Darn. I missed the big Republican debate. Mildly wondering what lies I may have missed, I checked the Washington Post Fact Checker.
I was not disappointed.
Here are the lies they debunked, along with a few parenthetical remarks from the fact checker:
“It is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.”
— Gov. Perry
(Perhaps the governor does not know the dictionary definition of a Ponzi scheme.)
“Obamacare is killing jobs. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”
— Rep. Michele Bachmann
(...the CBO did not say the health law was killing jobs.)
“We’ve had requests in for years at the Health and Human Services agencies to have that type of flexibility, where we could have menus, where we could have co-pays. And the federal government refuses to give us that flexibility.”
— Perry
(The George W. Bush administration rejected the application in 2008, saying it was incomplete and riddled with problems. As far as we can tell, the state has not resubmitted the waiver.)
“Obamacare took over one-sixth of the American economy… . If we fail to repeal Obamacare in 2012, it will be with us forever and it will be socialized medicine.”
— Bachmann
“In our state, our plan covered 8 percent of the people, the uninsured. His plan is taking over 100 percent of the people.”
— Romney
(It is simply not true, no matter how often candidates say that the Obama health care law represents socialized medicine or took over one-sixth of the economy. Socialized medicine is a single-payer system, in which the government pays the bills and controls costs, much like Medicare. Obama’s law was modeled closely on the law passed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts — an inconvenient fact that Romney tries hard to run away from. His comparison here is misleading, since both plans try to deal with the problem of the uninsured by requiring an individual mandate.)
“For the president of the United States to go to El Paso, Texas, and say that the border is safer than it’s ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel of a president in the history of this country, or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that border.”
— Perry
(Obama did not put it quite as bluntly as Perry suggests, and calling the president an “abject liar” seems over the top for the politically tinged comments Obama actually made.)
“He only went along with the Libyan mission because the United Nations told him to.”
— Former Sen. Rick Santorum
(Actually, Santorum has it backwards. The United States requested the U.N. resolution to gain international backing for the NATO-led intervention in the Libyan uprising.)
“The idea that we would put Americans’ economy in jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean, and I told somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact — Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”
— Perry
(We will note he repeatedly did not answer the question at the debate about whether he could name a scientist he thought was credible on the issue.)
“As a matter of fact, what he’s done is, he’s said in fact to Israel that they need to shrink back to their indefensible 1967 borders.”
— Bachmann
(Obama never said this. The president in May did give a controversial speech, in which he said the de facto border of 1967 should be a starting point for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, with agreed swaps of territory. A few days later, he further clarified his comments to make clear he was not saying the lines should be Israel’s border, to the point that he was thanked by the Israeli prime minister in a speech to Congress.)
Whew! That was an honest day’s work for Mr. Kessler.I guess that’s one job the Republicans can take credit for.
Now, before someone accuses me of working for the DNC, I will share a fact check on Obama.
“We said working folks deserved a break, so within one month of me taking office, we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.” — President Obama, Sept. 5, 2011
(John F. Kennedy seems to win the prize for biggest tax cut, at least in the last half century. Obama’s claim of having passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history” is ridiculous. He might have been on more solid ground if he had claimed the “broadest” tax cut, but that doesn’t sound very historic.)
And in even more fairness to Republicans I’ll point out something Eric Cantor said that was actually respectable.
He noted Americans, "have lost a lot of confidence in Washington and while they are going through such tough times they're frankly sick of the rancor in this town."
And regarding moving forward on Obama’s jobs initiative to be presented this week, "We've got to focus on areas of commonality, try and transcend differences here. I think we need to build consensus and that's going to require us all not to impugn motives or to question patriotism."
How about that? Of course, these are mere words... from a politician.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
177 comments:
Check these facts for truth.
(OTM) — The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that the federal budget deficit through August stands at $1.23 trillion.
CBO says the government is on track to record a deficit of $1.28 billion when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, $10 billion less than last year but the third straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
The 11-month total is $28 billion less than the deficit incurred in the same period last year. A large reason for the improvement has been an increase in individual tax collection.
The monthly deficit for August was $132 billion, CBO estimates, $41 billion more than August 2010. CBO said the difference was mostly due to a technical reason: Aug. 1, 2010 was on a weekend and the government made some big payments that July.
The government spent $3.3 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal 2011 which ends on Oct. 1, $118 billion more than last year despite budget cutting efforts.
First of all good post.
I don't have a problem with politicians who lie. They've done that for a long time maybe since the beginning. I don't know I wasn't there but I'm here now.
The problem is that these bastards are not being called out for the blatant non-stop lies that spew out of their (insert appropriate insult).
We used to have that a little but no more. And it ain't gonna change.
They lie at fucking will and the sheep bleat for more!
Lefty bloggers is where lies don't fly.
Anonymous,
Why? Because, as we've been saying, collecting more taxes cuts the deficit? Or because, as we've been saying, the deficit is so large because we have to pay for Bush's wars on credit and tax cuts for the rich?
One Fly,
Nobody proved that you can get away with lies, no matter the consequences, better than Bush/Cheney.
They have poisoned our government more than anyone in history.
From Websters -
Ponzi Scheme: Named after Charles Ponsi. A fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
Sounds exactly like Social Security to me... except maybe you have to be suckered into a Ponzi Scheme whereas with Social Security you have no choice. Also, while a Ponzi Scheme is destined to collapse, Social Security when the collapse comes simply raises taxes. The rate I believe has gone up 14 times since it's inception and will continue to increase exponentially.
If Social Security is so wonderful, why not let people or business opt out of it? Certainly a little free will and choice couldn't hurt if it is a good deal eh? If it's a good program and popular as Liberal Progressives say it is, people should be lining up to take part in it right?
Free,
If people opted out of Social Security it wouldn't be "so wonderful".
Most times "we're all in it together" proves to be better for society than "you're on your own".
Social Security is NOT a fraudulent investment operation, no matter how much you want it to be.
...I mean, and I told somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact — Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”
— Perry
Dude, that one left me really puzzled, that bastard doesn't real science for shit. God help us but IF he gets elected America will be an even bigger laughing stock as the rest of the world warps further into the 21st century.
Also, this just came to me but you know Perry could end up making Bush looking like Stephen Hawking.
Anonymous, you asked Dave...
"Just for yucks, who is second Dave?"
I'd guess Andrew Johnson. Or, Warren Harding. But for more modern-day abject corruptness and, as Dave mentioned, poisoning our government, Richard Nixon would have to be considered.
But, yeah, Bush II would definitely take top honors. He set the modern day standard of ineptness and degradation. Hands down.
Dave, you anticipated my first comment. I still hope you'll fact check Obama's speech tonight.
Dave,
So you're saying people must be held hostage to a program they want nothing to do with? That's not freedom, that's the very definition of serfdom.
I thought you were against that?
As for whose better off, my generation as the math stands now will not get a dime in benefits and if the program were to pay as promised we would have to suffer a 75% tax rate. Even if you confiscated 100% of the "wealthiest 1%" assets it wouldn't pay for even 10% of the promised outlays.
So my generation has to give 75 cents of every dollar we make and get NOTHING in return? That isn't so wonderful. Not to mention, I'm confident I could take my payroll taxes and invest them much more soundly and with a much greater profit to myself, why should I not be allowed to invest for my own retirement with my own money? After all, I earned it, and I would think I or anyone else would know how to spend it.
Free,
We are all "hostage" to taxes for things we don't want, like your wars and corporate welfare. I'm sure I have better ideas on how to spend or invest that money. Those drains on my tax dollars offer nothing in return. Most Americans want to keep Social Security and most of the Americans in dire need survive by it. Ask them if they are serfs.
I'm pleased you're optimistic about investing, as we are quite free to do so. That must certainly mean Obama hasn't destroyed capitalism and most likely will not. Woo Hoo!
Dave, it looks like your checking of "facts was more complete than Fact Checks, which were these:
http://factcheck.org/2011/09/factchecking-the-reagan-debate/
http://factcheck.org/2011/09/spinning-job-growth-by-the-numbers/
http://factcheck.org/2011/09/did-perry-double-texas-budget/
Heathen,
I am not sure why you would expect Dave to fact check Obama's speech. Are you not the one who once told me you were not in the business of finding flaws in conservative logic when I requested a balanced approach?
Anon,
Are you Caw or some other anonymous poster?
Beach and Dubya,
When Perry mentioned Galileo, he was rambling. He threw that into his economy answer, but he was talking about global warming with the reference. He managed to get the rest of it out shortly after. He was saying that you can reduce ozone and nitrous oxide levels based on "real science," and not unsettled science. He further stated that he did that in Texas.
I am sitting in Texas right now and I can barely breath because it is so hot, or I would continue yapping.
By the way, my chair just boiled out from under me. It's not climate change. Things are just getting hotter.
John Myste, we have plenty of rain here on the east coast. More than plenty. Want it?
By the way, do you think your esteemed governor will request federal funds to help soothe the devastation brought on by the worst and longest drought in Texas history? Or do you think he'll secede and then make a claim it was foreign aid?
"I am not sure why you would expect Dave to fact check Obama's speech. Are you not the one who once told me you were not in the business of finding flaws in conservative logic when I requested a balanced approach?"
John, I am a partisan, admittedly so. Dave, on the other hand, claims both parties are equally bad, that he is not a Democrat, and that Obama is basically a Republican corporatist.
As a partisan, I do not voluntarily attack my ideological brethren. Dave claims he is not a partisan, yet almost exclusively attacks Republicans. If he dislikes Obama as much as he claims, it seems reasonable to expect a fact check of Obama's speech.
Heathen,
I will let you in on a little secret: DAVE IS A CARD-CARRYING LIBERAL.
Sorry, Dave, if that was a secret. You do such a good job hiding it. I should have allowed you to maintain your mask, but I just couldn't.
I am a liberal too, and it's OK.
John, that's no secret. But I've heard you both claim that Obama is no liberal, so why do you hold fire?
HR and John,
If Obama and the Clintons are liberals, then I'm no liberal. They are corporatists, but not as radical and anti-democracy as Republicans.
As we have seen, old labels are inadequate in these times. The greatest proponents for change lately have been Republicans and their neo-liberalism. The Neo-con militarism and the expanding corporatism have been huge changes. All in the wrong direction, of course.
Pro-change is not necessarily liberal. Pro-democracy has now been marginalized as "radical" these days.
I am a pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-Bill of Rights radical by today's corporatist/militarist/surveillance state standards.
“The idea that we would put Americans’ economy in jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean, and I told somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact — Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”
— Perry
Outvoted? I think he means arrested and convicted of religious crimes and placed under house arrest...
I'm not really sure what he's saying here, but it sounds like he's arguing that when you're completely wrong about something, in order to get your way, you need to arrest and lock up the people who have their facts straight so they don't interfere with your false belief system.
Heathen,
John, that's no secret. But I've heard you both claim that Obama is no liberal, so why do you hold fire?
Whether Dave is a liberal has nothing to do with Obama's liberalness.
I am not sure why anyone would hold fire unless they are doing some kind of trick. I don't think I know that trick.
And I don't think you have heard me claim that Obama is not a liberal.
However, you may have heard me say that he is a moderate. He is a moderate who would be more liberal if he knew how.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think you have heard me even say that, until today.
Dave,
HR and John,
If Obama and the Clintons are liberals, then I'm no liberal. They are corporatists, but not as radical and anti-democracy as Republicans.
That is semantics. I know, all terms are semantic.
Anyway, if Obama and the Clintons are liberals, then I am no liberal is a fallacious statement that assumes to be a member of a group, you must be equal to ever other member of the group. Equality has no place in the formula for group membership. Imagine a ruler and on the far left is the word, liberal. On the far right is the word, conservative. Each ideal you have that could be defined as liberal moves you from your starting point in the center to the left; and each ideal you have that could be defined as conservative, moves you to the right? Where are you? You are glued to left edge of the ruler. You are a liberal, regardless of what Clinton is, Obama is, or you little dog Toto is. It is something to be proud of.
If you argue that Obama and the Clintons are not liberals, I will respect the argument, as they are on the moderate side of the liberal camp (if they camp there at all). I would say they hover at around 4 inches.
However, you are unquestionably a far left liberal, and you are certainly MORE liberal than Obama and the Clintons.
It is good to be liberal and good to admit it; else you give political adversaries legitimate targets.
If you remove all the legitimate targets, you will be able to walk among the rabble in righteousness. Trust me when I tell you, it is quite liberating. I enjoy it very much.
Dubya, I think that the similarities between your garden variety Ponzi scheme and Social Security are striking. In the context in which it was delivered by Perry, that certainly was NOT a lie. If Social Security is left as it currently is, I will not see any benefits returned to me when I retire in twenty years. It definitely meets the technical definition of a Ponzi scheme. The only difference is that we have attached to it the name of being a government program, as if that would provide a Ponzi scheme some legitimacy.
Next, I don’t know whether the CBO stated it explicitly or not, but the fact of the matter is that Obamacare is and has absolutely killed jobs or prevented the creation of new jobs. Examples abound of this fact, and indeed I know two business owners which need extra help but will not hire anyone else right now in large part due to Obamacare.
Continuing, Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano did in fact say that the border is “as secure now as it has ever been”. Obama has parroted that asinine remark. By any objective standard, the border is NOT secure and safe; a fact of which both Rick Perry and Barack Obama know.
Next, global warming is indeed a theory and not proven science. Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Piers Corbyn are two experts that punch all sorts of holes into the POLITICAL agenda of global warming. Dr. Singer was even responsible for the creation of the rockets and satellites that took earth’s atmospheric measurements. They are imminently qualified to speak on the matter along with literally hundreds of other equally knowledgeable scientists that have serious doubts regarding anthropogenic global warming. Hell, the fabricated and cherry picked data used by the pro-global warming “scientists” should be enough to give you pause in and of itself, Dubya. The emails for East Anglia stating this in their own writing is evidence of this. Is man-made global warming real? Maybe, but there certainly is not indisputable evidence of this and there are huge holes in the theory that shows just the opposite. This strikes me that the debate is more about political agendas than it is about real science for many on the left.
So much for some of your “lies”. I guess you used the Obi Wan Kenobi axiom here. “Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.”
"And I don't think you have heard me claim that Obama is not a liberal."
John, perhaps you've forgotten the following comment at our friend Paine's site"
"My progressive ideals have not been upheld since Clinton left office."
I confess that I interpreted your statement as saying Obama is not a progressive/liberal.
"I am not sure why anyone would hold fire unless they are doing some kind of trick. I don't think I know that trick."
You're from Texas and you don't pick up on a gun metaphor?
free0352 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
That post makes more sense than your last 12! I am very impressed, sir.
"And I don't think you have heard me claim that Obama is not a liberal."
John, perhaps you've forgotten the following comment at our friend Paine's site"
"My progressive ideals have not been upheld since Clinton left office."
I said that because Obama continued the Bush policies, more or less. That speaks to his effectiveness, not his ideals. He wanted to do some things, but didn’t know how. He wanted to raise top marginal rates. He wanted to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. It was not an ideal problem, but an effectiveness problem.
"I am not sure why anyone would hold fire unless they are doing some kind of trick. I don't think I know that trick."
You're from Texas and you don't pick up on a gun metaphor?
I am in Texas. Don’t call me a Texan. It’s not fair because I cannot face my accuser and I am entitled to do so.
