Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 00:59:39

I think there are at least four steps to the question...

1) Is the Earth warming?
2) If yes, to what extent are the humans causing the Earth to warm?
3) If humans are a significant cause, what can be done to slow/stop/reverse the warming trend?
4) Of the things we can do to fix the problem, how much does they cost, and which are worth it?

I'm probably missing a step about whether the warming will be a net negative, and if so, how big of a negative.

I think just about everyone concedes 1 is yes, although there is disagreement over magnitude. 2 is maybe a little, maybe a lot. After that it gets sort of confusing.

If solutions dovetail with other positive steps like moving toward cleaner, renewable energy, or improved public transportation to enhance efficiency and reduce traffic, then those are sweet.

When you start getting into big taxes that could hurt our economy, please make sure the gains environmentally are both awesome and necessary. I'm most apprehensive about solutions that involve inhibiting the growth of the developing world. Lifting people out of poverty through economic advancement is a damn important thing, and it can be messy on the emissions front.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 03:12:41

If Erick Erickson and those dopes from RedState actually manage to get this liberal woman on the ballot in Indiana, I take back everything bad I've ever said about them. Between this and his recent rantings against birthers, he's really grown in my estimation.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 05:10:06

Well, the climategate thing was probably the result of a couple of things... folks that want to retain funding, and folks that percieve a blasé-ness (meaning, people being all "meh" about it because it won't effect them in their lifetime).

The ozone hole is still there and ain't getting smaller (last I read, it essentially encompasses Antartica and we're losing something like 4-5% of the atmosphere's ozone every decade or whatever). Actually, I should say holes since there's more than one (there's one over North America). We don't really hear anything about the ozone anymore. Dunno why, maybe it's because of that "not in our lifetime so who cares" thing. Don't know about you, but if any of us had a hole that's not supposed to be and wasn't there before, don't think that would reflect a picture of optimum health (likely means getting shot or stabbed or some sort of flesh eating infliction).

I am by no means a "save the planet" greenie (nowhere near). Personally, I think the earth is a lot less fragile than some think, and if/when people become too big of a problem for it, it'll just get rid of the cause (people). I think the earth is very forgiving and patient. It doesn't like fossil fuel, but it's patient, thinking we'll eventually figure out something better so it puts up with it. Perhaps a little like someone in an abusive relationship, patient and forgiving, they'll change. But sometimes that ends with a burning bed or a bullet. We won't destroy the earth. The earth won't let it go that far... it's not like mass extinctions haven't occurred before. Prolly not in my lifetime, so "meh".

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 09:09:42

dajafi wrote:But it seems like--and again, if I'm wrong, tell me--most/all the voices casting doubt on global warming have a clear and powerful financial incentive to do so.

But this is science. Particularly in politics, we are used to attacking sources when we don't like what we hear (or are skeptical). In science, it shouldn't matter, right? If it does matter in regard to skeptics, it should matter no less then in terms of proponents. Grants, documentaries, books, lectures, windmills, light-bulbs, data centers, buildings, oversight agencies, etc. There's a lot, lot of money wrapped up in climate change. The old money that's affected by regulation, and the new money that's affected by new industries.

Anyway, I've always been skeptical of the behavior of a lot of the proponents of global warming - why do they need to be so blustery and demanding? Why do they need to threaten skeptic's professorships and jobs? It's science, there should be nothing threatening about a skeptic - let them make their case. If they don't have a case, they don't have a case. Something just smells rotten about that behavior. I mean, do claims like "The science is settled!" ever stand for long without looking silly in the end?

I think this stuff about the data collection is going to have legs (but what do I know). The individuals leading the charge are respected professors, one of whom, John Christy, is on the "inside". He's a former lead author for the IPCC. The other, Ross McKitrick (economics professor from Canada) was invited to by the IPCC to review their latest report and responded with his own study concluding "with overwhelming statistical significance" that the IPCC's data is contaminated leading to a large warming bias.

Anyway, I didn't really intend to get into all of this. I just wanted to see if PTK's skepticism reached mainstream issues, or stuck to the under-belly of more secretive operations.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 11:50:49

VoxOrion wrote: The other, Ross McKitrick (economics professor from Canada) was invited to by the IPCC to review their latest report and responded with his own study concluding "with overwhelming statistical significance" that the IPCC's data is contaminated leading to a large warming bias.

it may be just me but an economics prof will have an extra hurdle to jump in gaining credibility for any position he takes on a 'hard science' controversy.

following the shifting labeling, 'global warming' is sputtering out (due to the ambiguous 'science'?) and climate change' is being ushered in.

As hard as it is to bring a concept like 'global warming' to the masses, imagine how elusive 'climate change' implications will prove to be.

my feeling is any movement that attempts to pillory an old warlock like Freeman Dyson is just begging to be at the wrong end of a karmic beat-down.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:21:19

So when Frank Lautenberg dies and costs the Dems their Senate majority, I think Rob Andrews' press release should simply be:

Hey Guys

Told you so.

Congressman Rob Andrews

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:51:13

jerseyhoya wrote:So when Frank Lautenberg dies and costs the Dems their Senate majority, I think Rob Andrews' press release should simply be:

Hey Guys

Told you so.

