Danish Conservative Speaks Out on Climate Change

Environment • Views: 2,883

Denmark’s Minister of Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard, is considered a “conservative” in that country — and she’s quoted in the New York Times with an interesting remark that makes me wonder if she’s been reading Little Green Footballs (OK, not really — but I can dream, can’t I?): Danish Conservative Prepares for Climate Debate.

COPENHAGEN — Connie Hedegaard, Denmark’s minister of climate and energy, feels little kinship with the green end of the political spectrum — people who stage sit-ins at power plants or vote for the Green parties in elections.

“I’ve never understood why the environment should be a left-wing issue,” said Ms. Hedegaard, with an exasperated sigh. “In my view there is nothing as core to conservative beliefs — that what you inherit you should pass on to the next generation.”

Denmark — and Ms. Hedegaard — will play host in December to hundreds of nations that will gather in Copenhagen for the United Nation-sponsored global climate treaty negotiations. The meetings are tasked with finalizing a new global plan to tackle climate change. Ms. Hedegaard, who two years ago offered her city as the site for the negotiations, will be the president and the chairwoman of the 12-day event.

Her point that caring for the environment should be (but unfortunately is not) a core conservative value is one that I’ve made repeatedly in our threads related to climate change. Here’s what I wrote last month:

The only way we’ll ever be able to realistically debate political solutions is if we start by accepting a few baseline realities.

The scientific evidence that humans are responsible for an alarmingly rapid rise in global temperature is pretty overwhelming at this point. I’m not taking anybody’s word for this, either — I’ve been reading a lot on this subject, from all sides, for the past year or so.

Call me a traitor, call me a RINO, call me late for dinner, but it’s really clear to me that the Republican Party has been responsible for a vast amount of disinformation on climate science. Both sides are guilty of exaggeration and hype, but the right wing side has distorted the truth far beyond what I see from the scientists — who may not be perfect, but are only rarely outright liars.

This is a very sad situation, because I happen to believe it’s very much a conservative value to behave responsibly toward the environment. The stuff coming from Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc. is just unconscionable and completely betrays conservative principles in my view.

Another example:

The GOP has ceded several important issues to the Democrats, and environmentalism is definitely one of them. Unfortunately, it’s all tied in with a pernicious anti-science influence that comes largely from the religious far right.

Jump to bottom

471 comments
1 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:17:56am

Someone needs to disabuse the left of the notion that all conservatives go to bed nightly praying for dirty air and polluted water, with a side of dead polar bears.

2 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:18:56am

Unfortunately, the current GOP response for climate change is either to ignore the issue or build arks.

3 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:18:56am

If you agree with "Don't shit where you eat" then you are an environmentalist to some degree or another.

4 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:19:01am

The "anti-science influence" may be affecting the conservative viewpoint on climate change, but I have to believe there are also lots of folks that simply (and idiotically) will take the opposite side of any issue supported by the left.

5 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:20:52am

OT - New York Times on John Edwards:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Is that schadenfreude I'm feeling?

6 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:21:25am

re: #1 tradewind

Someone needs to disabuse the left of the notion that all conservatives go to bed nightly praying for dirty air and polluted water, with a side of dead polar bears.

Starting with conservatives.

7 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:21:43am

re: #4 reine.de.tout

And a lot of conservatives are simply sick of the radical environmentalist positions adopted by the left that cost people jobs and even lives. The water situation in CA is a current example... save a two-inch Delta smelt in favor of letting farmers irrigate their crops.

8 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:21:44am

re: #1 tradewind

Someone needs to disabuse the left of the notion that all conservatives go to bed nightly praying for dirty air and polluted water, with a side of dead polar bears. snow kittehs

9 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:21:45am

I don't see how anyone who is a parent can not be an environmentalist. Same with anyone who participates in any outdoor activity (hunting, fishing, camping, etc.)

10 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:22:44am

re: #1 tradewind

Someone needs to disabuse the left of the notion that all conservatives go to bed nightly praying for dirty air and polluted water, with a side of dead polar bears.

It's a little hard to do that when conservatives promote stupid ideas like deliberately wasting energy on Earth Day, for example. That was an absolute disgrace.

11 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:23:30am

re: #7 tradewind

And a lot of conservatives are simply sick of the radical environmentalist positions adopted by the left that cost people jobs and even lives. The water situation in CA is a current example... save a two-inch Delta smelt in favor of letting farmers irrigate their crops.

Heartless right-wing radical!

/

12 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:23:36am
13 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:23:44am

The environment shouldn't be a political issue at all; it should be an intrinsic human ideology. I just wish we could get rid of all of the greedy charity dollar mongers and peddlers of junk-science. If we could expunge the childish bickering and get down to brass tacks then maybe people would take it so seriously. Unfortunately a lot of people tend to find themselves mired in useless debate, especially after they liken the environmental movement to the likes of the Earth Liberation Front and want to distance themselves from their ilk by becoming ostriches.

People should take their own stand with their own little daily contributions and gestures without aspiring to either becoming a part of a group or distancing themselves by ignoring the fact.

14 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:24:00am

I am not at all surprised by the Dane's comments. Last year, I attended a carbon finance conference in the US. One of the speakers was from Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) in Britain, and I asked her if British parliament was divided over the issue of climate change. She replied that if there were any differences, they were only in respect of one party's criticizing the other for not moving fast enough. Both sides recognized the issues. It was suggested during the conference that the US was the only place where one's beliefs in this issue were very highly correlated to one's political affiliations.

15 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:24:26am

re: #5 Mad Al-Jaffee

The schadenfreude I'm feeling in this case is not resulting from Edwards' position, but from the obvious reluctance that media outlets such as the NYT show in even covering it. Dragged kicking and screaming by The Enquirer... how delicious.

16 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:25:16am

re: #12 buzzsawmonkey

...then you need to buy a second home.

Or build an outhouse.

17 Ojoe  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:25:29am

"Conservation" in the sense of caring for the planet, is at its heart conservative.

The folks (with guns) at Ducks Unlimited will tell you that.

It is very odd that environmentalism is thought of as "left wing"

18 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:26:05am

re: #7 tradewind

Have to take issue with this post. There are far left people that cause problems, but most people on the left do not.

Example - I work with a guy who does research on forests and climate change. I would categorize him as "left" if for no other reason than some of the right (the vocal part) rejects his research as "frivolous." I would categorize as far left the people who burnt down his research station and set the research back ten years because they felt people he shouldn't be out in the forest doing any kind of work, at all.

19 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:26:30am

Pool bets on the upcoming Mojib Latif comment?

20 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:26:34am

re: #12 buzzsawmonkey

Too drastic. Just call a plumber and upgrade to indoor facilities.
The left's solution would be to ban elimination within two miles of one's residence.

21 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:27:20am

re: #17 Ojoe

"Conservation" in the sense of caring for the planet, is at its heart conservative.

The folks (with guns) at Ducks Unlimited will tell you that.

It is very odd that environmentalism is thought of as "left wing"

Might be the "environmentalists" who want to put the folks with guns at Ducks Limited out of business. See Cass Sunstein, PETA, Sierra Club, etc.

22 Racer X  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:27:28am

*gobsmacked*

&sect-∫

23 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:27:47am

re: #17 Ojoe


It is very odd that environmentalism is thought of as "left wing"

It's even stranger to me that the study of some parts of mainstream science has taken on a political hue. There, it makes as much sense as if it applied to the study of Latin.

24 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:27:53am

If you want to bring Christian Fundementalism (most who practice this are conservatives) into the argument, you wind up with a very warped view of Christianity. The premise is that since the earth is going to be destroyed in the final judgement anyway, why should we protect it. Couple this with a very strong belief that we are living in the "end times" and you get a very destructive anti-earth attitude. What these folks fail to realize is that by subscribing to this mindset, they violate one of the core tennets of Christianity, namely the "golden rule". True Christianity believes in good stewarsdship of what God has entrusted to his people. This includes not only things like financial resources but also the planet. The very fact that so-called Christians can abandon the planet wholesale is a travesty and a rotten example for those they purport to want to save. I hope I never have to find out what life is like under a Christian theocracy and I say this as a practicing Christian. I'm sure I'd be thrown out of several churches since I also believe in evolution but that is a different subject for another day.

25 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:28:13am

re: #18 abbyadams

We have no disagreement. Obviously anyone who takes those positions is considered ' far' left. Just as anyone who refuses to acknowledge the importance of clean air and water is beyond ' far ' right.
The honest disagreement comes into play where solutions are involved. Some people on either side just cannot tolerate this.

26 Ojoe  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:28:39am

re: #21 Athens Runaway

If you don't thin the deer herd in the fall by hunting, they starve slowly in the winter ...

Oh well, city people! Sigh.

BBL

27 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:29:20am

re: #21 Athens Runaway

You mean Ducks Unlimited, and this organization is one of the most conservation minded around. ... Evil hunters though they may be...

28 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:30:40am

re: #17 Ojoe

"Conservation" in the sense of caring for the planet, is at its heart conservative.

The folks (with guns) at Ducks Unlimited will tell you that.

It is very odd that environmentalism is thought of as "left wing"

Probably started when the left politicized it?

29 abbyadams  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:30:53am

re: #25 tradewind

Based on this reply, we are obviously not in disagreement. My bad. :-)

30 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:31:03am

re: #19 Pianobuff

Pool bets on the upcoming Mojib Latif comment?

I had to google "Mojib Latif" to see that it wasn't somebody's name spelled backwards or an anagram.

31 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:31:31am

re: #10 Charles

I agree. It's right up there with the Earth Firsters who jam spikes into hardwood forests to kill and/ or maim loggers.

32 Danny  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:31:33am

re: #17 Ojoe

"Conservation" in the sense of caring for the planet, is at its heart conservative.

The folks (with guns) at Ducks Unlimited will tell you that.

This is why I buy hunting and fishing licenses in three states every year.

33 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:31:59am

re: #7 tradewind

And a lot of conservatives are simply sick of the radical environmentalist positions adopted by the left that cost people jobs and even lives. The water situation in CA is a current example... save a two-inch Delta smelt in favor of letting farmers irrigate their crops.

I agree.
But the way to deal with any radical position isn't to deny that a problem exists; it's to jump in and offer balancing viewpoints and ideas.

34 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:32:11am

re: #24 Jetpilot1101

I'm sure I'd be thrown out of several churches since I also believe in evolution but that is a different subject for another day.

Yeah I am a practicing Christian myself and am not entirely popular with the jamokes who come banging on my door to spread the "good word".

The way I see it, is God is the ultimate scientist. To me, intelligent design connotes that someone made the ecosystem to be intelligent and adapt accordingly. What kind of dumbass would create a universe that is constantly expanding, shifting and changing but and on the other hand, create life forms that don't?

35 Russkilitlover  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:32:40am

I am a conservative. One of the ones cheering on the angry mobs at townhalls and was pleased an proud to see the thousands upon thousands on The Mall on 9/12.

I also live in a zero energy home (that's the HIGHEST energy efficiency rating you can get), love my solar power and my $30 elec bills with the AC running and am a supporter of green building initiatives and sustainability.

Some things just make sense. And from a conservative point of view, they also make excellent economic sense.

36 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:32:55am

re: #32 Danny
I had to ring your bell...
Your Karma was sitting at 666!!!

37 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:33:03am

re: #30 John Neverbend

I had to google "Mojib Latif" to see that it wasn't somebody's name spelled backwards or an anagram.

Although Mojib does anagram itself into Jobim!

38 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:33:07am

re: #31 tradewind

I agree. It's right up there with the Earth Firsters who jam spikes into hardwood forests to kill and/ or maim loggers.

I always wondered about that. Aren't they hurting the trees feelings by doing that? I mean, how would they like to be wrapped in baling wire or stuck with a 6 in. nail?

39 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:33:35am

re: #33 reine.de.tout

That's what I was saying in post 13.

It's well and good to disagree with the persons running an organization, but don't disagree by becoming their polar opposite.

40 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:33:41am

re: #23 John Neverbend

It's even stranger to me that the study of some parts of mainstream science has taken on a political hue. There, it makes as much sense as if it applied to the study of Latin.

Agreed. Evidence is evidence, and interpretations of evidence are in the realm of science, and should not be in the realm of politics. I am deeply concerned by the distain for science shown by the right, the religious right in particular, and by the distain shown for democracy shown by the far left as well as the religious right. Yes, these are issues, and we should not deny them, but, by the same token, either we decide to go together, or together, stay where we are. However, we need the evidence untainted by political views (right or left) to decide that.

41 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:33:47am

re: #34 Equable

Yeah I am a practicing Christian myself and am not entirely popular with the jamokes who come banging on my door to spread the "good word".

Baretta fan?

42 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:33:55am

re: #32 Danny

I havn't drawn a deer tag THREE years running!!
Spike Elk coming in two weeks!!

43 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:34:06am

re: #29 abbyadams

No problem. This thang runs fast.
:)
The worst is when you (meaning me) fire off an answer in haste to a post and then read upthread and find out that you were not talking about the same thing.
I am so guilty, all the time.
But it's a blog, not a test.
:)

44 Danny  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:34:18am

re: #36 reloadingisnotahobby

I had to ring your bell...
Your Karma was sitting at 666!!!

It seems to hover there for some reason.

45 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:34:46am

re: #31 tradewind

I agree. It's right up there with the Earth Firsters who jam spikes into hardwood forests to kill and/ or maim loggers.

Earth First: a very tiny fringe extremist group.

The promoters of the Earth Day "counter-protest": top GOP politicians and pundits.

There's no comparison here at all.

46 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:35:06am

re: #41 Pianobuff

High five.

Now someone please down ding me for "high fiving" please?

47 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:36:02am

re: #1 tradewind

Someone needs to disabuse the left of the notion that all conservatives go to bed nightly praying for dirty air and polluted water, with a side of dead polar bears.

I also have a problem with celebrities telling me that I have to set my air conditioner at 85 and use one slice of toilet paper for #2, while they fly their private jets back and forth.

48 Jetpilot1101  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:36:26am

re: #34 Equable

I hear you. I'm comfortable in who I am and what I believe. I feel no need to shove it down anyone's throat but should someone ask, I am more then happy to share. My God is bogger then a human's interpretation of the Bible.

49 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:36:56am

re: #47 Alouette

I also have a problem with celebrities telling me that I have to set my air conditioner at 85 and use one slice of toilet paper for #2, while they fly their private jets back and forth.

Yeah, but I bet they keep the cabin temp at 85 . . ./

50 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:36:58am

Well one thing I object to among those who identify themselves politically as environmentalists is their tendency to strictly define that which is pro and anti environmental. While that should be cut and dry it isn't in the case of nuclear power.

Nuclear power has highly concentrated pollutants. And highly toxic pollutants. But their concentration offers a great benefit to the environment - their disposition can be known and managed. that versus the various gases and particulates released from burning fossil fuels and then get scattered all over the planet (or simply sit in the atmosphere).

Somehow, among some, nuclear power remains a taboo energy source.

51 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:37:16am

Oh boy.. here's an example of a type of environmental blackmail, in a backwards way:
The UN is saying that H1N1 outbreaks in third world countries could lead to anarchy, and that ' rich nations ' (read US) have to step up and pay to stop this or suffer the consequences.
I'm all for providing vaccines to poor countries, but it's wording like this that frosts me.

52 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:37:30am

re: #47 Alouette

I also have a problem with celebrities telling me that I have to set my air conditioner at 85 and use one slice of toilet paper for #2, while they fly their private jets back and forth.

Agreed. I wish folks like that would practice what they preach. Until they do, they will not be taken seriously.

53 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:37:33am

The very fact that so-called Christians can abandon the planet wholesale is a travesty and a rotten example

Pray tell, what planet did they emigrate to?

I hope I never have to find out what life is like under a Christian theocracy and I say this as a practicing Christian.

Of course, the coming of the Theocracy is on everyone's mind.

Perhaps everyone here could start reducing their CO2 footprint by canceling their broadband services. The Internet is one huge exhaust fan for green house gases. Think if all of those huge server farms and data centers in places like San Jose were shut permanently down. Global temps would drop immediately. Of course all of those unemployed IT workers...

54 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:37:45am

re: #27 tradewind

You mean Ducks Unlimited, and this organization is one of the most conservation minded around. ... Evil hunters though they may be...

My bad. I hadn't had any coffee yet.

55 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:37:46am

re: #37 Pianobuff

Although Mojib does anagram itself into Jobim!

True, although I don't know what "Jobim" refers to, unless it's the Hebrew plural of "Job". I was at one point heavily into carbon finance, and I immersed myself in all the relevant details. I probably could have written the chronology of the Kyoto Protocol on the back of an envelope (a large envelope, as the chronology is very long), and I read all the relevant articles, could navigate the relevant web sites etc.. I'm embarrassed to say that after all that, I never heard of Professor Latif.

56 Ben Hur  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:38:17am

re: #46 Equable

High five.

Now someone please down ding me for "high fiving" please?

Here.

For your future reference.

57 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:38:37am

re: #45 Charles

Okay. Take it down a notch to substitute the promoters of Kyoto, which ' everyone' knows would have been a useless disaster. Top Democrats and pundits.

58 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:39:23am

re: #54 Athens Runaway

Bless you... I don't know what time it is there, but I would be in severe headache withdrawal mode.

59 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:39:45am

re: #55 John Neverbend

True, although I don't know what "Jobim" refers to, unless it's the Hebrew plural of "Job". I was at one point heavily into carbon finance, and I immersed myself in all the relevant details. I probably could have written the chronology of the Kyoto Protocol on the back of an envelope (a large envelope, as the chronology is very long), and I read all the relevant articles, could navigate the relevant web sites etc.. I'm embarrassed to say that after all that, I never heard of Professor Latif.

Antonio Carlos Brasileiro de Almeida Jobim - AKA The Bossa Nova Dude

60 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:40:11am

re: #7 tradewind

And a lot of conservatives are simply sick of the radical environmentalist positions adopted by the left that cost people jobs and even lives. The water situation in CA is a current example... save a two-inch Delta smelt in favor of letting farmers irrigate their crops.

But often they can't articulate what their concerns are well. It sometimes comes down to a knee-jerk support of big business, and a lack of concern for other things that cost jobs and lives.

61 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:40:26am

re: #57 tradewind

Okay. Take it down a notch to substitute the promoters of Kyoto, which ' everyone' knows would have been a useless disaster. Top Democrats and pundits.

The irony is that, when they had the chance to ratify it, Democrats in the Senate rejected Kyoto. Not that they didn't blame Bush afterward (who was still sitting in Texas when they voted).

62 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:40:37am

re: #57 tradewind

Okay. Take it down a notch to substitute the promoters of Kyoto, which ' everyone' knows would have been a useless disaster. Top Democrats and pundits.

Wrong. The Kyoto agreement was voted down by a broad coalition of Democrats and Republicans, including the Clinton White House -- who never even submitted the bill to the Senate for ratification.

63 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:40:55am

re: #49 Creeping Eruption

Yeah, but I bet they keep the cabin temp at 85 . . ./

One slice (not even one sheet, noch) of bog paper for #2?!?! A brokh iz mir!

64 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:40:57am

re: #34 Equable

Yeah I am a practicing Christian myself and am not entirely popular with the jamokes who come banging on my door to spread the "good word".

The way I see it, is God is the ultimate scientist. To me, intelligent design connotes that someone made the ecosystem to be intelligent and adapt accordingly. What kind of dumbass would create a universe that is constantly expanding, shifting and changing but and on the other hand, create life forms that don't?

Just to be a jerk, I'd point out that God didn't follow the scientific method when creating everything. WHERE'S THE PEER REVIEW?!

65 lostlakehiker  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:41:42am

re: #24 Jetpilot1101

If you want to bring Christian Fundementalism (most who practice this are conservatives) into the argument, you wind up with a very warped view of Christianity. The premise is that since the earth is going to be destroyed in the final judgement anyway, why should we protect it. Couple this with a very strong belief that we are living in the "end times" and you get a very destructive anti-earth attitude. What these folks fail to realize is that by subscribing to this mindset, they violate one of the core tennets of Christianity, namely the "golden rule". True Christianity believes in good stewarsdship of what God has entrusted to his people. This includes not only things like financial resources but also the planet. The very fact that so-called Christians can abandon the planet wholesale is a travesty and a rotten example for those they purport to want to save. I hope I never have to find out what life is like under a Christian theocracy and I say this as a practicing Christian. I'm sure I'd be thrown out of several churches since I also believe in evolution but that is a different subject for another day.

One of the major teachings of Christianity (and that, through incorporation of Torah) is that we should be good stewards. From Genesis

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

The non-religious conservative presumably wants to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. A precondition for liberty is existence.

Our founding fathers were very much aware of the great future that stretched before the young nation, if it could be steered right. Today, that steering includes the development of a new energy infrastructure, with more efficient use of energy at the one end and more sustainable production of energy at the other. Whether the efficient use will be accomplished by thicker insulation in homes, thermal mass, better windows, or LED lighting can be left to the geeks. Whether the production will be from nuclear, breeder nuclear, wind, solar, or what have you, cannot. There's an inescapable political element here. We conservatives have the duty to help steer our nation to effective policies. Conservation by rationing, coupled to production from coal, oil, and natural gas, and rhetoric, but only rhetoric and exotic pilot projects, seems to be the Democrats' answer. There ought to be a way to win elections based on the merits of these two platforms: ours as it should be, and theirs as it is.

66 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:41:48am

The delta smelt issue in the San Joaquin valley seems to me to be an example of the difference between politicians and scientists.

U.S. issues rules to protect Delta smelt

U.C. Davis has some incredibly bright folks in their science programs/departments.

Scientists: There's gotta be a way to solve this problem.
Politicians: Turn off the water.

They turned off the water. Now there are some areas in the valley where the unemployment rate is near 40 percent, the fields lie fallow, and the entire country will suffer from the decrease in the production of fruits and vegetables.

My feeling is: give us more scientists and fewer politicians.

67 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:41:57am

re: #53 jpkoch

Perhaps everyone here could start reducing their CO2 footprint by canceling their broadband services. The Internet is one huge exhaust fan for green house gases. Think if all of those huge server farms and data centers in places like San Jose were shut permanently down. Global temps would drop immediately. Of course all of those unemployed IT workers...

Won't happen. Adaptation and engineering solutions are what will help us, not a luddite view of the world. I scoff when I see people talk about stopping climate change. You can't stop it. Even if we stopped all our emissions immediately, we still have the natural cycles to contend with. We can, however, be more energy efficient and use cleaner energy sources (nuclear comes to mind). Those are engineering solutions. We will also just have to adapt.

68 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:41:59am

re: #64 Athens Runaway

Just to be a jerk, I'd point out that God didn't follow the scientific method when creating everything.

How do you know that?

69 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:42:01am

re: #10 Charles

It's a little hard to do that when conservatives promote stupid ideas like deliberately wasting energy on Earth Day, for example. That was an absolute disgrace.

Yeah. "If you've got 'em, smoke 'em," is not really a good counterplan to evironmentalist extremism.

70 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:42:03am

re: #63 John Neverbend

One slice (not even one sheet, noch) of bog paper for #2?!?! A brokh iz mir!


Auto-upding for dropping "noch"

71 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:42:18am

re: #55 John Neverbend

True, although I don't know what "Jobim" refers to, unless it's the Hebrew plural of "Job". I was at one point heavily into carbon finance, and I immersed myself in all the relevant details. I probably could have written the chronology of the Kyoto Protocol on the back of an envelope (a large envelope, as the chronology is very long), and I read all the relevant articles, could navigate the relevant web sites etc.. I'm embarrassed to say that after all that, I never heard of Professor Latif.

I'm guessing around comment #130.

72 acwgusa  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:42:25am

re: #53 jpkoch

The very fact that so-called Christians can abandon the planet wholesale is a travesty and a rotten example

Pray tell, what planet did they emigrate to?

I hope I never have to find out what life is like under a Christian theocracy and I say this as a practicing Christian.

Of course, the coming of the Theocracy is on everyone's mind.

Perhaps everyone here could start reducing their CO2 footprint by canceling their broadband services. The Internet is one huge exhaust fan for green house gases. Think if all of those huge server farms and data centers in places like San Jose were shut permanently down. Global temps would drop immediately. Of course all of those unemployed IT workers...

Hey! I would be one of those unemployed IT workers! How would I run my home server farm then to pollute the planet then?

/s

73 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:42:44am

re: #51 tradewind

Oh boy.. here's an example of a type of environmental blackmail, in a backwards way:
The UN is saying that H1N1 outbreaks in third world countries could lead to anarchy, and that ' rich nations ' (read US) have to step up and pay to stop this or suffer the consequences.
I'm all for providing vaccines to poor countries, but it's wording like this that frosts me.

Like I said in post 13, a lot of people become jaded at stuff like that and distance themselves.

To go a step further, providing vaccines to fend pandemics is great. But they could also spend some of that money a little wiser by providing education and the means to exercise healthier daily habits and show them how they can avoid becoming victims. During the whole "USA For Africa" era, I bought the album and donated my allowance many times to their cause and a few others. But even as a child I was wondering why they weren't sending birth control and education/means to try and turn their funky soil into viable farm land.

I know that sounds cynical and I apologize if it does, but hell - even at eight years old I knew that bringing more people into a place where there is no food is a patently bad idea.

74 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:42:49am

re: #66 subsailor68

The delta smelt issue in the San Joaquin valley seems to me to be an example of the difference between politicians and scientists.

U.S. issues rules to protect Delta smelt

U.C. Davis has some incredibly bright folks in their science programs/departments.

Scientists: There's gotta be a way to solve this problem.
Politicians: Turn off the water.

They turned off the water. Now there are some areas in the valley where the unemployment rate is near 40 percent, the fields lie fallow, and the entire country will suffer from the decrease in the production of fruits and vegetables.

My feeling is: give us more scientists and fewer politicians.

/who ever dealt it smelt it.

75 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:43:07am

re: #62 Charles

Wrong. The Kyoto agreement was voted down by a board coalition of Democrats and Republicans, including the Clinton White House -- who never even submitted the bill for ratification.

I believe the vote for a letter to the White House from the Senate was 95-0.

76 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:43:19am

re: #68 Charles

How do you know that?

Can't have peer review if He's the only One around, can ya?

//

77 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:43:43am

re: #64 Athens Runaway

Just to be a jerk, I'd point out that God didn't follow the scientific method when creating everything. WHERE'S THE PEER REVIEW?!

Trinity?

78 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:44:06am

re: #49 Creeping Eruption

The First Lady went shopping for some organic kale at the market in DC the other day. Fine.. (although what happened to that marvelous truck garden at the WH?). It took three limos, (to go a couple of blocks) all kinds of SS protection, an amazingly huge carbon footprint, and as she left, she went on and on about the wonders of potatoes for four dollars a pound and eggs that cost five times the supermarket price.
There's some world-class hypocrisy for you. Even the WaPo was moved to comment.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

79 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:44:20am

re: #62 Charles

Wrong. The Kyoto agreement was voted down by a board coalition of Democrats and Republicans, including the Clinton White House -- who never even submitted the bill for ratification.

Specifically, the Senate voted 95-0 not to sign or ratify any protocol that didn't include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations. In fact, Al Gore did sign the bill, but it was never submitted for ratification. Unfortunately, a lot of the thinking behind Kyoto assumed that the US would participate.

80 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:44:21am

re: #76 Athens Runaway

Not a creationist, before anyone gets their hackles up.