T. Paine says, "Next, global warming is indeed a theory and not proven science."
Science doesn't recognize proofs. Proofs are for mathematics and law.
If you mean that the data collected supports the theory, then GW starts to fit your 'proven' argument...
Every idea in science that has held up to scrutiny is nothing but a theory. I know you'll argue about this. But it's a concept you can verify online easily enough.
In science, even the the idea that if you dive off a tall building, striking pavement at terminal velocity you'll die, is just a theory. It's supported by observations and only disproved when exceptions are made.
John Myste said... "I said that because Obama continued the Bush policies, more or less. That speaks to his effectiveness, not his ideals. He wanted to do some things, but didn’t know how. He wanted to raise top marginal rates. He wanted to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. It was not an ideal problem, but an effectiveness problem."
He said he wanted to do these things.
He has an long running habit of saying one thing and doing another. He's been doing that constantly since I start paying attention to him 2003.
I am a Texan and we call people who do this, 'liars'. We have other good names for these folks too. But that will do.
John,
I think my new label will be "Pro-democracy, Pro-freedom, and Pro-Bill of Rights Loony Leftist". If you think that means liberal or progressive, fine. It's easier to type anyway.
Wease,
The "theory" of gravity has killed a lot of people. Enough, already. Let's hire some republican scientists to deny it.
TP,
Glad to see your input.
No, Social Security does not meet the “technical definition” of a Ponzi scheme. Bush’s Republican buddies at Enron and Wall Street, on the other hand...
Yes I agree Social Security needs adjustment to survive and serve the next generation. I wish I could be confident in the private sector to nurture it but as we learned there is no security in the market. To be sure, it would reap huge profits for managers no matter how it fared generally. But public services are not designed to be engines of profit.
You know two business owners who need extra help. That’s a good thing. If the need rises enough, it will be worth hiring someone, and providing them with health insurance. Why don’t your buddies want their employees covered? Single payer universal health care would make it easier, but we know the Right hates that. Not enough profit for insurance CEO’s.
Are you afraid of Mexicans? Maybe we should stop selling their gangs weapons. Ah, but profit is profit, eh? Illegal immigration is down you know.
You and I have gone around before on climate change. The men you trust are wrong and they profit from Big Oil by being so.
Corbyn states "Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around". On Sky TV (part of the Murdoch Empire) Corbyn stated "the science shows carbon dioxide does not drive temperatures, and temperatures have been declining for the last seven years whilst carbon dioxide has gone up.”
Right.
And your boy Singer, the other “expert”, is associated with the following organizations: 2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health, Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute, Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis and Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom.
Impressive.
The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003. The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
As we see, these are hardly the credentials of “sound science”. This is what you say overrules all the other science? I thought you said you respect science.
You insist because two Englishmen have compromised their integrity, and your two oil-soaked corporate shills have denied climate change, that means the hundreds of others who form a significant and overwhelming consensus are wrong. Maybe you think the Earth is only six thousand years old too. It is the same reliance on faith over science.
I deeply wish that climate change was not real, but my wishes are not going to change anything. Neither will yours. Our wishes will not reverse the shrinking Arctic Sea ice, the vanishing Greenland interior ice sheet, rising sea levels, the receding glaciers in Glacier National Park and all over the world’s mountain ranges. Our opinions will not reverse the thawing permafrost that even Palin acknowledged. Our opinions cannot overrule the record high temperatures of the last decade exceeding averages of the past 150 years.
But corporate profit is the most important thing in the world to the Right, no matter the consequences. Pollution is profit. Why would they hire unbiased scientists? As a fellow outdoorsman I would think you would want to ere on the side of cleaner air and water, especially since the likelihood is not that much in doubt.
We can argue about what course of action to take, but arguing against the scientific consensus in favor of the polluting industries is foolish, gullible and sad.
No Weasel, the data, particularly in recent years does NOT support the theory of global warming. Again, even those "ethical scientists's" own emails provide proof to the fact that they have fabricated and cherry picked data.
If you choose to continue to believe in the faith of global warming despite a lack of evidence and indeed recent contradictory evidence, then that is fine, sir.
Dubya, I have acknowledged that glaciers have receded and many of the other events you stated also have occured. Such are the results of a changing climate. I don't acknowledge that this is due to man-caused pollution etc. Further, the evidence cannot prove that such is the case.
I am all for taking care of the environment. I am not for crippling our economy and nation by shutting down industry and jobs for something that there is no proof of them even being the cause thereof.
Further, the fact that Exxon-Mobile may have donated to these various groups does not invalidate the research many real scientists have done that poke holes in the faith of global warming.
I would be more suspect of those scientists that seem to be perpetuating the hoax of global warming through fear mongering in order to continue to get research grants and government funding to keep their jobs from going away when the truth of the matter is finally and incontrovertibly recognized.
TP,
I agree with you. I am also not for crippling our economy and nation by shutting down industry and jobs for something that there is no proof of them even being the cause thereof.
First, nobody is advocating shutting down jobs, just less pollution. What if the “proof” that you want comes too late, as it usually does with a catastrophe?
Now this is getting confusing.
You acknowledge changing climate yet agree with Corbyn that, "Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around,” and that, "the science shows carbon dioxide does not drive temperatures, and temperatures have been declining for the last seven years whilst carbon dioxide has gone up.”
You say money does not invalidate corporate paid climate change deniers, yet you believe in some conspiracy that invalidates and perpetuates a “hoax of global warming through fear mongering in order to continue to get research grants and government funding”. Pure Limbaugh Right Wing talking points by the way.
So in other words, only corporate shills are honest scientists and the rest are corrupted? Only Republican-bought scientists tell the truth, while all others are conspiring to promote a hoax. Who do you think is stupid enough to buy that? I mean who besides the true believers of the cult of Republican conservatism, who believe in jobs from the Bush tax cuts, “trickle down prosperity”, and the “nukular aluminum tubes” in Iraq?
The only scientists you think are credible, no matter the peer review process, are corporate scientists. Amazing.
This is your position.
Indeed. You want it both ways, don’t you?
Orwell coined a term for this. Doublethink.
Just for the record, how old do you think the Earth is, and why do you trust your sources, if they are non-corporate, that estimate the planet’s age?
"...true believers of the cult of Republican conservatism, who believe in jobs from the Bush tax cuts..."
Did anyone else notice President Obama offer payroll tax cuts in his jobs plan last night? Apparently he believes tax cuts create jobs. Go figure.
Did anyone else notice President Obama offer payroll tax cuts in his jobs plan last night? Apparently he believes tax cuts create jobs. Go figure.
That is one theory. Another is that he wants to get the bill through Congress. Go figure.
“First, nobody is advocating shutting down jobs, just less pollution.” Dubya, you are right that nobody is explicitly calling for the elimination of jobs, as that would be a really hard sell to get these laws enacted if that were brought up to the public. The fact is though that the excessive costs that will be required to comply with some of the “pollution control” and green-house gas control regulations and laws proposed will do exactly that and end up destroying certain industries while hugely impacting future job creation and job loss in the process. Ironically, these job and economy-killing regulations will effectively do nothing to really help curb global warming, even if it were indeed man-caused.
“You acknowledge changing climate yet agree with Corbyn that, ‘Global Warming is over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed evidence is the relationship is more the other way around,’ and that, ‘the science shows carbon dioxide does not drive temperatures, and temperatures have been declining for the last seven years whilst carbon dioxide has gone up.’ “
Yep! Damn straight I agree with Corbyn on all of that. If you were objective and open minded while reviewing some of his work, I suspect you would agree with us too. I know this is hard to believe, but one of the biggest factors that contributes to global warming is the sun! CO2 is NOT a cause of global warming. That meme has been thoroughly debunked. The brilliant charlatan, er.. I mean scientist Al Gore had his CO2 hockey stick graph in his Academy Award winning work of fiction thoroughly discredited by incontrovertible scientific data. Indeed the International Panel for Climate Change originally made that same claim as part of their central thesis on global warming. After this was debunked, they did not even include that in their latest report accordingly. I find that interesting, by the way, as so much of their conclusions were dependent upon that discredited assertion.
As Dr. Corbyn has shown too, CO2 lags global warming. As the earth’s temperature increases, it causes an increase in CO2. This has been documented geologically and in ice cores that show CO2 level increases are a RESULT and not a cause of global warming. If you think about it from a common sense perspective, this would make perfect sense. As the earth warms naturally, that tends to be far more beneficial for plant life, which in turn tends to be more beneficial for animal life. More animal life produces more CO2 through simple respiration. Plant life needs CO2 as a basic component for the production of O2 and glucose through photosynthesis. More CO2 means that plant life will expand.
continued
I couldn’t find the specific data I was looking for from Dr. Corbyn, but Dr. Coffman has a video that does a nice job of wrapping up some of the very points I made. At one minute into the video, he discusses the CO2 hockey stick correlation. At 4 minutes he discusses the fact that many government supported researchers do indeed have a vested interest in promulgating this man-made global warming hoax. If anthropogenic global warming was the hoax that many rational people of science believe it is, then these government grant scientists really wouldn’t have a job anymore, now would they?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Al+Gore+hockey+stick+debunked&mid=E4DB4EF828DE829D32E3E4DB4EF828DE829D32E3&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1
“You want it both ways, don’t you?” I think that is ironic since I could ask you the same question, Dubya. Why do you think that scientists that are paid by corporations for their research have less veracity than a government funded scientist that has a vested interest in a certain outcome of his research?
“Just for the record, how old do you think the Earth is, and why do you trust your sources, if they are non-corporate, that estimate the planet’s age?” Nice non sequitur, Dave.
Since I also acknowledge science in this case TOO, I tend to agree with the experts that state that our planet is roughly 4.6 billion years old. Why do you ask? Do you not believe the science there either?
"Did anyone else notice President Obama offer payroll tax cuts in his jobs plan last night? Apparently he believes tax cuts create jobs. Go figure."
"That is one theory. Another is that he wants to get the bill through Congress. Go figure."
Sorry Heathen. I have to agree with John on this one. I don't think that Obama realizes the truth of what you said, and just like EVERYTHING else he does, he put that in there for political reasons to try and get it through congress.
Please don't attribute those words to me. I do not claim that tax cuts create jobs (they might, but I can't back it up). My reason for pointing it out is that Dave likes to toss it at we conservatives, apparently not realizing that Obama believes it, too.
Or as you say, doesn't believe it but just says it to gain politically. What a Democrat!
Did anyone else notice President Obama offer payroll tax cuts in his jobs plan last night? Apparently he believes tax cuts create jobs. Go figure.
That’s quite a little joke. Or...HR apparently agrees with Obama. Go Figure.
Did anyone else notice President Obama offered no tax cuts to aristocrats?
He will be obstructed and demonized as usual.
@Heathen,
Or as you say, doesn't believe it but just says it to gain politically. What a Democrat! I am sure your realize how moronic it is to suggest compromising on a bill to get it through is unique to a democrat, though I acknowledge that the Tea Party would never do it.
What a democrat! What an absurd declaration. It is like if I say “torture, eh? What a Republican.”
@Dubya,
Did anyone else notice President Obama offered no tax cuts to aristocrats? Yes, we noticed that. He is trying to get the bill through Congress. It may be better than not having the bill. Heathen and T. Paine assume this is tantamount to corruption, which shows that either they don’t understand how to make progress in a political world (without intentionally destroying the nation through hostage acts) or they consider that any act to try to make things better is political and therefore wrong, two positions they take on faith, hence the term “conservative.” Or is compromise only wrong if done by a liberal? How does it work again, my conservative friends?
Then, because they consider it bad, they say things like “what a democrat.” If you try to make something you think is good happen, even if you cannot make it perfect, it makes you disingenuous or corrupt (at least if you are liberal). “What an irrational Republican view.”
No offense to irrational republicans intended.
Or as you say, doesn't believe it but just says it to gain politically. What a Democrat!
/sarcasm
Left that off the first time. You're frisky tonight, John.
John,
Compromise is betrayal to the ideology of authoritarians and despots. Fanaticism does not tolerate compromise. Dictatorship does not tolerate compromise. Republicans do not tolerate compromise.
TP,
Whew. You “tend to agree” Earth is actually older than six thousand years. I’m glad you tend to believe SOME public funded science. I’m surprised.
In a way, I admire your truly fanatical loyalty to a guy paid by those Big Oil types that have a vested interest in a certain outcome of his research. And I guess he’s a real hero to you for exposing the Big Hoax.
I suppose you’d also have to believe this bit:
According to Sourcewatch.org Corbyn claims that he “has a system enabling him to predict the weather with accuracy months in advance. He claims that his "solar weather technique" uses "predictable aspects of solar activity—particle and magnetic effects from the Sun to make weather forecasts MANY MONTHS ahead.”
Revolutionary! This wonderful tool for saving lives should make headlines around the world. As should the big conspiracy of evil scientists Corbyn has exposed.
But wait.
You call him Dr. Corbyn. Where did he get his PhD? Where is his dissertation? Nobody can find out anywhere. While you’re looking for that, let us know what peer reviewed work he’s published.
When asked about peer review, your good “Doctor” responded at his blog:
Complaining of the questioners, “I find these are professional peddlers of libel, lies and deception,” Corbyn insists, “I have plenty of peer-reviwed publications including a number on meteorology. The first being written when I was still at school... What I have published or not is is not important and the question is a diversion.”
Yes, everything about him is either a lie or a diversion. Oily people know a lot about lies and diversion.
Most, if not all ethical scientists, except for perhaps weapons developers, have a vested interest in discovering what is real and what is verifiable, and seek solutions to problems in order to benefit humanity. They then tend to share discoveries with the world.
You and your Svengali, who shares nothing with the world, claim over ninety percent of climate scientists are dishonest.
Amazing. This is cult like belief if ever I saw it. Then again, your belief in Republicans like Dick Cheney would qualify as well.
Why do you think that scientists that are paid by corporations for their research have less veracity than a government funded scientist that has a vested interest in a certain outcome of his research?
Because government funded scientists have degrees, and are open to peer review, unlike your charlatan.
Compromise is over rated. There is a right answer and there is a wrong answer. Putting the two together simply gives you a less wrong answer, which is why the country is so fucked up.
Oh an as for Global Warming, it's kinda funny Democrats always throw in "Paid by BIG OIL" even when that's not true.
And even when it is, right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who funds it. I could just as easily say Global Warming Fanatic paid for by BIG GOVERNMENT.
Anyway, the problem is irrelevant. The Earth has been both far hotter and far colder over the eons. Climate isn't stable, it's going to change. All you can do is roll with it. The world isn't going to come to an end, so calm the fuck down. Carbon Dioxide is a fairly common gas, and plants need it. You breath it in every day and your lungs do just fine filtering it out - so you'll be okay. Even if the MOST ALARMIST predictions turn out to be true (and I don't think they are true - I happen to think climate is effected far more by THE SUN than anything we do) compared to just one ice age this is small potatoes.
As for Obama and tax cuts, I think Americans pay too much in taxes so I'll support the President so long as those cuts are offset by spending cuts. That said, this is more stimulus. I think the last four years have CLEARLY proven stimulus doesn't work, and I don't think any of his ideas will improve the economy any more than Bush's 2000 stimulus or TARP, or any number of Obama's cockamamie stimulus has.
