blind to the facts that show otherwise.

Lol. No, you haven't. You've shown that a handful of people (a tiny minority) held that opinion of a paper from 30 years ago. That's fine. They were entitled to that opinion. And indeed, that's a self-correcting feature of science. But in this case their objections were not meaningful to the rest of the community and the consensus now approaches unanimity. You're busy boasting about climate change response being "over" while countries and corporations around the world are actively investing in mitigation strategies. You will likely be dead by the time things get really bad, but your kids aren't going to thank you. They'll wonder how their crazy old dad thought he knew better than the entire scientific community and why you didn't do more. And you are entirely clueless about economic data. I could give you all the charts and figures in the world and you'd be helpless to evaluate them. That's why you're linking to articles that directly contradict the point you'd like to make. That's not really my problem. You don't vote here. Laypeople are still shaken from the pandemic economy. Their view of the economy is emotional, like you. We'll see how many can catch up to the economic reality before the election.

Lol. This is a lot like the climate change conversation. You have your dogmatic religious beliefs, and no amount of facts can change you mind. A true zealot has no need of economists or climatologists. His feelings are more important than facts!