81 FrogMarch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:44:29am
“I’ve never understood why the environment should be a left-wing issue,” said Ms. Hedegaard, with an exasperated sigh. “In my view there is nothing as core to conservative beliefs — that what you inherit you should pass on to the next generation.”

Could not agree more.

Someone tell the Chinese.

82 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:44:33am

re: #66 subsailor68

83 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:44:53am

re: #62 Charles

But there were plenty of high profile democrats and pundits who moaned and groaned about this very rejection.

84 Dianna  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:45:08am

re: #51 tradewind

Absolutely.

85 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:45:16am

re: #75 HoosierHoops

I believe the vote for a letter to the White House from the Senate was 95-0.

I do believe you are correct.

86 drcordell  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:45:16am

re: #78 tradewind

The First Lady went shopping for some organic kale at the market in DC the other day. Fine.. (although what happened to that marvelous truck garden at the WH?). It took three limos, (to go a couple of blocks) all kinds of SS protection, an amazingly huge carbon footprint, and as she left, she went on and on about the wonders of potatoes for four dollars a pound and eggs that cost five times the supermarket price.
There's some world-class hypocrisy for you. Even the WaPo was moved to comment.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Go without a security detail? This is the kind of stupid shit that does nothing except shift the debate away from real issues.

87 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:45:36am

re: #82 reloadingisnotahobby

Oh sure. That's easy for you to say!

;-)

88 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:45:36am

re: #47 Alouette

I also have a problem with celebrities telling me that I have to set my air conditioner at 85 and use one slice of toilet paper for #2, while they fly their private jets back and forth.

My mother-in-law told me not to get a flu shot. I'm not listening to her, and I'm not listening to Sheryl Crowe. Eh, whatever.

89 MikeAlv77  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:02am

re: #78 tradewind

The First Lady went shopping for some organic kale at the market in DC the other day. Fine.. (although what happened to that marvelous truck garden at the WH?). It took three limos, (to go a couple of blocks) all kinds of SS protection, an amazingly huge carbon footprint, and as she left, she went on and on about the wonders of potatoes for four dollars a pound and eggs that cost five times the supermarket price.
There's some world-class hypocrisy for you. Even the WaPo was moved to comment.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

But its Ok... She is showing the rest of us how to do it. We don't need the SS and the limo's, etc... Just pay more money for something that isn't necessairly better for you. (wasn't there an article that said that organic wasn't better for you somewhere... can't find it now)

90 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:08am

re: #78 tradewind

The First Lady went shopping for some organic kale at the market in DC the other day. Fine.. (although what happened to that marvelous truck garden at the WH?). It took three limos, (to go a couple of blocks) all kinds of SS protection, an amazingly huge carbon footprint, and as she left, she went on and on about the wonders of potatoes for four dollars a pound and eggs that cost five times the supermarket price.
There's some world-class hypocrisy for you. Even the WaPo was moved to comment.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Agreed.

91 lostlakehiker  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:25am

re: #68 Charles

How do you know that?

Where are the experimental universes, pilot projects before us, the real thing?

/oh, of course, if there were such, we wouldn't be able to see them. They'd be off in their own universe somewhere.

92 SummerSong  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:30am

re: #5 Mad Al-Jaffee

OT - New York Times on John Edwards:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Is that schadenfreude I'm feeling?

Ugh, it's a real mess he created. I wonder how this young daughter will feel when she reads about how he denied her for so long. It makes me sick for all the innocent ones he is hurting.

93 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:36am

re: #80 Athens Runaway

Not a creationist, before anyone gets their hackles up.

I am and have no qualms about saying so. I just don't follow a lot of the popular doctrines that they try and foist on everybody.

94 albusteve  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:39am

re: #86 drcordell

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Go without a security detail? This is the kind of stupid shit that does nothing except shift the debate away from real issues.

go without, obviously

95 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:46am

re: #88 SanFranciscoZionist

My mother-in-law told me not to get a flu shot. I'm not listening to her, and I'm not listening to Sheryl Crowe. Eh, whatever.

Sheryl's a vaxer?

96 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:46:58am

re: #74 Creeping Eruption

Why isn't Nancy Pelosi crying some of those famous tears for the farmers?
Oh right... she represents SF wackos. **
** don't start, I know not everyone in SF fits the profile... just the loud ones...

97 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:05am

re: #70 Creeping Eruption

Auto-upding for dropping "noch"

Thank you. I didn't realize that that was a feature of LGF. I live and learn.

98 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:27am

re: #63 John Neverbend

One slice (not even one sheet, noch) of bog paper for #2?!?! A brokh iz mir!

That means one layer of 2-ply

99 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:28am

re: #86 drcordell

Of course she is not supposed to go without a security detail.
That's not the point.
But you knew that.

100 reloadingisnotahobby  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:30am

re: #87 subsailor68

Ha!!
It ate my comment!!
...I've been to the Sac valley two month ago ...it's not pretty!

101 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:37am

re: #86 drcordell

Why is she stuck with the grocery shopping?

102 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:44am

re: #86 drcordell

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Go without a security detail? This is the kind of stupid shit that does nothing except shift the debate away from real issues.

She could've sent staffers to go get the items, or they could've simply had them delivered to The White House instead. That would've been a wiser use of tax money and the security detail than going out in three limos with SS secuitry detail.

103 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:47:46am

re: #92 SummerSong

Ugh, it's a real mess he created. I wonder how this young daughter will feel when she reads about how he denied her for so long. It makes me sick for all the innocent ones he is hurting.

Heh. One year later and the NYT boldly carries the story forward.

104 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:02am

and many on the left won't support solar power farms in the Mojave desert either:

[Link: articles.latimes.com...]

[Link: www.latimes.com...]

I don't see much evidence that the left is solution-oriented, frankly.

Of course the way right types aren't solution-oriented either. I've said before that Bush had a golden opportunity and the political capital after 9/11/01 to put large $$ into an energy policy to get us away from using Saudi and Russian oil...and he did nothing but look into Putin's eyes and ... yeah.

sigh

105 MikeAlv77  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:08am

re: #94 albusteve

go without, obviously

oh...she could have someone more low profile do it for her thereby saving the planet a whole lot of carbon

106 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:12am

re: #62 Charles

Wrong. The Kyoto agreement was voted down by a broad coalition of Democrats and Republicans, including the Clinton White House -- who never even submitted the bill to the Senate for ratification.

Found the vote - [Link: www.senate.gov...]

It was on an "expression of the Senate" on Kyoto.

[Link: thomas.loc.gov...]

So Charles is right and I am wrong - they never voted on Kyoto.

107 drcordell  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:16am

re: #99 tradewind

Of course she is not supposed to go without a security detail.
That's not the point.
But you knew that.

So what is the point? What can Michelle Obama do to speak out on the environment without you accusing her of being a hypocrite because of her security detail?

108 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:18am

re: #78 tradewind

Hear hear! Even eight year old Equable Jr. could see the blatant hypocrisy in that. He said:

"What, is she some sort of stinking queen or something?"

109 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:26am

re: #86 drcordell

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Go without a security detail? This is the kind of stupid shit that does nothing except shift the debate away from real issues.

Here is what the fuck she is supposed to do: leave the shopping to the WH kitchen staff.

110 sir c  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:30am

Actually, My extreme stance again the AGW concept is because I believe in protecting the environment. So long as we are spending all our time convincing folks that Co2 is the most important threat to the environment we will make a hard time getting folks to work on real problems like mercury in the Everglades or our land fills or our light bulbs.

Now, about this problem with environmentalism being politicized. I think we should ask Al Gore how that happened.

111 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:44am

re: #91 lostlakehiker

Where are the experimental universes, pilot projects before us, the real thing?

/oh, of course, if there were such, we wouldn't be able to see them. They'd be off in their own universe somewhere.

On the other hand, look at some of the physical law-weirdness, and you'd think this place was designed by committee. See: quantum physics at the micro-scale/Newtonian physics at the macro-scale, entanglement, et. al.

112 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:48am

re: #78 tradewind

The First Lady went shopping for some organic kale at the market in DC the other day. Fine.. (although what happened to that marvelous truck garden at the WH?). It took three limos, (to go a couple of blocks) all kinds of SS protection, an amazingly huge carbon footprint, and as she left, she went on and on about the wonders of potatoes for four dollars a pound and eggs that cost five times the supermarket price.
There's some world-class hypocrisy for you. Even the WaPo was moved to comment.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

What's your point? She should have taken a bus?

Come on. This is ridiculous. She's the First Lady of the United States, and she needs security. I seriously doubt that all of that was her idea. There are people whose job it is to make sure she's safe.

Sheesh.

113 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:48:58am

re: #95 Pianobuff

Sheryl's a vaxer?

Given what I've seen from some of them, that would not shock nor surprise me.

114 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:49:40am

re: #98 Alouette

That means one layer of 2-ply

I might reconsider, if we all start using those Japanese "car-wash style" lavatories. I saw one in a shopping mall in Boca, but I don't think the Floridians were into it.

115 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:50:05am

re: #100 reloadingisnotahobby

Ha!!
It ate my comment!!
...I've been to the Sac valley two month ago ...it's not pretty!

I imagine it was awful. I've seen a number of reports on the issue, and it's enough to make you cry. Ironic isn't it that the valley was populated by Okies fleeing the Dust Bowl in the 1930's (ala Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath") only to have politicians do to them now what nature did to them then?

116 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:50:10am

re: #113 Honorary Yooper

Given what I've seen from some of them, that would not shock nor surprise me.

Man. The pairing of Lance and Sheryl always mystified me.

117 albusteve  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:50:18am

re: #107 drcordell

So what is the point? What can Michelle Obama do to speak out on the environment without you accusing her of being a hypocrite because of her security detail?

do the right thing, obviously...there were options

118 bloodnok  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:51:04am

re: #112 Charles

What's your point? She should have taken a bus?

Come on. This is ridiculous. She's the First Lady of the United States, and she needs security. I seriously doubt that all of that was her idea. There are people whose job it is to make sure she's safe.

Sheesh.

I dunno, Charles. I really think this one has legs. This might be the story that makes people see the truth about them and turns the tide.

/oozing

119 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:51:19am

re: #110 sir c

Actually, My extreme stance again the AGW concept is because I believe in protecting the environment. So long as we are spending all our time convincing folks that Co2 is the most important threat to the environment...

Never mind that it is the most important threat to the environment.

120 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:51:48am

re: #86 drcordell

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Go without a security detail? This is the kind of stupid shit that does nothing except shift the debate away from real issues.

My understanding is that the White House has staff who could do these sorts of errands. And of course, there is always the option of shopping at, say, a regular grocery store, like say, Wal-Mart, where I shop.

121 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:51:55am

Apparently Jim Carrey is a vaxxer too.

122 MikeAlv77  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:52:01am

re: #117 albusteve

do the right thing, obviously...there were options

Totally agree. I said in a previous post... she could have had a staff member do the shopping, hold a press conference and explain how this stuff is better than the environment and mention the market where you can buy the stuff. Saves a lot on the environment instead of worrying about the photo op at the market. Its not that she needs security. It goes back to practice what you preach.

123 drcordell  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:52:09am

re: #109 Alouette

Here is what the fuck she is supposed to do: leave the shopping to the WH kitchen staff.

She's trying to promote farmers markets and local, organic farming. That's why she made the appearance. By going and doing it herself, she is in essence advertising for the farmers market.

She's the first lady. Wherever she goes, whatever she does, she's going to have a huge ass security detail. If she just went out to eat instead, she'd have the huge security detail. And when she did that you'd probably be bagging on her for being an "elitist" who eats out too much.

124 Sir C  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:52:55am

Wasn't it here in LGF that I read about all those poorly maintained temp reading stations? I think it was...

125 drcordell  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:53:08am

re: #120 reine.de.tout

My understanding is that the White House has staff who could do these sorts of errands. And of course, there is always the option of shopping at, say, a regular grocery store, like say, Wal-Mart, where I shop.

Don't you get it? That's entirely the point. She's trying to draw attention to farmers markets and local produce. You know, supporting small businesses?

126 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:54:32am

re: #112 Charles

What's your point? She should have taken a bus?

I don't think that's the point. It's that she caused an enormous amount of disruption and expense in order to put on a show of "going shopping".

I agree that it's relatively trivial, however.

127 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:54:53am

re: #107 drcordell

Umm, speak out on the environment.
Not go on some silly shopping motorcade farce that costs literally thousands of taxpayer dollars , wastes carbon like a son of a gun ( since this is vital), and makes the people who are watching this go...' huh'? Not to mention ginning up class envy in those who find that four dollar a dozen eggs don't quite fit into their food budget.
Well, I take it back. She did point out that food stamps can be used at farmers' markets.
Not so sure that would be the best way to spend them, personally.

128 Russkilitlover  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:54:59am

re: #112 Charles

What's your point? She should have taken a bus?

Come on. This is ridiculous. She's the First Lady of the United States, and she needs security. I seriously doubt that all of that was her idea. There are people whose job it is to make sure she's safe.

Sheesh.

I don't think that's the point. The point is the utter hypocrisy and insensitivity of touting "organic" purchases that cost four times as much to a population with 10% unemployment, who knows how high underemployment, and folks who have quit looking. Crass, elitism on display.

129 bloodnok  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:55:00am

re: #124 Sir C

Wasn't it here in LGF that I read about all those poorly maintained temp reading stations? I think it was...

If it was the video debuinking the theory that those questionable stations skewed the temperature data up that you are thinking of. Yes, it was here on LGF a few weeks ago.

130 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:55:04am

re: #81 FrogMarch

Could not agree more.

Someone tell the Chinese.

HONG KONG (Reuters) - One needs to look no further then the river that runs through Shangba to understand the extent of the heavy metals pollution that experts say has turned the hamlets in this region of southern China into cancer villages.

The river's flow ranges from murky white to a bright shade of orange and the waters are so viscous that they barely ripple in the breeze. In Shangba, the river brings death, not sustenance.

"All the fish died, even chickens and ducks that drank from the river died. If you put your leg in the water, you'll get rashes and a terrible itch," said He Shuncai, a 34-year-old rice farmer who has lived in Shangba all his life.

"Last year alone, six people in our village died from cancer and they were in their 30s and 40s."

Cancer casts a shadow over the villages in this region of China in southern Guangdong province, nestled among farmland contaminated by heavy metals used to make batteries, computer parts and other electronics devices.

damn

131 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:55:05am

re: #99 tradewind

Of course she is not supposed to go without a security detail.
That's not the point.
But you knew that.

That wasn't a shopping trip. That was a planned event that included a speech by the First Lady. It was for the opening of FreshFarm Markets and it drew a crowd. So to say that this was a shopping trip is false.

132 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:55:09am

re: #125 drcordell

Well Doc you have a point, so I'll relax my stance on the whole thing. Maybe I was allowing my general dislike/disdain for her get in the way of what she was attempting to accomplish. Thanks for helping me see it a different way.

133 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:55:20am

re: #121 Athens Runaway

Apparently Jim Carrey is a vaxxer too.

Well, he can talk out of his butt, right?

134 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:56:01am

re: #102 Honorary Yooper

with SS secuitry detail.

[cough] Um, let's say "USSS", shall we?

135 drcordell  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:56:04am

re: #122 MikeAlv77

Totally agree. I said in a previous post... she could have had a staff member do the shopping, hold a press conference and explain how this stuff is better than the environment and mention the market where you can buy the stuff. Saves a lot on the environment instead of worrying about the photo op at the market. Its not that she needs security. It goes back to practice what you preach.

What about the carbon footprint for all the reporters who would have to drive to cover the press conference? The carbon footprint for the staffers sent out to go do the shopping? Give it a rest man.

You want to make the argument that as a private citizen, someone like Al Gore is a hypocrite for preaching green while using a private jet and huge house, that's fine. They are doing so of their own volition, and deserve scorn. But Michelle Obama has no choice. Her security detail is a necessity. She still has a right to travel where she wants and draw attention to causes as she sees fit without being labeled a hypocrite.

136 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:56:05am

re: #132 Equable

Maybe I was allowing my general dislike/disdain for her get in the way of what she was attempting to accomplish.

A lot of people seem to be having that problem lately.

137 RoughRider  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:56:50am

re: #73 Equable

I know that sounds cynical and I apologize if it does, but hell - even at eight years old I knew that bringing more people into a place where there is no food is a patently bad idea.

There's a great Sam Kinison bit built on this exact theme.

138 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:56:55am

re: #86 drcordell

What the fuck is she supposed to do? Go without a security detail? This is the kind of stupid shit that does nothing except shift the debate away from real issues.

I am a big fan of CSA's, farmer markets, etc. and try to get my veggies from them. However, a big push to use local, is the reduction of resources in producing and shipping the food from origin to consumer. She has to keep in mind when she is promoting something, that, when she moves, the world around her has to stop, and lots of resources are used to get her where she is going. Frankly, I am pleased to see her push for fresh produce. Not sure everyone can afford it, but the message is fine with me.

139 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:57:07am

re: #123 drcordell

She's trying to promote farmers markets and local, organic farming. That's why she made the appearance. By going and doing it herself, she is in essence advertising for the farmers market.

She's the first lady. Wherever she goes, whatever she does, she's going to have a huge ass security detail. If she just went out to eat instead, she'd have the huge security detail. And when she did that you'd probably be bagging on her for being an "elitist" who eats out too much.

Might be a good idea to wait for Alouette to make a statement than assuming what she "probably would" say.
re: #125 drcordell

Don't you get it? That's entirely the point. She's trying to draw attention to farmers markets and local produce. You know, supporting small businesses?

OK, that's great. Would be nice if she also drew attention to ways people can stretch their income by drawing attention to things many people are able to actually afford to do.

I know I'm stretching here, with that . . . but your way of addressing people really just sucks.

140 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:57:12am

re: #137 RoughRider

Oh the bit about U-Hauls?

141 Cheesehead  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:57:15am

re: #78 tradewind

The First Lady went shopping for some organic kale at the market in DC the other day. Fine.. (although what happened to that marvelous truck garden at the WH?). It took three limos, (to go a couple of blocks) all kinds of SS protection, an amazingly huge carbon footprint, and as she left, she went on and on about the wonders of potatoes for four dollars a pound and eggs that cost five times the supermarket price.
There's some world-class hypocrisy for you. Even the WaPo was moved to comment.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]


Funny how it never occurred to someone at the White House to suggest to the First Lady: Excuse me, but I would be happy to run to the store for you. Just me; I'll be right back.

142 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:57:24am

re: #133 Pianobuff

That's because he lives with Jenny McCarthy, the dumbest antivaxer to ever hit the streets of Hollywood. What's he gonna do, risk trouble at home?
//

143 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:57:24am

re: #133 Pianobuff

Well, he can talk out of his butt, right?

Maybe vaxxing is a genetic mutation which will be ultimately selected against by a variety of diseases.

144 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:57:36am

re: #131 Gus 802

That wasn't a shopping trip. That was a planned event that included a speech by the First Lady. It was for the opening of FreshFarm Markets and it drew a crowd. So to say that this was a shopping trip is false.

Then that's fine and fully understandable. Since this was for a speech and not a shopping trip, the issue is moot. First Ladies get asked to give speeches quite commonly, and this is a non-issue.

145 Racer X  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:58:04am

re: #66 subsailor68

The delta smelt issue in the San Joaquin valley seems to me to be an example of the difference between politicians and scientists.

U.S. issues rules to protect Delta smelt

U.C. Davis has some incredibly bright folks in their science programs/departments.

Scientists: There's gotta be a way to solve this problem.
Politicians: Turn off the water.

They turned off the water. Now there are some areas in the valley where the unemployment rate is near 40 percent, the fields lie fallow, and the entire country will suffer from the decrease in the production of fruits and vegetables.

My feeling is: give us more scientists and fewer politicians.

He who smelt it, delta it.

146 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:58:22am

re: #144 Honorary Yooper

Then that's fine and fully understandable. Since this was for a speech and not a shopping trip, the issue is moot. First Ladies get asked to give speeches quite commonly, and this is a non-issue.

Exactly. Apparently some people are intent on spreading false information.

147 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:58:51am

re: #97 John Neverbend

Thank you. I didn't realize that that was a feature of LGF. I live and learn.

It is for me :)

148 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:58:55am

re: #136 Charles

I can admit my occasional faux pas.

149 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:58:59am

re: #131 Gus 802

That wasn't a shopping trip. That was a planned event that included a speech by the First Lady. It was for the opening of FreshFarm Markets and it drew a crowd. So to say that this was a shopping trip is false.

Who cares? She's an elitist and we hates her!

/dripping

150 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:04am

re: #131 Gus 802

That wasn't a shopping trip. That was a planned event that included a speech by the First Lady. It was for the opening of FreshFarm Markets and it drew a crowd. So to say that this was a shopping trip is false.

OK, that does put a different flavor on it.

I wish Cordell could put things politely in that way.

151 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:06am

re: #128 Russkilitlover

I don't think that's the point. The point is the utter hypocrisy and insensitivity of touting "organic" purchases that cost four times as much to a population with 10% unemployment, who knows how high underemployment, and folks who have quit looking. Crass, elitism on display.

Or that we'd have a lot of difficulty feeding the world population on "organic" produce.

152 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:07am

re: #34 Equable

Yeah I am a practicing Christian myself and am not entirely popular with the jamokes who come banging on my door to spread the "good word".

The way I see it, is God is the ultimate scientist. To me, intelligent design connotes that someone made the ecosystem to be intelligent and adapt accordingly. What kind of dumbass would create a universe that is constantly expanding, shifting and changing but and on the other hand, create life forms that don't?

Reminds me of the quote, "Why is that people who want to share their faith with you never want you to share your faith with them?"

153 drcordell  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:10am

re: #127 tradewind

Umm, speak out on the environment.
Not go on some silly shopping motorcade farce that costs literally thousands of taxpayer dollars , wastes carbon like a son of a gun ( since this is vital), and makes the people who are watching this go...' huh'? Not to mention ginning up class envy in those who find that four dollar a dozen eggs don't quite fit into their food budget.
Well, I take it back. She did point out that food stamps can be used at farmers' markets.
Not so sure that would be the best way to spend them, personally.

Yeah, you'd be much better spending those food stamps on a bunch of garbage like Kraft "cheese product" and Wonder "bread." The American poor are by and large the least healthy population because they eat the most processed, additive laden garbage. Buying real food with food stamps is probably the best way to spend them.

154 Athens Runaway  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:30am

Okay Lizards, I'm out. Time to get some edjumacation.

155 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:37am

re: #78 tradewind

Thw Washington Post is RACIST!!!

156 bloodnok  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:43am

re: #131 Gus 802

That wasn't a shopping trip. That was a planned event that included a speech by the First Lady. It was for the opening of FreshFarm Markets and it drew a crowd. So to say that this was a shopping trip is false.

Thank you, Gus. Hopefully we've seen the last of Watercressgate.

157 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 10:59:50am

re: #109 Alouette

Here is what the fuck she is supposed to do: leave the shopping to the WH kitchen staff.

Um, maybe she enjoys grocery shopping? I know it sounds strange, but I enjoy it. I like to choose produce and see what's in season, etc. And upscale stores will often have beautiful flower sections that we female types like to wander through, etc.

I still say that the First Lady gig isn't something that MO wanted or pushed her husband to get her into. I'm not going to consign her to being locked away from daily stuff that she might enjoy just because of her husband's ambition.

158 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:00:32am

re: #156 bloodnok

Thank you, Gus. Hopefully we've seen the last of Watercressgate.

I thought it was Farmersmarketgate?

//

159 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:01:35am

re: #137 RoughRider

There's a great Sam Kinison bit built on this exact theme.

"See this? Its sand."

160 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:01:41am

re: #141 Cheesehead

If Michelle wants her Marie Antoinette moment, who are we to judge.../

161 Racer X  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:01:45am

re: #156 bloodnok

Thank you, Gus. Hopefully we've seen the last of Watercressgate.

Doubtful.

Ooh look a Two Trillion dollar deficit.

162 Danny  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:02:15am

re: #131 Gus 802

That wasn't a shopping trip. That was a planned event that included a speech by the First Lady. It was for the opening of FreshFarm Markets and it drew a crowd. So to say that this was a shopping trip is false.

Exactly. It was a PR event. All First Ladies have them and they always cost taxpayers lots of money. Personally, I support this one because I support farmers' markets and we grow our own veggie garden every year. It's not gonna save much money if any, but the 'maters taste a heck of a lot better. Just ate one for lunch straight off the vine. Yummy.

163 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:02:16am

re: #153 drcordell

If the cost was even close to the same, you'd have a better argument.

164 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:02:16am

I just turned on the contact form for the first time in several days, and the first mail I got was ... a hate mail full of insults, of course.

165 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:02:25am

re: #159 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yeah I bust that one out on Winamp when he mentioned it. Man that Kinison was off of his trolley!

166 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:02:40am

re: #146 Gus 802

Exactly. Apparently some people are intent on spreading false information.

Far too many do. I, for one, am sick of it (saw too much of it during the last administration). It's too easy to fall for some of it since we're not always fond of this administration. One must take care to not always believe the worst of them, and always fact check anything said.

167 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:03:46am

re: #161 Racer X

Doubtful.

Ooh look a Two Trillion dollar deficit.

Spendingtheirassoffgate.

168 Dianna  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:03:53am

re: #164 Charles

I just turned on the contact form for the first time in several days, and the first mail I got was ... a hate mail full of insults, of course.

Oh, dear.

Would it help to send you some compliments, instead? I can't imagine what it feels like always getting ugly nonsense.

169 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:03:57am

re: #155 Mad Al-Jaffee

Thw Washington Post is RACIST!!!

Speaking of which:

So, the current cover image of The Economist, titled "Vandalism", shows Obama walking away after having stuck an icepick (or something) in a Chinese tire.

Slashing tires... "ghetto" behavior... RACIST IMAGE!

Discuss.

/half-kidding

170 damnyanqui  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:04:07am

Actually caring for the environment is far from an exclusively left-wing issue.
One of America's greatest early environmentalists was Teddy Roosevelt.
Millions of hunters and sport fishermen are also avid about protecting the natural habitats which they enjoy far more than do many urban dwelling "environmentalists."
The trouble with so many "environmental" issues is that in the past four decades or so, many of these discussions have come to be dominated by screaming left-wing hippie nut jobs frequently leaning on worthless junk science to support their campaign to move us all into some cockamamie age-of-Aquarius in which we all live on agrarian communes which, if we all actually did, would never support today's populations of the United States or the world.
Oh sure, there are respectable public figures who have spoken publicly about the threat of manmade gobal warming.
But the poster children for the issue have long been the crackpots who not so long ago were all for banning nuclear power, the only currently available non CO2 producing energy source of sufficient scale not subject to the carprices of weather or topography.
Why do liberals, and frequently extreme liberals, so overwhelmingly dominate environmental issues in general and the global warming debate in particular? Because the tenor of the debate has assumed the classical parameters of a classical liberal platform: "Never mind the cost, we must adopt THIS position and, never mind the cost, we must take THIS action, regardless of the cost.
And never mind the cost."
Well the cost, in money and jobs and lives simply can't be disregarded.
The question none of today's global warmists deign to address is this: "Okay, so we must abandon internal combustion? Where do you propose we get our energy INSTEAD?" And no, switching to overpriced hybrid cars and microwaving our eyeballs with those hideous, toxic chemical laden compact fluorescent light bulbs won't even come close to the kind of CO2 reductions the current theory demands.
Destroying our economy is not the answer.
Scholarly research in European economies which have gone much farther than the U.S. has has concluded that for every "green job" created, several more non "green" jobs are destroyed.
Not excactly a viable formula when you have millions... well billions really... of peopel to feed, clothe, house, keep warm and employ.