At the end of the day, what improves the economy is (duh) companies making money, growing, and hiring that persistent 9% unemployed. You'd think if that was your goal, you'd baby those companies as much as possible - and you'd likely say that has happened - but it hasn't really. Even the President sort of admits they are over taxed, over regulated, and under appreciated but he has a base to appease (that would be you) who pretty much love to beat the shit out of the evil rich and so....
Free,
Thank you for the validation of the authoritarian view. There is a right answer and there is a wrong answer. And Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who funds it.
Yes, there is only one correct answer of only two possible polar opposite solutions to everything. Black or white. Profit or no profit. So simple.
Yes the sun has an effect on weather and climate, especially during the daytime. Little things like swirling atmospheric gasses, planetary rotation, axis orientation and polarity are negligible.
Those too, could change. Then we'd really be in trouble. We'll just have to roll with it.
@Free,
Compromise is over rated. There is a right answer and there is a wrong answer. Putting the two together simply gives you a less wrong answer, which is why the country is so fucked up.
Free, not everyone agrees with your right answer. Different people have different concepts of truth. If one party claims they own it and everyone is just wrong, so we must do things their way or the country shuts down, then A. God help us if that truth owner is mistaken and B. Gridlock. A democracy without compromise is a dictatorship.
T. Paine, Heathen, do you guys also share Free’s opinion on this? I want to know what we are dealing with.
Hi John, my grandmother is fine. Thank you for asking. Regarding compromise, I don't agree with Free.
I've written quite eloquently on political compromise in the past. I've even tossed it into a couple of comments here at Dave's.
Like most things, we first have to define our terms. My politics are based on my ideological principles. Compromising my principles is not an acceptable choice. But that doesn't mean I can't compromise with someone I disagree with.
In the realm of politics, I can give my opponent something he wants as long as I get something I want, and what I've given away doesn't violate my principles. I don't have to require 100% of what I want as long as I advance my goals somewhat.
The biggest problem comes when we have conflicting principles and any concession by one party requires compromising principles of the other party. I think this is a very rare occurrence since left and right have very different principles, but not opposite principles, from each other.
Nobody is 100% always correct though I must admit I come very close. However, there is always a right answer - just because I don't always have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Screw compromise. Put a plan out there and pick one. Put a politician out there with some core principles and choose.
This wishy washy 50/50 split the baby crap didn't work yesterday and it won't work today. It's actually worse than pure progressivism or pure conservatism. It has given us the worst attributes of both.
As for global warming compromise, you can't compromise on global warming. Either CO2 is warming the Earth or it isn't. I think it contributes to that, however I'm not an alarmist. I don't think the effects are that serious, I don't think humans can do much if anything about climate change as they are not nor have they ever been much of a driver for climate change, and even if we get the worst of the predictions which the IPCC says will be a 6 degree mean shift it won't be that big a deal.
Okay so Florida floods? It's been underwater before and it will be again long after the human race is extinct. People will just have to move. Then in a few hundred thousand years we'll have another ice age. Can't do squat about it, and a 2% increase of gloabal CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans having any effect either way to me seems rather silly when compared to the awesome natural power of the Sun.
I'm not left or right, I'm a Libertarian. Republicans and Libertarians can find some common ground on economic principles but when it comes to economics we are Progressivism's polar opposite. Our morality is literally their immorality. There can be no political coexistence. Policy becomes a zero sum game at that point. Since the Republicans are taking more and more from Libertarians policy wise, and the left is becoming ever more socialistic, compromise will become a thing of the past if it hasn't already.
Voters must make hard choices these days - because the only thing we can agree on is the answer IS NOT in the middle.
I'll give Liberals an example.
How willing are you to compromise on repealing ObamaCare, ending Social Security, ending Medicare, and ending all taxes to be replaced with a national sales tax? That is tbe Libertarian agenda, can you live with half of that?
Didn't think so.
Ops last thing.
As for me being authoritarian. Dave, you're the one saying I should be drafted into Social Security, speech should be regulated by the government, people should be taxed simply for having more money than other people, and that political parties should be forced to work with minority parties to "compromise."
yeah, whose authoritarian?
@Everyone,
I want to make sure you all understand Free’s last comment as of 11:01, let you think it was moronic. I think I can help clarify it a bit.
Nobody is 100% always correct though I must admit I come very close. However, there is always a right answer - just because I don't always have it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Free is one of the best choices for a dictator once we come to our senses and relinquish our democracy.
Screw compromise.
What use has a dictator for compromise?
Put a plan out there and pick one. Put a politician out there with some core principles and choose.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, this means the final election, the one that selects a dictator, should be used to elect a conservative despot, not someone who cares about all the people.
This wishy washy 50/50 split the baby crap…
Democracies are infantile mush-minded crap.
This wishy washy 50/50 split the baby crap didn't work yesterday…
Didn’t work in Athens…
and it won't work today…
Doesn’t work in America…
It's actually worse than pure progressivism…
Whatever that is. I think I call it socialism in the absence of understanding …
or pure conservatism….
Me, me, me….
It has given us the worst attributes of both.
Actually, one attribute: checks and balances. We have no use for that in a dictatorship. That kind of thing exists in a democracy.
As for global warming compromise, you can't compromise on global warming.
In other words, I somehow think the question of political policy compromise extends to science. I did not understand the original premise I just argued about.
Either CO2 is warming the Earth or it isn't.
What I mean is, it isn’t very much. Scientist who study it think it is, but we conservatives have little use for scientific data. We form our own opinions. We are our own people.
I think it contributes to that, however I'm not an alarmist. I don't think the effects are that serious, I don't think humans can do much if anything about climate change as they are not nor have they ever been much of a driver for climate change, and even if we get the worst of the predictions which the IPCC says will be a 6 degree mean shift it won't be that big a deal.
I mean, if I were a scientist I would think this, probably. I have faith that I would, anyway.
Okay so Florida floods?
I don’t live in Florida. What’s the problem?
It's been underwater before and it will be again long after the human race is extinct.
There was no Florida when the earth was made of water and Pangaea and I did not hear any of you drowning crybabies complaining then, so shut the hell up!
People will just have to move.
I mean those who can swim. The rest will remain in Florida eternally because we are not letting you elderly folk use our rowboats. Nowhere is that required in the Constitution, so the government cannot do it. I, Free, only have a single rowboat, and you cannot use that. I may need it, and what makes you feel entitled to it, anyway, grandma?
Then in a few hundred thousand years we'll have another ice age.
It doesn’t matter if you die or if you suffer while you live because 200,000 years from now, we are going to have an Ice Age, don’t you get that?
Can't do squat about it, and a 2% increase of gloabal CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans having any effect either way to me seems rather silly when compared to the awesome natural power of the Sun.
The sun is really hot; tub-loads of degrees. You think just because when your flesh heats up by only a few degrees, it starts to boil, that matters? Do you have any idea how hot the sun is?
[Defense, clarification and support of Free’s position complete]
1:01, not 11:01.
@Free,
Although my last comment was highly complimentary and supportive of you, your other comment kind of undoes some of my praise.
How willing are you to compromise on repealing ObamaCare, ending Social Security, ending Medicare, and ending all taxes to be replaced with a national sales tax? That is tbe Libertarian agenda, can you live with half of that?
I am willing to compromise on anything so long as the alternative is acceptable. I am not asking that you compromise on getting rid of the military, for example. I am asking that you compromise on a jobs bill and I am not condemning Obama for doing it. He is not a dictator. He cannot get the bill he would like through Congress. His options are to compromise or to do nothing.
Checks and balances were built into the system by design, and they force compromise or a government shutdown. By the way, they prevent despotism and oligarchy, or try to, the very thing you seem to want. The Tea Party becomes the de facto leaders by simply refusing to compromise. Oh, that is democracy in action. Conservatives preaching perspective need to study, not sermonize.
The reason the precious Founding American Gods put this into the system was so men like Free could not impose their non-compromising despotic agendas on the country.
It is one idea that they were right about, that and their general lack of respect for the Christian God.
I don’t want to compromise on a jobs bill. Conservatives argue that taking money from businesses could cause layoffs, or a lack of hiring. Some liberals argue that we raise top marginal rates and start repairing our failing infrastructures, thus creating jobs to offset the possible losses from your arguments. Once these infrastructures are in place, everyone who works will have a better life. If this stimulating effect is no longer needed, cut the top marginal rates back down. I consider both arguments faith-based, but I have slightly more faith in the second one.
The primary raise in top marginal rates I would endorse, is not a rate increase, but a collection effort. Collect the rates on the books, and we are suddenly a land flowing with milk and honey.
I would gladly exchange Obama care for this.
I would not, however, exchange your form of despotism for our democracy, even with all its flaws; and I would never choose a liberal oligarchy over a democratic nation with checks, balances, and compromise built into it. That is a nation designed to represent everyone, not just you, the owner of right, wrong and the Truth According to Free, a Gospel you think we should all live by, even those of us who are sickened at the thought.
I mean that with all due respect, sir.
I can always tell when Republicans are lying. Their lips are moving. ;)
Anderson,
You forgot about the hand gestures, smoke signals, winks and nods, and ventriloquists.
Calm down, Republicans. I am not saying I agree with Mr. Anderson. I am merely stating things he left out.
John is trying to use typical alensky debate tactics. Sarcasim.
At this point he's literally arguing with himself. Watching the flailing is quite comical.
There are LOTS of scientists out there who think Climate Change (they don't call it global warming anymore btw) is big fraud. More over, we've caught more than a few rather famous advocates of climate change falsifying data with their pants down. Sue me if I'm skeptical now.
THE POINT YOU CAN'T GRASP is this. The Earth's climate is too complex to control, and what we do to it, if it matters even an iota, isn't much. I'll spare you my cut and paste links from MIT scientists and along with many others I keep saved just for this occasion. I don't think their opinion would change your mind because you're not basing this on science but on a faith belief. Global Warming as Michael Chriton said so well... is a religion.
As for florida flooding. Climate Change takes decades. I'm sure they'll have plenty of time to hop in their SUVs and drive away on nice roads... that btw could happen just as easily if we reduce our CO2 output to zero. You see, even the IPCC's worst predictions would give us decades to compensate. Hence my unwillingness to train wreck the economy with alarmist regulations just because you guys watched An Inconvenient Truth and bought Al Gore a new Gulf Stream.
As for me being a dictator, you could only be so lucky. However that solution seems unlikely. In the mean time, you get the two party system - and the two sides just don't jibe. Policy will be shaped on votes by partisan factions from now until one side goes the way of the whig.
I am willing to compromise on anything so long as the alternative is acceptable
They are seldom acceptable to us. However, since I depart from my party when it goes to combating Islamic Extremism I can honestly say President Obama has done a much better job in killing Terrorists than I ever gave him credit for.
Obama hasn't presented a bill yet, put one up for a vote or even shown it on paper. Let him present one. We'll reject in it what we don't like and vote for what we do. Democrats can either live with it or not. After all as President Obama clearly said two years ago when he was ramming his agenda down the throats of us when we were the minority - Elections have Consequences. Don't get all emotional about it and go all drama queen. This is how the American system works and it works just fine.
To not believe climate change is a real phenomena is foolhardy. It's on a par with not believing evolution is a real phenomena.
I'll put my faith in science -- real science. Not that provided by private interests, whose only objective (as all here will, undoubtedly, agree) is profits.
Heathen Republican, you commented...
"Did anyone else notice President Obama offer payroll tax cuts in his jobs plan last night? Apparently he believes tax cuts create jobs. Go figure."
Well, sure, being the good corporatist that he is, he's all for dismantling social security -- just as the other wing of the Corporatist Party.
I thought Dave Dubya and I had made this abundantly clear. I guess not.
There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about global warming without resorting to attacking the credibility of scientists. First, what temperature data are you looking at? Is it satellite, ground, or water temperature? How do you aggregate that into a single "global temperature" with which to compare temperature trends over centuries? Where does the temperature data come from for earlier centuries?
Next, how do you explain warming periods in the past when the world was not industrialized? If it's not by human activity, isn't it reasonable to think that current warming is also not because of human activity? We have not always had ice at the poles, so it's not all that unusual for it to melt. Why is the current state of the ice at the poles "the ideal" and why do we have to worry about current melting?
Lastly, the science you guys are referring to are actually climate models. Every prediction is based on a computer model with certain assumptions developed by researchers. We are to assume that a computer model today can predict catastrophe 50 years from now, but can you point to a single computer model that has been back-tested 50 years and accurately predict today's "global temperature?" You can't. It doesn't exist.
Basing public policy, which would hurt the economies of the world, on computer models fed by assumptions (i.e. faith) from climate researchers who are dependent on governments and corporations for their funding seems unwise to me.
(Please note that at no time did I declare global warming to be a hoax. That is just as much a faith-based position as declaring it to be real and catastrophic.)
Free, Sir,
John is trying to use typical alensky debate tactics. Sarcasim.
At this point he's literally arguing with himself. Watching the flailing is quite comical.
I presented your position, line by line, and then answered it. Your position is stupid. Do not assign it to me. I find that insulting. I was answering you. However, I fully agree that it was quite comical. Two other people read it and they laughed also.
More over, we've caught more than a few rather famous advocates of climate change falsifying data with their pants down. Sue me if I'm skeptical now.
We think we caught someone in all major discussions falsifying data, which is but reason I am so skeptical of gravity.
THE POINT YOU CAN'T GRASP is this. The Earth's climate is too complex to control, and what we do to it, if it matters even an iota, isn't much.
I totally get that, actually. You can, however, negatively influence it.
I'll spare you my cut and paste links from MIT scientists and along with many others I keep saved just for this occasion. Thank you. I hate links trying to prove something I don’t challenge.
I don't think their opinion would change your mind because you're not basing this on science but on a faith belief. Actually, I am basing it totally on science and nothing else. I am deferring to those who are educated in the field. Almost all of them disagree with you, but then you are a junior Political Scientist who is really a soldier, and is also an accountant and a businessman and an award winning logician, so you probably know more than the majority of real scientists. I do not have an opinion other than what the scientists tell me. I don’t form opinions out of faith, just as you have, when you think you know more than they do, because you studied Aristotle in School.
Global Warming as Michael Chriton said so well... is a religion.
Global warming? What in the hell is that? Don’t you mean climate change?
As for florida flooding. Climate Change takes decades. Climate change has been occurring for decades. Are you sure you researched this?
You see, even the IPCC's worst predictions would give us decades to compensate. Aren’t we saying there is nothing in need of compensation?
Hence my unwillingness to train wreck the economy with alarmist regulations Amen, brother Free.
just because you guys watched An Inconvenient Truth and bought Al Gore a new Gulf Stream. I don’t want you to wreck economies because of programs I watched, goofball.
Policy will be shaped on votes by partisan factions from now until one side goes the way of the whig. America is an oligarchy, but that was not the design and the Founders you pray to did not want it. They wanted checks, balances, and compromise. I would think a subject matter expert with a bachelor’s degree in political science would have run into this concept.
HR,
While we know there have always been natural changes in Earth's climates, it would be absolutely foolish to disregard the several hundred gigatons of Carbon Dioxide humans release into the atmosphere.
Those who deny the greenhouse effect are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, especially if policy makers take their word for it.
Reducing pollution should be a no-brainer, but pollution is profit, so we know what that means...
@Heathen,
There is little point in re-researching and finding you the evidence that it is real, because you already decided that it may not be, which makes you have the exact opinion I do, with one small modification:
Here is your opinion, which for a conservative statement on this issue is very enlightened and impressive:
(Please note that at no time did I declare global warming to be a hoax. That is just as much a faith-based position as declaring it to be real and catastrophic.)
Here is mine:
Most of our amateur treatment of the issue is superficial regurgitation of what we read somewhere. We are not looking at source data and we really are not trained enough to follow it if we were. Not only would most of us not know what the source data meant, we would not know to ask the relevant questions or to understand its ramifications. Only utter arrogance makes us think otherwise. We need to be seen by ourselves and others as being right and we need to be seen as knowing. We must have the answer. We have to defer to experts who spend much of their lives studying this or to our own non-reason-based egos. There is no third choice. (Well Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. I suppose are a third choice).
Almost all of those who spend their lives studying this, think/know humankind is contributing to the rate of climate change, and helping it to exceed beyond anything explainable by untouched natural processes. Like you, I can browse the web and find amateurly expressed attempt to refute this, but they are not refuting it. They are simply trying to persuade the masses. These childish arguments would not be used in a high level scientific debate. They would discuss real source data and concepts and ramifications that are completely beyond you.
They vast majority of scientists could easily be mistaken, which would not make it a hoax, but a mistake. However, to think that the possibility is 50/50 is irrational. Those who are actually in a position to know are pretty sure. Those who are not in a position to know, pray for the answer, and are equally sure.
I completely agree that all of our prayers have a 50/50 chance of returning the right answer, but this does nothing to refute the opinions science. The vast majority of those who disagree with the majority of scientists are not scientists and cannot even understand the debate that hosts their passionate opinions. They cannot comprehend the discussion the scientists are having, much less question it with reason. They heard a couple of scientists, the tiny minority, possibly with an agenda, dummy down something that sounded good and did not even address actual source data or the difficult science. It is not rational to form your opinion about climate change based on introduction to an opinion piece some a minority in the scientific community produces.
If you think you and the average cabbie are equally capable of following this discussion, then I see your point. This is of our disagreement and it has nothing to do with the specifics of climate change. You and the cabbie perceive yourselves as capable in this area, even though neither of you is trained and neither of you would likely be able to follow a non-dummied down analysis that discusses the real details that give science its conclusions. I do not hold myself in such esteem. I do not have to believe in the Christian God to explain morality or in Ann Coulter science to explain climate change. I have no use for faith as the primary tool of knowledge, and don’t feel the compelled to tell a protesting surgeon that he is operating on the wrong heart valve because Ann Coulter told me he is and she sounded pretty convincing.
@Free,
John is trying to use typical alensky debate tactics. Sarcasim.
I am sorry to inform you, but Alinsky did not invent sarcasm. Additionally, the fact that Alinksy did use sarcasm does nothing to refute a position expressed in sarcasm, as you and all award-winning logicians know. Therefore, bringing Alinsky up was completely off topic and pointless, unless you wanted to imply that anything Alinksy did is bad or wrong, in which case I cannot think it is OK to help an elderly woman in a wheelchair cross the street if that is something Alinsky did also.
Freedom Rants, what a joke of name for this blog!
I believe this is Caw, right? Why do you snipe as Anonymous? Are you ashamed to be identified with any statement you formerly made?
John,
It's the same dimwit and his troll droppings. I have nothing more to say to him and will flush his excrement to preserve the continuity of our discussions.
Dave,
I kind of like him here when he is simply supporting wrong positions. People using untenable and emotional arguments keeps me entertained. I just adore Free.
What I don't care for, is everyone naming their kitten Boots.
When Boots meows, I want to know it is Boots that meowed and not Boots.
I have no use for Anonymous comments. It is confusing and my words are confusing enough without Anonymous or Caw or whatever he calls himself adding to the confusion.
The name "Anonymous" is already taken by a 1000 other bloggers.
We the people have a right to prevent Global Warming from destroying our country. It is covered in the common clause section of the Constitution!
We the people have a right to prevent Global Warming from destroying our country. It is covered in the common clause section of the Constitution!
Weasledog, Free explained to me that he has a bachelor’s degree in political science and therefore his interpretation of the law is more reasonable than mine.
Nice try, though. I was confused by the ambiguity in the Constitution as well until I spoke to a lawyer / soldier / libertarian, who disagreed with the definition my brother gave He is an attorney who teaches Constitutional Law. And Free disagreed the interpretation of all the lawyers who also teach law at Mad Mike’s America have. He explained why his interpretation is more credible, though: it is his bachelor’s degree in political science. He did not mention the fact that he is a career soldier, but I think that helps make him right also.
Now, if you can counter Free’s authority with some authority of your own, I may reconsider this. For example, if you had a degree in liberal arts, or in dispute resolution or in small animal nursing, perhaps I would consider your legal interpretation as valid as Free's.
@John, the point of my questions is to highlight that I have not already made any decisions regarding climate change. As with religion, I am a skeptic. I make no assertions one way or the other; I simply don't know.
The people who assert that the earth is warming, that it is the fault of mankind, and that it will lead to catastrophe have the burden of proof. I do not claim to be a scientist and I do not make scientific arguments. Hell, I rarely even quote scientific sources because then people like Dave try to undermine scientists I don't even know.
My approach is to outline why I'm skeptical. I highlight the logical flaws in the arguments (e.g. the sun isn't even considered a factor, pre-industrial warming periods are not explained) and the methodological flaws of the researchers (e.g. determining a global temperature, validating computer modeling).
I regret that you chose to answer my charges because you've given cover to people like Dave, Jefferson, and Weasel so that they will completely ignore the argument for skepticism that I presented. They will take your response as a complete rebuttal even though all you've really done is point out that I'm not a scientist. Bravo. I'm not a scientist.
@Dave, you apparently are a scientist with your claim of "several hundred gigatons of Carbon Dioxide humans release into the atmosphere." This sounds like a non sequiter to me. We release a lot of things into the atmosphere, so why do none of those things cause global warming?
Perhaps you would argue that there is a causal link between CO2 and temperature. Are you sure that CO2 comes first, and then the temperature goes up. Perhaps as the temperature rises, CO2 increases. Or perhaps there is only a correlation between CO2 and temperature and they are both caused by a third factor.
Most people hear "gigatons" and assume our atmosphere is now full of CO2. In fact, all of those "gigatons" due to mankind have amounted to 0.01% over the last 100 years.
I suspect none of you arguing in favor of the global warming hypothesis are aware of the scientific support for the skeptic's position. You probably think there is no scientific basis for our position, but you would be wrong. Kindly start here.
My goal is not to convince anyone that global warming is a hoax. I really don't know. But as an atheist, I am a natural skeptic. What's wrong with the rest of you that you've been so easily brainwashed and can't even consider a little skepticism of global warming? You have to chalk up reasonable questions to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Tea Party talking points, instead of consider them on the merits.
You're liberals. Open your minds and remember that you're the ones who are supposed to question authority.
Jefferson,
John, I agree with Weasel.
Hmm. Surely you did not take my comment as a rebuttal to Weasel?
@Heathen,
The point of my questions is to highlight that I have not already made any decisions regarding climate change.
I realize this, which is why I said our opinions were not that far apart. I err on the side of science and you err on the side of skepticism. If scientists, those who spend their lives learning about this and studying it, were evenly divided, then I too would err on the side of skepticism. Or, if scientists added philosophy atop their science, I would feel equally capable of challenging their philosophy. However, they are not evenly divided. I don’t know the answer and I admit it. You don’t know the answer and you admit it. In this way we both agree and are both skeptics. My guess lies with the weight of the evidence. Yours does not. You discard the evidence on the word of a scant minority. That is where we depart ways.
I regret that you chose to answer my charges because you've given cover to people like Dave, Jefferson, and Weasel so that they will completely ignore the argument for skepticism that I presented.
In this way, I also regret that I answered. I tend to stay out of such discussions, since I don’t claim to know the answer and I find most evidence either side presents to be shallow, circumstantial or cherry-picked. Something you said motivated me to respond.
If will help, Dave, Jefferson, Weasel, I am very sympathetic to Heathen’s position on this and SOMEONE needs to refute him outright. Alas, I am not up to that challenge. I am sure you will agree that I am not the man to do it, Weasel, if you recall our discussion about evolution? Remember, I am a moron where science is concerned?
Hope that helps, Heathen.
They will take your response as a complete rebuttal even though all you've really done is point out that I'm not a scientist. Bravo. I'm not a scientist.
I did more than that. I argued that you do not have the resources needed to have a very useful opinion, outside that of deferring to the experts who study this, and they almost unanimously side against the skeptics. Again, either side could be right: the right wing or science. I don’t know which side is right and I completely agree with you that the burden of proof is on the scientific community making the assertion. However, due to the near unanimous weight of the experts’ conviction, the burden of proof shifts to the layman who denies the scientific communities findings based on his “sound bite” understanding of the issue. The scientific community’s opinions are not based on sound bites. Sound bites are used to persuade or to dummy up. They are junk science.
@Heathen,
One more thing, Heathen: you can be a skeptic, say you are not sure of the real answer, and still have your best guess be what those who have an intimate understanding of the issue think the answer is.
You may consider this some kind of Appeal to Authority, but if you do, then you don't understand Appeal to Authority, which is where you have all the data, understand it, and reject the logical analysis of it because someone respect rejects the analysis. Or, where you base your opinion on the fact that you found someone who agrees with you in a position of authority. If almost ALL the experts agree and they are the ones who would know, then this is not an Appeal to Authority.
You do not have all the data. You Googled a few places and found someone arguing that the science if flawed. Their arguments are not very potent because the question is way too scientific for a layman, something laymen don’t acknowledge because they need to be the ones with the answers and they are not about to learn science in order to do it.
You don't have to "know" it is real. I do not. I am almost positive it is more real than the right says. I also think there is a very good chance that it is less dire than the left says, but I don’t know. It could be much worse than we yet know.
I think the odds that the scientific community is not as intelligent about this as the cabbies and waitresses who disagree with it, or that it is a universal conspiracy, are very unlikely.
Again, if we think that is possible, the burden of proof shifts to us.
And when that proof is met, much of the scientific community will embrace it. Therefore, I doubt the burden of proof has been met, as the scientific community has not shifted. Maybe it will be met, but I doubt the Cabbie analysis will make it happen. Good luck to you, nonetheless.
Oh, and Dave, Weaseldog, and Jefferson, this is not a rebuttal to Heathen’s position. Would someone offer a rebuttal to his skeptical position, for God’s sake? (Is that good enough, Heathen?)
To all...
The comment attributed to me (Jefferson's Guardian) at 5:39 p.m., was not made by me. Apparently, I've been hacked and my site (my blog) has been attacked also.
I take this attack as a compliment, and not a threat. It tells me I'm getting too close, and they don't like that.
HR,
We release a lot of things into the atmosphere, so why do none of those things cause global warming?
How do you know that?
Thank you for the link. I read the article.
Warren Meyer has a degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering. As with TP’s “experts” wouldn’t it be nice if they were actual PhD level scientists? And as with TP’s “experts” this person is clearly financially motivated to deny effects of climate change.
We note Mr Meyer joins the Evil Scientist Conspiracy;
Nowhere can we better see the effect of money on science than in climate change studies, as academics studying whatever natural phenomenon that interests them increasingly have the incentive to link that phenomenon to climate change to improve their chances at getting funding.
This hardly adds to his gravitas. Then Meyer goes on to say:
Alarmists like to call climate skeptics “deniers,” usually in an attempt to equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers. But skeptics do not deny that temperatures have warmed over the last century, or even that man (through CO2 as well as land use and other factors) has played some part in that warming. What skeptics deny, though, is the catastrophe.
First of all I’m not so sure I’m an “alarmist” as much as a concerned Earthling. I do sense some paranoia in the gentleman if he really believes we “equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers”. Come on.
Having said that, I seem to agree with the skeptics on a couple things. I also “do not deny that temperatures have warmed over the last century, or even that man (through CO2 as well as land use and other factors) has played some part in that warming”. And I have some sympathy to the notion that we have not yet arrived at the point of “catastrophe”.
But is this a sound foundation to dismiss the warnings of the vast majority of researchers? No. I think not. Even though the science is not of absolute certainty, I would allow some reasonable concerns regarding our levels of greenhouse gasses in addition to other factors. One never knows; a huge volcanic eruption could settle the matter and plunk us all into another small ice age. But should we bet on it?
I think one may reason with skeptics over the issue, but outright deniers are more like true believers of a cult. They only listen to their authority figures like renowned climatologist/pharmacologist Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately a vast swath of Americans takes this man at his word by faith alone.
The EPA says, “As through much of its history, the Earth's climate is changing. Right now it is getting warmer. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities.”
Throughout the science section of this website, use of "very likely" conveys a 90-99% chance the result is true.
For assessments and reports see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change site:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
Is it too much to ask that we simply try to clean up after ourselves a bit more? Can we be a little more skeptical of the pollutants we casually dump into our environment?
And Dave, right on cue:
1) I observe that your tactic is to ignore arguments and prefer to undermine the credibility of any contrary opinions ("I rarely even quote scientific sources because then people like Dave try to undermine scientists I don't even know.")
2) I link to an intelligently written article in Forbes about the science behind skeptical opposition.
3) You proceed to undermine the author of the article ("Warren Meyer has a degree in mechanical and aerospace engineering..." "We note Mr Meyer joins the Evil Scientist Conspiracy...")
You cite the EPA and IPCC, yet decry people on the other side of the issue as in the pockets of Big Oil. I'm fascinated that you are blind to the political motives of both the EPA and IPCC.
"They only listen to their authority figures like renowned climatologist/pharmacologist Rush Limbaugh."
I don't know if you realize this tactic, but you repeat it often in every comment thread. Instead of arguing points made, you attempt to undermine your opposition by associating them with people like Rush Limbaugh.
We on the right see this for exactly what it is: intellectual surrender. I challenge you to go an entire week without using this tactic and see if the quality of your arguments doesn't improve decidedly.
JG,
We can identify the troll by the lack of color in the "Blogger" icon.
A common dirty trick by Rightists.
He's not fooling anybody.
"If scientists, those who spend their lives learning about this and studying it, were evenly divided, then I too would err on the side of skepticism... However, the are not evenly divided."
@John, you're not suggesting this is a matter for majority-rule are you? Assuming I could prove to your satisfaction that more than 50% of experts are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming leading to disaster, you would change your mind? I don't believe you.
First, contrary to your media sources, the belief of scientists in global warming is not even close to unanimous. There are a significant number of scientific skeptics. Do you need me to pull up the numbers or can we agree that science and skepticism based on logical and reasonable questions are not something we put to a vote of experts?
"You [Heathen] discard the evidence on the word of a scant minority."
I haven't discarded evidence, and I'm pretty sure you can't show where I have done so. In fact, I am considering more evidence than the people here who advocate for global warming. I am the one open to alternate hypotheses.
"You do not have all the data. You Googled a few places and found someone arguing that the science is flawed."
Actually, I didn't find the link through Google. The link to The Science of the Climate Skeptic's Position has been on my website since early this year. You will find it sixth from the bottom in my News Clippings.
And the point of the article is not that the science is flawed; it's that the skeptic's position is also science based. I wonder if you see the bias in your own words as you craft your responses.