And besides their threat to wildlife, those much beloved wind turbines actually take almost as much energy to manufacture as they can ever be expected to produce in their designed lifespans.
Maybe a breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy really is just around the corner but nobody's even trying to pretend that it is.
So where are we to get our energy in the meantime?
It's the question Al Gore and company just seem uninterested in addressing.
The conservative viewpoint is not one of "abandoning" the issue.
A simple version of one position runs more along the lines of : "No, we're not going to destroy our economy and put millions of people on the road to unemployment and starvation. So if global warming is real, how can we cope with it? If it is real, then perhaps we should confront it with our scientific, technological and economic infrastructure intact, instead of in ruins because of some anti industrial regimen which destroyed the most productive sectors of our society and those which actually could have helped address the problem before we destroyed them."
Do I believe in manmade global warming?
Intuitively, the logic presented in support of the theory is pretty compelling. But the discussion of what we do about it has been so taken over by anti-industrial, anti-American lunatics that the impulse to just say "you're crazy. Screw you all" is more than most rational people can resist.
Which leaves, yes, the radical left as the only ones in the room.
Perhaps the serious scientists could literally save the world by rebuking and exorcising these nuts. Let's hope.
It could be our only hope

171 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:04:14am

re: #164 Charles

Who writes these? People with accounts, or random links from other sites?
Because if they come from users at LGF, what do they expect to prove?

172 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:04:16am

re: #164 Charles

I just turned on the contact form for the first time in several days, and the first mail I got was ... a hate mail full of insults, of course.

Somewhere in there is my suggestion that we should arrange a Southern California "drink a thon". While a good idea on the surface, I can't imagine what kind of nuttiness would show up and pose a possible "security" risk.

Still, I wouldn't mind meeting a lot of you and throwing down entirely too many pints.

173 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:04:30am

re: #164 Charles

I just turned on the contact form for the first time in several days, and the first mail I got was ... a hate mail full of insults, of course.

Some days, it seems that you just can't win.
Oh well, I guess with the contact form it is wash, rinse, and delete.

174 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:04:47am

re: #164 Charles

The haters have nothing but free time.

175 ointmentfly  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:04:52am

Conservatives automatically digging in heels on AGW is only matched by liberals in 3 point stances ready to overregulate the US at a huge cost that very few of them have actually thought about.

176 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:05:05am

re: #169 Occasional Reader

Heck no. That's arguably more race-baiting than half the stuff that has been called out for the same.

177 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:05:10am

re: #166 Honorary Yooper

Far too many do. I, for one, am sick of it (saw too much of it during the last administration). It's too easy to fall for some of it since we're not always fond of this administration. One must take care to not always believe the worst of them, and always fact check anything said.

Yes. And never take what you read at face value. Fact check, and fact check again. I got the information from this WaPo story:

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

There's a video there. I'm sure there's more information out there.

178 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:05:25am

Heaven help us if the Obamas ever decide to grab a burger, follow up with an ice cream sundae, and then go grocery shopping, all on the same day.

/

179 rwdflynavy  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:05:33am

re: #125 drcordell

Don't you get it? That's entirely the point. She's trying to draw attention to farmers markets and local produce. You know, supporting small businesses?

Well, it looks like she failed to draw attention to the small business. She certainly did draw some other attention!

180 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:07:01am

re: #125 drcordell

Don't you get it? That's entirely the point. She's trying to draw attention to farmers markets and local produce. You know, supporting small businesses?

I've said many times over at hotair that I don't get the right wing's love for WalMart and their disdain for stores like Whole Foods, etc. WalMart buys crap made at factories in China (moved there under GHWB and WJC administrations mostly--lots of Americans lost decent jobs because of it). China uses the money to undermine the US economically and internationally (Sudan sanctions for example).

Whole Foods buys local when they can, and pays their employees very well. Whole Foods even offers great health benefits and other perks to their workers. Yeah, Whole Foods charges a premium, but they sell high quality products and provide good customer service from employees who make higher wages. Whole Foods customers are happy to pay more for what they get there.

Isn't that capitalism in action?

181 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:07:32am

re: #157 funky chicken

Um, maybe she enjoys grocery shopping? I know it sounds strange, but I enjoy it. I like to choose produce and see what's in season, etc. And upscale stores will often have beautiful flower sections that we female types like to wander through, etc.

I still say that the First Lady gig isn't something that MO wanted or pushed her husband to get her into. I'm not going to consign her to being locked away from daily stuff that she might enjoy just because of her husband's ambition.

Well maybe she enjoys shopping at Wal-Mart or Target, but tough shit, when you're the FLOTUS you don't get to do that stuff without inconveniencing a whole bunch of other people. It's a perk or a disadvantage of the office, but you get to employ people who need the freaken work to do that stuff for you.

Last Tuesday my flight out of Detroit (along with a bunch of other flights from other places) had to circle the Philadelphia International Airport for a friggen 45 minutes and burn up a bunch of jet fuel while airspace was cleared for Air Force One or Air Force Two.

182 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:07:47am

re: #176 tradewind

Heck no. That's arguably more race-baiting than half the stuff that has been called out for the same.

I don't think so, either, but I was a little surprised to see it. Put it this way; if National Review had put that image on their cover, dollars to doughnuts they'd be loudly accused of racism by the HuffPos of the world. The Economist maybe can get away with it.

183 rwdflynavy  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:07:49am

re: #180 funky chicken

I've said many times over at hotair that I don't get the right wing's love for WalMart and their disdain for stores like Whole Foods, etc. WalMart buys crap made at factories in China (moved there under GHWB and WJC administrations mostly--lots of Americans lost decent jobs because of it). China uses the money to undermine the US economically and internationally (Sudan sanctions for example).

Whole Foods buys local when they can, and pays their employees very well. Whole Foods even offers great health benefits and other perks to their workers. Yeah, Whole Foods charges a premium, but they sell high quality products and provide good customer service from employees who make higher wages. Whole Foods customers are happy to pay more for what they get there.

Isn't that capitalism in action?

But do they have a living wage?
/

184 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:08:22am

Regarding the outrage over Michelle's trip to the farmer' market.: This is exactly what conservatives should be doing. Imagine if instead of using all that money on organizing Tea Parties and marching around with stupid signs that energy and money went to establishing farmer's markets in urban areas. The cities would make money of taxes and permit fees, local American farmers would make money, it would attract people to the area who might spend money at other businesses, more income, more tax revenue to help the cities, and so on. It would be actually doing something constructive for the economy and providing a free market solution. No congressional votes of government interference required. John Galt would be proud!

185 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:09:08am

Is this story about Michelle Obama being circulated on the hate-Obama blogs or something?

Has anyone noticed yet that it wasn't just a trip to the market for some organic kale, but part of a planned event that included a speech?

Or do you just not care?

186 rwdflynavy  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:09:11am

re: #184 Killgore Trout

Regarding the outrage over Michelle's trip to the farmer' market.: This is exactly what conservatives should be doing. Imagine if instead of using all that money on organizing Tea Parties and marching around with stupid signs that energy and money went to establishing farmer's markets in urban areas. The cities would make money of taxes and permit fees, local American farmers would make money, it would attract people to the area who might spend money at other businesses, more income, more tax revenue to help the cities, and so on. It would be actually doing something constructive for the economy and providing a free market solution. No congressional votes of government interference required. John Galt would be proud!


Who is John Galt?
/

187 SummerSong  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:09:39am

re: #108 Equable

Hear hear! Even eight year old Equable Jr. could see the blatant hypocrisy in that. He said:

"What, is she some sort of stinking queen or something?"

And we are the sorry people.

/ LOL

188 HelloDare  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:09:42am

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?

That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”

The question still requires debate but the facts do not.

The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.

But some have claimed that the invite and passages, pulled from the conference call that inspired the article, were taken out of context. Context is what I intend to establish here.

On August 10th, the National Endowment for the Arts, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and the Corporation for National and Community Service hosted a conference call with a handpicked arts group. This arts group played a key role in Obama’s arts effort during his election campaign, as declared by the organizers of the call, and many on the call played a role in the now famous Obama Hope poster.

Much of the talk on the conference call was a build up to what the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was specifically asking of this group. In the following segment, Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, clearly identifies this arts group as a pro-Obama collective and warns them of some “specific asks” that will be delivered later in the meeting.

Play Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement:

* “I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.”
* “We won.”
* “I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.”
* “We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.”
* “I hope you guys are ready.”

Later in the call, “specific asks” were delivered by Yosi Sergant, then Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts. What were the “asks”? They were for this pro-Obama arts group to create art on several hotly debated political issues, including health care:

Play Yosi Sergant, former Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts:

* “I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.”
* “And then my ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities utilities and bring them to the table.”
* “Again, I’m really, really honored to be working with you; the National Endowment for the Arts is really honored.”
* “You’re going to see a lot more of us in the next four and hopefully eight years.”

189 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:09:47am

re: #180 funky chicken

Whole Foods customers are happy to pay more for what they get there.

Isn't that capitalism in action?

Yes, it is.

But so is Wal-Mart.

It's not an either/or choice.

I happily shop at Wholefoods, but I'm also quite aware of the fact that the prices I pay there would be beyond the reach of many Americans' food budget. Wal-Mart keeps prices low; that's their mantra. And a lot of people depend on that.

190 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:09:47am

re: #95 Pianobuff

Sheryl's a vaxer?

No, Sheryl wants us all to use just one piece of toilet paper. My mother-in-law is a vaxer.

191 Racer X  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:10:22am

I love going to farmers markets - we go a couple times a month.

192 Danny  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:10:25am

re: #185 Charles

I didn't t know there was outrage about it until I read about it here.

193 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:10:43am

re: #188 HelloDare

Looks like you're determined to promote this week's fake outrage.

194 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:10:52am

When was the last time you ate a freshly hand picked apple that was coated with wax?

195 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:11:08am

re: #184 Killgore Trout

I disagree a little.

I don't think that they should be quiet at all; make your voice heard loud and clear, because sometimes people don't recognize subtleties let alone their purpose/message.

However...

You can always add to your cause by (like you said) doing something constructive. Offset and balance voice with action and promote a differing view by simply doing.

196 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:11:24am

re: #193 Charles

Looks like you're determined to promote this week's fake outrage.

Its not even new. Its several weeks old

197 Danny  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:11:35am

re: #180 funky chicken

We shop both places. Spread the "wealth"!

198 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:12:33am

re: #191 Racer X

I love going to farmers markets - we go a couple times a month.

I keep hoping to meet that "farmer's daughter" everyone keeps talking about. I stroll around the market, loudly complaining that my car just broke down, which is pretty tough luck, me being an traveling salesman and all... So far, no dice.

199 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:12:37am

re: #196 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its not even new. Its several weeks old

And it was a big nothing several weeks ago, too.

200 Nantucket  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:12:52am

i'm a conservative and i care tremendously for the environment. i want to improve air/environment qualities while balancing human need for resources, growth, improved living conditions, etc. The balance between those two issues (preserve/improve environment and progress of mankind) are where so many differ. Some propose solutions that would benefit the environment tremendously but throw us back 100+ years w/ regard to living standards and economic progress...that doesn't work for me. Some think status quo is just fine...that doesn't work either. There is a middle ground that allows for continued improvement in environmental conditions and human progress/economic growth...but who decides what that mix is???

The problem is that this philosophy isn't sexy or headline grabbing so it doesn't get much attention.

201 CommonCents  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:12:58am

re: #4 reine.de.tout

The "anti-science influence" may be affecting the conservative viewpoint on climate change, but I have to believe there are also lots of folks that simply (and idiotically) will take the opposite side of any issue supported by the left.

"Don't take the wrong side of an argument just because your opponent has taken the right side." -- Baltasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom

202 Equable  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:13:04am

re: #187 SummerSong

And we are the sorry people.

/ LOL

Yeah he's a pretty cool little boy. He often says stuff that makes me spit soda out of my nose.

203 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:13:21am

re: #192 Danny

I didn't t know there was outrage about it until I read about it here.

Did a search and it looks like there some faux outrage over it on the blogs. I think regarding Michelle Obama the deranged ones were fixated on a belt she wore to some other event having been led by the Drudge Report.

204 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:13:36am

re: #198 Occasional Reader

I keep hoping to meet that "farmer's daughter" everyone keeps talking about. I stroll around the market, loudly complaining that my car just broke down, which is pretty tough luck, me being an traveling salesman and all... So far, no dice.

We have a local farm that sets up stands in parking lots, and they've had some very nice "farmer's daughter"s working at the stands.
WAAYY too young for me, but I can't help looking.

205 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:13:51am

re: #180 funky chicken

I've said many times over at hotair that I don't get the right wing's love for WalMart and their disdain for stores like Whole Foods, etc. WalMart buys crap made at factories in China (moved there under GHWB and WJC administrations mostly--lots of Americans lost decent jobs because of it). China uses the money to undermine the US economically and internationally (Sudan sanctions for example).

Whole Foods buys local when they can, and pays their employees very well. Whole Foods even offers great health benefits and other perks to their workers. Yeah, Whole Foods charges a premium, but they sell high quality products and provide good customer service from employees who make higher wages. Whole Foods customers are happy to pay more for what they get there.

Isn't that capitalism in action?

Some people have very distinct ideas of what should constitute capitalism in action, and they get peeved if the market doesn't go their way. I read an article once by a conservative pundit who was deeply hacked that students at major universities had pressured their schools into buying non-sweatshop swag. Who did these Ivy Leaguers think they were. And I'm thinking "they're the people whose parents' dollars pay for the school, and what they want to buy is what's going to get ordered. How is this not OK with you?"

206 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:13:54am

re: #184 Killgore Trout

Regarding the outrage over Michelle's trip to the farmer' market.: This is exactly what conservatives should be doing. Imagine if instead of using all that money on organizing Tea Parties and marching around with stupid signs that energy and money went to establishing farmer's markets in urban areas. The cities would make money of taxes and permit fees, local American farmers would make money, it would attract people to the area who might spend money at other businesses, more income, more tax revenue to help the cities, and so on. It would be actually doing something constructive for the economy and providing a free market solution. No congressional votes of government interference required. John Galt would be proud!

It's a lot easier to rant about Michelle Obama, though, and it gives the base their latest outrage fix.

207 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:14:43am

I would like to Michelle push organizations like this: Growing Power, Inc.

The ultimate idea is to create Urban Farms on empty lots (They already teach this) and they have been experimenting with Hydroponic systems linked to Fish "ponds" as a closed system (all small scale and indoors) to fertilize edible plants and grow fry at the same time. All the food can be eaten or sold. This is just a small area of what they do.

208 HelloDare  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:14:53am

re: #193 Charles

How is it fake?

209 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:15:25am

re: #204 Kosh's Shadow

We have a local farm that sets up stands in parking lots, and they've had some very nice "farmer's daughter"s working at the stands.
WAAYY too young for me, but I can't help looking.

If you wind up in a "shotgun wedding", I'd say add some European flair to the event, and insist your new dad-in-law wear Benelli.

210 J.S.  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:16:02am

This is going OT (so please feel free to skip)

Re: Afghanistan

The President of the United States, on the weekend, spent a good deal of time talking to various journalists, being interviewed, on a variety (I believe it was 5) of television shows...The CNN program, State of the Union, with John King as host, asked the President about the "mission in Afghanistan." What is the goal? The President responded (I'm not quioting), that the goal was to capture/curtail/cease the activities of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (btw, I am in total agreement with Obama's "goals for Afghanistan" -- and, I don't believe it's about "nation building.")

Now a report has been leaked to the Washington Post (effectively blind-siding the POTUS)...It's General McChrystal asking for additional troops, or else risk failure in Afghanistan. And, additionally, it's a re-think with respect to "strategy in Afghanistan" -- to switch to what? "nation building?" (CBC is reporting that Canadian forces in Afghanistan have already "switched" -- right now what are Canadian troops doing? Well, among other things, building a road -- yes, road building...that's their new "mission." The CBC also notes, that the Canadian troops will be out come 2011 -- and the expectation is that American troops will arrive to take over the "nation building" from Canadian forces...)

211 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:16:03am

re: #180 funky chicken
I love our Whole Foods, and do most of my shopping there, but I don't find that it's all that much more expensive if you shop it carefully. Certainly not to the degree shown by the Farmer's Market in DC. I like knowing where everything comes from, and it's also the best place in town to get seafood that's not stale and watery.
I would hate to try to feed a family healthfully on food stamps or a barebones budget, though. It must be a really challenging and in a lot of cases, discouraging effort, because fresh is more expensive. Our county has donated a lot of land for truck gardens and people who couldn't afford to buy it are starting to grow produce for themselves. Not sure how this would work in a colder climate.

212 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:16:28am

re: #184 Killgore Trout

This is exactly what conservatives should be doing. Imagine if instead of using all that money on organizing Tea Parties and marching around with stupid signs

Non sequitur.

213 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:16:48am

re: #208 HelloDare

How is it fake?

1. It's completely insignificant.

2. It's red meat for the conservative base, who already think the NEA is an America-hating group of commies.

3. It's a big yawn, trying to be a big story.

214 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:17:01am

re: #188 HelloDare

Non-story really. Well, for partisans I'm sure it will be. This is not the first time in history that the White House (executive branch) used an agency to push a partisan agenda. In fact it's almost a tradition. Unless there was something done illegally it will go nowhere.

215 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:17:33am

re: #211 tradewind


I would hate to try to feed a family healthfully on food stamps or a barebones budget, though. It must be a really challenging and in a lot of cases, discouraging effort, because fresh is more expensive. Our county has donated a lot of land for truck gardens and people who couldn't afford to buy it are starting to grow produce for themselves. Not sure how this would work in a colder climate.

See my 207

216 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:18:17am

re: #185 Charles

Only if you consider the WaPo a right wing blog, and Dana Milbank a hater.
His story is the source. I saw it there.

217 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:18:58am

re: #189 Occasional Reader

Yes, it is.

But so is Wal-Mart.

It's not an either/or choice.

I happily shop at Wholefoods, but I'm also quite aware of the fact that the prices I pay there would be beyond the reach of many Americans' food budget. Wal-Mart keeps prices low; that's their mantra. And a lot of people depend on that.

Our local Wal-Mart has an Amish Deli section.. You talk about great healthy food..Those Amish folks rock with cooking and preparing food...
/Love you Amish! any chance of hiring one full time and locking her in the Kitchen? I swear I'll wear a white fake beard and bless them every day..
//Back in the Kitchen Woman! Where's my fresh bread?!
*wink*

218 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:19:08am

re: #212 Occasional Reader

Non sequitur.

Not really. All that energy and money directed at Tea Parties could easily be used to implement free market solutions to help the economy. I feel pretty confident about that.

219 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:19:26am

re: #213 Charles

1. It's completely insignificant.

2. It's red meat for the conservative base, who already think the NEA is an America-hating group of commies.

3. It's a big yawn, trying to be a big story.

I had not heard of the story, but frankly, if it's true, I find it troubling. It's an abuse of power.

220 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:21:51am

I was going to save this link for later but here's something for the foodies...
How To Can And Preserve For Winter (VIDEO)

Some really handy tips.

221 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:22:18am

re: #219 Occasional Reader

I had not heard of the story, but frankly, if it's true, I find it troubling. It's an abuse of power.

Going to a farmer's market to give a speech is an abuse of power? Sounds like the First Lady's job description.

222 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:22:33am

re: #219 Occasional Reader

It wouldn't be so insignificant if the RNC or a conservative coalition was doing the same thing.
It would be a bunch of crazies, going all wingnut-agenda on the public's dime.

223 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:23:25am

re: #218 Killgore Trout

Not really. All that energy and money directed at Tea Parties could easily be used to implement free market solutions to help the economy. I feel pretty confident about that.

You're basically saying that it's illegitimate for conservatives to protest about the major political issues of the day, they should just shut up and promote farmers' markets. It's an indefensible position. Look, I may not have agree with the Iraq War protesters, but it would never have occurred to me to demand that they instead organize, say, recycling drives. It's a false choice, meant to delegitimize the viewpoint of those you disagree with.

224 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:23:41am

re: #197 Danny

We shop both places. Spread the "wealth"!

Well, yeah. I was just talking about how somehow great love for WalMart had become some kind of conservative rallying cry over the years, and if you look at most conservative blogs they seem to bash purveyors of organic or high-end "all natural" products pretty regularly.

Check out my google search for "national review walmart"
[Link: www.google.com...]

225 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:23:46am

re: #221 SanFranciscoZionist

Going to a farmer's market to give a speech is an abuse of power? Sounds like the First Lady's job description.

Uh, different story. I was talking about the NEA one.

226 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:24:11am

re: #221 SanFranciscoZionist

What happened to that Rose Garden/turned/vegetable/kitchen garden at the WH anyway? Flurry of shovel-wielding photo ops at first, but lately, not so much.

227 J.S.  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:24:19am

re: #221 SanFranciscoZionist

You've got the wrong story about alleged "abuse of power" -- Occasional Reader was referring to a different story...(about arts grants, etc.)

228 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:24:38am

re: #218 Killgore Trout

Not really. All that energy and money directed at Tea Parties Stimulus Projects like repaving airports that are hardly used, or building crossing for turtles could easily be used to implement free market solutions to help the economy. I feel pretty confident about that.

ftfy

//

229 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:24:46am

re: #225 Occasional Reader

Uh, different story. I was talking about the NEA one.

Sorry. I missed a turn somewhere.

230 badger1970  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:25:28am

The NEA, where modern art meets politics *shrugs*. What I do find funny are stories of custodians throwing away "expensive" exhibits or contractors leaving their scrap behind where the patrons consider it art.

231 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:25:55am

re: #228 sattv4u2

Here's an idea... slowdown printing those infernal Your Stimulus At Work signs that are polluting the landscape and sprouting up like weeds. They must be costing hundreds of thousands.

232 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:26:09am

The NEA issue isn't new, nor is this the first time the government has worked with artists to create posters (or other works - think John Huston's wartime films) covering various issues. Here's a really cool site that shows (and sells) posters from the WWII era:

World War II Posters

Heck, looking at some of the prices there, if the administration comes out with posters, I'm going to buy 'em and put 'em away for my nieces and nephews.

233 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:26:13am

re: #229 SanFranciscoZionist

Sorry. I missed a turn somewhere.

Damn that Tom Tom!


(Hey, I just thought up a neologism; we could call drivers who are overly-dependent on their GPS devices the Tom Tom Macoutes.)

234 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:26:17am

OT. Zelaya is back in Honduras to "reclaim his presidency". Good luck with that, Mel.

US confirms ousted president back in Honduras

235 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:27:11am

re: #190 SanFranciscoZionist

No, Sheryl wants us all to use just one piece of toilet paper. My mother-in-law is a vaxer.

I hope not the same piece...

236 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:27:32am

re: #226 tradewind

What happened to that Rose Garden/turned/vegetable/kitchen garden at the WH anyway? Flurry of shovel-wielding photo ops at first, but lately, not so much.

I think they discovered there was a problem with the soil, but that was the last I heard. I assume it's still there.

237 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:27:47am

re: #234 John Neverbend

OT. Zelaya is back in Honduras to "reclaim his presidency". Good luck with that, Mel.

US confirms ousted president back in Honduras

I'll keep you updated. FOX, ABC and CNN just ordered satellite feeds from there live, so if anything "happens', i'll see it and pass it along

238 lightspeed  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:27:47am

I have to say that I really don't buy the man-made CO2 argument. I'll put my money on solar cycles any day, but...

...that's not the point. I could be wrong. The point is both sides of the issue (primarily the left) have turned it into a political football. I can't support an agenda that exaggerates and sensationalizes global warming (WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!) for the purpose of expanding government, restricting freedoms, and raising taxes, all the while promoting solutions to the problem that just don't freaking work!

Solar, wind power? Inconsistent and cannot supply even close to enough power to make any kind of impact on CO2 emissions whatsoever. Electric cars? Since the electricity has to come from somewhere and the current administration will not build nuclear plants, either we will start rationing electricity or will have to build more coal plants. Nuclear power might make a dent, but good luck with that. Natural gas could also make a dent, but natural gas production companys tend to be the same as the evil oil companys. How about those stupid flourescent light bulbs? Great, let's start pumping mercury into the environment one little bulb at a time. Oh, and at the same time exploit and poison a bunch of poor, third-world workers who have to make the damned things. And hey, let's destroy the San Joaquin valley by cutting off the water to save a stupid fish. And on, and on.

I might be more will to jump on the AGW bandwagon if it weren't being driven by a bunch of short-sighted, preaching, no-solution environmental pricks.

239 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:28:22am

re: #238 lightspeed

I have to say that I really don't buy the man-made CO2 argument. I'll put my money on solar cycles any day, but...

You are wrong.

240 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:28:40am

re: #232 subsailor68

nor is this the first time the government has worked with artists to create posters (or other works - think John Huston's wartime films) covering various issues. Here's a really cool site that shows (and sells) posters from the WWII era:

Your example isn't exactly reassuring.

Those were posters developed during a total war, as deliberate propaganda to boost morale. Is it appropriate to take the same tactic in peacetime, to promote the administration's domestic political agenda?

241 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:28:43am

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

I think they discovered there was a problem with the soil, but that was the last I heard. I assume it's still there.

It's where Bush buried the counterfiet WMD he was trying to pin on Saddam!

//

242 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:29:11am

re: #237 sattv4u2

I'll keep you updated. FOX, ABC and CNN just ordered satellite feeds from there live, so if anything "happens', i'll see it and pass it along

If I understand correctly the prior statements emanating from the current Honduran government, Mel will be reclaiming his presidency from the inside of a prison cell.

243 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:29:38am

re: #234 John Neverbend

OT. Zelaya is back in Honduras to "reclaim his presidency". Good luck with that, Mel.

US confirms ousted president back in Honduras

Great. They can now arrest him and impeach him, all nice n' proper-like.

244 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:29:43am

Tucson schools create race-based system of discipline

Despite the budget-enforced closing of school libraries, the shuttering of arts and music programs and the layoff of teachers and counselors in other disciplines, the Post-Unitary Status Plan calls for a vigorous expansion of the program run by TUSD's happy band of unrepentant political leftists.

The board's plan also calls for changes intended (however counterproductive those plans may be) to improving the lot of minority students.

It wants to see more minority students enrolled in advanced-placement programs, for example - a laudable goal, certainly. But consider one significant part of the plan for "improving" the academic status of TUSD's Black and Hispanic students:

The board is calling for a two-tiered form of student discipline. One for Black and Hispanic students; one for everyone else.

With the goal of creating a "restorative school culture and climate" that conveys a "sense of belonging to all students," the board is insisting that its schools reduce its suspensions and/or expulsions of minority students to the point that the data reflect "no ethnic/racial disparities."

From the section of the 52-page plan titled "Restorative School Culture and Climate," subhead, "Discipline":

"School data that show disparities in suspension/expulsion rates will be examined in detail for root causes. Special attention will be dedicated to data regarding African-American and Hispanic students."

The board approved creating an "Equity Team" that will oversee the plan to ensure "a commitment to social justice for all students."