HR,
You assume climate scientists have "political motives" because the deniers obviously have financial motives. You need your "Evil Scientist Conspiracy" to find some equivalence with the outright mercenary motives of the deniers.
I credit you for not insisting climate change is hoax, despite the projected accusations.
Show us a non-Republican, non corporate scientist climate change skeptic if you want to remove the political/financial motive and credibilty question.
No wonder most scientists are not conservatives or Republicans. The real conspiracy seems to be against them. That certainly reflects the Rightist tactic of projection.
My Limbaugh crack was intended to be humorous. I don't associate them. They do by their own words. If people don't want to be associated with the crank, then they shouldn't say the same things he says.
Fair enough?
You can feel free to do the same to me if I parrot some Democratic Party water carrier.
@Heathen,
@John, you're not suggesting this is a matter for majority-rule are you? Assuming I could prove to your satisfaction that more than 50% of experts are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming leading to disaster, you would change your mind? I don't believe you.
Re-read my comment. I made no such suggestion. I suggested if almost everyone who has an in-depth knowledge of it has an opinion about it, it is illogical for you, with a shallow knowledge to dispute their findings because you heard someone say otherwise. They heard the same idiot you did, and knowledgeably rejected his findings.
Your erroneous suggestion was this is an Appeal to Majority, which only shows me that you don’t know what an Appeal to Majority is. As with global warming, you read a sound-bite one line definition and you think that tells the story. Appeal to majority is when you have the data and reject it because the majority disagrees with it. YOU DON’T HAVE THE TRAINING TO HAVE THE DATA. Those who do have the training almost unanimously disagree your opinion. Yet, you hold to your view. I do not think Pluto exists. You do. Why? Because science tells you, and even without any real knowledge, you buy into it, because they have studied it with a great deal of training and knowledge. Your cabbie opinions to not supplant the scientific community’s body of knowledge.
Do you need me to pull up the numbers or can we agree that science and skepticism based on logical and reasonable questions are not something we put to a vote of experts? No, because I don’t’ want to waste my time finding the quotes that 98% of the scientific community agrees. I take on faith that you actually know this, and are looking for other numbers. I am not interested in that game.
Do you need me to pull up the numbers or can we agree that science and skepticism based on logical and reasonable questions are not something we put to a vote of experts?
False dichotomy. I agree that reasonable questions cannot be put to the vote of experts. Show me a non-layman’s analysis you understand and you will have some credibility for rejecting science, but not until them.
Do you even know who “The Science of the Climate Skeptic's” really are?
And the point of the article is not that the science is flawed; it's that the skeptic's position is also science based. I wonder if you see the bias in your own words as you craft your responses. you argue with sound bites. You have yet to produce a technical argument that is not all over Google presented for layman. The reason, I think is that you have never seen one and wouldn’t understand it if you did.
All I'm saying about climate change is it's going to happen anyway. It's happened before, it will happen again. What humans do is minimal. The climactic swings prior to humans even existing as a species were far more extreme than anything even the most breathless fanatic says... so, so what? Climate will change, there is NOTHING we can do about it. If it swings colder, "global warming" will actually help and if it swings warmer the IPCC says we can expect it to be 6 degrees warmer. What's the worst case? People will have to sell beach houses in Florida and buy them in Georgia and South Carolina? Forgive me if I just shrug my shoulders. A few thousand years after that the planet will freeze again.
People can't control the Earth, or even affect it much. The sum out put of human produced CO2 is about 2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we adopted the crazy Kyoto treaty (which would definitely train wreck the economy even worse than it is now) it wouldn't make a bit of difference so why exactly are we even talking about this?
@John
"I suggested if almost everyone who has an in-depth knowledge of it has an opinion about it, it is illogical for you... They heard the same idiot you did and knowledgeably rejected his finding."
I think I'm insulted. In return, I suggest that everyone who has in-depth knowledge that contradicts anthropogenic global warming leading to catastrophe is similarly illogical for you. Apparently you're unable to even consider it.
"Your [Heathen's] erroneous suggestion was this is an Appeal to Majority, which only shows me that you don't know what an Appeal to Majority is."
I made no such suggestion
"YOU DON'T HAVE THE TRAINING TO HAVE THE DATA."
I know. I've conceded as much. You've said the same of yourself.
"Those who do have the training almost unanimously disagree with your opinion."
Not quite. As of today, 31,486 American scientists say that there is no convincing evidence of catastrophic global warming. (Petition Project) I do not claim that this represents a majority view, but it sure makes it harder to say that 98% of scientists support the global warming hypothesis.
You don't have to read the paragraph above. I realize it disrupts your current beliefs and you will ignore it anyway.
"You have yet to produce a technical argument..."
I do not claim to have a technical argument. I am not qualified.
"The reason, I think is that you have never seen one and wouldn't understand it if you did."
I think I've been insulted again.
In return, I suggest that everyone who has in-depth knowledge that contradicts anthropogenic global warming leading to catastrophe is similarly illogical for you. Apparently you're unable to even consider it.
Where have you been? I said I DO consider it possible. I said it was not 50/50 proposition, but it is possible. Remember? You do remember the topic we are discussing now, right?
Your [Heathen's] erroneous suggestion was this is an Appeal to Majority, which only shows me that you don't know what an Appeal to Majority is."
I made no such suggestion
I assumed that was what you meant. If you made no suggestion, I take my long-winded explanation back.
"YOU DON'T HAVE THE TRAINING TO HAVE THE DATA."
I know. I've conceded as much. You've said the same of yourself.
Exactly! The difference is, you think the answer could be A or it could be B. I think what the scientific community generally embraces is the most likely answer, as they are the ones who are equipped to know. You think if you find someone who says it’s not so, then we need to be skeptical, meaning a 50/50 proposition. I think that’s absurd. This is how disagreement in its entirety.
Not quite. As of today, 31,486 American scientists say that there is no convincing evidence of catastrophic global warming. (Petition Project) I do not claim that this represents a majority view, but it sure makes it harder to say that 98% of scientists support the global warming hypothesis.
That whole clause was meaningless. Try again. Not only did you not give a percentage, but a cardinal number, but you also pointed to a bad link, not that I have any real reason to follow it, but I obviously did click it. There was enough data embedded in the html to tell me how to get there, and I signed the petition, so once my signature is processed it will have 31,487 signatures. I can recommend a good book on junk science if you like.
After I wrote that paragraph above, I read this paragraph:
You don't have to read the paragraph above. I realize it disrupts your current beliefs and you will ignore it anyway.
Funny, huh? I read a line (or paragraph), answer it, then move on to the next. By the way, my opinion is almost the same as yours, without the partisan part. If you will review, you will find I have nothing to prove about global warming. I am, however, offended by partisan contempt for science in this one area.
You don't have to read the paragraph above. I realize it disrupts your current beliefs and you will ignore it anyway.
Accusing everyone you think may have an opinion that is not yours of cognitive dissonance or of only seeking confirming evidence does not strengthen your argument. You should reserve those terms for incidences that show evidence of them. Disagreeing with Heathen is evidence of neither one. To use them out of hand like that is pure ad hominem and doesn’t work on me.
”You have yet to produce a technical argument..."
I do not claim to have a technical argument. I am not qualified.
I will accept your gracious concession in the manner in which it was offered, sir.
Good game.
I think what the scientific community generally embraces is the most likely answer
Once upon the a time the consensus of scientists was the world was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth, leeches cured disease, and the elements of the Earth were Dirt, Wind, Fire and Water.
Clearly, science isn't a popularity contest. It's not a democracy. There is a right answer and a wrong answer. Einstein was a was a patent clerk who flunked algebra and he stood the physics world on end.
Point is, even with BOTH side's data taken into account, the result of the equation no matter who does it isn't that big a deal except to chicken little alarmists. Even the worst case isn't the emergency the fanatics tell us it is.
If skeptics are wrong, who cares? Sit back and enjoy the longer summers.
@Free,
Once upon the a time the consensus of scientists was the world was flat
Actually that was a philosophical determination.
the sun revolved around the Earth,
That was a religious determination.
leeches cured disease,
Sorry, I did not keep a link to the article. It turns out leeches and bloodletting do cure some disease. There was an element of truth to it.
and the elements of the Earth were Dirt, Wind, Fire and Water.
Crap! Those are not the elements? I am going to check my periodic table. You are making this up for sure. We are talking about chemistry, right? An element is a term defined by us, right? The Earther, Dirter, Winder, Firer people don’t get to use our term for their purpose, right?
Clearly, science isn't a popularity contest. It's not a democracy. I agree completely and I refuted the fallacy you are definitely committing when I mistakenly thought Heathen was committing it earlier, so see my answer to him for your rebuttal.
There is a right answer and a wrong answer. Einstein was a was a patent clerk who flunked algebra and he stood the physics world on end. Right. Einstein was the exception, not the rule. That is why I used the phrase “not a 50/50 proposition.” Otherwise, I would have claimed to have a fact. This is a claim I did not make. You are trying to refute an argument that was not made. Please try to keep up with the discussion.
Point is, even with BOTH side's data taken into account, the result of the equation no matter who does it isn't that big a deal except to chicken little alarmists. But what if the sky really is falling?
Even the worst case isn't the emergency the fanatics tell us it is. That is very possibly right, as I stated twice in this discussion so far. I said your statement is possible. You state it as fact, as If you had data that science does not. Oh, wait, you have a bachelors in political science, I forgot. Yes, you are probably right then, since as I understand your bachelors in political science trumps all reason, all PHDs, etc.
If skeptics are wrong, who cares? Scientists.
Sit back and enjoy the longer summers. I was doing just that when the weather stayed over a 100 degrees for weeks straight. When it started approaching 110 and not dropping much below it, just a few degrees, it took all the fun out of it. The good news is, I had to mow my lawn every single week before the fun started, but now that almost all life for miles around has perished, my dead lawn is virtually self-maintaining. My backyard looks like it just suffered an earthquake, and it is going to swallow my dog whole if I am not careful.
The heat wave has nothing to do with global warming, though, for three reasons: one, I am just speaking of Texas warming, not global warming. The artic is really cold, not warm at all; two, it is climate change, not global warming; three, there is no heat wave, as Rush Limbaugh explained, and I don’t even think he was high that day.
But what if the sky really is falling?
It's not.
I'm not that kind of scientist but hey, I watched an Al Gore's movie too. When all the other viewers were freaking out at the animation of Florida flooding, I couldn't help thinking
"This may or may not be true, but even if it is I know ice doesn't melt instantly. People will... um... move out of the way of the gradually rising oceans and things will be fine - assuming this of course is correct."
You don't need a PHD to reach this conclusion.
As for the climate changing, that's a new and shocking peace of information like... sun rises, water is wet, sky is blue, etc.
Of course it's changing. It's never been stable. There are so many variables to it, I doubt we can even calculate the impact humans have on it. But lets grant the premise and say we can and the Limbaugh's environmentalist wackos are 100% correct.
Nothing we can really do about it short of return to the stone age.
And then the climate will still change, as it always has.
And what's more, there are some serious environmental problems that are indeed caused by humans.
Agricultural waste alone is far, far worse than "climate change."
Libertarian as I am, I can still see the need for regulations on say - auto emissions for example because hey... anyone whose ever driven in LA can tell you smog is bad. People dumping mercury into the river is obviously criminal.
Not all prohibitions and laws are bad, and ones criminalizing putting poison in the air and water jibe with Libertarian principles just as much as criminalizing shooting a person does.
But lets drop the climate change bit and focus on problems we can actually solve. My point is this, all this focus on climate change does real environmentalism a disservice by wasting a lot of time and money.
Free0352, you mentioned...
"But lets drop the climate change bit and focus on problems we can actually solve."
Fine. Since today's a very significant date in our history, along with the policies that were implemented due to the events that occurred on this day ten years ago, let's talk about the real possibilities that could have taken place on that date.
Free,
Sold. You sound like a sane man today, so I am not going to dispute anything.
Fact-checking the Republicans' talking points? Now is that nice? That's like telling a 5-year that there's no Santa Claus. Have you no mercy?
Free0352 said, "Sit back and enjoy the longer summers."
I'm doing that. I'm enjoying the flavored air, burning throat, burning eyes.
It looks like more than 1500 families are already taking your advice, enjoying the longer summer and moving.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_362b1009-d34f-546f-856f-94b66f33c53e.html
T. Paine said... "No Weasel, the data, particularly in recent years does NOT support the theory of global warming. Again, even those "ethical scientists's" own emails provide proof to the fact that they have fabricated and cherry picked data."
Yes, if you can find one person that was wrong about something, then all people are wrong about everything.
Where do we draw the line here? Does this prove that all of the science about climate and weather is false? Or can we extended it as a total indictment against all science?
Zero evidence you say? Not one region of the world has seen unusual weather in the past ten years you argue?
How about the record breaking heat and drought here in Texas this year? My state is still burning down. And following your logic that a person who is wrong about one thing, is an indictment against everyone that believe in similar things, this is T. Paine style proof that all of the the deniers are wrong about everything.
Not that your argument is very scientific.
The Heathen Republican said... "Next, how do you explain warming periods in the past when the world was not industrialized? If it's not by human activity, isn't it reasonable to think that current warming is also not because of human activity?"
Climate scientists have models that explain those warmings to one degree or another. The current warming doesn't fit those models. Those models don't predict the current rise in greenhouse gases.
It'll be interesting to see if Free is right about folks calmly driving away from flooded areas. I've never seen anyone act calmly when they are losing everything. In the towns burning down in Texas, folks aren't calmly driving away. They're driving away, but they are also calling this event, devastating.
Free9352 says "People can't control the Earth, or even affect it much. The sum out put of human produced CO2 is about 2% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere"
We can't remove mountains, dam rivers to create giant lake or eliminate whole forests... Right?
Because the atmosphere has thickness, a linear change in concentration, has an exponential effect. Do you understand what that means?
Prediction: When the Koch brothers are enjoying an ocean-front getaway in Kentucky and buying property for future marina and seaside resorts in Utah; and when Exxon Mobil has a string of floating drilling platforms across Texas, you'll know the political right finally gets it about global warming.
SW, I'll agree to your terms. When those things happen, I will side with the global warming alarmists.
Now, put a timeline on your predictions. Then I want you to agree that when your predictions don't come true, you'll side with the skeptics.
Sound like a deal? Name your drop-dead date.
Tom,
Don't forget my fair and balanced check on Obama.
Wease,
No matter what happens, "every man for himself" will be the operant principle.
SW,
That scenario would only confirm "intelligent design" and prove they were right all along.
They'll say the liberals created the flood to promote their socialist agenda.
Do you understand what that means?
Yes, and in this case it's like trying to drain the oceans with an eye dropper. More importantly why bother in this case? Assuming of course the Al Gore crew is right.
When the Koch brothers are enjoying an ocean-front getaway in Kentucky and buying property for future marina and seaside resorts in Utah; and when Exxon Mobil has a string of floating drilling platforms across Texas, you'll know the political right finally gets it about global warming.
Stuff like this doesn't help your case. Even the most extreme predictions don't have flooding of that magnitude. It just makes you look like a fanatic acting on a faith belief instead of someone looking at data. Try being realistic, you'll seem more believable.
I asked, "Do you understand what that means?"
free0352 said... "Yes, and in this case it's like trying to drain the oceans with an eye dropper."
Cool, now could you demonstrate that you actually know what it means? Your reply makes you seem evasive.
"More importantly why bother in this case? Assuming of course the Al Gore crew is right."
What's this love affair you have with Al Gore? Why do you keep bringing that douche bag up?
And to answer your question..., So long as every fact we base policy on is wrong, everything we do will be the opposite of helping.
But that's what we seem to be doomed to do though, isn't it? We s a people lack foresight. We don't have the capacity to rationally evaluate alternatives and plan ahead.
It's good thing that folks like you and me don't have any children or grandchildren. The children being born today are so screwed. And they won't really grasp how completely we boned them for a few more decades.
free0352 demonstrates that he is an emotionless robot, and is incapable of detecting sarcasm or humor.
W.W. Anderson said, "When the Koch brothers are enjoying an ocean-front getaway in Kentucky and buying property for future marina and seaside resorts in Utah; and when Exxon Mobil has a string of floating drilling platforms across Texas, you'll know the political right finally gets it about global warming."
Stuff like this doesn't help your case. Even the most extreme predictions don't have flooding of that magnitude. It just makes you look like a fanatic acting on a faith belief instead of someone looking at data. Try being realistic, you'll seem more believable.
Weaseldog said:
"Climate scientists have models that explain those warmings to one degree or another. The current warming doesn't fit those models. Those models don't predict the current rise in greenhouse gases."
There are also econometric models that said Obama's big Keynesian stimulus bill would bring unemployment down below 8 percent.
lol on these people who have bullshit jobs producing bullshit models for their bullshit government agencies.
Just The Facts!
I'd like to see Dave Dubya support opposing viewpoints like in the Fairness Doctrine that his kind believes in.
Publius,
You may respond to Just the Troll or Anonymous, but I will likely not do so more than once per thread, if that.
these people who have bullshit jobs producing bullshit models for their bullshit government agencies.
Yes, you are quite the bullshit spewing authority, aren’t you?
I'd like to see Dave Dubya support opposing viewpoints like in the Fairness Doctrine that his kind believes in.
Who said anything about a fairness doctrine? It never existed as an enforceable reality. This is corporate America with Corporate Media and corporate doctrine, pal.
Where have YOU ever supported opposing viewpoints? I will listen to opposing viewpoints as long as they are not rude and even half sensible. You see them all over here, now don’t you?
You’re a notch or two brighter than Just the Troll, so I’ll respond to you as long as you behave a notch better than a dimwit troll.
He still doesn’t know what he is apparently. And he hasn’t explained to me, like I seriously asked him, what a troll does and how he behaved like one. He distracted and whined about not having his irrelevant questions answered and tauntingly ignored my question. He either hasn’t learned what a troll does, is a liar, or both.
As you see, we have no use for arrogant ignorance, rudeness, gross intoxication, or immaturity. He has failed to be a civil adult here, like our other fine Republican/Libertarian/Conservatives.
**
All,
I once again ask for all of us to avoid rudeness and personal digs. We all slip once in a while, but discussion can best continue if we make an effort to speak rationally and politely. I know this sounds naive or unrealistic, but it’s worth it to be civil, and not worth the time to wallow in rudeness.
Rudeness and trolling are fair cause for eviction. I reserve that privilege as my personal expression of “tyranny”.
Publius said...
Weaseldog said:
"Climate scientists have models that explain those warmings to one degree or another. The current warming doesn't fit those models. Those models don't predict the current rise in greenhouse gases."
There are also econometric models that said Obama's big Keynesian stimulus bill would bring unemployment down below 8 percent.
You miss the point. If mankind is left out of the models, then the effects we're seeing don't follow any natural pattern.
I don't know that the stimulus bill was really supposed to create jobs. I think it was designed to create graft, and there's probably a lot of Hope that it will Change the job situation.
The leaders of both parties want to keep increasing military spending and banker subsidies, because these help boost the profits of some of their biggest sponsors.
To accomplish this, I think they are very aware that they need to further hollow out the US economy, by eliminating as many domestic programs as possible.
Emergency spending bills are great way to deflect attention to the cuts that go with them. If they keep doing this, they can keep whittling away domestic spending so that more money can go overseas.
The GOP Cares More About Rebuilding Iraq Than Rebuilding America
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/13/the-gop-cares-more-about-rebuilding-iraq-than-rebuilding-america/
Weasel, Iraq was severely bombed. When was America bombed? I keep hearing this canard that America needs to be rebuilt. Why exactly?
Are you saying that our local governments, with their property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tolls, and licensing fees, have not brought in enough cash to maintain our roads, bridges and schools?
That sounds like a failure of government to me. We send them our dollars and they give grants to watch shrimps on treadmills, and perhaps they should spend those dollars on maintaining our infrastructure.
If America needs to be rebuilt, as you say, that is evidence that local governments have failed. Yet your answer is to give those same governments more dollars, this time from the federal government. Brilliant!
Heathen Republican, the web link that Weaseldog provided pointed out, very vividly, the hypocrisy that's a cornerstone of the GOP ideology. If you would have bothered to read the article, you would have known it was about Republican legislators who have rejected appeals for federal aid in states (predominately "red") devastated by damage from recent "acts of god", unless each dollar was offset by a corresponding amount of spending.
For your convenience, I've included some highlights:
"They simply refuse to approve the funding necessary to rebuild America unless spending cuts are made to offset it. But apparently, they were perfectly willing to approve $50 billion of funding to rebuild Iraq, and they didn’t call for a single dollar in cuts to offset it."
and...
"Their refusal to rebuild America unless they get something in return, especially when they approved funding to rebuild Iraq with no strings attached, shows precisely where the loyalty of the Republican Party lies. It’s certainly not America."
So, although America may not have been bombed, parts were severely damaged or destroyed by either wild fires, tornadoes, or hurricanes. But, as already mentioned, you would have had to read the article to discover this. I'm almost certain you did not.
@Jefferson
No, I didn't read the article because my point was that I keep hearing Dems say that we need to rebuild the country. My point wasn't about Weasel's article.
But as long as you bring it up, you guys object to $50 billion for Iraq but not $440 billion here? Or the trillions before that in stimulus and "shovel-ready" projects?
Is your complaint about the cost, which is 1/10 of Obama's "new" jobs act? Then complain a little louder about Obama. Or are you an isolationist who complains about anything we spend in other countries? Or is it just Islamic countries that you complain about?
I can't help but note that you justify "rebuilding America" but ignored my points about the failure of local governments.
The Heathen Republican said... "Weasel, Iraq was severely bombed. When was America bombed? I keep hearing this canard that America needs to be rebuilt. Why exactly?"
Thank you for your argument that our tax dollars are better spent, in destroying and rebuilding foreign nations than if they are wasted on America.
I didn't know until now, that you believe that Iraq is more important and more valuable than the USA.
The specific case mentioned in the article is the situation where disaster relief is being withheld from Texas, not because our legislature feels it's not deserved, but because they want to use it as a bargaining chip in the upcoming months in budget negotiations.
I hope that answers your specific question as to 'why'.
It seems you're not aware that the Federal Government sets spending priorities as a condition of Federal Funding. Local governments are required to use the money as designated by the Federal Government.
Actually, the $50 billion for Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg.
We've lost more than in unaccounted funds that have simply gone missing there.
Wease,
In the immortal word of Cheney, "So"?
Why should Dick and the rest of his filthy rich, war profiteering cronies pay another dime in taxes to pay for that war? Cut public programs for the little people so more of them need to join the military to justify more war profiteering.
It just makes sense.
Weasel, you're not very good at this online debate thing. You ignore my plain language and extrapolate my argument into something not said. Bravo.
Care to try again, or shall I consider your response a concession?
The Heathen Republican said... "@Jefferson
No, I didn't read the article because my point was that I keep hearing Dems say that we need to rebuild the country. My point wasn't about Weasel's article."
Why did you argue about a point made in the article if your argument wasn't pertinent to the article?
I include Obama as an honorary member of the GOP. I still think he's a Republican Plant.
The Obama plan is more about graft than jobs. GOP donors are going to make huge profits on the plan. For that reason, it should get your support. After all, a portion of the money will get funneled into Republican campaigns.
The Heathen Republican said... "Weasel, you're not very good at this online debate thing. You ignore my plain language and extrapolate my argument into something not said. Bravo."
It would help if you were clear about what I got wrong.
There are some points you were very clear about.
1. Iraq deserves American tax dollars more than the USA.
2. Local communities wasted Federal Tax dollars and don't deserve it.
3. The USA doesn't need money for disaster relief or infrastructure maintenance.
I don't think I strayed outside the bounds you set. you very clear that you love Iraq and you think the USA is a waste of money.
Weasel, you don't get to redefine my arguments and then expect me to respond to your counter-argument when you completely ignore my actual points.
Concession accepted.
The Heathen Republican said... " Weasel, you don't get to redefine my arguments and then expect me to respond to your counter-argument when you completely ignore my actual points."
Perhaps you should use words that don't express your contempt and disdain for the USA?
You responded to the content in the article, then you try to tell us that you're not responding to the content in the article?
As you were in the act of writing about the content of the article, didn't it occur to you that we would think that you're writing about the content in the article?
Ok, so you took something out of context and you're making a limited argument about that. I get it now.
Would you please explain better what you mean? Are you arguing that disaster relief funding should be limited to communities that have carpet bombed?
Concession? From a guy who argues that our tax dollars shouldn't be spent domestically unless we're carpet bombed?
No matter how I read your argument, it sounds very un-American to me.
HR,
Are you saying that our local governments, with their property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, tolls, and licensing fees, have not brought in enough cash to maintain our roads, bridges and schools?
That sounds like a failure of government to me. If America needs to be rebuilt, as you say, that is evidence that local governments have failed.
This is not a failure of government, but a symptom of Republican “success”. Their mission has been to undermine government, strip revenue and force failure upon it. Mission accomplished, but not finished.
Weasel, I am unable to respond to the article because I still haven't read it. I was responding to your statement on the need to rebuild America. I did not need to read the article to respond to your point, which I've heard repeated in many places, including from our esteemed president.
If you need further help, see Dave's last response. He clearly saw the intent of my response without labeling me as un-American.
The Heathen Republican said... " Weasel, I am unable to respond to the article because I still haven't read it. I was responding to your statement on the need to rebuild America. I did not need to read the article to respond to your point, which I've heard repeated in many places, including from our esteemed president."
Really? That's your lame excuse?
That was the title of the article. You can even see those words embedded in the link.
You did a good job though of supporting the GOP position of preferring Iraq over the USA when it comes to spending. Even if you didn't bother to read what you were responding to.
Perhaps you should rethink your ongoing habit of discussing articles you don't read?
Wease, you don't even know when you've lost an argument. I am not discussing an article I didn't read. I'm discussing your comments about an article I didn't read.
I do not prefer spending on Iraq over spending on America. Your saying it doesn't make it true.
I am against the notion of "rebuilding America" because I don't think it needs to be rebuilt. If it does need to be rebuilt, I don't believe our Constitution authorizes the federal government to do the rebuilding. States collect taxes for property, roads, and schools. States should rebuild property, roads, and schools.
Heathen Republican, you replied to Weaseldog with...
"Concession accepted."
You can't accept a concession that wasn't made.
And, you said to me...
"My point wasn't about Weasel's article."
Sure it was! I may be in error (although I don't believe I am), but your response ("...Iraq was severely bombed. When was America bombed? I keep hearing this canard that America needs to be rebuilt. Why exactly?") was made seventeen minutes after Weaseldog's header statement ("The GOP Cares More About Rebuilding Iraq Than Rebuilding America"). I really can't see that your statement was targeting some other comment. If it was, please, if you would be so kind, cite the reference and time-stamp.
You also said to me...
"But as long as you bring it up, you guys object to $50 billion for Iraq but not $440 billion here? Or the trillions before that in stimulus and 'shovel-ready' projects?"
I didn't bring it up. Weaseldog did, remember? All I did was point out, from the article that you admitted to not reading, the obvious and blatant hypocrisy of the Republican Party when it concerns assisting Americans in need versus Iraqis in need.
As far as your claim of "trillions" spent on stimulus monies, please cite your sources. If my memory serves me, the bill signed into law in February of 2009 was for $787 billion. Perhaps you were converting to pesos, I don't know. If so, I stand corrected.
You continued with...
"Or are you an isolationist who complains about anything we spend in other countries?"
No, I only complain about trillions of dollars that are wasted to, first, destroy nations, then to, next, rebuild them. This only benefits a select few; at the expense of the American people. Or, in a nutshell, I complain about the military-industrial-congressional complex, that you seem to exalt and revere.
You concluded with...
"I can't help but note that you justify 'rebuilding America' but ignored my points about the failure of local governments."
You're right, I did ignore your points about local government.
The Heathen Republican said... "If you need further help, see Dave's last response. He clearly saw the intent of my response without labeling me as un-American."
He's nicer than I am.
I apologize for assuming that you intended to mean, what you wrote in reference to something you didn't read, when you jumped to erroneous conclusions.
The Heathen Republican said... "Wease, you don't even know when you've lost an argument. I am not discussing an article I didn't read. I'm discussing your comments about an article I didn't read."
Yes, the article that you quoted figures and arguments from, but you didn't read.
I didn't make any arguments about the article. I simply quoted the title.
When you read the article that you say you didn't read, it should've been obvious to you that I quoted the title.
We both know you are back pedaling and lying. You've caught red handed in this thread spouting figures from the article, then claiming you didn't read it.
I stand by my accusation that you are writing un-American things. It's not the first time you've done that. I won't call you a traitor, because I'm not convinced you were born in or live in the USA. I think there's a good chance that you work out of a cubicle in Tel Aviv.
Weaseldog, you astutely observed...
"I think there's a good chance that you work out of a cubicle in Tel Aviv."
Possibly not Israeli, but I've highly considered the probability that he's a paid troll -- either directly on someone's payroll, or funded by some right-wing think tank. There's something to be said for being too quick on the trigger, and having ready access to a vast assortment of "homemade" graphs, charts, etc. Something's rotten in Denmark, know what I mean?
But, then again, maybe he is Mossad.
@Dave
I apologize for the number of comments. While I try to be concise and clear, Jefferson and Weasel require me to repeat myself and remind them of their own arguments in order to move from one point to another.
It was not my intent to monopolize the comments in this way, but they leave me no choice. I know that you understand this as you understand concise and clear communication.
@Jefferson
"Concession accepted" is a joke among a few of us. I'm sorry that you are outside the inner circle, but you will need to raise your game if you want to be invited into our secret club. Your level of argumentation does not meet our minimum level of entry.
While I was responding to Weasel's comment at 11:32am, I was not responding to the article he linked. His comment (probably the title of the linked article) used the words "rebuilding America." That was enough to warrant a response from me.
In your comment at 12:45pm, you quoted the article, "...willing to approve $50 billion of funding to rebuild Iraq..." Again, I didn't read the article, but your quote gave me the information I needed for my statement at 12:53pm.
I have no source for my statement that trillions have been spent on stimulus. Two rounds of stimulus, two rounds of quantitative easing, cash for clunkers, auto bailouts, domestic discretionary spending (without a budget), and unemployment extensions make this axiomatic.
While you're looking for sources, why don't you provide one confirming that I "exalt and revere" the "military-industrial-congressional complex." It's okay, I'll wait.
@Weasel
I didn't quote the article; I quoted Jefferson quoting the article. Try and keep up.
"I didn't make any arguments about the article. I simply quoted the title."