The happy-face edu-speak notwithstanding, what the Tucson Unified School District board of governors has approved this summer is a race-based system of discipline.

Offenses by students will be judged, and penalties meted out, depending on the student's hue.

245 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:29:48am

O/T/
Oh, great. More sleepers getting ready to get busted in the NY-DEN terror thing.
Why do I have the uneasy feeling that these are like roaches, and the ones you see and swat just mean there are hundreds more hiding in the pipes...

246 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:30:41am

re: #241 sattv4u2

It's where Bush buried the counterfiet WMD he was trying to pin on Saddam!

//

Could be. For all I know, they dug up Jimmy Hoffa from under the arugula.

I have to say, I don't think it was ever much more than a photo op, but whatthehell. My mom had a vegetable garden when I was little, and it was lots of fun. The girls will enjoy it, if nothing else.

247 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:30:42am

re: #244 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

This is satire, right?

248 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:30:47am

re: #233 Occasional Reader

Damn that Tom Tom!

(Hey, I just thought up a neologism; we could call drivers who are overly-dependent on their GPS devices the Tom Tom Macoutes.)

Yeah, those folks need a Doc, for sure.

249 Mad Al-Jaffee  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:30:48am

I have a moonbat friend who works for the EPA and she's convinced that we would have all kinds of alternative energy sources now, but Reagan wouldn't let them be developed because of his ties to the oil industry.

250 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:30:54am

re: #245 tradewind

O/T/
Oh, great. More sleepers getting ready to get busted in the NY-DEN terror thing.
Why do I have the uneasy feeling that these are like roaches, and the ones you see and swat just mean there are hundreds more hiding in the pipes...

Silver Lining

Once you find a hive and know there are more, at least you have a lead as to where the "more" are!

251 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:31:22am

re: #226 tradewind

What happened to that Rose Garden/turned/vegetable/kitchen garden at the WH anyway? Flurry of shovel-wielding photo ops at first, but lately, not so much.

You know how it seems each first lady has a project? Betty Ford was anti-drug, Laura was all about Reading.. Each one has a signature project..
Have you considered that Michelle came of the Campaign trail and said.
Jes*s H. Chr*st they are nothing but a bunch of fat ass lazy kids out there..
Maybe we should dig a garden and promote healthy food and exercise...
This is a noble cause..

252 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:31:31am

re: #247 tradewind

This is satire, right?

Apparently not.

253 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:31:33am

re: #211 tradewind

I would hate to try to feed a family healthfully on food stamps or a barebones budget, though. It must be a really challenging and in a lot of cases, discouraging effort, because fresh is more expensive.

actually, that's not true. raw potatoes are cheaper and healthier than potato chips. apples are cheaper and healthier than apple treats or those gummy "fruit snacks," hamburger is cheaper than slim jim crap, etc, etc.

processed, packaged food is very pricey. I can always tell if I buy quite a lot of it because my bill at the register is higher.

254 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:31:53am

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

I think they discovered there was a problem with the soil, but that was the last I heard. I assume it's still there.

Old oil tank leaking? They will find out that it is a bitch to remove.//

255 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:31:53am

re: #248 Creeping Eruption

Yeah, those folks need a Doc, for sure.

Especially considering the portauprincely sums they paid for their devices.

256 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:32:01am

Some people are playing sock puppet games in this thread. And their puppets are now blocked.

257 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:32:19am
258 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:32:28am

re: #243 Occasional Reader

Great. They can now arrest him and impeach him, all nice n' proper-like.

I'm reading El Heraldo, and Micheletti apparently has denied that Zelaya is in Honduras.

259 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:32:31am

re: #240 Occasional Reader

Well, it's war, after all. They're going after the bad guys in the Foxholes.

260 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:32:32am

I believe that conservation of the environment is an socio-economic imperative, no matter where one's beliefs lie on the political spectrum. All thinking people want their descendants to inherit a viable ecosystem in which to live. On this there should be no disagreement.

Similarly, the existence of some climate change is also beyond question, and only idiots claim that there has in the past been, or will in future be, no significant climate changes at all.

So far so good.

But the past and future extent and distribution of the climate changes, and their ecological consequences, are far from certain. And the degree to which climate change is caused by human activity in general, and by first world economic activity in particular, is far more open to rational argument and to political debate. Whether human activity is responsible for 1%, 10%, 50% or 90% of recent climate changes, or of future changes, is very much open to debate. So if we have no idea how much climate change has been/will be caused by human activity, then how on earth can we assign responsibility for past and future activities among different nations?

The rubber really hits the road, however, when governments consider formulation of global policies designed to reverse recent climate changes and/or to arrest future changes. Once the point is made that pollution is a bad thing, all bets are off. Here, in my view, we enter the realm of speculation, outright lies and deception, and full-bore political posturing. The phrases "pissing in the wind" and "dreaming in technicolour" come to mind.

261 albusteve  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:32:59am

here in old Albuquerque's north valley, there are dozens of Hispanic owned grocerias, butcher shops and fruit and vegetable markets...all locally produced. And the cities vending laws are very relaxed so on every other corner are trucks with mellons, and fresh sweetcorn and all sorts of other stuff to eat. Also there is plenty of Tex Mex vendors selling every sort of food out of coolers, vans and trailers etc...local, fresh and homemade...it's like heaven

262 lawhawk  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:02am

In the grand scheme of things, the Obama visit to a farmers market is insignificant when compared to the force that the cash for clunkers has snuffed out sales in the period following the conclusion of the program in August. It has depressed sales significantly, and the effects will be felt for the rest of the year. By goosing the market for a few weeks, you got inflated numbers for the July/August period, but the rest of the year is going to sound like thousands of car dealers screaming out for help with no where left to turn except more attempts to lure customers into dealerships when they don't want to part with their money because of job security issues and that the economy isn't turning around on a base level.

The issues go deeper than just cars. It includes real estate where many markets will not see prices recover for years on end - meaning less equity will be tapped that spurs sales of consumer goods and durable goods like cars. It means less discretionary income is at play.

At the same time, you've got housing that is a continued mess where even affordable housing units built are sitting empty because buyers think the prices are still too high - and they're probably right because their sitting on the sidelines signals that the prices still have to drop to make them jump in. That's forcing sellers to drop prices, or settle for a whole lot less, and that pushes down prices in places like NYC, where the market collapses of Vegas, AZ, and Florida aren't nearly as keenly felt - it has been a slower more gradual slide, and there's room for much more.

People have much more important things to be concerned with than whether ocean levels will rise centimeters in 100 years time - whether or not they have jobs. The Fed may have declared that the recession may be heading in a positive direction, but as a relative pointed out to me over the weekend (and he works in the bond underwriting business) - if you poll 100 economists, half will say we're heading for a double-dip recession or worse, and the other half say that we've passed the worst.

The fact is that no one really knows where the economy is heading because we're in uncharted waters. The credit markets that were destroyed by the real estate mess aren't going to recover anytime soon because real estate remains at low levels and the lending rules that should have been in place all along are restricting sales to only credit worthy people. An entire segment of the population is now out of the home purchasing game because of bad/insufficient credit - depressing demand for new housing and home sales. Much of this is a regional thing too, so one area of the country might see more demand than others. We're going to see some factors showing improvement, but others will continue lagging for years to come.

And inflation lurks in the deeper shadows and the fed doesn't have much room to play with adjusting interest rates now either. They're nearly out of options on what to do, so printing money is the preferred tactic.

263 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:06am

re: #219 Occasional Reader

I had not heard of the story, but frankly, if it's true, I find it troubling. It's an abuse of power.

Paging Sergei Eisenstein...Mr. Eisenstein, please report to the front desk.

/

264 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:10am

re: #257 rightside

No problem. And I'll also block your other two accounts while I'm at it.

265 J.S.  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:11am

CNN is "going overseas" to determine just how committed America's allies are about the war in Afghanistan...(let's all recall that it's a NATO venture)...I suspect the support is lukewarm, at best. (more are probably outright hostile)...I believe the Italians are pretty much fed up...

266 sattv4u2  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:18am

re: #256 Charles

Some people are playing sock puppet games in this thread. And their puppets are now blocked.

Only the puppets, or their "masters' also?

267 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:34am

re: #240 Occasional Reader

Your example isn't exactly reassuring.

Those were posters developed during a total war, as deliberate propaganda to boost morale. Is it appropriate to take the same tactic in peacetime, to promote the administration's domestic political agenda?

Hi OR! Good point about total war and morale boosting. I guess I could go either way on domestic agenda items, for example the government also did that back in the 30's during the depression, to keep artists working. But I think you're right; in an ideal world, government would stay out of the arts.

268 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:34am

re: #251 HoosierHoops

I think it's great she did a garden. Have one myself. Just wondered where it is, that's all. There was such a hoo-hah around it, and now nada.
I thought maybe Bo had gotten busy digging.

269 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:56am

re: #239 Charles

You are wrong.

Research Solar cycles and the effect of AGW cycles at the Universetoday web site..
They show with scientific data that you are correct Charles...

270 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:33:59am

re: #244 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Tucson schools create race-based system of discipline

Holy Mother of God.

That ain't long for this world once the courts get hold of it.

271 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:34:09am

re: #261 albusteve

With the occasional runoff.
//

272 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:34:28am

I dont get the whole "Please delete my account" posts. Just leave if you intend to leave.

273 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:34:41am

Chairman Obama!

Tourists are reflected in the window of a shop displaying shirts and pouches bearing an image U.S. President Barack Obama's face imprinted over that of China's late leader Mao Zedong, in the popular tourist area of Houhai in central Beijing September 21, 2009. The shop has sold thousands of products bearing the "Oba Mao" design since stocks arrived just over a month ago, the shop owner said.

274 Creeping Eruption  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:35:14am

re: #255 Occasional Reader

Especially considering the portauprincely sums they paid for their devices.

Whenever I buy something expensive, as soon as I toss the receipt, I find it cheaper somewhere else. I Hati when that happens.

275 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:35:42am

re: #269 HoosierHoops

Research Solar cycles and the effect of AGW cycles at the Universetoday web site..
They show with scientific data that you are correct Charles...

The scientific data is very clear. Anyone who denies that CO2 is a major contributing factor to global warming is either: 1) not interested in the real scientific evidence, or 2) repeating talking points from the very deniers I identified at the top of this thread.

276 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:36:18am

re: #272 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I dont get the whole "Please delete my account" posts. Just leave if you intend to leave.

It's a form of sadomasochism.

277 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:37:05am

re: #253 funky chicken

actually, that's not true. raw potatoes are cheaper and healthier than potato chips. apples are cheaper and healthier than apple treats or those gummy "fruit snacks," hamburger is cheaper than slim jim crap, etc, etc.

processed, packaged food is very pricey. I can always tell if I buy quite a lot of it because my bill at the register is higher.

It can be hard to get good produce, though, in some poorer neighborhoods--and prices tend to be higher in those same neighborhoods. One of the reasons urban farmer's markets are developing a following.

278 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:37:30am

re: #273 Killgore Trout

Chairman Obama!

Who knew Glenn Beck had so much influence in China?

279 subsailor68  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:37:41am

re: #244 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wow. That's maddening.

The board approved creating an "Equity Team" that will oversee the plan to ensure "a commitment to social justice for all students."

Whenever I see "social justice" in a sentence, I feel a chill run down my spine (as opposed to Chris Matthews' leg tingle thingy).

280 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:37:47am

re: #250 sattv4u2

One thing's for sure, they're pretty stupid code-wise. The wedding cake thing was used years ago... do they really think the feds never got wise to that?

281 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:37:58am

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

Holy Mother of God.

That ain't long for this world once the courts get hold of it.

Its soft racism from the "You just can't expect them to behave" school of thought.

282 Jack Burton  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:38:07am

re: #272 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I dont get the whole "Please delete my account" posts. Just leave if you intend to leave.


Attention whores. Not only are they leaving but they want everyone else to know it too.

If they leave an essay, that's "I hate you daddy and heres why in 500 words."

283 badger1970  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:38:13am

re: #272 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I dont get the whole "Please delete my account" posts. Just leave if you intend to leave.

So much for "those who run away get to fight another day."

284 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:38:25am

re: #244 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Tucson schools create race-based system of discipline

It wouldn't surprise me if that story is true, and it's heart-breaking. Basically they are saying that minority kids can't be expected to follow the same rules as white and asian kids (inherently racist) and that therefore minority kids can't be held accountable for their behavior.

The end result is that minority kids come out of school basically unemployable because they've never been forced to learn how to behave in a professional, appropriate fashion.

The reason the story wouldn't surprise me if it was true--I've seen a lot of similar thinking on the academic side of things over the years, and the end result has not been good there either.

285 Killgore Trout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:39:01am

re: #278 Occasional Reader

Who knew Glenn Beck had so much influence in China?

What's odd is that in China the only copies of Mao's Little Red Book you'll find are for sale to tourists.

286 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:39:11am

re: #258 John Neverbend

I'm reading El Heraldo, and Micheletti apparently has denied that Zelaya is in Honduras.

I can't get that site opened; I guess a lot of people are doing the same.

If Zelaya really has gotten in, and will try to "reclaim" his presidency... say, with Venezuelan help... this could get ugly.

287 badger1970  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:39:50am

re: #285 Killgore Trout

Because the locals have them memorized. /

288 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:40:16am

re: #281 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its soft racism from the "You just can't expect them to behave" school of thought.


That's not such soft racism, you ask me. Flat-out.

289 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:42:37am

re: #270 SanFranciscoZionist

Holy Mother of God.

That ain't long for this world once the courts get hold of it.

I don't know.
From the article - it appears this may be part of a plan to get out from under a federal desegregation order, imposed or overseen by a court somewhere, I'm sure.

290 Occasional Reader  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:42:39am

Later.

291 Kragar  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:42:43am

re: #288 SanFranciscoZionist

That's not such soft racism, you ask me. Flat-out.

Soft in that instead of coming down hard and being oppressive against a given race, it instead makes concessions based on race to make up for supposed deficiencies.

292 tradewind  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:42:56am

re: #262 lawhawk

The whole printing money thing makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little. Not a Paulian, for pete's sake, but if there is nothing behind the money, what's the point?? What happens when China stops backing us up?
And yeah, I can see car dealerships totally tanking now that the clunker cash has dried up. Anyone who was going to get a new one went in during that time, because even if you didn't have a clunker to trade, there were these amazing deals to coattail on.
They'd better get that next Cash For ___ thing up and running stat.

293 Sunlight  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:43:36am

For now, Prius-type cars help (48+ mpg) to reduce your use... and unless people start supporting nuclear, I wouldn't get a plug-in car if it means your utility will have to increase coal based energy production. This hold for those worried about CO2 and those worried about black gunk falling from the sky.

294 doubter4444  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:44:20am

re: #132 Equable

Well Doc you have a point, so I'll relax my stance on the whole thing. Maybe I was allowing my general dislike/disdain for her get in the way of what she was attempting to accomplish. Thanks for helping me see it a different way.

Sounding just like your name!
I agree with you.
It's a bit rich to complain about the carbon footprint of the 1st lady...or the president, as everything they do in public is inordinate to the situation by virtue of who they are.
It's disingenuous to pick on it as hypocrisy, and is really more about personally disliking her or him or both.
So, whatever, but remember when all on the left complained about trivial bull too, and it's pretty silly.
And lastly, it's not about her shopping, it's about promoting local farming and selling... I don't for the life of me see what's wrong with that.
It's a fun, community oriented thing that is good for virtually everyone, I don't understand why people want to denigrate it.

295 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:44:27am

re: #284 funky chicken

It wouldn't surprise me if that story is true, and it's heart-breaking. Basically they are saying that minority kids can't be expected to follow the same rules as white and asian kids (inherently racist) and that therefore minority kids can't be held accountable for their behavior.

The end result is that minority kids come out of school basically unemployable because they've never been forced to learn how to behave in a professional, appropriate fashion.

The reason the story wouldn't surprise me if it was true--I've seen a lot of similar thinking on the academic side of things over the years, and the end result has not been good there either.

I read this, I believe in our local paper - area employers are complaining to the school board that kids are unemployable out of HS because of behavior issues.

296 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:45:13am

re: #249 Mad Al-Jaffee

I have a moonbat friend who works for the EPA and she's convinced that we would have all kinds of alternative energy sources now, but Reagan wouldn't let them be developed because of his ties to the oil industry.

She's wrong. These things were dictated by supply and demand. When oil prices crashed in the early 1980s, the allure of alternative energy sources to private industry dried up. They became less cost-effective to develop and use. Could government have helped with that? Maybe, but doing so would've required more dedication to agencies like NASA than either Congress or the President were, and are currently willing to give.

I feel that government is more interested in fines and taxes instead of exploration and innovation.
*sigh*

297 John Neverbend  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:45:14am

re: #286 Occasional Reader

I can't get that site opened; I guess a lot of people are doing the same.

Yes, I can't get back in. Try Hondudiario

298 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:45:27am

re: #284 funky chicken

It wouldn't surprise me if that story is true, and it's heart-breaking. Basically they are saying that minority kids can't be expected to follow the same rules as white and asian kids (inherently racist) and that therefore minority kids can't be held accountable for their behavior.

The end result is that minority kids come out of school basically unemployable because they've never been forced to learn how to behave in a professional, appropriate fashion.

The reason the story wouldn't surprise me if it was true--I've seen a lot of similar thinking on the academic side of things over the years, and the end result has not been good there either.

Not exactly. This will apply to all students. From Post-Unitary Status Plan:

C. Action Plan

Beginning in 2009–10, with annual review for continued improvement:

1. As appropriate, the Department of Student Equity will interact with each school to review suspension data (in-school and out-of-school). School data that show disparities in suspension/expulsion rates will be examined in detail for root causes. Special attention will be dedicated to data regarding African American and Hispanic students.

2. The assistant superintendent and director, or both, will receive monthly
suspension/expulsion data and will confer with the school about action steps to be taken to address disparities.

3. The Equity Team will ensure that disciplinary policies focus on improving students’ future behavior, rather than inflicting punishment, and that they represent a commitment to social justice for all students.

Special attention will be given to African American and Hispanic students is because they either have a higher drop out rate or lower grades. Focusing on improving a students behavior seems far more logical then throwing them into an empty classroom for detention.

It is perhaps in the well into what some would call the overtly sensitive liberal way of approaching matters but it is far from being as the author calls it "genuine apartheid."

299 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:46:06am

re: #272 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I dont get the whole "Please delete my account" posts. Just leave if you intend to leave.

I have never seen anything like it on the whole web...You just don't see this childish behavour anywhere else...
The other day I dropped in at the blog I came from...I said Hi and wanted to know how the geeky lawyers were doing..Checked out what new articles Clarice had written for the American Thinker..Caught up with old friends...

I refuse to walk straight ahead..Turn hard right.. walk to the edge of the cliff and jump off...I have always been and always be a Moderate that loves his Country with his whole heart and I won't stand by and watch Glenn Beck and his ilk usurp my party.. (jeez he's not even registered with the GOP )

300 reine.de.tout  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:46:34am

re: #294 doubter4444

Sounding just like your name!
I agree with you.
It's a bit rich to complain about the carbon footprint of the 1st lady...or the president, as everything they do in public is inordinate to the situation by virtue of who they are.
It's disingenuous to pick on it as hypocrisy, and is really more about personally disliking her or him or both.
So, whatever, but remember when all on the left complained about trivial bull too, and it's pretty silly.
And lastly, it's not about her shopping, it's about promoting local farming and selling... I don't for the life of me see what's wrong with that.
It's a fun, community oriented thing that is good for virtually everyone, I don't understand why people want to denigrate it.

You're correct, this is a silly thing for people to be upset about.
And to my shame, the only reason I wanted to denigrate it after having discovered what the trip was really about, was because I was aggravated with Cordell's tone. Stupid of me.

301 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:47:10am

re: #275 Charles

The scientific data is very clear. Anyone who denies that CO2 is a major contributing factor to global warming is either: 1) not interested in the real scientific evidence, or 2) repeating talking points from the very deniers I identified at the top of this thread.

OK. Then please tell me how many Fahrenheit degrees of global temperature increase over, say, the last 100 years, have been proven to your satisfaction to be directly attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions?

302 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:48:31am

re: #293 Sunlight

For now, Prius-type cars help (48+ mpg) to reduce your use... and unless people start supporting nuclear, I wouldn't get a plug-in car if it means your utility will have to increase coal based energy production. This hold for those worried about CO2 and those worried about black gunk falling from the sky.

Those Prius-type cars aren't as friendly as they seem. The batteries tend to use rare-earth elements that are only mined in a few locations. The mining activities are not very eco-friendly, and tend to take place in eco-unfriendly locales. In addition, I posted a story in the links a few weeks ago about how China is interested in stemming the exports of those so they can use them themselves. It'll push up the price of cars like the Prius.

303 Sunlight  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:51:17am

re: #302 Honorary Yooper

Those Prius-type cars aren't as friendly as they seem. The batteries tend to use rare-earth elements that are only mined in a few locations. The mining activities are not very eco-friendly, and tend to take place in eco-unfriendly locales. In addition, I posted a story in the links a few weeks ago about how China is interested in stemming the exports of those so they can use them themselves. It'll push up the price of cars like the Prius.

Oh well then. I guess there's nothing to be done.

304 doubter4444  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:51:52am

re: #300 reine.de.tout

You're correct, this is a silly thing for people to be upset about.
And to my shame, the only reason I wanted to denigrate it after having discovered what the trip was really about, was because I was aggravated with Cordell's tone. Stupid of me.

I understand, he can do that!

305 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:52:31am

re: #219 Occasional Reader

I had not heard of the story, but frankly, if it's true, I find it troubling. It's an abuse of power.

Frankly, this is the problem I have with it. Given all the other bullshit that Beck and Company have peddled in the last few weeks, including several outright lies, my first reaction to this story is that it's more of the same and probably doesn't have a scrap of truth behind it. Call it bullshit fatigue, but this is now my default position when I see anything peddled on the right side of the blogosphere these days, and whining over the NEA is simply too low on my give-a-shit-o-meter that I'm not even interested in going out of my way to do any checking.

Neither are many on the right, either, apparently, who are all too happy so simply swallow such bilge by the bucketload as long as it's saying what they want to hear.

I don't even understand what the complaint is supposed to be. There are artists with liberal viewpoints? Gasp! You're joking! Who would have thought?

Not aimed at you personally, OR. Just using your post as a soapbox for my own personal rant.

306 Wondering Aloud  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:54:26am

I am not especially conservative and I agree the environment should not be a liberal issue. Especially in light of the fact that the liberals are unfailingly foolish on environmental issues and have been for 40 years.

I am sorry that some people think that there is some conspiracy of deniers paid for by big oil. Follow the money and you find thousands of people who owe their incomes to support for AGW. This is not the way science is supposed to be done.

As a physics professional and a trained scientist with a specialty in scientific method. I have known people who lose their jobs for publishing honest results just because they didn't fit what the catastrophe models predict. I also have known people who publish embarrassing rubbish to great acclaim just because it fits. This is the type of science associated with the eugenics movement but not with honest professionals.

Putting this simply the models are not supported by the data, either historically or currently. We have no real idea what the future will hold and the idea of a large positive feedback due to water vapor and therefore the idea of a large effect due to CO2 alone is not supported by the physics of the situation or the data available.

The claim of paid deniers or that the science is clear are base slander as far as I can tell and I have closely followed this issue for 20 years. A little warming would be nice but is also all we can hope for. There is little serious doubt that a warmer world would and especially increased CO2 levels would be better for the biosphere.

307 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:54:45am

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

OK. Then please tell me how many Fahrenheit degrees of global temperature increase over, say, the last 100 years, have been proven to your satisfaction to be directly attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions?

What exactly is this question supposed to prove?

308 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:54:54am
309 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:57:57am

re: #301 Spare O'Lake

OK. Then please tell me how many Fahrenheit degrees of global temperature increase over, say, the last 100 years, have been proven to your satisfaction to be directly attributable to human carbon dioxide emissions?

OY..CO2 has such a diverse complex effect on the Environment...We can't just keep pumping trillions of tons of it into the air..
I know that's a hard concept to grasp..so pull your car into the garage,leave it running, shut the door and write an after action report one hour from now..
Pretend it's one of those little experiments you had to do in High School science class..
/OK don't do it..but since it's my Birthday today...I'm may ask you to do any number of experiments today..
*wink*

310 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 11:58:50am

As a Christian, let me say that responsibility towards the planet is a Christian issue as well.

311 funky chicken  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:00:48pm

re: #298 Gus 802

Special attention will be given to African American and Hispanic students is because they either have a higher drop out rate or lower grades. Focusing on improving a students behavior seems far more logical then throwing them into an empty classroom for detention.

It is perhaps in the well into what some would call the overtly sensitive liberal way of approaching matters but it is far from being as the author calls it "genuine apartheid."

yeah, "genuine apartheid" is pretty stupid

However, I'd argue that putting poorly behaved kids in empty classrooms would be a great punishment. It robs them of the audience they crave, and doesn't let them sit at home watching TV like would probably happen if they were suspended. 8 hours in a quiet room with an administrator and a pile of school books? Great punishment for the kid, and some book learning might even happen if it was the only alternative to staring at a wall all day.

312 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:02:01pm

re: #293 Sunlight

For now, Prius-type cars help (48+ mpg) to reduce your use... and unless people start supporting nuclear, I wouldn't get a plug-in car if it means your utility will have to increase coal based energy production. This hold for those worried about CO2 and those worried about black gunk falling from the sky.

Although I'm a huge fan of building nuclear power plants as fast as we can from coast to coast, there's lots of good to be said about converting to electric cars where feasible, regardless of the electricity source. It is much, much easier to deal with pollution of all sorts, CO2 or otherwise, being emitted from a single large source than from hundreds of thousands, or millions, of smaller ones. It's completely infeasible to sequester CO2 emitted by millions of gas-burning automobiles using any existing technology, for example, while building a large carbon sequestration system to capture the output of a single coal-fired plant producing a comparable amount of energy is well within reach.

A more cogent problem with massive conversion to electric cars is the capacity of the existing electrical grid, which in many areas is barely sufficient to meet peak demand, or is actually incapable of it, relying on generators in other areas to pick up the slack. This could cause serious problems during high-demand seasons (summertime) and is almost sure to lead to an overall increase in electricity costs, along with increases already sure to come from increases in fuel prices.

313 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:02:23pm

re: #238 lightspeed

I might be more will to jump on the AGW bandwagon if it weren't being driven by a bunch of short-sighted, preaching, no-solution environmental pricks.

So the facts of the matter have nothing to do with it? It's all about personalities?

314 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:02:31pm
315 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:04:56pm
316 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:06:54pm

re: #310 kiwiviv

As a Christian, let me say that responsibility towards the planet is a Christian issue as well.

I guess I agree with you...I don't recall anything he talked about concerning Environmentalism...
Blessed all those that do not use leaded Gasoline
Blessed are the children of those that do not sit in trees in Berkley
Blessed are those of faith that fish a lake out...For they shall regret it next week..
/I'm teasing

317 lightspeed  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:08:54pm

re: #239 Charles

You are wrong.

Could be, but up until now it has been the climate change alarmists that have been wrong in terms of predicting future warming/cooling trends. Al Gore and his ridiculous movie is the most obvious example, but there are many others.