I know. My point was about you quoting the title: "Rebuilding America." Try and keep up.
"We both know you are back pedaling and lying. You've caught red handed in this thread spouting figures from the article, then claiming you didn't read it."
Nope, because I still haven't read the article. Frankly, I find it rude to post links to articles in someone's blog without some form of commentary to go along with it. It just looks like spam and I generally don't click any of them.
"I stand by my accusation that you are writing un-American things. It's not the first time you've done that."
Thank you for that, you made me laugh out loud. Another ad hominem attack simply means you have lost the argument. Having heard much of your ideology, I'm sure I do meet your definition of un-American. Thank god I don't live in your head; that must smell awfully bad.
Weaseldog, feel vindicated. We definitely got to him. People do get pissed when they're caught in a lie.
I know I'm smiling. ;-)
Heathen Republican, you said...
"'Concession accepted' is a joke among a few of us. I'm sorry that you are outside the inner circle, but you will need to raise your game if you want to be invited into our secret club. Your level of argumentation does not meet our minimum level of entry."
and...
"Another ad hominem attack simply means you have lost the argument."
Touché! I win! And to think, you set the bar...
Too funny...
I gotta give the jerk a little credit.
"Michael Stivic" is one of Just The Troll's more imaginative deceptions.
Not really. He used to show up on Tom's blog, a year or more ago, as Archie Bunker.
He's flaunted more monikers than Eve White had personalities.
How many here think we need to keep investing tax payer money into Green Technology companies like SOLYNDRA?
RedStateFred said... "How many here think we need to keep investing tax payer money into Green Technology companies like SOLYNDRA?"
Not I.
Nor do I think we need to keep investing in /subsidizing, Exxon, BofA and Goldman Sachs.
The Federal Gov should get back into investing in pure public research. The Reagan style investments in private secret research has simply created monopolies and strengthened the drive for off shoring and the destruction of American jobs.
Bush I, Clinton Bush II and Obama can certainly share in the credit for this, and for furthering policies that make it highly profitable for China to engage in unfair trade practices.
By killing the Super Colliding Super Conductor project, the Republican Party sent the scientific community a clear message that Europe hold the key to their future. That the USA was abandoning it's lead in science and technology.
Doh...
Super Colliding Super Conductor ->
Super Conducting Super Collider
...
Cleaning up a few items that fell through the cracks.
@Dave
"Those who deny the greenhouse effect are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong..."
I'm not aware of anyone who denies the greenhouse effect. That would be the "phenomena" (to use Jefferson's term) that warms the surface of the earth and allows life to exist.
"Reducing pollution should be a no-brainer..."
Absolutely. I hope you're not conflating the two arguments, trying to suggest that skepticism of global warming means conservatives like pollution. I can hate pollution and be skeptical.
"...pollution is profit..."
I'm not sure who is profiting from pollution, so you might need to expand on this a little. Oil companies profit from selling gasoline, not pollution, so you can't be talking about them. Are you talking about local governments profiting from those "Adopt a Highway" signs?
" I do sense some paranoia in [Meyer] if he really believes we 'equate climate skeptics with holocaust deniers'. Come on."
Perhaps you're unaware of the debate tactics of your fellow leftists. A short list: Ellen Goodman from the Boston Globe, Scott Pelley from CBS, Paul McCartney, and David Fiderer from Huffington Post. Not paranoia. Hell, even Wikipedia acknowledges the meme.
"This is not a failure of government, but a symptom of Republican 'success'. Their mission has been to undermine government, strip revenue and force failure upon it. Mission accomplished, but not finished."
I'm not sure what you mean by "Republican success." All of the bridges and schools that Obama says need repair are in historically Democratic areas, but maybe that's because he's appealing for Democrat votes. And you may not have heard, but Republicans spend almost as bad as Democrats. All of those revenue sources I listed earlier (property taxes, sales taxes, etc.) have gone up in recent years, and yet infrastructure needs repair? Again, I think it's a failing of local government.
@Weasel
"We the people have a right to prevent Global Warming from destroying our country. It is covered in the common clause section of the Constitution!"
There is no common clause section of the Constitution. Would you stop saying that?
@Jefferson's Guardian
"We definitely got to him. People do get pissed when they're caught in a lie."
I never got pissed and I was never caught in a lie.
And as for my telling you that your level of argumentation doesn't meet the minimum level to join our (fictional) secret club... that's not an ad hominem attack. I was challenging your ability to argue a point, not leveling a personal attack. You're not too bright, are you? (That's an ad hominem attack.)
Do you see the difference? Yet even with me concluding with an ad hominem attack, all of your points were addressed without use of an ad hominem attack. And neither you or Weasel have responded, so I win either way.
“'Obamacare is killing jobs. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.'
— Rep. Michele Bachmann"
CBO made no such statement. Bachmann pulled that out of her butt.
CBO did predict the budget-cutting deals Republicans extorted this spring and summer will cost the country 1.8 million jobs over a decade.
Republicans are all about creating jobs, just not in America.
Heathen Republican, yes you did lie. It's recorded in the thread. What's worse is your totally inept defense of your lies. It's so unbecoming of you.
That's okay, it's behavior I've come to expect from conservatives. I'm neither surprised or offended; only my notions validated.
Okay Jefferson, I'll play. Show me the lie. Show exactly what I said and the evidence that it's false.
Your silence on this matter will be understood as a concession.
In a Ponzi scheme, the people who invest early get their money out with dividends. But these dividends don’t come from any profitable or productive activity — they consist entirely of money paid in by later participants.
This cannot go on forever because at some point there just aren’t enough new investors to support the earlier entrants. Word gets around that there are no profits, just money transferred from new to old. The merry-go-round stops, the scheme collapses and the remaining investors lose everything.
Now, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. A current beneficiary isn’t receiving the money she paid in years ago. That money is gone. It went to her parents’ Social Security check. The money in her check is coming from her son’s FICA tax today — i.e., her “investment” was paid out years ago to earlier entrants in the system and her current benefits are coming from the “investment” of the new entrants into the system. Pay-as-you-go is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
The crucial distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that Social Security is mandatory.
That’s why Ponzi schemes always collapse and Social Security has not. When it’s mandatory, you’ve ensured an endless supply of new participants.
First of all, “Charles”, you are spamming us with a copy and paste from FOX(R)’s Krauthamer. We understand, you guys want to seem smart and all. Despite your typical Right Wing dishonesty, I will allow your one comment because we need to put the Kraut’s spin under the light of truth.
The short response is, no, it is not the kind of investment that defines a Ponzi scheme. It is insurance, not a deliberate intention to defraud.
Speaking of investment schemes, would not privatized social security in the stock market be even more of a Ponzi scheme? Yes, it would. Money managers would be the only ones certain to gain, no matter if the market grows or collapses. What do you bet they are all Republicans?
Now that a true perspective is revealed, let’s look at what the Kraut says later in his Washington Post column.
Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means-test for richer recipients and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism. Bismarck arbitrarily chose 70 when he created social insurance in 1889. Clever guy: Life expectancy at the time was under 50.
When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, choosing 65 as the eligibility age, life expectancy was 62. Today it is almost 80. FDR wanted to prevent the aged few from suffering destitution in their last remaining years. Social Security was not meant to provide two decades of greens fees for baby boomers.
Well, what do you know? He makes suggestions for Social Security to adapt to the changing demographics. Most Americans agree fixing Social Security is necessary. And most of us agree on not sacrificing it all to Wall Street parasites.
His modifications to the program seem reasonable at first glance. But there’s a serious factor he ignores. Most Americans won’t live to see 80. In fact, the wealthier you are, the better your chance of reaching that age. So I would agree to extend the eligibility age of the wealthy to around 70, and raise the much needed cap on their contributions. They can easily afford it since all the wealth has been “trickling up” over that past thirty years.
The lower income Americans do not have as high a life expectancy. No doubt due to lower costs of unhealthy foods compared to healthy foods, and their less than adequate access to our most expensive health care system in the world.
So, yes, let’s fix Social Security and not give it away to Wall Street and its greedy Republicans.
-------------
Since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen 6 years in the top half of the income distribution, but only 1.3 years in the bottom half.
See:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html
This study presents an analysis of trends in mortality differentials and life expectancy by average relative earnings for male Social Security–covered workers aged 60 or older. Mortality differentials, cohort life expectancies, and period life expectancies by average relative earnings are estimated. Period life expectancy estimates for the United States are also compared with those of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. In general, for birth cohorts spanning the years 1912–1941 (or deaths spanning the years 1972–2001 at ages 60–89), the top half of the average relative earnings distribution has experienced faster mortality improvement than has the bottom half. The sample is expected to be selectively healthier than the general population because of a requirement that men included in the sample have some positive earnings from ages 45 through 55. This requirement is expected to exclude some of the most at-risk members of the U.S. population because of the strong correlation between labor force participation and health.
And:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/23health.html
March 23, 2008
Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation
SW,
You are right. The Republicans prefer a high unemployment rate to boost their chances of gaining complete power again. "Country second" with those guys.
That worked out so well last time...
Heathen Republican, you said...
"Your silence on this matter will be understood as a concession."
Sorry, but who appointed you umpire or referee today?
"Show me the lie. Show exactly what I said and the evidence that it's false."
My response was on September 13th (timestamp: 3:20 p.m.). Please take the time to scroll up and reread it. What it comes down to is that I don't believe your denial (that you didn't read Weaseldog's article link, dated the same day at 11:32 a.m.). True, I can't prove you did (based, predominately, upon your reply at 1:33 p.m.). But equally true, you can't prove you didn't (although it would seem, suspiciously, that you did).
Perhaps if you replied (again, timestamp: 1:33 p.m.) that you "didn't read the linked article, however here's my response...", you wouldn't have aroused so much suspicion. Try that next time.
Nevertheless, one question you've failed to respond to, adequately, is this: Why do you believe it's perfectly legitimate to spend tax dollars to rebuild Iraq, yet you don't feel the same way about rebuilding the United States? This is, after all, where this whole line of questioning and bantering was heading.
@Jefferson
"who appointed [Heathen] umpire or referee today?"
No one appointed me referee, but when you accuse someone of lying, you are surrendering the argument if you don't return to back it up.
As I suspected, you can't demonstrate that I lied, so you should retract this statement: "Heathen Republican, yes you did lie." Show some integrity.
The alleged lie: "that you didn't read Weaseldog's article link, dated the same day at 11:32 a.m"
I still have not read the article, and I can't prove to you that I didn't. Since you are the accuser, perhaps you can show where I made a comment that I couldn't have made without clear knowledge of the article. It's okay, I'll wait...
I can prove to you that I didn't need to read the article in order to make my comments in this thread. That should provide enough reasonable doubt, which is better than your simple lack of belief. Weasel on 9/13 at 11:32am gave me the information for my comment at 11:49am, and your comment at 12:45pm gave me the information I needed to comment at 12:53pm.
If this is the best you can do, Jefferson, you're being a stubborn ass. (And I don't say that out of anger.)
"one question you've failed to respond to, adequately, is this: Why do you believe it's perfectly legitimate to spend tax dollars to rebuild Iraq, yet you don't feel the same way about rebuilding the United States?"
OMG Jefferson, did you just lie?! Hold on, let me provide some evidence to back that up. My comment on 9/13 at 3:13pm says this, "I do not prefer spending on Iraq over spending on America. Your saying it doesn't make it true."
Your face must be very red right now. You're an idiot.
The Republicans prefer a high unemployment rate to boost their chances of gaining complete power again
If that's the case then Obama and Democrats in general must be wonderful opponents. They keep enacting policy that jacks up the unemployment rate and kills the economy.
Heathen Republican, you said (on 9/13 @ 3:13 p.m.)...
"I am against the notion of 'rebuilding America' because I don't think it needs to be rebuilt."
Additionally, you mentioned previous to the above (on 9/13 @ 11:49 a.m.)...
"Weasel, Iraq was severely bombed. When was America bombed?"
Granted, I may be taking a giant leap in assuming that you inferred that it was perfectly legitimate to rebuild Iraq because it was bombed, yet, on the other hand, it's wasn't alright to rebuild America because it was not. I suppose the sticking point with me is that I'm reading your comments and they reveal this: If a sovereign nation is blown to bits by the United States, in this case Iraq, it's okay to spend billions to rebuild it, however if your own nation (and I'm taking another giant leap in assuming that you're an American citizen) needs infrastructure rebuilding, it's not okay because it wasn't bombed.
Am I interpreting your messages correctly?
Free,
Or one could even more correctly assert that before Obama, the GOP enacted policy that jacks up the unemployment rate and kills the economy.
The jobless rate had already begun its rapid climb during the waning Bush months. Remember that collapse and bailouts? Let’s give the same party a chance to do it again. They will not disappoint.
Also Democrats can correctly assert the Republicans were obstructing any policy that would lower the unemployment rate and boost the economy. It was in their agenda to obstruct everything, no matter how many jobs were lost.
They knew they’d win if America fails. Power first, country second. They truly do not care about working class jobs. Never did, never will. Let’s look what they do for jobs with their House majority....
Still looking....
Their job is to prove government can't help, and they are abundantly successful. The republicans have done nothing but let Big Money have their way. That is their only job, come to think of it. Wars and torture and warrantless surveillance are mostly them getting their kicks playing at fascism.
At least Obama kept some people working long enough to pave my road.
If I must choose between incompetent leadership I must choose Bush.
The economy was in better shape at all points (even his last day) than any day during the Obama Presidency and the price of fuel was lower.
Republicans were obstructing any policy that would lower the unemployment rate and boost the economy.
This President had a super majority for the balance of his presidency. His and your excuses grow more irritating in direct relation to your failures. It is the lack of accountability that most enrages voters today. This is why your party is loosing, even in it's traditional strongholds.
Their job is to prove government can't help
This is a very easy job, it's like proving rain is wet.
The economy was in better shape at all points
Yeah, like that point with the collapse of Wall Street.
No wonder you hold your beliefs with such certainty. You have no memory to get in the way.
How about this point? In addition to launching the Great Recession, in July, 2008 under Bush we had the highest record gas prices of 4.11 per gallon. Blame Obama for gas prices all you want, but domestic production is up from when Bush left.
Or how about these points?
On September 29, 2008, the DJIA had a record-breaking drop of 777.68 with a close at 10,365.45. Down to 7,949.09 on January 20, 2009.
The Dow hit a market low of 6,443.27 on March 6, 2009, having lost over 54% of its value since the October 9, 2007 high.
Did you mean THAT kind of “better shape”, with casino capitalism from deregulated banks?
This President had a super majority for the balance of his presidency.
Huh? The president had a super majority of fellow corporatists, not progressives. If Obama and the majority were real progressives, we’d have Medicare for all, more people with jobs re-building our infrastructure, the coddled elites would be repaying their tax cuts, we would have less war and debt, and Cheney would be in prison.
Sabotaging government is the easy part of the Republicans’ job. The hard part is conning voters into buying the fantasy that advancing the agenda of the elites will also magically trickle down benefits upon them. The Great Right Con. They do their jobs well.
November 2008 unemployment rate was 6.7%
Obama has averaged for the past THREE YEARS a 9.1% rate.
Those are just facts.
Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2008 was 2.50. This year it was 3.64!
More banks failed yearly since Obama has been President.