I don't want to argue who is right or wrong. My point was that the global warming movement has been hijacked in much the same way as you contend the Tea Party movement is being hijacked. It is being used as a vehicle to facilitate the implementation of radical leftist ideology.

318 Cato the Elder  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:10:05pm

re: #315 taxfreekiller

Electricity does not flow.

Of course it doesn't. There are little electrical cowboys in the lines with little electric prods that urge it on its way. "Git along, little electrons."

Where do the 'lectric cattle drivers git the juice for their 'lectric prods? That's part of the great mystery, like turtles.

319 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:10:40pm
320 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:10:57pm

re: #307 Charles

What exactly is this question supposed to prove?

Actually, this is a worthwhile question, or at least variants of it are. If we're going to enact measures aimed at reducing global warming, it would be extremely useful to have some metric for measuring progress. If CO2 emissions are reduced globally by, say, 15% over the next 10 years, what is the expected reduction either in temperature or in rate of temperature rise we should see from such cutback?

In fact, one would hope that there would already be models in place to make such projections, so that efforts at CO2 reduction can be calibrated against results.

It might also be useful to compare such models against reality. I haven't heard any reports about this, but it strikes me that the current global economic downturn has probably had a downward effect on CO2 emissions all by itself. Can the impact of this reduction be detected, either now or (more likely) in the short-term future?

321 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:11:09pm

re: #316 HoosierHoops

I guess I agree with you...I don't recall anything he talked about concerning Environmentalism...
Blessed all those that do not use leaded Gasoline
Blessed are the children of those that do not sit in trees in Berkley
Blessed are those of faith that fish a lake out...For they shall regret it next week..
/I'm teasing

Heh!! I'm good for a teasing today!

I just see it as a very common sense issue. If you believe that God created everything, and it was good...and then He told us to be "fruitful and multiply" with what He created, then the best way to go about that is to take care of His creation and then creation would bless us in return.

322 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:11:51pm
323 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:12:29pm

re: #321 kiwiviv

Heh!! I'm good for a teasing today!

I just see it as a very common sense issue. If you believe that God created everything, and it was good...and then He told us to be "fruitful and multiply" with what He created, then the best way to go about that is to take care of His creation and then creation would bless us in return.

*wink*
Hey God blew up Eden...He started it!
/

324 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:13:11pm

Anybody know much about CNG (compressed natural gas) cars? Might be moving some.

325 Danny  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:13:24pm

re: #318 Cato the Elder

Of course it doesn't. There are little electrical cowboys in the lines with little electric prods that urge it on its way. "Git along, little electrons."

Where do the 'lectric cattle drivers git the juice for their 'lectric prods? That's part of the great mystery, like turtles.

Could you put that in non-technical terms for us laypersons?

326 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:13:34pm

re: #323 HoosierHoops

It sounds like you are "full of it" today!

327 R.B.Glennie  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:13:44pm

Charles, you're entitled to your opinion and I don't care to call you any name.

A few notes -

1 - a `conservative' in the Euro context is quite distinct from a North American conservative; they are statists just like any Democrat, but want the state to take over everyone's life just a little slower than those on the left

2 - I'm a big sceptic about global warming catastrophism. The scepticism that many `conservatives' (to use the nominal term) have about this issue has little to do with the alleged `anti-science' beliefs of the conservative movement - allegedly in turn informed by the religious right. It is simply that the g-w catastrophists haven't proven their theory

3 - I agree with you to some extent: hydrocarbons are exasperbating a warming trend that is already in existence. What I disagree with you about is just what effect this will have on the env.

4 - A final point only bec. I don't really have time: you claim that `conservatives' have engaged in anti-science claims and exaggerations, the more so than the catastrophists. Naturally, I disagree.

Look at the claims from g-w catastrophists that have been debunked in the last few years (this is just at the top of my head) -

-the `hockey stick' warming trend, which purportedly identified the last two centuries as the warmest EVER; this graph showed up on the cover of a past IPCC report and that was roundly shown to be untrue

-the alleged endangerment of the polar bear due to the vanshing of ice sheets

-the threat of renewed tropical diseases in temperate climates, when in fact these diseases existed in temperate climes during the period when the catastrophists maintain the earth was cooler

-the vanishing of the jet-stream, thereby causing an ice-age in europe

-some time ago, you posted an article which attacked the `myth' that climate scientists touted a renewed ice age during 1970s; but again, it is not a myth, and some scientists who were suggested a new ice-age now tout the opposite.

As I said, it's your blog, you can promote what you want. Subtlely was never your forte, but c'mon, everyone who disagrees with you on this matter isn't a far-right lunatic.

thanks

328 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:13:51pm

re: #310 kiwiviv

As a Christian, let me say that responsibility towards the planet is a Christian issue as well.

I thought we were supposed to be stewards of the earth.

Some of the fundies, however, believe either that A) God won't let us hurt ourselves, or B) trashing the planet will hasten the arrival of the End Times, the Rapture and all sort of other things to be fervently hoped for, in their view.

329 HoosierHoops  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:15:14pm

re: #326 kiwiviv

It sounds like you are "full of it" today!

It's my birthday...Expect anything today..
Charles knows I'll be good...

330 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:17:40pm

Again and again, the same long-debunked talking points. The anti-AGW side often reminds me of creationists with their relentless promotion of distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

331 Gus  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:17:56pm

re: #311 funky chicken

yeah, "genuine apartheid" is pretty stupid

However, I'd argue that putting poorly behaved kids in empty classrooms would be a great punishment. It robs them of the audience they crave, and doesn't let them sit at home watching TV like would probably happen if they were suspended. 8 hours in a quiet room with an administrator and a pile of school books? Great punishment for the kid, and some book learning might even happen if it was the only alternative to staring at a wall all day.

It's a complicated issue and contentious like most educational issues. Apparently this school district is under court supervision which may have an impact on their decisions. From the link I previously provided:

For approximately 30 years, the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) has been under court supervision with regard to desegregation.

Tuscon Demographics:

2005–2007 American Community Survey Estimates, the city's population was 67.3% White (50.0% non-Hispanic White alone), 5.0% Black or African American, 4.1% American Indian and Alaska Native, 3.2% Asian, 0.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 23.5% from some other race and 3.3% from two or more races. 39.5% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Looking through Google I'm finding a lot of issues regarding this school district. One of the final proposals includes "first choice" schools which give parents flexibility in picking a school for the children.

All of which is subject to interpretation and I think using Vdare's and Malkin's interpretation (the latter of which is part of today's alarmism regarding the discipline news) of the document to be rather suspect.

332 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:18:39pm
333 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:18:44pm

Late to this party...

However,

One of the most upsetting things about the entire AGW/environmental debate is how much of it is just man made crap. What I mean by that is that the laws of nature, and the consequences for ignoring them, do not belong to any political party. You can not will the ice not to melt. You can not assume that it will not because you don't want it too.

The corporate aspects of this are indeed fabulously angering and they make the strongest argument possible that leaving everything to a free market is not a good idea. What I mean by that is that faith in the free market assumes that all players will do what is best for them in a rational long term plan.

The reality is that short term profits for keeping things the way they are, while not exposing oneself to risk of being out competed tomorrow while dedicating resources into changing things out weighs understanding that the house of cards comes down sooner or later as the course is stayed.

The market alone will not fix this. In fact, the people profiting from the market will try to tell you that the science is a lie.

So far, those types are winning. The Europeans were shocked that Obama actually wanted them to take real actions themselves as well - and the Chinese were even more shocked. At home, the best that Obama can mange is the castrated and ultimately futile cap and trade bill.

In the mean time, atoms and molecules do not worry about politics. They do not get paid by oil companies and they really do not care. They faithfully obey rules that men didn't make.

334 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:18:46pm

re: #328 SixDegrees

I thought we were supposed to be stewards of the earth.


Exactly - that is my point


Some of the fundies, however, believe either that A) God won't let us hurt ourselves, or B) trashing the planet will hasten the arrival of the End Times, the Rapture and all sort of other things to be fervently hoped for, in their view.

I don't understand A)

B) I travel all over the world and live among "fundies" - I have never heard a wiff of this view. I know it is out there, but it is waaay out there. This is by no means a common view of "fundies." It sound more like the leader of Iran!

335 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:19:40pm

re: #329 HoosierHoops

It's my birthday...Expect anything today..
Charles knows I'll be good...

Well - a hearty "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" is in order - I hope you have a good one mate!

336 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:21:55pm

re: #334 kiwiviv

I don't understand A)

B) I travel all over the world and live among "fundies" - I have never heard a wiff of this view. I know it is out there, but it is waaay out there. This is by no means a common view of "fundies." It sound more like the leader of Iran!

Apparently, it's common enough to be the view of Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL):

337 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:23:43pm

re: #334 kiwiviv

I don't understand A)

B) I travel all over the world and live among "fundies" - I have never heard a wiff of this view. I know it is out there, but it is waaay out there. This is by no means a common view of "fundies." It sound more like the leader of Iran!

This is also the view of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), one of the main promoters of climate change denial on the right.

338 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:23:47pm

re: #336 Charles

Apparently, it's common enough to be the view of Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL):


[Video]

I don't know the fellow - but if he talks like that he is wrong

339 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:24:27pm
340 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:25:12pm

re: #338 kiwiviv

I don't know the fellow - but if he talks like that he is wrong

It wasn't my intention to get into what's right or wrong in this case (I agree that such views are wrong, however) - only to note that such ideas are held as a matter of fact.

341 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:25:28pm

And it's also the view of Michele Bachmann (R-MN).

342 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:28:51pm

Let's cut to the chase. Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, and even at concentrations at 700ppm it is not even close to being harmfull to life. For that reason and that reason alone it shouldn't be regulated like say sulfuric aerosols. Many people here are of the opinion that CO2 is some kind of evil substance. If that's the case we should also regulate water vapor, which is a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2.

Secondly, fossil fuels are not going away any time soon. There is nothing that even comes close to efficiently providing our energy needs. To complicate things, there is absolutely no political will to reduce fossil fuel consumption amongst the voters either here or in Europe or Asia. If energy prices sky rocket either because of government mandated restrictions or taxes, just watch the political firestorm erupt. There are now some 8 million unemployed now who were employed 18 months ago. They want their jobs and lives back, and do not especially enjoy being lectured by tenured eco-activists.

Thirdly, there are costs to environmental regulations. They are usually in the form of outsourcing. And yes, even those firms run by the most liberal of men (Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs to name 2) practice it. When we outsource our pollution we are also outsourcing jobs.

Are there solutions? Sure. There are plenty. From natural gas powered electrical generators to nuclear power, to better land management, to planting more trees. If the federal government wishes to restrict fossil fuels it had better be straight with the voters and leave off the fairy tails.


Now all of this assumes that the IPCC projections are correct. The worst case projections I believe was labeled C1, which assumed that the global economic growth ( and global population growth) we've seen since 1980 would continue unabated through 2100 - and with it, the GHG concentrations would more than double. The best case was the global GDP would only grow by half and the global population would peak in 2050 before slowly receding. This was the A1 projection -it still had a half degree per 100 years temp increase.


Personally, I think AGW is a moot point. Demographics do not look good for the developed world. We enjoyed an economic Golden Age from 1985-2007, and with so many Baby Boomer hitting their Golden Years, and a dearth of younger producers/consumers in the pipeline, we will probably not see those 5% GDP growth spurts again anytime soon. Even the Chinese are going to have a huge surplus of people 65 and older beginning the next decade. Of all the developed nations, India has the healthiest fertility rate (3.4 per female), but amongst its technical professionals its about 1.8 . In the US, well outside of Hispanics, the fertility rate hovers between 1.9 and 2.1 . In Europe, Russia, and Japan the average is around 1.5 . Do the math.

343 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:29:44pm

re: #340 SixDegrees

It wasn't my intention to get into what's right or wrong in this case (I agree that such views are wrong, however) - only to note that such ideas are held as a matter of fact.

I'm glad we agree - All I'm saying is that I hang out with a huge section of the Church (most of the main denominations) - these kinds of views are not held by those I hang with, and are in fact, hated by those I talk to.

344 R.B.Glennie  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:30:06pm

re: #330 Charles

they're not `debunked talking points' Charles (not sure if you're referring to what I wrote, but...).

I respect your independence of mind, but I just think you're wrong on this matter.

345 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:30:44pm

re: #327 R.B.Glennie

.

1 - a `conservative' in the Euro context is quite distinct from a North American conservative; they are statists just like any Democrat, but want the state to take over everyone's life just a little slower than those on the left

Yeah fine so what... I don't care about political labels in a science debate. It is not germane.

2 - I'm a big sceptic about global warming catastrophism. The scepticism that many `conservatives' (to use the nominal term) have about this issue has little to do with the alleged `anti-science' beliefs of the conservative movement - allegedly in turn informed by the religious right. It is simply that the g-w catastrophists haven't proven their theory

Then study the actual science. Try this site from Princeton. Please actually look at it.

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]

3 - I agree with you to some extent: hydrocarbons are exasperbating a warming trend that is already in existence. What I disagree with you about is just what effect this will have on the env.

Well how about you don't make this about what you think or what Charles thinks and instead look at the actual science? Again,

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]


4 - A final point only bec. I don't really have time: you claim that `conservatives' have engaged in anti-science claims and exaggerations, the more so than the catastrophists. Naturally, I disagree.

This is garbage. The GOP and the right has been the largest bastion of myths about AGW there is.

Look at the claims from g-w catastrophists that have been debunked in the last few years (this is just at the top of my head) -

-the `hockey stick' warming trend, which purportedly identified the last two centuries as the warmest EVER; this graph showed up on the cover of a past IPCC report and that was roundly shown to be untrue

This is utterly false. We are warming. Look at actual data from direct observation. This is from NOAA. If you compress the time axis you do get a hockey stick.

[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

-

the alleged endangerment of the polar bear due to the vanshing of ice sheets

There is nothing alleged about this. They are dying off.


-

the threat of renewed tropical diseases in temperate climates, when in fact these diseases existed in temperate climes during the period when the catastrophists maintain the earth was cooler

Changing climate means that new organisms will spread to new zones. Say your bug is carried by a mosquito that now migrates north because it now can live there more easily.

-the vanishing of the jet-stream, thereby causing an ice-age in europe

You mean the thermo haline conveyor in the ocean. This too is real. Try this link from AIP (American Institute of Physics)

[Link: www.aip.org...]

-

some time ago, you posted an article which attacked the `myth' that climate scientists touted a renewed ice age during 1970s; but again, it is not a myth, and some scientists who were suggested a new ice-age now tout the opposite.

You mean that Time magazine made a bruhaha over what a few scientists said and what never became consensus of the community... sure...

SO WHAT?

As I said, it's your blog, you can promote what you want. Subtlely was never your forte, but c'mon, everyone who disagrees with you on this matter isn't a far-right lunatic.

No, but every point you have brought is wrong, misinformed and just saturated with debunked talking point after talking point from politcal hacks. Try looking... PLEASE look at the actual science from reputable sources I have given you.

346 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:30:51pm

re: #343 kiwiviv

I'm glad we agree - All I'm saying is that I hang out with a huge section of the Church (most of the main denominations) - these kinds of views are not held by those I hang with, and are in fact, hated by those I talk to.

That may be, but the fact is that this view is common among fundamentalist politicians in America.

347 LotharBot  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:31:23pm

Protecting the environment is not a left-wing value.

Using "protecting the environment" as cover for increasing taxes, government control, etc. is a left-wing value.

Too often, conservative opposition to bad policies that happen to use "environment" as cover leads to conservatives talking about the environment as if it's unimportant. We need to do better. We need to be diligent about communicating that protecting the environment is important, and while such-and-such left-wing tax-increasing economy-destroying idea is a bad way to accomplish that goal, there are effective ways to protect the environment at much lower cost.

348 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:32:31pm

re: #344 R.B.Glennie

they're not `debunked talking points' Charles (not sure if you're referring to what I wrote, but...).

I respect your independence of mind, but I just think you're wrong on this matter.

See my 345. Every one of your points is clear refuted by the science and the evidence. PLease look at it.

349 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:35:16pm

re: #342 jpkoch

I do hate it when anti-science types misquote IPCC. I mean, it is not as if you read it. If you had you would not say such silly things about CO2.

Please try reading this link through. It will explain all of your doubts and lay out the science clearly. I challenge you to look at it. This is from UCSD.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

350 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:36:31pm

re: #346 Charles

That may be, but the fact is that this view is common among fundamentalist politicians in America.

I can accept that - I just believe they are wrong. I also believe that the majority of true Christians do not go along with ultra-fundamentalism

351 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:37:01pm
352 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:44:23pm

re: #251 HoosierHoops

You know how it seems each first lady has a project? Betty Ford was anti-drug, Laura was all about Reading.. Each one has a signature project..
Have you considered that Michelle came of the Campaign trail and said.
Jes*s H. Chr*st they are nothing but a bunch of fat ass lazy kids out there..
Maybe we should dig a garden and promote healthy food and exercise...
This is a noble cause..

Ladybird Johnson hated billboards and I'm guessing she'd just hate all the stimulus signs everwhere.

353 UFO TOFU  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:44:49pm

re: #351 taxfreekiller

Ya, California that is the leadership others should follow.

sarc


[Link: www.calt.iastate.edu...]

354 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:46:13pm

I certainly believe environmental issues are important. I am very against pollution. I support clean air laws. I am an ardent recycler. I think people who dump toxins into the environment should see punitive consequences. The world needs to be maintained as a place humans and other fuzzy creatures can live for eons to come.

I just don't believe in AGW. I don't bother trying convince those who do believe it is true that it is not. What's the point? However, I don't see why belief in AGW almost always goes hand in hand with supporting cap-and-trade and the many other awful "solutions" put forth, especially when these are championed by people who have made zero efforts at reducing their own humongous carbon output.

These are bad laws that will do absolutely nothing to actually address the climate. They do not even aim at cutting carbon output, assuming that had anything to do with climate. They only take money from one group of people, and give it to those in control of the "carbon credits" market.

It's basically a "fart tax."

355 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:47:03pm

re: #349 LudwigVanQuixote

I did read the IPCC SPM and TAR. The whole idea of the IPCC TAR is to make projections for policymakers. They got all kinds of projections. And thier projections are based upon economic activity and population growth. They predict global temps based upon these economic and demographic projections as well as GCMs.

356 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:48:15pm

re: #354 Korla Pundit

New Zealand has a "fart tax." for dairy farmers

357 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:48:30pm

re: #354 Korla Pundit

I just don't believe in AGW. I don't bother trying convince those who do believe it is true that it is not. What's the point?

It's not something that requires "belief." There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that humans are indeed a major cause of global warming; the facts and the research don't vanish because you refuse to believe in them.

358 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:49:52pm

re: #333 LudwigVanQuixote


In the mean time, atoms and molecules do not worry about politics. They do not get paid by oil companies and they really do not care. They faithfully obey rules that men didn't make.

This sort of comparison really doesn't help your argument. Yes, we have a very detailed and complete understanding of how atoms and molecules behave; the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well know for over a century, and the basics of the greenhouse effect - conversion of heat from short to long wavelengths that are subsequently trapped by the optical properties of the atmosphere - are also well understood.

But your statement implies that everything is just this simple and easy, which it most certainly is not. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't produce anything like a simple, linear increase in temperature, or even a well-understood, closed-form increase governed by more complex relations. Increased heat, for example, presumably increases the amount of cloud cover, which increases the planet's albedo; seawater absorbs a much greater quantity of CO2 as it warms than otherwise; countless other non-linear processes likewise impact the final effects of a given increase in CO2 levels, which can only be modeled as a complex system of differential equations that possess no closed-form solution and can only be solved using numerical methods, which have their own difficulties that are often not easily overcome.

Climate, in short, is nowhere near as well understood as the science of atoms and molecules. I'm not stating that you're wrong, but this sort of argument does not support your case well because it is based on an incorrect implication.

359 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:50:15pm

I do hate it when anti-science types misquote IPCC. I mean, it is not as if you read it.

One other thing, I spent the better part of 15 years involved with forecasting weather. I followed this issue well before it became so politically toxic.

360 R.B.Glennie  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:50:19pm

re: #345 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig -

point 1 - I was addressing something Charles said about a Danish conservative; just why you think I should care about what belongs in a scientific debate, I will leave to you.

point 2 - thanks for all your links; I HAVE actually looked at the science; I will restate that I am not convinced (I meant to add that I am completely secular, don't believe in God, miracles, etc.).

points 3 and beyond - I'm sorry you're wrong. the polar bear is NOT endangered; the hockey-stick is fraud; the jet-stream will not stop, global-cooling was touted by climate scientists whether or not it was the `consensus' (as if that isn't completely meaningless)

the final point is that the sources you cite are frequently not reliable: the nasa site in particular was found to be erroneous with regard to how it was measuring global temperatures; it was also entered one month's temperatures readings into the next month, `by accident' purportedly, but in any case.

Ludwig, you need to back and re-examine what you think you know bec. it is in error.

thanks

361 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:52:52pm

re: #357 Charles

What are your feelings about what to do about AGW, assuming it is fact? Do you support cap-and-trade or similar economic penalties, or should there instead be some kind of man-to-the-moon type effort to actually do something concrete about it? Something that can't be totally negated by China and India?

362 debutaunt  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:54:32pm

re: #285 Killgore Trout

What's odd is that in China the only copies of Mao's Little Red Book you'll find are for sale to tourists.

They were sold in the SF bay area a while back.

363 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:55:45pm

re: #350 kiwiviv

I can accept that - I just believe they are wrong. I also believe that the majority of true Christians do not go along with ultra-fundamentalism

Kiwiviv: I don't think anybody has claimed that the "majority" of Christians are on board with this nonsense. But millions upon millions of Americans are, including some very high-powered people in government, and to pretend it's a trivial problem is to hide one's head in the proverbial sand, I maintain.

364 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:57:49pm

re: #358 SixDegrees

No my assertion, which is fully correct, and that you missed, is that atoms and molecules do not care what we think about them. They do not care what we legislate and that they obey the laws of nature. If you choose to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, then wishful thinking a moment later will not save you.

365 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:58:28pm

re: #345 LudwigVanQuixote

.

"

There is nothing alleged about this. They [the Polar Bears] are dying off.

Ludwig,

Was that a typo or are you alleging that the Poster Bears are currently dying off? Surely you know that the alleged threat to their numbers is a future hypothetical event based upon projections of the ice disappearing, not a current event. At present, some populations are increasing (apparently the warmings make them quite frisky*), some declining and some stable, and it is widely accepted that the population has more than doubled in recent decades due to restrictions on hunting.

*:)

366 Cato the Elder  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 12:58:39pm

re: #357 Charles

It's not something that requires "belief." There's a mountain of scientific evidence showing that humans are indeed a major cause of global warming; the facts and the research don't vanish because you refuse to believe in them.

They don't? Next you'll be telling me when I cover my eyes so I can't see you, you can still see me...

367 kiwiviv  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:00:13pm

re: #363 ShanghaiEd

Kiwiviv: I don't think anybody has claimed that the "majority" of Christians are on board with this nonsense. But millions upon millions of Americans are, including some very high-powered people in government, and to pretend it's a trivial problem is to hide one's head in the proverbial sand, I maintain.

I totally agree with you. I don't get to spend much time in here, so I don't know what the "majority" opinions are on this subject. I came in late to the discussion and just felt like inserting what I believe the "majority Christian" view is on keeping a healthy planet - just for the record.

368 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:01:27pm

re: #360 R.B.Glennie

Again, you did not look at these links. Or you refused to process them or whatever you rationalized dismissing actual science from actual scientists you used to justify not thinking clearly.

For instance, had you looked at the actual data from NOAA, which I took time out of my day to provide for you, you would see that we are, and have continued to be warming.

Look at the page and refute it if you can. This is direct measurement.

[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

The page even has a FAQ, written by actual PhDs in the field rather than political hacks that addresses you other issues.

LOOK AT IT.

You see, you can call me wrong as much as you like... but you have to back it up with science. Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass.

369 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:03:35pm

re: #365 Bagua

Ludwig,

Was that a typo or are you alleging that the Poster Bears are currently dying off? Surely you know that the alleged threat to their numbers is a future hypothetical event based upon projections of the ice disappearing, not a current event. At present, some populations are increasing (apparently the warmings make them quite frisky*), some declining and some stable, and it is widely accepted that the population has more than doubled in recent decades due to restrictions on hunting.

*:)

Right, and they are off the endangered species list?

Sorry No bagel.

But you are going to derail this by going into endless details about this or that other pressure on that species and it really is also not germane.

The bottom line is that their habitat is going away and if it does, they do too.

370 SixDegrees  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:04:03pm

re: #364 LudwigVanQuixote

No my assertion, which is fully correct, and that you missed, is that atoms and molecules do not care what we think about them. They do not care what we legislate and that they obey the laws of nature. If you choose to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, then wishful thinking a moment later will not save you.

Don't even try to weasel out of this. You deliberately brought up atoms and molecules not caring what people thought to imply that their behavior would lead to the conclusion you're promoting without regard to what anyone felt, in a deterministic obeisance to the laws of physics. The problem is that your argument doesn't hold water when using such simple objects as props, as already explained. You're attempting to equivocate between a very simple, well understood system and a system which is many order of magnitude more complex and which is not completely understood.

If you're simply going to attack anyone who disagrees with you, you're certainly not going to sway them over to your side. All you manage is to antagonize, something you seem to have a fairly good handle on but which isn't serving your purpose, unless your purpose is only to inflame. Science ought to enlighten. Perhaps you could give that a whirl sometime.

371 MKELLY  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:07:42pm

Like Charles I too looked for years at the evidence of CO2 causing global warming (AGW), but come away with a different conclusion.

Just saying I'm wrong does not make me so. I have valid reasons based in geologic findings and scientific findings coupled with my ability to reason and understand the science behind the questions.

So as of now I am on the side of not accepting the idea that CO2 is causing global warming.

372 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:08:59pm
373 Ojoe  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:13:48pm

re: #365 Bagua

Polar bears survived as a species during other interglacial periods, and there were even times when the poles were ice free too. So you might make a case that the bears can evolve in and out of "polar bearness' if the change is gradual enough.

374 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:14:07pm

re: #370 SixDegrees

Don't even try to weasel out of this. You deliberately brought up atoms and molecules not caring what people thought to imply that their behavior would lead to the conclusion you're promoting without regard to what anyone felt, in a deterministic obeisance to the laws of physics. The problem is that your argument doesn't hold water when using such simple objects as props, as already explained. You're attempting to equivocate between a very simple, well understood system and a system which is many order of magnitude more complex and which is not completely understood.

If you're simply going to attack anyone who disagrees with you, you're certainly not going to sway them over to your side. All you manage is to antagonize, something you seem to have a fairly good handle on but which isn't serving your purpose, unless your purpose is only to inflame. Science ought to enlighten. Perhaps you could give that a whirl sometime.

I am not weaseling out of anything. Yes, it is a complicated system.. The statement that you do not understand all of the complexity does not remove cause and effect.

If you wish to say that there is still great room debate how bad and how soon, you are correct. You are also correct there is so very much debate because the system is so very complicated and non-linear.

However, your underlying assertion falls flat becuase of the following things:

1. If you take the nicest, easiest, most rosy predictions that are reasonable given current trends, observations and data, IPCC, which is a very very candy bar prediction, we are still looking at a catastrophe in 100-150 years that we will not be able to avoid if we do not start changing how we do things soon. The carbon stays up there and drives feedbacks for a long time.

2. If you take the mid range predictions we are looking at a catastrophe that will collapse our economy and technological civilization as we know it.

3. If you look at the severe predictions we are talking a new Dark Ages.

Changing climate means lowered food production and less drinkable water for millions. It means millions homeless because they have lost their homes. It means the loss of trillions in capital. These things are givens.

There are NO rosy predictions. There are no predictions where this turns out just fine. There is NO way that this will just be OK through wishful thinking alone.

375 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:16:17pm
376 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:16:48pm

re: #355 jpkoch

I did read the IPCC SPM and TAR. The whole idea of the IPCC TAR is to make projections for policymakers. They got all kinds of projections. And thier projections are based upon economic activity and population growth. They predict global temps based upon these economic and demographic projections as well as GCMs.

Then you did not understand what you read.

Try this link please. I beg you to look at it.
[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

377 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:18:55pm

re: #371 MKELLY

Just saying I'm wrong does not make me so.

That's true -- it's the mountains of scientific evidence that prove you wrong.

378 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:25:47pm

It is not that I don't believe in AGW. It's that I remain unconvinced because so much of the purported evidence has been faulty or even flat-out fraudulent.

The original "hockey stick" that popularized AGW was very unscientific and misleading as the first huge chunk of it was measuring the ice record, and the second bit was based on actual temperature measurement. It also left out some rather obvious temperature swings that any student of climate history should know, because it wanted to paint a picture of almost constant world temperature for many thousands of years, and then shooting up precipitously in the last century. It wasn't just bad science; it was intentionally misleading.

There have been other things that make me more skeptical, like the dropping of Siberian temperatures from the average, which of course will make the average go up.

And then there are little doubt-raisers like this:

[Link: tinyurl.com...]

Researchers who have inspected climate monitoring stations across the U.S. have found that almost 90 percent of the weather monitoring stations have failed to meet National Weather Service requirements.
Anthony Watts, a retired meteorologist, and a team of over 650 volunteers, photographically documented 1003 out of 1,221 of the climate monitoring stations managed by the U.S. Weather Service. The results of this survey show that the temperature cited as proof of man-made global warming is laced with false biases in favor of alarmism.

“We found stations located next to exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat,” Watts said. “We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.”

The research team also determined that 89 percent did not measure up to the National Weather Service’s requirement that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating source. This means almost 9 out of every 10 stations are reporting higher temperatures because they are badly sited.

“The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperatures of 0.7 degrees C (about 1.2 degrees F) during the twentieth century,” Watts said.

An analysis of 948 stations rated as of May 31, 2009, Watts estimates that 22 percent of stations have an expected error of 1 degree C, 61 percent have an expected error of 2 degrees C, and 8 percent have an expected error of 5 degrees C.

“This record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century,” he said. “Since the U.S. record is thought to be `the best in the world,’ it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”

Finally, any predictions built totally on computer models are going to reflect the result that the programmers want it to, whether subconsciously or not. Computer models are not a perfect science.

But most of all, the thing that pushes me away from being convinced is the people who are pushing the "solution." I don't trust people who mix science and politics, especially when they promise to raise my cost of living, while reducing my standard of living.

My main point is that extraordinary claims, with extraordinary resulting legal and financial constructs, require extraordinary evidence. I know there is certainly evidence, but I don't find it extraordinary. I consider it lacking the proper scientific scrutiny by people who do NOT favor a particular conclusion over another.

Therein is why we are told that conservatives don't care about the environment. That's not the case. It's that the environment is being used to promote big government, and conservatives are agin it.

379 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:26:18pm

re: #369 LudwigVanQuixote

Right, and they are off the endangered species list?

Sorry No bagel.

But you are going to derail this by going into endless details about this or that other pressure on that species and it really is also not germane.

The bottom line is that their habitat is going away and if it does, they do too.

Ludwig,

You miss my point, you said "They are dying off."

Not that they are projected to die off, or endangered, or will die off, etc. but that they are now dying off. Accuracy and detail are important, if I am to trust you as a source of the current state of the science.

380 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:27:37pm

re: #374 LudwigVanQuixote

I am not weaseling out of anything. Yes, it is a complicated system.. The statement that you do not understand all of the complexity does not remove cause and effect.

If you wish to say that there is still great room debate how bad and how soon, you are correct. You are also correct there is so very much debate because the system is so very complicated and non-linear.

However, your underlying assertion falls flat becuase of the following things:

1. If you take the nicest, easiest, most rosy predictions that are reasonable given current trends, observations and data, IPCC, which is a very very candy bar prediction, we are still looking at a catastrophe in 100-150 years that we will not be able to avoid if we do not start changing how we do things soon. The carbon stays up there and drives feedbacks for a long time.

2. If you take the mid range predictions we are looking at a catastrophe that will collapse our economy and technological civilization as we know it.

3. If you look at the severe predictions we are talking a new Dark Ages.

Changing climate means lowered food production and less drinkable water for millions. It means millions homeless because they have lost their homes. It means the loss of trillions in capital. These things are givens.

There are NO rosy predictions. There are no predictions where this turns out just fine. There is NO way that this will just be OK through wishful thinking alone.

I can't speak for 6D, but I read his comments as some general rhetorical suggestions how to verbally engage in topics with others if your intention is to persuade your conversational partner, as opposed to "winning the round". Two entirely different objectives with two entirely different approaches, quite possibly.

I say this humbly, though, as I'm not sure - so 6 can step on me if the point is different.

381 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:29:42pm

re: #378 Korla Pundit

It is not that I don't believe in AGW. It's that I remain unconvinced because so much of the purported evidence has been faulty or even flat-out fraudulent.

The original "hockey stick" that popularized AGW was very unscientific and misleading as the first huge chunk of it was measuring the ice record, and the second bit was based on actual temperature measurement. It also left out some rather obvious temperature swings that any student of climate history should know, because it wanted to paint a picture of almost constant world temperature for many thousands of years, and then shooting up precipitously in the last century. It wasn't just bad science; it was intentionally misleading.

There have been other things that make me more skeptical, like the dropping of Siberian temperatures from the average, which of course will make the average go up.

And then there are little doubt-raisers like this:

[Link: tinyurl.com...]

Finally, any predictions built totally on computer models are going to reflect the result that the programmers want it to, whether subconsciously or not. Computer models are not a perfect science.

But most of all, the thing that pushes me away from being convinced is the people who are pushing the "solution." I don't trust people who mix science and politics, especially when they promise to raise my cost of living, while reducing my standard of living.

My main point is that extraordinary claims, with extraordinary resulting legal and financial constructs, require extraordinary evidence. I know there is certainly evidence, but I don't find it extraordinary. I consider it lacking the proper scientific scrutiny by people who do NOT favor a particular conclusion over another.

Therein is why we are told that conservatives don't care about the environment. That's not the case. It's that the environment is being used to promote big government, and conservatives are agin it.

Wait a minute. You don't trust people who mix science and politics, so you're a conservative? This does not compute. No pun intended.

382 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:34:32pm

re: #373 Ojoe

Polar bears survived as a species during other interglacial periods, and there were even times when the poles were ice free too. So you might make a case that the bears can evolve in and out of "polar bearness' if the change is gradual enough.

I happen to agree with you Ojoe, not Ludwig on this issue. Furthermore, I believe the loss of one species, out of the many that go extinct on a regular basis, is simply not a major concern for humanity. In fact, even should they disappear in the wild, which is far from certain, they will survive in as a species in zoo's.

Personally, I am far more concerned if 25,000 humans die, than 25,000 bears. They are "Poster Bears," the emotional and propaganda face of "science." Since when does science accept such things, I thought it was based upon reason and cold data.

383 R.B.Glennie  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:36:12pm

re: #368 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, believe what you wish.

I have looked at the science. It's lacking.

Really, do you think that the only people who disbelieve g-w catastrophism are `political hacks'.

Who's `anti-science' then?

384 Lightspeed  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:38:22pm

re: #313 Conservative Moonbat

So the facts of the matter have nothing to do with it? It's all about personalities?

The facts are in dispute. Not all of them, but the "fact' that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not at all an established truth. Charles (and others) may point to the "overwhelming evidence" that makes it a fact, but many of the scientists who have been using the CO2 data to make dire predictions of catastrophic warming have been DEAD WRONG. I live in New Orleans, and if the alarmists were right we would be hit every year with an increasing number of stronger and stronger hurricanes and I would be living underwater by now. Polar bears would be dead, the ice caps would be gone, etc. It was all there in "An Inconvenient Truth" laid out for the world to see and praised to the high heavens by the AGW crowd. What a load of crap.

And, yes, it is about the personalities, to a degree. Just as I would raise an eyebrow over anything said by Alex Jones, so too will I question the veracity of any data or conclusions promoted by the AGW crowd. Too many of them are radically politcal and are not above falsifying data. Unfortunately, there's quite a few loons on the other side that also are not above falsifying data. It seems like everyone has an agenda. It is hard for a lay person to know what to believe. But, to quote H.L. Mencken:

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it."

385 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:41:13pm

re: #381 ShanghaiEd

Attaching science to politics is just as bad as attaching either to religion. Politics poisons science and precludes unpopular or politically correct conclusions, regardless of the truth. Hence the ban on DDT. Hence the inability to more effectively combat AIDS.

When politicians say "the science is settled, give me your credit card," I can only assume being lied to by the usual gang of thieves.

386 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:44:12pm

re: #381 ShanghaiEd

But did you catch that bit about just where these measurements have been coming from to begin with?

387 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:45:41pm

re: #385 Korla Pundit

Attaching science to politics is just as bad as attaching either to religion. Politics poisons science and precludes unpopular or politically correct conclusions, regardless of the truth. Hence the ban on DDT. Hence the inability to more effectively combat AIDS.

When politicians say "the science is settled, give me your credit card," I can only assume being lied to by the usual gang of thieves.

So the solution to a worldwide problem should be free of cost, or else it's not valid? Why not? Doesn't everything cost money, much less fixing crises?

388 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:45:49pm

re: #380 Pianobuff

I can't speak for 6D, but I read his comments as some general rhetorical suggestions how to verbally engage in topics with others if your intention is to persuade your conversational partner, as opposed to "winning the round". Two entirely different objectives with two entirely different approaches, quite possibly.

I say this humbly, though, as I'm not sure - so 6 can step on me if the point is different.

Look, I am really getting tired of the whole I attack someone for merely disagreeing with me meme.

You might notice a refutation of each bloody point made by deniers again and again with data and facts.

You might notice that they rarely take the time to read them or think about them - the data given I mean. It should not matter if people think I am saying those facts nicely enough for their sensitive egos to handle.

Real science debates require real science.

Bring it to the table or you have only been insulting yourself.

What your comment and 6D's comment misses is that it is an insult to argue science to a physicist without actually bringing science. An MD for instance, can only explain that there aren't four humors again and again, provide evidence of this after evidence of this, only to have it ignored by ignorant spouting cretins, without realizing how fucking insulting it is that these twits are daring to think they have any right to any opinion at all.

So the simple point is this. These are the rules of a science debate.

Bring facts figures, data and analysis.

Otherwise, you are being an ass yourself. If these people actually had the humility to look at the science and presume that just perhaps the scientists knew what they were talking about there would be no problem. However, there is no reason to tolerate stupidity and arrogance.

As to how I handled these two deniers, I responded in even tones and told them to read the facts. I know what the facts are. It is my job to know these things. When they do not look, I also know that they did not look from the stupid stuff that they keep repeating.

389 MKELLY  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:45:50pm

Lugwig where did the polar bears live during the last ice age? Ice was all the way down into Michigan no open water any where near the poles. Where did they hunt seals? Sea level several hundred feet lower. Their habitat was gone during the ice ages. Their habitat continuously was going from the time the ice age started to end. It changed constantly.

390 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:49:44pm

re: #383 R.B.Glennie

Ludwig, believe what you wish.

I have looked at the science. It's lacking.

Really, do you think that the only people who disbelieve g-w catastrophism are `political hacks'.

Who's `anti-science' then?

Where is it lacking. Back up your statements.

Let's be real... I am a professional physicist, and read the actual papers. The science is clear and the evidence vast. I am sharing actual data with you. You are claiming that the science is lacking.

Back that up with facts. Just saying you think so, does not make it so any more than if you claimed the Earth was flat.

So here is the deal. You made a seres of FALSE claims. I have given you direct evidence and data that your assertions are false.

You claim that the Earth is not warming for instance. This is false and central to the bullshit of your arguments. So. if you wish to win, prove that the earth is not warming from a reliable data set - not some rightwing blog.

If you can not do this, all you have is anti-science bullshit.

391 MKELLY  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:52:41pm

I disagree Charles the mountian of evidence doesnot prove me wrong. There is more evidence historically that shows I am correct. The Vostok core alone demonstrate temperature leads CO2. Or are the core readings wrong?

392 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:53:25pm

re: #376 LudwigVanQuixote

Then you did not understand what you read.

Try this link please. I beg you to look at it.
[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

Good grief Ludwig. I am a trained weather forecaster. Those links for NOAA are just eye candy for high school students and the general public. NOAA isn't exactly a bystander in this debate. You accused me of misrepsenting the IPCC temp projections. See thier 3rd Assesment SPM Page 13 for thier scenarios. Or Google it, or check it on Wiki.

393 doubter4444  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:54:20pm

re: #211 tradewind

I love our Whole Foods, and do most of my shopping there, but I don't find that it's all that much more expensive if you shop it carefully. Certainly not to the degree shown by the Farmer's Market in DC. I like knowing where everything comes from, and it's also the best place in town to get seafood that's not stale and watery.
I would hate to try to feed a family healthfully on food stamps or a barebones budget, though. It must be a really challenging and in a lot of cases, discouraging effort, because fresh is more expensive. Our county has donated a lot of land for truck gardens and people who couldn't afford to buy it are starting to grow produce for themselves. Not sure how this would work in a colder climate.

The joke is it's called Whole Paycheck, not Whole Foods
But I've noticed too, that the the prices have come way down, and that if you are careful and buy the stuff you should be buying there (like veggies and meat and fresh stuff) it's not a lot different from Ralph's or Pavillions (or Harris Tetter) just don't buy French's mustard or the packaged goods that you can get in a supermarket, which because of the volume they sell the big stores can get a discount and pass it on.

We have a new Whole Foods near us, (the old one is small and a pain to park at) and my wife and I went to it the other day and I told her I felt like we just arrived in America from the Soviet Bloc or something: we were wandering around amazed at the prepared foods and the big aisles and the overall wealth of stuff there.
I felt "fresh off the boat", Walter!

394 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:54:57pm

re: #387 ShanghaiEd

> So the solution to a worldwide problem should be free of cost, or else it's not valid? Why not? Doesn't everything cost money, much less fixing crises?

Whether or not the evidence points to AGW or not, the evidence that the proposed cap-and-trade disaster would actually solve anything is, to be polite, nonexistent.

Show me a real solution to something, even if I have my own doubts about the reality of the problem. If it makes sense, I would get behind it. But if it is something that would cause massive economic problems, on top of the ones we already have, and not even have a non-financial ecological manifestation (ie, actually cutting carbon emissions to any relevant degree), then we can talk. But just throwing money at alarmists doesn't do squat.

First come up with the solution. Then find a way to pay for it. Don't just propose taking my money, or costing me my job, without a concrete benefit to somebody other than the tax collector.

395 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:57:07pm

re: #391 MKELLY

I disagree Charles the mountian of evidence doesnot prove me wrong. There is more evidence historically that shows I am correct. The Vostok core alone demonstrate temperature leads CO2. Or are the core readings wrong?

Again with the Vostok core. Just like clockwork.

396 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:59:34pm

re: #378 Korla Pundit

It is not that I don't believe in AGW. It's that I remain unconvinced because so much of the purported evidence has been faulty or even flat-out fraudulent

Look at the direct measurements. Look at the keeling curves.

[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

The original "hockey stick" ...

Going into the history of that particular paper will only derail the conversation. There is actually great debate about if it was debunked or not, and no one really cares anymore in the community because of many many other sources of direct evidence. How about direct spectral measurements of CO2 concentrations?

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

There have been other things that make me more skeptical, like the dropping of Siberian temperatures from the average, which of course will make the average go up.

That is direct evidence of warming! Why would that make you skeptical?


Finally, any predictions built totally on computer models are going to reflect the result that the programmers want it to, whether subconsciously or not. Computer models are not a perfect science.

And yet we used them very successfully to design aircraft, put men on the moon and calculate all sorts of things. Do you really think that scientific computing, checked over by multiple researchers and done by multiple competing groups is that subject to prejudice?

But most of all, the thing that pushes me away from being convinced is the people who are pushing the "solution." I don't trust people who mix science and politics, especially when they promise to raise my cost of living, while reducing my standard of living.

And because of that YOU are prejudiced to the science itself. Look no further for a source of bias.

My main point is that extraordinary claims, with extraordinary resulting legal and financial constructs, require extraordinary evidence. I know there is certainly evidence, but I don't find it extraordinary. I consider it lacking the proper scientific scrutiny by people who do NOT favor a particular conclusion over another.

The evidence exists in abundance. Again, read through the argument, please from start to finish.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

Therein is why we are told that conservatives don't care about the environment. That's not the case. It's that the environment is being used to promote big government, and conservatives are agin it.

Not at all! The conservatives, who do not bother to look at the science are being duped by the ones who fear losing profits.

397 Pianobuff  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 1:59:35pm

re: #388 LudwigVanQuixote

Look, I am really getting tired of the whole I attack someone for merely disagreeing with me meme.

You might notice a refutation of each bloody point made by deniers again and again with data and facts.

You might notice that they rarely take the time to read them or think about them - the data given I mean. It should not matter if people think I am saying those facts nicely enough for their sensitive egos to handle.

Real science debates require real science.

Bring it to the table or you have only been insulting yourself.

What your comment and 6D's comment misses is that it is an insult to argue science to a physicist without actually bringing science. An MD for instance, can only explain that there aren't four humors again and again, provide evidence of this after evidence of this, only to have it ignored by ignorant spouting cretins, without realizing how fucking insulting it is that these twits are daring to think they have any right to any opinion at all.

So the simple point is this. These are the rules of a science debate.

Bring facts figures, data and analysis.

Otherwise, you are being an ass yourself. If these people actually had the humility to look at the science and presume that just perhaps the scientists knew what they were talking about there would be no problem. However, there is no reason to tolerate stupidity and arrogance.

As to how I handled these two deniers, I responded in even tones and told them to read the facts. I know what the facts are. It is my job to know these things. When they do not look, I also know that they did not look from the stupid stuff that they keep repeating.

Suit yourself, Ludwig. I must have misunderstood earlier posts of yours.

398 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:03:19pm

re: #392 jpkoch

Good grief Ludwig. I am a trained weather forecaster. Those links for NOAA are just eye candy for high school students and the general public. NOAA isn't exactly a bystander in this debate. You accused me of misrepsenting the IPCC temp projections. See thier 3rd Assesment SPM Page 13 for thier scenarios. Or Google it, or check it on Wiki.

And I am a trained physicist. Those are not just eye-candy. Further, if you did know the science, you would know that. The fact that you dismiss them at all causes me, to know that you are spouting B.S.

I do not that you are a weather forecaster, but then again, climate is not weather. Over all climate trends and feedbacks effect weather, but they are not weather.

Now, are you honestly challenging that NOAA data set? If you are, on what basis?

399 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:03:50pm

A link about the relentlessly repeated -- and false! -- argument that the Vostok ice core samples disprove that CO2 is a major cause of global warming:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

There's a lot more discussion of this all over the web. But you have to want to see it.

400 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:04:08pm

re: #396 LudwigVanQuixote

>>There have been other things that make me more skeptical, like the dropping of Siberian temperatures from the average, which of course will make the average go up.

>That is direct evidence of warming! Why would that make you skeptical?

You do understand basic mathematics, I assume. If you average out 30, 40 and 50, you get a lower number compared to averaging only 40 and 50.

If you drop the Siberian measurements, you will see a warmer average. And if you do so without disclaimer, you are misleading. If you did such a thing in a drug trial, you could see jail time.

401 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:05:43pm

re: #400 Korla Pundit

I think I see your confusion here. By "dropping," I did not mean the Siberian temperatures dropped. I mean they were dropped from the average, so the average shot up.

402 Throbert McGee  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:05:54pm

re: #23 John Neverbend

It's even stranger to me that the study of some parts of mainstream science has taken on a political hue. There, it makes as much sense as if it applied to the study of Latin.

Speaking as a former high school Latin student, I found your analogy daft enough that I downdung it. Why is it the slightest bit strange to you that science whose results relate in a real-world way to the long-term industrial policies of nations would become tinged with politics?

Studying Latin, on the other hand, is a wildly impractical pastime, though admittedly it's good for boosting your verbal SAT scores, makes you the go-to guy for translating semper ubi sub ubi jokes, and provides an excuse to have bedsheet-toga parties without joining a college fraternity.

403 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:06:08pm

re: #400 Korla Pundit

You do understand basic mathematics, I assume. .

Oh dear, thems fightin' words!

/

404 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:06:59pm

Now, now. You wouldn't hit a man with glasses, would you?

405 Lightspeed  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:08:46pm

When people like this are pushing AGW, it is not hard to imagine that the motives are less than noble:

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations.

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phoney ...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment..

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.” - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

"Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself."- UN Commission on Global Governance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor.

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Link: [Link: climateobserver.blogspot.com...]

406 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:11:13pm

re: #401 Korla Pundit

I think I see your confusion here. By "dropping," I did not mean the Siberian temperatures dropped. I mean they were dropped from the average, so the average shot up.

Yes, I actually thought you were referring to a paper about a section of Siberia which is cooling due to changing currents. In reality though, it is over all melting. Further this is releasing a giant amount of trapped methane and CO2 creating a giant feedback.

No one however drops Siberia from the global average. I am curious where you get this idea from. Every data set I have looked at for global trends includes them.

407 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:15:09pm

Hey son of the black dog.. do come out and play... I do really get tired of every single post I make, which has actual science in it, getting dinged by you. Why not bring some science of your own...

Ohhh... yes, it is because you do not have any.

408 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:17:20pm

re: #405 Lightspeed

Oh for G-d's sake. The world scientific community is not is not in some vast conspiracy to take your toys.

The solution that is proposed by the scientists is to get off of petrochemicals.

Energy independence would be good for the American economy and good for our foreign policy - with or without AGW.

409 waveriderCA  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:20:03pm

If anyone wants any particular scientific papers in PDF format since I am enrolled at an institution that allows me access to almost all known signifigant journals I can get any PDF upon request. Just post the Author, Year, Journal, Title.

410 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:23:01pm

re: #379 Bagua

Ludwig,

You miss my point, you said "They are dying off."

Not that they are projected to die off, or endangered, or will die off, etc. but that they are now dying off. Accuracy and detail are important, if I am to trust you as a source of the current state of the science.

Bagua, their habitat is being destroyed as we speak. It will kill them off. They will not adapt quickly enough. Therefore, they are dying off. Now we can argue the semantics of this as much as you wish. However, I find it rude that you are bringing semantics to the table like this.

411 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:23:44pm

re: #409 waveriderCA

If anyone wants any particular scientific papers in PDF format since I am enrolled at an institution that allows me access to almost all known signifigant journals I can get any PDF upon request. Just post the Author, Year, Journal, Title.

The links you post to them will not work on a general server.

412 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:25:37pm

re: #408 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh for G-d's sake. The world scientific community is not is not in some vast conspiracy to take your toys.

The solution that is proposed by the scientists is to get off of petrochemicals.

Energy independence would be good for the American economy and good for our foreign policy - with or without AGW.

And the problem is politicians, media hacks and greenie extremists who want to to replace the petrochemicals, which are fundamental to our modern way of life, with nothing practical, effective or available.

While people are wrong to dispute the well understood factors of climate science without standing, they are correct in understanding that their way of life is being threatened with oppressive counter measures that are likely to be ineffective.

413 Rottencrotch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:26:01pm

Hi from Denmark...

Sorry to burst any bubbles about Connie Hedegaard but she is considered a RINO overhere on this side of the Pond.

She has been called a closet socialist by the media.

414 Lightspeed  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:29:41pm

re: #408 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh for G-d's sake. The world scientific community is not is not in some vast conspiracy to take your toys.

The solution that is proposed by the scientists is to get off of petrochemicals.

Energy independence would be good for the American economy and good for our foreign policy - with or without AGW.

Agreed. I am trying to make the point that AGW has been hijacked by radical leftists for their own purposes. Climate scientists are being used to help promote a more government involvment in the U.S. and World economies. The Cap & Trade bill currently going through Congress will do next to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. What it will do is transform the U.S. economy and hammer industry while heavily taxing citizens and enriching companies in "green" industries. Is this going to make our country/the world a better place. Don't bet on it.

Energy independence is a great thing. Let's start building those nuclear plants!

And by the way, this very blog does EXACTLY THE SAME THING I did in quoting radicals associated with the AGW movement. We have seen it here with attacks on Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh, Creationisits, etc.--all of it valid. When so many prominent AGW proponents have such whacked-out ideas, people need to speak up. The science has become secondary to the politics.

415 WaveriderCA  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:32:32pm

re: #411 LudwigVanQuixote

As in you post it and I will e-mail it to you that is what I meant by it.

416 Right Brain  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:40:42pm

Care for the environment has always been a conservative cause, look at the track record:

Air Pollution Control Act, 1955 President Eisenhower, R
National Environmental Protection Act, 1970 President Nixon, R
Clean Air Act, 1970 President Nixon, R
Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972 1972 President Nixon, R
Endangered Species Act, 1973 President Nixon, R
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Pres. Reagan, R

These are all of the major US acts affecting the environment, all passed during Republican administrations, all other acts, and there are many, were incremental changes in these major acts.

The two worst environmental obstructionists were President Carter's, D, refusal to sign the Montreal Protocol, and President Clinton's, D, refusal to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for a vote, let alone sign it. In both instances Pres. Carter and Clinton did so because they said "it was too expensive." President Kennedy, D, passed an earlier and much milder version of the Clean Air Act, but it was dramatically expanded by Nixon.

417 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:41:06pm

re: #410 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, their habitat is being destroyed as we speak. It will kill them off. They will not adapt quickly enough. Therefore, they are dying off. Now we can argue the semantics of this as much as you wish. However, I find it rude that you are bringing semantics to the table like this.

Ludwig,

No, I am not being rude and "semantics" are an important part of this debate if it involves the changing of a probability to a certainty. I believe you are knowledgeable enough to debate such matters without taking offense.

You make my point exactly. When I read the various studies they invariably include such statements as, "may occur", "if", "likely", as so forth when talking about future projections, even.

But when you report something that is probable to occur in the future, it becomes a certainty and it is happening right now, not in 10 to 200 years.

Projections are not certainties nor are they destiny, even if they are highly probable. This overstating is alarmism and weakens your voice in support of science. It is not "rude" or offensive to point this out.

The Polar Poster Bears may in fact be endangered, but there is no evidence that they are dying off a the present time. If you can not understand that valid point, and be accurate in your language, then how can I trust your conclusions in your other comments about the state of the science and the predictions for the future? This is weakening your case, not helping it.