Anybody with sense would take the Bush Presidency over the Obama Presidency with numbers like that. Its not a faith belief, it's the simple ability to compare and contrast. Bottom line, 6.7 is better than 9.1 any day and twice on Sunday.
On September 29, 2008, the DJIA had a record-breaking drop of 777.68 with a close at 10,365.45. Down to 7,949.09 on January 20, 2009.
It's not good numbers and I'm not suggesting Bush was a good President. Simply that Obama is worse. We had a 1000 point drop in one DAY on May 6 2010 and just these past 30 days have seen wild swings day after day down but often 700 plus points. Not to mention the national debt was 63.5% of GDP ... a dangerous number no doubt... but Obama has us at 84.2%! That works out to be mean increase in the national debt of nearly 40% with more unfunded mandates added to a bloated system. If Bush set the American economy on fire, Obama threw gasoline on it and danced around it like a wild Injun.
Huh? The president had a super majority of fellow corporatists, not progressives
They were definitely Democrats. That they had in common, and thank God for that. Our currency would be worthless, we'd have 30% unemployment, Medicare wouldn't exist for anyone due to depleted tax revenue, and we'd be trying to figure out how to defend our country from Islamic Terror with a tooth pick, six guys and a broken tank.
Claiming sabotage was the first thing Joseph Stalin did when his 5 year plans didn't work and instead killed millions through starvation and drought. He followed that awesome idea up with murdering the so called "saboteurs," their families, friends, and even just random people.
Progressivism always ends that way. A lot of dead innocent people and failure.
Now there you go again. "Stalin the progressive". Not much more to say to that logic. Thank God we have "we want him to fail" Republicans to save America, after the failure of Obama. And after the failure of Bush, yes, only Republicans can save us now.
But wait. What Failure? Failure for whom? Somebody's making out like super-villians. Oh yeah, we're not supposed to talk about the top one percent doing so much better. No sacrifice on their part, shared or unshared. Yes indeed. That is all that counts. They are very happy with all their new money. But they must pretend to be angry at Obama the Stalinist, so you and other low income earners know who to blame.
Seriously, the Big Money guys have been, and still are, at the helm, not liberals. We can expect things to get worse, and of course, for the Right to blame liberal commies instead of the elites actually running the show. Meanwhile the elites are pocketing more and more and more. And laughing all the way to their offshore accounts.
Dave Dubya, they just can't see the forest for the trees, can they?
Certainly, life's been tough under this administration. The continuation of neoconservative policies have prolonged the abysmal slump that Obama's predecessor got us into. Like you said, if there were true progressive statements made; if policy followed a progressive bent, instead, we'd probably be out of the woods and moving toward sustainable growth. But, Obama being the corporatist that he is, that hasn't happened.
Depending upon the outcome in November of next year, we'll know whether the slide will remain relatively the same, or if it will accelerate toward oblivion. The election of a conservative government will almost certainly indicate the slope toward the bottom will become more pronounced.
JG,
We'll be back on the fast track to the Third World Rightist Amerika before we know it.
For the politicians and media have a job to do, and it is not public service.
While the USA demonstrates it's tough stance on terrorism, by invading countries to steal their oil, Lloyd's of London sees profits in actually going after the people who financed 9/11.
Will the US and Britain stop them, to protect the people who financed 9/11?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-insurer-sues-saudi-arabia-for-funding-911-attacks-2356857.html
free0352 said... "If that's the case then Obama and Democrats in general must be wonderful opponents. They keep enacting policy that jacks up the unemployment rate and kills the economy."
1. We know they are opponents because people say they are. We as a people have invested a lot of emotion and energy into this belief. Obviously, what people say, must be true. The alternative is unthinkable for most Americans.
2. The politicians don't have a clue as to how to fix this. They do know how to accept bribes and follow orders.
free0352 said... "If I must choose between incompetent leadership I must choose Bush.
The economy was in better shape at all points (even his last day) than any day during the Obama Presidency and the price of fuel was lower."
I think you're mixing him up with Bill Clinton.
Gas prices are easy to verify.
They peaked higher under Bush that Obama.
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
Then during Bush's banking and Market crash, the prices came way down. Now with the massive ongoing Bush/Obama bailouts, oil prices continue to stay high.
We have another financial crash coming. Gasoline prices will drop again, then go back up.
free0352, Do you really believe that right wing hard core military dictators, are progressives?
Bush, hates social programs that help people. He loves war and killing people. I guess that proves that he's a progressive in your book.
Obama then because he's not as gung-ho about destroying social programs is a lightweight progressive.
So I think we can outlive Free0352's definition of a progressive.
1. Pro-War
2. Pro-Military State
3. Hates unions.
4. Hates social programs.
5. Believes in eliminating taxes for the wealthy.
6. Believes in corporate control of government.
7. Wants to abolish the middle class.
8. Slaughters people by the millions.
Obama has some catching up to do on #8. Bush's civilian death count is over two million, beating out Clinton's pretty handedly.
I think you're mixing him up with Bill Clinton.
I agree. Clinton was in many ways a superior president than George Bush. That doesn't change facts that Bush was superior to Obama. Clinton ended welfare as we know it, Bush put corporate America on food stamps, Obama put everyone else left on them.
Thank God we have "we want him to fail" Republicans
I only wish Obama had failed more at implenting his failed policies, the country would be in better shape. If Republicans are for that, then I have common ground with them. Obviously I have none with you.
No sacrifice on their part
I don't want to live in a country where people are forced to "sacrifice." Stalin too demanded sacrifice. I want to live in a country where I get to do pretty much whatever I want and so does everybody else. I don't like rules and taxes for things that don't benift me, you seem to love them to death. And yet I'm the one who supports authoritarian government says you? The irony is the only thnig overshadowing the hypocisy.
Bush's civilian death count is over two million
Where are these two million dead Americans? Oh wait. There arent any. First of all, that number is silly and second the people who did die were in countries hostile to the United States. Frankly, I don't care when the citizens of enemy states die. Why do you?
Free,
I don't want to live in a country where people are forced to "sacrifice."
Me neither, but that's just what corporatist government policies are doing. They coddle the elites and corporations while forcing sacrifice upon the working class. The elites are doing better than ever. Really, they are. Not even you can honestly deny this. Meanwhile millions of Americans are losing jobs and seeing a decline in their standard of living.
I don't like rules and taxes for things that don't benift me, you seem to love them to death.
Tough. Neither do I, but I don't whine about it as much as the Rightists do. Do you think I like wasting trillions of dollars and human life for war that doesn't benefit me? Do you think I like the Patriot Act and warrantless surveillance of citizens? Sorry, but it's not all about you.
You supported the authoritarian Cheney/Bush regime, and I hear hardly a peep out of you concerning their violations of the Bill of Rights. Yes, that makes you an authoritarian... And my opposition to their betrayal of our Constitution makes me more libertarian. And I would include Obama as an offender for abetting and not investigating those violations.
I would think there would be common ground between us if you were a true libertarian. But you are so obsessed with taxes, health care, and government public service as tyranny, the real authoritarian imperial police state grows without complaint from you.
At least I can say I am a pro-Bill of Rights civil libertarian. If you are not, then we indeed have no common ground.
Free0352, "Where are these two million dead Americans? Oh wait. There arent any. First of all, that number is silly and second the people who did die were in countries hostile to the United States. Frankly, I don't care when the citizens of enemy states die. Why do you?"
I'm not a sociopath. I do care.
It takes a special kind of person to be able to kill people and not feel anything.
It's convenient that we create enemies, just so we can feel justified in killing them. It helps that they have oil that our other Muslim friends in the ME wanted to steal.
They coddle the elites and corporations while forcing sacrifice upon the working class.
I've never been forced to sacrifice for anyone in my life. I did in the military but I chose to do that. Please list some examples of how you have been forced to sacrifice something, list how this has impacted your daily life.
The elites are doing better than ever.
So? Why should one group of people be punished because another is doing badly? I don't believe sharing misery will fix anything. The goal should be for everyone to do better, not equalize misery.
You seem to think Americans are being exploited by elites. I agree, there are indeed powerful people who use government as a tool to exploit average people. I support taking this powerful tool away from them by reducing the size and power of the tool. You seem to think we can somehow wrestle that tool into it's masters. That's frankly unrealistic. Better the sure thing, better to neuter the tool. It's not like it does much worth while. Even you admit elites use it for exploitation.
I don't whine about it as much as the Rightists do
You seem to me that you whine to no end some people out there have more money than you think they deserve.
You supported the authoritarian Cheney/Bush regime
No, I said it was superior to the Obama/Biden regime. Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't support. I can simply analyze numbers and choose the better one. As for my voting habits, in 2008 I voted for Bob Barr. I actually LEFT the Republican party due to TARP, a bill signed by George Bush. Get your facts strait, take a breath, and put down those talking points.
But you are so obsessed with taxes, health care, and government public service as tyranny
That tyranny actually affects our lives, not so much the Patriot Act. It's about priorities. Funny thing about taxes, the less money the government has they less power it has. The less power it has, the less it can ever hope to oppress you.
Your side wants and HAS put it on steroids.
@Weasel
Killing the enemy isn't sociopathic, having a moral equivalentcy with them is.
Free,
If numbers are what you look at, you would note that Bush is still responsible for more debt than Obama.
Personally, I have sacrificed much of my 401k to the corporatist, crony casino capitalists.
So your words for the rich paying ‘90’s tax rates are “punished” and “misery”. Yeah, right, the poor coddled bastards. I’m not whining about anyone having too much money. I’m just stating the fact that we all do better when they pay taxes at the former rate. I’m happy to cut spending, but not if it means degrading our infrastructure and cutting jobs.
If the goal is to have everyone doing better then tax cuts for the rich, off-shoring jobs, and corporatizing the two major parties has proven not be the way to do that.
The powerful tool you refer to is wealth concentration that buys politicians. Political power does not rise in a vacuum. If we agree on that, then we should agree to limit corporate cash in elections. Government will always be more powerful than individuals, no matter if we had the perfect libertarian system or not. Power will be abused by both wealth and government. This is why I want more protection of the Bill of Rights and less corporate cash in elections.
Congrats on voting for Barr. He’s come a long way from his hysterical “devil weed” warrior days to more libertarian thinking. But my claim was based on your complete belief in the Cheney/Bush neocon warmongering and surveillance state agenda. This is where you fall into the authoritarian ranks more so than libertarian.
I am a civil libertarian. I oppose all encroachments on our civil liberties and Bill of Rights. You don’t seem to be a civil libertarian. What kind are you? You seem to think unless I have a personal freedom denied there is no problem. That’s like saying crime is no big deal because I haven’t been a victim yet. Have you been frisked, scanned and treated like a convict at the airport lately? Our electronic communications are all collected, you know.
So how has the “tyranny” of health care and public services negatively affected your life? I don’t mind chipping in on your medical treatment. Why do you not want to do for others as well? Maybe you really are an anti-social type. You are willing to risk your life for our country, but somehow you think paying taxes is over and beyond the call of citizenship, as you benefit directly from those taxes, even.
This reminds me of “red state socialism” where the bulk of red states receive more federal money than they pay in taxes. Yet they bitch and bitch while the rest of watch our tax dollars drift down to Dixie. They’d better think twice about secession, it could cost them money.
Fee0352, says, "@Weasel
Killing the enemy isn't sociopathic, having a moral equivalentcy with them is."
Creating enemies so you can kill them and steal their resources, certainly is sociopathic.
You can wrap it up in any rhetoric you like to justify it, but that's what it boils down to.
We weren't repelling invading armies from Iraq. We invaded their country because war is can make big profits for many people.
Haliburton went from a corporation on the verge of bankruptcy from endless asbestos suits to one of the most powerful corporations on the planet by simply funds out our pockets through a unjustifiable war.
Now you've made it clear that you don't respect whiny people complaining about our tax dollars being used, to subsidize highly profitable corporations that pay no taxes.
So I'm not sure that you and I can even agree that killing people for profit is wrong. You appear to be able to rationalize that just fine.
You're a strange bird Free0352. You've made a career out of being a socialist. You continue to receive socialist benefits.
And yet you hate socialism more than life ling capitalists like me and Dave.
What drives you to be a self-hating socialist?
Christ! Free is not a socialist and you know it. There are so many legitimate attack points on Free. He is a walking target. Why do you persist with this? When he tries to pin the label of "socialist" on you instead of addressing your actual position, he starts to lose the debate. All you have to do is point it out and continue on. However, when you allow the debate to became one about whether he is a socialist, you are embracing an untenable position, and willingly. It is intentional forfeiture.
No one here is a socialist, but of all of us who aren't, Free is at the top of the list. (and joining the military is not equal to embracing socialism any more than playing football is embracing dictatorship).
Sorry to butt in, but I could bite my tongue no longer.
John Myste, the US Military is a social program provided by the US government in exchange for tax dollars with the intended purpose of protecting American shores form invading armies.
This makes it a socialist program and any person working with or in this program is engaged in socialist activities.
Further as an ex-member of hte armed forces he enjoys far more socialistic benefits than folk like me and Dave who have spent our careers supporting purely capitalistic enterprises.
I don't know how it could be any clearer John.
Weasle, my friend, the military is run like a business. There is no forced equality in the military. It is all about ranks and classes and promotions based on merit.
When I travel for my job, all of my expenses are paid and I have a pension.
Joining the military is not an act of socialism or an embrace of it. I think you know this.
That said, I apologize for butting in. It was bugging me when you kept saying this, because using attacking that are ostensibly absurd is only effective if you snipe and then leave it.
I was amused when this first came up, but after it seemed like a serious point, all the amusement was drained out of it.
If you think the military is a form of socialism, then lets agree to disagree. In a true socialist society, the means of production are a community asset, as is the land and the country. In the military you do as your told and receive what's necessary to survive while you do it. You could argue that slavery is socialism too, and you would be equally effective.
However, if you argue that I should butt out of the discussion since I offered nothing to it but to quibble over terms, then I have no rebuttal for that.
"Most of our amateur treatment of [global warming] is superficial regurgitation of what we read somewhere. We are not looking at source data and we really are not trained enough to follow it if we were. Not only would most of us not know what the source data meant, we would not know to ask the relevant questions or to understand its ramifications."
John (and everyone else), this comment is now 3 weeks old, but yesterday Scientific American published something on How to Evaluate Scientific Claims that seemed relevant.
Heathen,
I glanced at the article. Finding someone who agrees with you is really not a powerful argument, nor did she supply one.
Are we in a position where, outside our own narrow area of expertise, we either have to commit to agnosticism or take someone else’s word for things? If we’re not able to directly evaluate the data, does that mean we have no good way to evaluate the credibility of the scientist pointing to the data to make a claim?
She said scientist, which makes the question more relevant. Had she said "science," meaning the collective body of knowledge in the scientific community, the question is far less powerful.
Science is exceedingly complicated. Saying you have the data without the skills to have it is religion, not science.
The scientific community embraces the theory of man-made global warming based on scientific observations. I realized a scant minority of scientists say otherwise, as happens with most science.
If I draw a card from a deck of 52, it just may be the ace of spades, but it probably will not.
John, I didn't see any agreement in the article. Is that really what you thought I was doing?
I found the headline relevant, and when I read the article I thought the methodology made sense for we little people to try and make sense of scientific arguments.
Not motive besides sharing the knowledge.
I just can't talk to you when you are like this, Heathen.
Post a Comment