418 theheat  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:44:17pm

For as long as I can remember, the GOP pandered to "Kill It & Drill It" politics. The GOP majority has always painted environmentalists as a laughingstock; touchy-feely, tree-hugging, animal lovers, out of sync with the needs and wants of a burgeoning capitalist society. Log it, clear it, dump it, drill it it, hunt it - all this meant more revenue, saved irresponsible polluters zillions of dollars so they could stay competitive in the global market, created jobs, and exposed more land to be used for housing and infrastructure. In short, the earth is a commodity to be consumed voraciously. Fuck climate change, fuck pollution, fuck protected species, fuck any science that says this isn't healthy or sustainable, fuck it if it costs money to fix, fuck it if it limits expansion.

Now, that's not every conservative as an individual, of course, but that has been the direction of conservative politics I've known since I was in grade school many moons ago. I remember distinctly coming home after watching films about corporate pollution, probably back in late 60s, and my parents talking about those goddamned liberal teachers pushing their hippy agenda on us kids. How dare they, those fucking anti-war hippies! Don't they know loggers need jobs, and we need chemicals?!

Facing facts, the GOP is like a child whose candy has been taken away. It doesn't understand, doesn't want to understand beyond instant no-holds-barred gratification. Anyone who challenges this mindset with facts is subject to ridicule.

It's one big planet we all share, and the sooner we learn to stop shitting in our own nest, the better. This isn't a left vs. right problem, it's a global problem. Deflecting cold hard facts with political agendas and sarcasm creates a no-win scenario for everyone.

And, right now, the GOP base is happy to deny science - all kinds of science - because it conflicts with their agenda. Ultimately, those that deny evolution, are the least likely to evolve.

419 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:44:40pm

re: #406 LudwigVanQuixote

Sorry, but I don't have a link to that reference. It's possible I'm conflating it with this other piece of faulty warming data, the inclusion of September temperatures in the October averages, producing a huge false warming:

[Link: tinyurl.com...]

Another example of something that causes false warming: "District Heating Pipes" near the Russian weather stations that are heavily weighted in climate models:

[Link: tinyurl.com...]

In any case, I don't care to dispute that there is warming. Others will continue going back and forth endlessly on that issue. I am certainly not convinced that human CO2 output is of any significance to any warming trend compared to other factors, and I even more certainly don't think that humanity will ever be willing to sacrifice its way of life to cut carbon emissions to any noticable degree, nor do I think it should. But I my argument isn't with any of this.

My argument is against the snake oil salesmen who are pitching a punitive tax as a means of saving the planet. The only green that affects is the color of paper in my wallet.

Massive scientific endeavors often require government involvement, like the space program, the polio vaccine, the invention of the chronometer, taking the initiative in inventing the Internet, the Manhattan Project, the Slinky. Government has the resources to motivate and reward brilliant minds to solve massive problems. But punishment never motivates.

Does anybody here actually believe that taxing energy use will somehow reduce global temperatures? If so, how?

420 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 2:47:31pm

re: #418 theheat

>For as long as I can remember, the GOP pandered to "Kill It & Drill It" politics.

Well, that is how it has always been painted by their adversaries, but it's certainly not an objective view.

421 Basho  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:21:58pm

Does this mean I can say AGW is real in the comments section without being told to "fuck off"? Woohoo!

422 pestolover  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:29:24pm

The environment per se is not a special issue of the left; rather, Henny-penny environmentalism is a wedge and a lever by means of which the left hopes to pass their main issue, which I would summarize neatly as wanting more government control everywhere, and equality of results everywhere. The only reason the environment matters is that the world they wish to create must have a place to go on existing. The left levels life to existence. Mere existence is social justice perfectly realized. This is the importance of environmentalism to the left.

423 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:35:51pm

re: #421 Basho

Does this mean I can say AGW is real in the comments section without being told to "fuck off"? Woohoo!

I've been doing it for months...

And if a denier tells you to fuck off, just give the science when you tell them to go to hell. That way they got something to read.

424 Basho  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:39:24pm

Charles,

I remember sending you an email months ago with several links. Did those help you out at all?

425 Basho  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:43:34pm

re: #423 LudwigVanQuixote

I've been doing it for months...

And if a denier tells you to fuck off, just give the science when you tell them to go to hell. That way they got something to read.

But I found that deniers don't like to read...

I kid!! (kinda...)

426 Charles Johnson  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:53:52pm

re: #424 Basho

Charles,

I remember sending you an email months ago with several links. Did those help you out at all?

Yes, definitely, thank you. I've also been doing a lot of reading.

427 Bagua  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:58:02pm

re: #423 LudwigVanQuixote

I've been doing it for months...

And if a denier tells you to fuck off, just give the science when you tell them to go to hell. That way they got something to read.

Reducing the personal insults and unpleasantness on both sides of this issue would be a welcome change.

428 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:06:27pm

re: #427 Bagua

Of any issue, I would add.

429 jpkoch  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:11:26pm

re: #398 LudwigVanQuixote

And I am a trained physicist. Those are not just eye-candy. Further, if you did know the science, you would know that. The fact that you dismiss them at all causes me, to know that you are spouting B.S.

I do not that you are a weather forecaster, but then again, climate is not weather. Over all climate trends and feedbacks effect weather, but they are not weather.

You being a trained physicist came as quite a surprise as you rarely talk of the physics of the atmosphere, you avoid any reasonable discussion (ie you accused me of misrepresenting the IPCC, but ignore the actual citation(s) I provided), and you cite silly web sites like NOAA. And yes, I do question NOAA. Their medium to long range forecasts are horrendous (If they charged for their services they'd have no customers). And forget the weather is not climate meme. NOAA, Hadley, and NASA constantly co-mingle weather events into climate events. If you wish to really discuss climate events please explain the behavior of the Walker Cell over the last 600 years in relation to both ENSO and global precipitation patterns.

Now, are you honestly challenging that NOAA data set? If you are, on what basis?

430 lostlakehiker  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:40:31pm

re: #394 Korla Pundit

> So the solution to a worldwide problem should be free of cost, or else it's not valid? Why not? Doesn't everything cost money, much less fixing crises?

Whether or not the evidence points to AGW or not, the evidence that the proposed cap-and-trade disaster would actually solve anything is, to be polite, nonexistent.

Show me a real solution to something, even if I have my own doubts about the reality of the problem. If it makes sense, I would get behind it. But if it is something that would cause massive economic problems, on top of the ones we already have, and not even have a non-financial ecological manifestation (ie, actually cutting carbon emissions to any relevant degree), then we can talk. But just throwing money at alarmists doesn't do squat.

First come up with the solution. Then find a way to pay for it. Don't just propose taking my money, or costing me my job, without a concrete benefit to somebody other than the tax collector.

I propose

(1) More efficient buildings. Make them so the natural sunshine will fall through windows in winter, be shaded out in summer. Include thermal mass so they don't heat up or cool rapidly. There are all sorts of tricks here.

(2) Build many nuclear power plants, all on the same proven design. Go ahead with the Nevada waste site, or just store waste on site and let the shorter-lived isotopes half-life to harmlessness. Nuclear power generates no CO2.

(3) Build more wind farms. Combine this with automatic right of way for the transmission lines.

(4) Solar power isn't ready yet for the big tent. Fast track R&D. When it arrives, then build massive solar power farms in AZ and NM, as well as distributed solar wherever the user is remote from the grid.

(5) Spend some thought and then some money on mitigation. Expect more severe fire seasons in the west, for instance. Permit preemptive burns and clearing of brush from places that present the greatest fire risk. Forbid residential development in areas that are likely to burn and very hard to defend. If hurricanes are a worry [there is no evidence of this at the moment], take similar steps with respect to coastal development. If rising sea levels are expected, refrain from building very large and very permanent structures at elevations less than 6 meters above sea level--unless they would pay for themselves before the sea could rise that much.

(6) Encourage more efficient vehicles, home lighting, appliances, and so on. Efficiency makes sense whether AGW is a problem or not, after all.

(7) If for some reason [I don't see a good one] you conclude to try to drive down consumption of coal, do it with a bit of respect for the free market. Put a tax on emissions of CO2. The tax falls on the user, who is free to pass it on to consumers if they will pay rather than switch to some non-fossil source. This way, we can at least retreat from fossil fuel use in a rational manner, abandoning first the uses of coal that give the least bang for the CO2 buck.

431 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:45:09pm

re: #429 jpkoch

climate is not weather.

I think that should be the first lesson of a discussion of atmospheric physics.

Claiming that difficulties in predicting local weather (local in time and region) should bring questions to climate science science on this issue is like claiming that difficulty in predicting when and if an individual smoker will develop cancer - or not, somehow contradicts the fact that on average, smoking does cause cancer. You are confusing the long term and the global with the short term and the local, by even bringing you disappointment with weather forecasts to the table.

If, as you imply, you understand atmospheric physics, then you should know this.

Local weather forecasts are also not data. The direct temperature measurements are data however.

Now, what about long term facts in atmospheric phsics.

Do you deny that CO2 traps photons in the IR? Do you deny the QM that means that they will vibrate and become warm because of this. Do you deny that the more CO2 you have the more warm you will be? Do you deny that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and that human emissions account for most of it?

If you want to talk physics let's do it, but, please do make a specific and relevant claim.

432 lostlakehiker  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:45:18pm

re: #306 Wondering Aloud

I am not especially conservative and I agree the environment should not be a liberal issue. Especially in light of the fact that the liberals are unfailingly foolish on environmental issues and have been for 40 years.

I am sorry that some people think that there is some conspiracy of deniers paid for by big oil. Follow the money and you find thousands of people who owe their incomes to support for AGW. This is not the way science is supposed to be done.

As a physics professional and a trained scientist with a specialty in scientific method. I have known people who lose their jobs for publishing honest results just because they didn't fit what the catastrophe models predict. I also have known people who publish embarrassing rubbish to great acclaim just because it fits. This is the type of science associated with the eugenics movement but not with honest professionals.

Putting this simply the models are not supported by the data, either historically or currently. We have no real idea what the future will hold and the idea of a large positive feedback due to water vapor and therefore the idea of a large effect due to CO2 alone is not supported by the physics of the situation or the data available.

The claim of paid deniers or that the science is clear are base slander as far as I can tell and I have closely followed this issue for 20 years. A little warming would be nice but is also all we can hope for. There is little serious doubt that a warmer world would and especially increased CO2 levels would be better for the biosphere.

Oh, but there is serious doubt that a warmer world would be better for us. The hotter it gets, the tougher it is to bring in a crop. There's a reason that the amber seas of grain don't include west Texas. Rice yields are already suffering in Vietnam because of heat stress. And if the earth warms by, say, 5 degrees C in the arctic latitudes (less in the central latitudes), then we would have to retreat a few miles inland along most of our coastline. That's a lot of useful land flooded.

433 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:46:25pm

re: #432 lostlakehiker

Oh, but there is serious doubt that a warmer world would be better for us. The hotter it gets, the tougher it is to bring in a crop. There's a reason that the amber seas of grain don't include west Texas. Rice yields are already suffering in Vietnam because of heat stress. And if the earth warms by, say, 5 degrees C in the arctic latitudes (less in the central latitudes), then we would have to retreat a few miles inland along most of our coastline. That's a lot of useful land flooded.

Exactly. That also means less homes and less food for a growing population.

Such things can only end badly.

434 LesLein  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 4:49:53pm

"The GOP has ceded several important issues to the Democrats, and environmentalism is definitely one of them. Unfortunately, it’s all tied in with a pernicious anti-science influence that comes largely from the religious far right."

Yes, supporting cap and trade has really helped the Democrats increase their popularity.

435 [deleted]  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 5:03:09pm
436 Dr. Shalit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 5:28:54pm

Kol Ha Lizardim -

AND - the GOP also lost the lead on Civil Rights - When Civil Rights changed from Equality of Opportunity to Equality of Results.
The EPA, should anyone wish to recall, was started during the first term of Disgraced President RICHARD M. NIXON, who like TR saw it as "Conservation." A fellow named Ruckelshaus was it's first Chief if I recall. As with Civil Rights, it went from a great cause to a RACKET. Difference is the proponents of Zero Growth seldom look like or speak like clowns, or are obvious with their shakedowns. That is to their LUDDITE advantage, and that is all.

-S-

437 Mich-again  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 5:44:04pm

My disconnect with the AGW conventional wisdom isn't about what is happening, rather what we should do about it. If all we do is shift the CO2 production from the rich nations to the poor nations that doesn't accomplish anything except redistribute income.

438 nchristi26  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 5:55:38pm

from: The Calgary HeraldSeptember 19, 2009 By Lorne Gunter

(Scientists pull an about face on global warming)

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

"How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

In the past year, two other groups of scientists--one in Germany, the second in the United States--have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans, but it will resume.

But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot. It's true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

439 Coracle  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 6:12:05pm

re: #438 nchristi26

Latif's stance is neither new nor anti-AGW.

From the third paragraph of the Max Plank Institute for Metereology’s press release on this study, which was published in Nature May ‘08

“Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years”, adds Latif. “That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top”, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI-M. “In some years trends of the two phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.”
440 Coracle  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 6:13:22pm

re: #435 taxfreekiller

gee, if we only had facts
you know something real

If only we would recognize facts when they were presented to us.

441 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 6:50:21pm

re: #439 Coracle

Yet it points out the obvious: that predicting the future of something like climate has too many variables and outside forces at play to ever be on target. If this was a closed experiment in a lab, it would be hard enough. But the forces at work are too numerous and too misunderstood to ever get it right. It is chaos theory at work. And creating an entire international economic structure based on something so nebulous is a bad idea. Especially when the world's largest polluters will not be on board.

The better bet would be to make our economy stronger, not weaker. That would give us better resources for inventing and developing the next generation of energy sources. Bankrupting the nation will not help on that front.

It would also allow us to bargain with nations not on board from a position of strength. Going to them hat in hand will not convince them to make sacrifices. It would instead give them an object lesson on what NOT to do.

442 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 7:03:15pm

re: #430 lostlakehiker

I could be on board for most of those efforts. Not the taxation part. It would not reduce demand, and thus would not decrease usage. It would only add to inflation.

I would, however, be all for incentives to develop space-based solar generation, more hydroelectric power, geothermal, wind, etc. I think wind has been an overpromise, but diverse sources is a good strategy.

Nuclear certainly fits the bill, although that is not forward-looking. I am uncomfortable with the waste issue, and even Yukka can fill up, and god help us if there is ever an accident involving that stuff. People have forgotten Chernobyl, but it's still as dangerous as ever. It's got more concrete over it than Jimmy Hoffa, but there's no real solution to that disaster. It's scary stuff.

In the meantime, I think we need to allow the U.S. to explore and drill for its own oil, and for eco-friendly reasons, too. The U.S. would drill and refine its own oil under a lot tighter regulation than the Saudis, you betcha. Having Yugo Chevez drilling for oil instead of us isn't exactly being Earth-friendly.

I think the most promising tech in the near term is hydrogen cells. But for some reason this is not hitting the mainstream. This is where government can help: getting infrastructure in so advances like hydrogen cells can take off. The only waste product from those is H2O.

Of course, then we might be talking about taxing our water footprints... :)

443 Coracle  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 7:37:56pm

re: #441 Korla Pundit

Yet it points out the obvious: that predicting the future of something like climate has too many variables and outside forces at play to ever be on target. If this was a closed experiment in a lab, it would be hard enough. But the forces at work are too numerous and too misunderstood to ever get it right. It is chaos theory at work. And creating an entire international economic structure based on something so nebulous is a bad idea. Especially when the world's largest polluters will not be on board.

The better bet would be to make our economy stronger, not weaker. That would give us better resources for inventing and developing the next generation of energy sources. Bankrupting the nation will not help on that front.

It would also allow us to bargain with nations not on board from a position of strength. Going to them hat in hand will not convince them to make sacrifices. It would instead give them an object lesson on what NOT to do.

I'm not going to spend another post at this point debating the accuracies of models. We disagree on just how unknowable things are. Even if I accept the hypothesis of "slight cooling now before warming resumes" the basic facts of the temperature forcings for the planet aren't changed.

However, the entire "bankrupting the nation" line is a strawman as bad or worse than the most dire and shrill "catastrophe tomorrow" cry.

444 Korla Pundit  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 7:43:35pm

re: #309 HoosierHoops

>I know that's a hard concept to grasp..so pull your car into the garage,leave it running, shut the door and write an after action report one hour from now..

That's carbon MONOxide. Deadly stuff that. Actually cools the atmosphere a tiny bit by bringing your body to room temperature.

Carbon DIoxide is what trees need for photosynthesis.

445 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 8:02:24pm

re: #438 nchristi26

I actually debunked this crap in the science links. Why not look at the actual letter and then stop cherry picking.

Also, this is one paper that is under debate, and in the best case he is claiming that there is a negative feedback to be looked at that will NOT reverse long term trends.

Here is the abstract to the actual paper.

[Link: www.nature.com...]

The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.


Hardly a change of heart as your bullshit article suggested.

446 Basho  Mon, Sep 21, 2009 8:11:07pm

I've noticed a lot of the people who fear that environmental regulation will ruin and bankrupt the economy also support supplied-side economics. How oxymoronic...

447 greatdane  Tue, Sep 22, 2009 12:02:12am

As one of the few actual danish commenters to this thread I can perhaps add that the quote from Connie and other conservatives has nothing to do with current trends or - sorry to inform you - LGF stance on the subject.

First of all, being a "conservative" in Denmark means something completely different than the US term "conservative". They are - in fact - nothing alike. Denmark is a social-democratic country with a very high taxation and public welfare. Youths are PAID tuition to go to universities. Most of the danish social welfare system is also supported by the right. The danish conservative parties supports a continuous high taxation on work and goods.

Secondly, the support for climate awareness on the side of the danish right has been there for decades. You could hear voices as early as the 80's claiming that climate support and awareness is not a left wing issue. I have - personally - been saying the same thing since I started casting my vote in the 90s.

Nothing new under the sun, sorry.

448 firepilot  Tue, Sep 22, 2009 5:48:43am

You can count me as one of the frustrated people who does not understand why the GOP has ceded environmental issues to the left.

Whether one believes in global warming or not, there are so many other reasons to get behind energy conservation and wiser use of our own resources. And if we used less energy, recycled more, and wasted less, such issues like GW could pretty much solve themselves, without having to resort to draconian legislation like Cap and Trade. Plus look at how it results in less waste, less garbage, and a cleaner America for us all.

The GOP could do so much more to encourage energy conservation, from national security and economic standpoints, because less usage of oil, also keeps more money at home and gives less funding to people like Chavez, Putin and the Saudis. It just makes so much sense to encourage a smarter society that thinks before using, and spending that same money in other ways at home that result in a more prosperous America, rather than one that sends so much money overseas.

I am a Libertarian Republican (who goes to Burning Man too) that thinks before I buy. I try to purchase locally, to keep my money in the community whe possible. I try to find ways to buy in bulk to reduce wasteful packaging which then later has to also be disposed of at a cost. I conserve energy at home, and when I drive too. I would love to make more of my own foods, and to have a garden at home.

The Federal Government encouraged conservation and having victory gardens at home during WW2. But not now, for some stupid reason. They want to promote that the status quo can remain, as long as we continue to vote for them. Even if such conservation would result in a stronger, and cleaner America

449 Sharmuta  Tue, Sep 22, 2009 1:17:23pm

The Security Implications of Climate Change

For unfortunately, we are, more or less, consuming the planet.

In the last fifty years we have managed to erode a third of the world's farmable soil and despite ever increasing amounts of fertiliser, productivity per acre is reducing at a time when the demand for food is growing exponentially.

This is not helped by the fact that fresh water is becoming scarcer and many of the world's major rivers -- the Rio Grande, the Colorado, the Indus, Nile and the Murray Darling -- struggle to reach the sea. Currently, more than 80 countries (40 percent of the world's population) suffer from severe water shortages and the water from the Tibetan plateau, which goes to eleven countries (50% of the world's population) is already being contested by several countries -- nothing of course to what will happen in 2030, which is when the Tibetan Ice Shield will have melted.

450 jackflash  Tue, Sep 22, 2009 1:31:37pm

Well, Charles, I'm one who, even though I too have read a lot on this topic over the past few years, cannot find any actual "proof" of man's part in whatever warming will occur this century. I would expect that regression analysis using empirical data would help us figure this out, but apparently it hasn't. What I DO see is a lot of arm-waving by scientists and "policy analysts" who seem to have a financial stake in what governments do through taxation and legislation (like the solar power industry that is totally useless without subsidies from government). I'd like to see scientific proof regarding the percentage of temperature change due to anthropormorphic causes because, as an economist working for a regulatory agency, I'd like to apply cost-benefit methods to see how much money to direct at this problem. If you have evidence, peer-reviewed and supported, that man causes, say, 70% of the average temperature increase, we could use this to determine the effectiveness of our programs. But, as I say, I really haven't seen anything specific, just broad and vague statements like they put in the most recent IPCC report referring to "most" warming being due to man. No backup in the report, by the way.

Without strong scientific evidence and analytical support, this is just another yuppie environmentalist effort, raising the price of energy and other necessities, hitting the poor the greatest; not unlike the effort of "liberals" to raise the tax on gasoline to encourage conservation. When did liberals stop caring about the poor and working classes?

I worked in academia for years and saw this sort of "movement," poorly supported by data and analysis but still broadly supported, especially by departments looking for that grant money. I know this sounds pretty cynical, but I'm 60 and have seen this sort of thing come and go. Oh well...

451 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Sep 22, 2009 8:29:08pm

re: #450 jackflash

Well, Charles, I'm one who, even though I too have read a lot on this topic over the past few years, cannot find any actual "proof" of man's part in whatever warming will occur this century.

Then you really haven't looked very hard now have you?

[Link: www.aip.org...]
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

Hope that clears that up for you. Before you discount it, what is a Keeling Curve and where is that carbon coming from?

What is it going to do in the future?

[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]

The Keeling curves are direct evidence of US putting a lot more carbon into the atmosphere. We are already seeing the effects.

By what mechanism does it effect the atmosphere?

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

Read this, actually read this.

I would expect that regression analysis using empirical data would help us figure this out, but apparently it hasn't.

Not true at all. See the above links.

What I DO see is a lot of arm-waving by scientists and "policy analysts" who seem to have a financial stake in what governments do through taxation and legislation

Also not true at all. This is refuted by the links given.

(

like the solar power industry that is totally useless without subsidies from government). I'd like to see scientific proof regarding the percentage of temperature change due to anthropormorphic causes

So try actually reading the actual science. It isn't like we are hiding it from you... Check out those links.

because, as an economist working for a regulatory agency, I'd like to apply cost-benefit methods to see how much money to direct at this problem. If you have evidence, peer-reviewed and supported, that man causes, say, 70% of the average temperature increase, we could use this to determine the effectiveness of our programs.

Would you believe that this has been done? Please do read those links through. And as a physicist, I wish economists would shut the hell up about matters they know nothing about.

But, as I say, I really haven't seen anything specific, just broad and vague statements like they put in the most recent IPCC report referring to "most" warming being due to man. No backup in the report, by the way.

Then reading through those links will make you feel better.

Without strong scientific evidence and analytical support, this is just another yuppie environmentalist effort, raising the price of energy and other necessities, hitting the poor the greatest; not unlike the effort of "liberals" to raise the tax on gasoline to encourage conservation. When did liberals stop caring about the poor and working classes?

Please do spare me the nonsense political rant. If you want actual data, do please I beg you look at those links. Also, since when is helping the poor a bad thing?

I worked in academia for years and saw this sort of "movement," poorly supported by data and analysis but still broadly supported, especially by departments looking for that grant money. I know this sounds pretty cynical, but I'm 60 and have seen this sort of thing come and go. Oh well...

If you worked in academia at all, you would know that the grant money - particularly from the last administration that tried to bury AGW research was not driving any bias. If you actually worked in academia, you would know not to ever accuse any scientist of cooking his books without rock solid proof. If you worked in academia at all, you would know that if this were false, it would have been shot down years ago.

Read the actual science. It has been given you from kosher sites.

452 Wondering Aloud  Wed, Sep 23, 2009 6:16:59am

Re ludwigs post 451

You have a very strange idea about what constitutes direct evidence.

I read the "actual science" and sadly the all too often pseudo-science from Mann to Steig etc that people pretend is science. Reading the science is not about what is published but rather about what is correct and hasn't drawn BS unwarranted conclusions from undocumented data and processing methods predisposed to create the desired result.

Your statements about the previous administration burying AGW research is just silly. Funding increased by more than an order of magnitude. And a lot of truly stupid model based rubbish got funded as if it actually had some relation to the real world.

Meanwhile, real experimental scientists have to tiptoe around to make sure their data in the real world doesn't accidentally disprove some BS model or they lose there funding. No bias there... tell that to Reg Newell or a hundred other scientists I could name but won't because they are still alive and trying to earn a living. There is a reason why so many of the worlds top emeritus types are skeptics.

Some folks asked earlier about how much temp change the CO2 change should cause. If CO2 concentration is the only change, I get about 1 degree F in the last century plus, with future increase if the C02 continues to rise unstopped of about another 1 degree F total. All the catastrophic scenarios assume huge positive feedback effects within the environment. This is an idea that is not supported by the history of the planet and that is not evident in the data which to date suggest these effects are small and likely slightly negative.

453 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Sep 23, 2009 1:49:50pm

re: #452 Wondering Aloud

You have a very strange idea about what constitutes direct evidence.

How is that, QM tells us that CO2 is a GHG and that it must get warm when hit with certain types of light. I then show that CO2 concentrations have gone up dramatically in the atmosphere - caused by us, and that the Earth is indeed warming. Before you quibble about the complications of the system, you have to understand the basic mechanisms involved.
This is the mechanism and it is simple. We can get into feedbacks later.

I read the "actual science" and sadly the all too often pseudo-science from Mann to Steig etc that people pretend is science. Reading the science is not about what is published but rather about what is correct and hasn't drawn BS unwarranted conclusions from undocumented data and processing methods predisposed to create the desired result.

Your statements about the previous administration burying AGW research is just silly. Funding increased by more than an order of magnitude.

Excuse me? That is just living in a dream world. The truth is that the previous Administration tired to have climate scientists fired and gutted the EPA. It had reviewers edit science released.

Check out this link from MIT

[Link: web.mit.edu...]

Also, if this contention were true, you would have to argue that Bush was behind all of the funding bias you claim existed. That would make Bush a bigger AGW supporter in a secret conspiracy than Gore. Do you believe that?

And a lot of truly stupid model based rubbish got funded as if it actually had some relation to the real world.

And what makes the models stupid? Do please tell us in substantive terms. Refute the mathematics. Refute the physical assumptions that go into them. You do not know the first thing about modeling or the math or the coding or the physics to say a damn thing. Prove me wrong by saying something of meaning.

Meanwhile, real experimental scientists have to tiptoe around to make sure their data in the real world doesn't accidentally disprove some BS model or they lose there funding.

That is a lie. One look at the papers will show otherwise.

454 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Sep 23, 2009 2:01:11pm

re: #452 Wondering Aloud

Continued...

No bias there... tell that to Reg Newell or a hundred other scientists I could name but won't because they are still alive and trying to earn a living. There is a reason why so many of the worlds top emeritus types are skeptics.


Utter bullshit. In the eighties, there were thousands of legitimate skeptical papers, that dropped to some tens in the nineties because of the data coming in. Science worked exactly as it should have. The only problem for you is that Mother Nature did not agree with your polical dogma.

Some folks asked earlier about how much temp change the CO2 change should cause. If CO2 concentration is the only change, I get about 1 degree F in the last century plus, with future increase if the C02 continues to rise unstopped of about another 1 degree F total.

And how do you get that... Is this an average global temperature? Did you do it without making any models - I know you hate those... Please do share your calculation... The only thing I get more annoyed at than stupid deniers, is stupid deniers who pretend to be scientists. If you knew even the first thing about science you would have something to back you silly claims up with.

All the catastrophic scenarios assume huge positive feedback effects within the environment.

Albedo loss is not real? Can you explain to me how the absorption properties of ice are the same as for water? The only way that there could not be a feedback from this would be if snowy ice and water had the same optical properties. Yet, snowy ice is white and water is not... So from direct observation, they are different, and then by direct conclusion, the less ice you have the greater the feedback, because the water reflects less light.

Now this is just ONE of many feedbacks. To come out and deny it only proves you are not only stupid, but that you also don't know even 5 year old science facts.

This is an idea that is not supported by the history of the planet and that is not evident in the data which to date suggest these effects are small and likely slightly negative.

Also utterly false. The Earth has gone through great changes in the past precisely because there are such large and non-linear feedback mechanisms. The suns' output is very stable overall. The fluctuations in power output are tiny fractions of one percent. The orbit is very stable. Again variations are tiny fractions of a percent. For those things to have ANY noticeable effect, the Earth must have many feedbacks. Our industry is driving the present one.

455 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Sep 23, 2009 2:03:44pm

re: #452 Wondering Aloud

PIMF

I read the "actual science" and sadly the all too often pseudo-science from Mann to Steig etc that people pretend is science. Reading the science is not about what is published but rather about what is correct and hasn't drawn BS unwarranted conclusions from undocumented data and processing methods predisposed to create the desired result.

That should have been in block quotes. Also, you clearly, very clearly do not read any of the actual science... Otherwise you would not write such crap.

456 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Sep 23, 2009 3:03:54pm

Why headcase, don't stealth ding, come out and play...

457 jackflash  Wed, Sep 23, 2009 10:36:37pm

re: #451 ludwigvanquixote

I finally got some time to write a response to this note (my boss has other ideas for how I spend my time). I was actually looking forward to looking at your links, Ludwig (you don't midn if I call you Lud, do you?), because my inability to find actual proof of the relationship between our CO2 emissions and increasing temperatures worries me, given that so many (including our beloved Charles) seem to believe that "most" temperature increase is anthropogenic. You promised your links would provide me that proof (the missing links?).

I invite all with questions in this area to review Lud's submitted links in his note #451, repeated here:

[Link: www.aip.org...]
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]
[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

These links give a good example of what I've been up against in my inquiry over the past 5 or 6 years. Good Grief! These are either articles or collections of articles, not papers. These are popular treatments designed for the layman, and they specialize in broad statements with out a lot of detail. Where are the regression analyses I asked for (and you promised me, Lud)?? The most academic papers I found in your links were the bibliography included at the gfdl.noaa site, and they're all at least 10 years old! Isn't there anything more recent? And all they have are some complex climate models using assumed parameters instead of empirical data (some measured data from controlled lab experiments was used, but nothing from the actual environment was used in these papers).

I have run across some attempts to measure anthroporphic impacts on temperatures, but the diagnostics on the estimated explanatory coefficients were horrible - t-scores about 1.2 or so, clearly insignificant. A couple of "invited" papers tried to give regression results without disclosing the diagnostic values, and I can only assume they were so bad that the authors didn't want to draw attention to their inability to use these regressions to prove their points.

These links are just arm-waving exercises with little actual proof. And please, Lud, don't throw stuff like the IPCC reports at me - I've read them all, including those assumption-driven sad papers they relied on for their over-broad conclusions in their slick Executive Summaries.

Really, Charles, are these sorts of things you use to support your belief that man-made CO2 is responsible for "most" of the observed increase in temperature? Maybe you can point me toward some reliable, empirical analysis - our dear physicist friend, Lud, doesn't seem to know where to find any. Jack

458 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:19:38am

re: #457 jackflash

You promised your links would provide me that proof (the missing links?).

Well they do... but of course you would have to actually read them first.

Consider the links from the American Institute of Physics... This gives a complete discussion of how me measure the Carbon and how the history of the field evolved.

[Link: www.aip.org...]

Sort of the seminal paper or at least one of them that laid this all out was.

SCEP (Study of Critical Environmental Problems) (1970). Man's Impact on the Global Environment. Assessment and Recommendation for Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. .

This too was in those links.

I invite all with questions in this area to review Lud's submitted links in his note #451, repeated here:


[Link: www.aip.org...]
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]
[Link: www.gfdl.noaa.gov...]
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

Please do look through these! PLease everyone actually read them. You will find the actual science!

These links give a good example of what I've been up against in my inquiry over the past 5 or 6 years.

What? The truth?

Good Grief! These are either articles or collections of articles, not papers. These are popular treatments designed for the layman,

No these are scientific links from actual people in the field designed to explain to the Layman - like you. Please don't pretend that you know the science. Your ignorance has shown through in too many places.

and they specialize in broad statements with out a lot of detail.

Excuse me... You really didn't look at the AIP links at all did you... Each of those articles as you put it is hyperlinked to essentially a history of the entire field.

Where are the regression analyses I asked for (and you promised me, Lud)??

And I actually happen to know what a regression analysis is. Do you? How does that apply in whatever case you are referring to? You see, you managed to fail a little test. Had you actually looked at one of the links posted, you would have found that really the only place where such language made sense to use was addressed.

Here is a more direct test to point out how you really are just fronting.

What exactly do you mean by a regression analysis... As applied to what data set? Be specific. I get very tired of frauds like you using big words that you do not understand.

459 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:35:38am

re: #457 jackflash

Continued...

The most academic papers I found in your links were the bibliography included at the gfdl.noaa site, and they're all at least 10 years old! Isn't there anything more recent?

Ummm perhaps you could have looked at the bibliographies... Is that really too hard...

[Link: www.aip.org...]

There sure seem to be about 200 papers listed there. I guess you missed that during your exhaustive reading... I really do hate liars like you. But what I hate more, is stupid liars like you who pretend to have knowledge when you do not, and then think that you are going to snow anyone with your grandstanding or ignorance.

And all they have are some complex climate models using assumed parameters instead of empirical data (some measured data from controlled lab experiments was used, but nothing from the actual environment was used in these papers).

And that just proves that you didn't read any of those either. Would you mind lying less please?

I have run across some attempts to measure anthroporphic impacts on temperatures, but the diagnostics on the estimated explanatory coefficients were horrible - t-scores about 1.2 or so, clearly insignificant.

What sort of bullshit is this... Do elaborate for us would you?
You know I am actually going to call you on it when you write bullshit like this right? Well, you had the balls to bring it, so OK what do yu mean by that? Do once again explain the math you do not understand and then supply a reference or two... Good luck! Have fun storming the Castle!

A couple of "invited" papers tried to give regression results without disclosing the diagnostic values, and I can only assume they were so bad that the authors didn't want to draw attention to their inability to use these regressions to prove their points.

Ohhh do please do show us how you know what the big words you are using are. Please rather than just frothing tell me great one, how does the regression analysis of (some paper you have not named) apply to what was given? You are such a fraud and such a pathetic one at that.

These links are just arm-waving exercises with little actual proof.

Really, you sure you looked at them?

And please, Lud, don't throw stuff like the IPCC reports at me

I didn't.

- I've read them all,

No that would be a lie.

including those assumption-driven sad papers they relied on for their over-broad conclusions in their slick Executive Summaries.

That too would be a lie. You never read a damn paper on this in your life. At best you read a so called "skeptical" website promoted by politically motivated deniers. You know how I know this? I know this because you fail to recognize actual science when you see it, and your complaints are not scientific ones, but rather crap you recycled from such sites.

You see, if you were actually a scientist, who had a specific problem, you would come out with an argument that went along the lines of this data is problematic to that model because...

But you don't because you are yet another pathetic lying fool who thinks that fronting his bluster is the same thing as science.

So to wrap up dumbass, you don't mind if I call you dumbass do you? I mean I am sure you are used to it...

1. Explain your concern about regression analysis to the studio audience... Be specific. Do let's see if you know what that means...

2. Explain how you managed to miss all of that stuff that you said wasn't there, despite your claim of great expertise and having read these.

3. Please do not whine about needing the direct papers. You have a massive bibliography in the links to them. Also do not whine because you are not fooling anyone that you would understand them.

460 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:57:35am

Ahh the joys of blogging...

I now seem to have a following of folks who are trying to put the last word in on dead AGW threads...

I have decided to make a list of common trolls for them...

there are the:

1. I am a scientist, I have great expertise in this and I will now prove it by using big words I got from a propaganda site in the wrong order!

2. It is all just a model... I amy not know what model means, or how models are calculated or what goes into them, but I know it's bad! Don't ask me to explain! This was told to me by the great gods of the internet!

3. You want to take my SUV away you commie!

4. I've read all the papers, as the big words I am using in the wrong order plainly show! I do not need any more of your evidence!

5. Look at me! Look me! Please notice how brilliant I am! Please!!!

6. Regurgitation of debunked talking points.

7. I will not look that because it is written for lay people.

8. I will not look at that because it is too technical.

9. I will not look at that because like Playboy it will make me go blind!

461 jackflash  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 8:33:22am

re: #458 ludwigvanquixote

Oh, bother, and I really do have to go to work. Your response is so ad homenim (you repeatedly call me a liar without specifying what my lie is) and general (just read all of these academic papers at these links and you'll see the "truth") that I'll just hit some of the high points.

You say: "And I actually happen to know what a regression analysis is. Do you? How does that apply in whatever case you are referring to?" First, I'm a professional economist and statistician and have been using regression analysis since the early 1980s. If you know this method, I can't believe you don't know how the diagnostic tools are used. Maybe you've just forgotten (when did you leave school? If you don't use this stuff, it just leaves the brain). The t-score measures the significance of the particular explanatory variable in the regression. When the t-score is below about 2, the coefficient for that variable loses its explanatory value, so even if it's positive, it doesn't explain much.

So, if I were trying to prove that emissions of CO2 by man raise temperatures, I'd try a regression of the form: T = f(x,y,z)
which simply says observed temperatures (T), for each time period (yearly, monthly, or whatever, as disaggregated as I can find) is a function of the observed levels of various levels of the explanatory variables I think affect temperatures. The f(x,y,z) represents the general functional form of the explanatory variables, bus since you know what regressions are, you know that. These variables would include CO2 levels, both anthropormorphic and natural (apparently the anthropormorphic variable is between 8% and 28% or the total, depending on the source of the data) as well as other effects such as sun activity, some measure of water vapors, and whatever other effects for which I have reliable measurements for those time periods.

The results of the regression should tell me which variables are positive and significant and thus push temperatures higher, and which variables are not significant in explaining temperature movements. The few attempts I've found using this method have not found the anthropormorphic CO2 variable to be significant (the t-scores have always been lower than about 1.2, saying that its variance around its extimated value is so great that we cannot reject the hypothesis that it is, in fact, zero). In fact, both CO2 variables are found to be insignificant. Usually the sun variable is pretty good, as is the vapor variable. But that's it. And these results are bad for those trying to show that CO2 moves temperatures in the observed climates.

So, Lud, please point me to the paper (or papers) that give us better regression results, using actual observed data instead of assumption-laden models based on lab results. Don't just say "here's a list of papers - read all of them, and if you can't find the answer, I'll give you another list of papers." And don't give me a 1970 (!) book that you probably read as an undergraduate!

And try to stop insulting people who are only asking questions. If you don't know the answer, just say so. And if Charles ever looks at this thread again, I hope he can help. Jack

462 iceweasel  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:31:33am

re: #460 LudwigVanQuixote

I would answer but I'm laughing too hard to type. Favourited.

463 iceweasel  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:35:11am

re: #461 jackflash

Oh, bother, and I really do have to go to work. Your response is so ad homenim (you repeatedly call me a liar without specifying what my lie is) and general (just read all of these academic papers at these links and you'll see the "truth") that I'll just hit some of the high points.

Yeah, what's with these so-called scientists insisting that you need to, like, read stuff, in order to fully understand a complicated debate? Sounds commiesexshul to me.

If it's really important and true, why can't it be put in an abtract of 250 words or less, and published in a reputable place like Reader's Digest? Answer us THAT, smart guy LVQ!

464 Gus  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:39:00am

re: #463 iceweasel

Yeah, what's with these so-called scientists insisting that you need to, like, read stuff, in order to fully understand a complicated debate? Sounds commiesexshul to me.

If it's really important and true, why can't it be put in an abtract of 250 words or less, and published in a reputable place like Reader's Digest Newsmax? Answer us THAT, smart guy LVQ!

FTFY

//Alternatively: Human Events or the Moonie Times

465 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:42:46am

re: #461 jackflash

Oh, bother, and I really do have to go to work. Your response is so ad homenim (you repeatedly call me a liar without specifying what my lie is) and general (just read all of these academic papers at these links and you'll see the "truth") that I'll just hit some of the high points.

Uhh the lie is that you know anything about climate science or physics. The lie is that you have actually read any of the literature or would understand it if you had.

You say: "And I actually happen to know what a regression analysis is. Do you? How does that apply in whatever case you are referring to?" First, I'm a professional economist and statistician and have been using regression analysis since the early 1980s.

In in other words not a scientist.

If you know this method, I can't believe you don't know how the diagnostic tools are used.

Oh but I do which is why it was so shocking when you failed to see how the curves in the Princeton link were generated. The papers are all there. They do detail their methodology. In other words, you just don't know shit and you didn't really look.

I mean weren't you the idiots who crashed the economy?

So, if I were trying to prove that emissions of CO2 by man raise temperatures, I'd try a regression of the form: T = f(x,y,z)
which simply says observed temperatures (T), for each time period (yearly, monthly, or whatever, as disaggregated as I can find) is a function of the observed levels of various levels of the explanatory variables I think affect temperatures. The f(x,y,z) represents the general functional form of the explanatory variables, bus since you know what regressions are, you know that. These variables would include CO2 levels, both anthropormorphic and natural (apparently the anthropormorphic variable is between 8% and 28% or the total, depending on the source of the data) as well as other effects such as sun activity, some measure of water vapors, and whatever other effects for which I have reliable measurements for those time periods.

And if you knew anything at all about the math you would know that you can not find such a function. You are constrained to use a system of linked non-linear partial differential equations and numerically evolve the system. This is because no analytical solutions have been found. The only regressions that make sense are in fitting trends to the data that we have observed.

You see I drew this out of you to prove you don't know shit. And, you just did.

Really wasn't it guys like you who said the market would keep going up and up?

Don't just say "here's a list of papers - read all of them, and if you can't find the answer, I'll give you another list of papers." And don't give me a 1970 (!) book that you probably read as an undergraduate!

Uhhh asshole, you were bitching that the actual papers were not mentioned. Now I have shown they were given to you and you are bitching again


And try to stop insulting people who are only asking questions.

You aren't asking anything. You are pronouncing stupid right wing talking points and displaying stupidity and ignorance.

If you don't know the answer, just say so.

Ohh but I do know the answers... That's because unlike you the math I use applies to the real world and not the silly constructs of Wall Street. Wait you guys messed up in 89 too...

466 iceweasel  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:47:06am

re: #465 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh but I do know the answers... That's because unlike you the math I use applies to the real world and not the silly constructs of Wall Street. Wait you guys messed up in 89 too...


I mean weren't you the idiots who crashed the economy?

HA!

oh god...stop, it huuurts.
Damn, you took the words right out of my mouth.

467 jackflash  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 12:43:45pm

re: #465 LudwigVanQuixote

Good grief, Lud, you responded to my post right away! Don't you work?

I have another couple of minutes. I have nothing to do with banking or finance. I analyze markets using econ and stat methods. Maybe that's not scientific enough for you. But I DO have one advantage - I recognize BS when I see it, especially when numbers are involved. That is what I see in the IPCC reports and their underlying papers and analyses.

As for your the "proof" you claim is in those links of yours, I still haven't seen any specific reference to a paper that deals with the direct cause of temperature rise by increased emissions. Nothing. Here's what your links show:

There's one that simply talks about the "history of climate change science," a cursory overview that just makes claims without girding it with academic papers. It's put there by someone working for AIP, another cheesy College Park firm aimed at consulting for the non-scientist. They apparently write well, but stay away from too much data and analysis.

There's the NOAA-related site, which is another overview site but includes references only to the usual closed, assumption-driven models, usually years old, but with no mention of any statistical connection between emissions and warming. I discussed one of those papers referenced, above. Where are the analyses using observed, measured changes showing this important connection.

Then there's the UC San Diego site (party!). It's a mess, throwing all the pretty pictures it could find onto the page, but once again it's just a cursory treatment.

All this leads me to the inescapable conclusion: These sites appear designed for undergraduate students in some survey course like History of Climate Change or some such. Is that your problem - you're still an undergraduate, which would explain why you're fixated on that old book from the MIT Press (1970! I was in college then. We did the first Earth Day, never dreaming this stuff would become a religion). It would also explain how you get time to read these blogs all the time.

You make the folling assertion: "And if you knew anything at all about the math you would know that you can not find such a function. You are constrained to use a system of linked non-linear partial differential equations and numerically evolve the system." Specifying a system of equations seems right, but there's no reason they need to be non-linear. But even if they were, you could certainly specify a system of several equations. I do that a lot in my own research. So why can't I "find such a function."? Your two sentences contradict each other.

Then you continue: "This is because no analytical solutions have been found. The only regressions that make sense are in fitting trends to the data that we have observed." This is exactly my point! (I apparently was not clear before - sorry.) No analytical solutions have been found! Your second sentence is right on, as well. When researchers have tried to fit trends to observed data, using regression analysis, their results have been at best inconclusive! Their explanatory variables have been shown to be insignificant in their power to move the dependent variable, temperature! This is my problem with all of these assertions that anthropormorphic CO2 emissions cause most of the observed climate change. Maybe they've misspecified these equations, maybe the measurements are unreliable, or maybe the climate systems are so complex that they cannot include all the important variables without getting all the statistical problems you usually get with large systems (feedbacks, autocorrelation, etc.). But that's no reason to throw up their hands and go all religious on us (Heretic! How dare you question the UN or NAS? Get a rope!).

Oops, gotta get back to work. Boss is looking nervous...

468 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 4:50:02pm

re: #467 jackflash

Ok so let's clear up a few things...

Would you believe that Einstein wrote the paper on Special Relativity in 1905?

Would you believe it is still true?

You asked for a paper that showed the links clearly between man made CO2 and warming. It turns out that the seminal paper on it, clearly showing links was:

SCEP (Study of Critical Environmental Problems) (1970). Man's Impact on the Global Environment. Assessment and Recommendation for Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Now I bought this because the summary of the science which is hyperlinked through with every reference you could want from the American Institute of physics was not good enough for you.

I also brought it because you were claiming the site did not have references and that you had looked through it thoroughly - and this the references...

Now you are pissed that it is from 1970... It is still true. It is not the only source and if you would actually take the time to read what was given
to you, you might be less of an ignorant blowhard.

Would you believe that the Absorption spectra of CO2 were first measured in 1896? Would you believe that that is also still true?

And please do not hand me any crap about undergraduate texts. It is not as if you would understand a professional paper on the subject. But just to mollify you...

Here is some reading for you...

This paper from PNAS has been sited 127 times. It explains all there is to know about human forcing, what to look for and how to project tipping points.

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

This paper covers accelerations in Global sea level rise.

[Link: people.uncw.edu...]

Now you can try to read these. You do not know either enough math or physics to understand them, but please spare us both some bullshit about how you don't think they are true unless you can bring the math or the data. We both know you can not.

Then you continue: "This is because no analytical solutions have been found. The only regressions that make sense are in fitting trends to the data that we have observed." This is exactly my point! (I apparently was not clear before - sorry.) No analytical solutions have been found!

This is precisely why you are an idiot and hence unqualified to even begin to talk about the math. Do you think that all things need a closed form analytical solution to be valid or extract information... Hmmm ... What is a Taylor series? Surely you have heard about representing functions as series expansions... Surely you know that this is useful and accurate to arbitrary accuracy provided you calculate enough terms... Right? A brilliant economist of your stature should remember elementary calculus yes?

So in light of reminding you of this phenomena, would you tell me why you can not extract information from something that you do not have a closed analytical form for?

Now to be fair, what is really going on in the models is something even more basic than a Taylor expansion... Do you remember the definition of a Reimann integral? Something to do with adding up differentials yes? Do you believe in the Fundamental theorem of calculus?

So that said, What is wrong with propagating a differential system? It is little different than integrating. The fact that you don't get this and have made the objections you have only shows you do not know math. In fact, it proves to anyone who actually does know math just how much of a pathetic twit you are to claim such an objection in the first place.

Let me dismiss your dismissals of UCSD and Princeton and NOAA and AIP by merely saying you continue to refuse to read what scientists have neatly laid out for you. It just means that you are an ignorant ass and proud of remaining so.

469 jackflash  Thu, Sep 24, 2009 9:15:58pm

re: #468 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh, for the love of Mike, Lud! I can't believe you're serious! And why do you continue to call people names? You really think that's going to bother an old guy like me? I hope you don't work in an analytical position for a living - ad homenim blasts when you're frustrated will get you fired, I hope you know.

You clearly have never worked with regressions - there are no "closed functional forms" in the applications (remember, Gauss-Markov is closed, but it's theoretical). And whatinell are you bringing up Taylor expansions for? Are you just going through your Calc I text looking for names to drop? These regressions don't lend themselves to Taylor in any event. All we're doing is building something like this:

Ti = a1 + a2X + a3Y + a4Z + ...
(although, of course, it's a lot more complicated with several simultaneous equations), where the Ti are temps over i periods, X, Y, and Z are explanatory variables (e.g., anthropogenic emissions of CO2, natural sources of CO2, levels of other pollutants, sun activity, lags of other variables, whatever you think are influencing temp levels); a1 is the scalar (i.e., constant) to be estimated in the regression, and a2 through an (can we do subscripts with this thing? I don't think we can...) are the coefficients of the explanatory variables to be estimated by the regression. Of course there would be several equations estimated simultaneously (like, for example, if you thought Y was a function of other variables not mentioned in this first equation, you'd put that in there), and you could also make the statistical program manipulate the variables to reflect any non-linear assumptions you have about them. The point is that this is not a closed form of anything - that just wouldn't make sense. And Taylor expansions are so far removed from this process...I still don't see how you thought they were germane at all.

I'm still waiting for a discussion of this methodology in some refereed, academic paper in something legit like The Journal of Atmospheric Science or even Nature. Your most recent attempt at a reverence was that invited paper for the PNAS (the "Tipping Elements..." piece), but that was just some survey paper: not refereed and not even a speck of original research - at least in Economics survey papers have a short section of the author's original data and analysis. And look at how many hungry academics signed on! Seven!! They must need to pad their CVs, even by such thin stuff. And, once again, all they talk about are those models driven by assumed parameters. Lots of pretty pics, tho.

But I'm starting to believe you just don't have much experience with this sort of analysis, Lud, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can't seem to understand what I'm looking for - results that use observed, time series data showing how anthropogenic CO2 moves temps. Maybe this sort of analysis will be forthcoming, and I can advise my boss (I work for a regulatory agency) about the relative costs and likely impacts of capping or taxing emissions. Until then, I'll be a skeptic.

But if we need someone to do a Taylor expansion some day, Lud, I'll know who to call. Aloha. Jack

470 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 9:49:00am

re: #469 jackflash


You clearly have never worked with regressions - there are no "closed functional forms" in the applications (remember, Gauss-Markov is closed, but it's theoretical). And whatinell are you bringing up Taylor expansions for? Are you just going through your Calc I text looking for names to drop? These regressions don't lend themselves to Taylor in any event. All we're doing is building something like this:

No on the contrary. We've established that your "regression analysis" does not apply to the system at hand. The point about taylor series was that you do not need an analytical solution to something to get an answer, which was a point made on the way to propagating systems of equations numerically. You should not disparage opening elementary calculus books. It is clear you have forgotten it. If you remembered it, you would know how wrong you are. One of the joys of people like you spout knowledge they do not have is others who know the math get to laugh at you, and you are actually so arrogant that you think are going to convince anyone who actually knows the math. Right, the real math in the papers is a tad more complicated than just calculus. You are too ignorant to even see why what you are saying doesn't apply on even that level.

And Taylor expansions are so far removed from this process...I still don't see how you thought they were germane at all.

Because I was pointing out that it is possible to extract information from things you do not have a closed form for, and reminding you of an elementary example you should know of. I also made that point on the way to discussing propagating systems. Now, if you had read the papers ever (which you obviously haven't) you would know about propagating non-linear systems and you would also know about linearization routines, and you would see the analogy to Taylor series yet again in terms of the math that actually does get used. Now you have claimed to have read all the papers.. if you had, you would know what I am talking about. More proof really that you don't know a damn thing about the subject.


So before we get on to your ludicrous objections to the papers I gave you, please do remember that you are fooling no one. How many excuses can you come up with for "I will not read it?" What are you Goldielocks? This paper is too old, this is too new, this is too undergraduate, this is too survey, this has too many links... Yes I know, now you are going to go on about doubting that I am a physicist and all, and talk about me fooling people...blah blah blah. None the less, you should know the actual math. Permit me to direct you to some of what I am talking bout, and what goes into the real analysis of these issues.

So if you get this math, you get what I am talking about. You also need to know this math in order to work in this field. So let me give you a little introduction to the kind of math you need to worry about here. It is a bit more complicated than basic calculus, yet, the principles I was referring to still apply.


[Link: imamat.oxfordjournals.org...]

[Link: books.google.com...]

[Link: arxiv.org...]

[Link: adsabs.harvard.edu...]

471 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Sep 25, 2009 10:20:27am

re: #469 jackflash

As to the PNAS paper... Yes it was a survey paper that has been sited over 100 times. You really have no clue how academic papers work or what that means... Further, not having a shred of data... once again you have no idea how to read academic papers either. Did you perhaps check out any the 112 references in that paper that contain all the data?

Further, did you notice the supporting information appendix as to the mathematics involved?

[Link: www.pnas.org...]

Now as to wanting a paper from science or nature, well umm the second link I gave was from Nature... You seem to have missed that when you didn't read it either.

I really am tired now of these games with you Jack... You do not know the field, you refuse to even look at any of the arguments given, you claim to have understanding of mathematics, and yet, when it is proven to you that the math you are blathering about is not the point, you continue to make noise like some sort of decaying, gas filled, bladder.

If you wish to go on yet again... then please do, but you have been given more than enough that you refuse to look at. Your objections were answered multiply, and the connection, positive proof of human effects is contained within the links given - the many links you have been given.

If you truly do work for a government regulatory agency, then buddy,it is more proof that we need small government. The reason is that you are one of the more pig headed ones I have had to deal with. So please, stop pretending that you know the math, let alone the physics that is involved here. Take a deep breath and start learning the material at a layman's level.

Try the UCSD link. I know, you said PARTY when UCSD came up, I mean very clever of you - particularly since you like to whine about ad-hominems. Because you know all the scientists as UCSD are party animals who know nothing... But seriously, it is at your level and you might learn something.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 118 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 279 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1