Congressman Rob Andrews

EDIT - I decided to go with No Comment instead.

by **Philly the Kid** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 13:12:50

VoxOrion wrote:Maybe, I don't know. People invested in the climate change thing are like tent revivalists and I'm not handling any snakes tonight for either side. I know there was this little discussed "climategate" incident and there's a new thing brewing where IPCC scientists are about to come out and discuss the poor placement of weather stations and all of the factors that may (or are, I don't know how far they'll go with it) be creating false data to show warming (for example, by being placed near industrial areas, urban areas, in locations that were farmland and were built up around, the large number of weather stations that were removed or are no longer operational, etc).

Which all seems like the kind of stuff that PTK is particularly interested in uncovering, so I want to know what PTK thinks.

I would be right up there with my usual cynicism and outrage, were I to find out that the entire Climate Change story was a massive conspiracy meant to provide Exxon with even more profits. But that's not how you are setting it up. You are posing that there could be some specious science, and exaggeration for unscrupulous agendas, and that a few lone voices and debunkers are getting ignored or worse...

In general, I'm against that, of course. I'd like the most honest information to flow - unfiltered and un-manipulated. I'm sure without even investigating that there are all kind of carpetbaggers seizing the issue for their own personal agendas and benefits. Anything that comes out that could slow or alter that might not be welcomed. Usually how this stuff works -- is that there are a few early scouts. They speak, no one listens, except a few -- in time more come on board, it gets momentum, until the bigger more powerful forces see the inevitable and appear to come along too, when really they are looking for a way to manipulate inevitable to their own advantage. (power greed control) I'm sure there are some researchers and scientists who aren't doing great work and have their own fiefdom and resist any criticism. But I don't think any credible scientist anywhere would contend that man's impact on the planet is so inconsequential, that it's not worth speaking about it or noting it.

Yes Vox, I'm an equal opportunity conpsiracy theorist, if tha'ts what you are trying to get at. But I do ask the all important question "who is behind this" ... and then who is trying to silence it, or discredit it. If in this case, it's just some honest do-gooders trying to call out some bad science or overly exaggerated, and there is no other agenda -- than I'd be with them, if they are credible.

by **TheBrig** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 13:18:43

The Nightman Cometh wrote:IMO the biggest threat here is falling even further behind in green technology. There are potentially millions of jobs there that we can't afford to let slip away regardless of how you feel about global warming.

Well, to be frank, there are also millions of jobs that would be lost in energy-intensive sectors. I don't think the "jobs" emphasis is a very good argument for green energy initiatives and climate change legislation in and of itself.

by **VoxOrion** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 13:49:08

drsmooth wrote:
VoxOrion wrote: The other, Ross McKitrick (economics professor from Canada) was invited to by the IPCC to review their latest report and responded with his own study concluding "with overwhelming statistical significance" that the IPCC's data is contaminated leading to a large warming bias.

it may be just me but an economics prof will have an extra hurdle to jump in gaining credibility for any position he takes on a 'hard science' controversy.

It may be just you, as the IPCC thought he weas good enough to invite to review the report. I would think an economist would be an execellent person to consult in terms of data analysis and statistics. No? His gripe has nothing to do with science, but with the data models used to track warming trends.

following the shifting labeling, 'global warming' is sputtering out (due to the ambiguous 'science'?) and climate change' is being ushered in.

As hard as it is to bring a concept like 'global warming' to the masses, imagine how elusive 'climate change' implications will prove to be.

my feeling is any movement that attempts to pillory an old warlock like Freeman Dyson is just begging to be at the wrong end of a karmic beat-down.

Dyson is great.

My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.

by **Bucky** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 14:05:18

Not sure if this belong here on in the TV thingy, but accidentally saw theAmerican Experience show about the Kennedy clan last night. Lots of stuff I didn't know.

I'm not sure if this is revisionist history, or just set up to glorify things, but one thing I "learned" is that Bobby Kennedy was key to many of the "good" historic decisions. For instance, he was allegedly the only cabinet member who didn't want to bomb Cuba when the missile crisis arose. Likewise, he may have been the only cabinet member to recommend proceeding with the equal rights bill. Everyone else thought it was too risky politically.

So what's the thinking amongst you guys- was Bobby the brains of the operation??

by **dajafi** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 14:43:18

Bucky wrote:Not sure if this belong here on in the TV thingy, but accidentally saw theAmerican Experience show about the Kennedy clan last night. Lots of stuff I didn't know.

I'm not sure if this is revisionist history, or just set up to glorify things, but one thing I "learned" is that Bobby Kennedy was key to many of the "good" historic decisions. For instance, he was allegedly the only cabinet member who didn't want to bomb Cuba when the missile crisis arose. Likewise, he may have been the only cabinet member to recommend proceeding with the equal rights bill. Everyone else thought it was too risky politically.

So what's the thinking amongst you guys- was Bobby the brains of the operation??

To take more recent examples of prominent Democrats, Bobby was interesting as a guy who began public life as Rahm Emanuel and gradually turned into Paul Wellstone.

He was the uber-pragmatist through the '60 election, but once JFK was in office he began to show a moralistic streak (in a good way, mostly) on questions like going after the mob and advancing civil rights. After his brother's assassination, that became a larger and larger part of his political identity; he turned against the war (of which he'd been a big early booster; both Kennedys were counterinsurgency geeks and generally enamored of "strength" and "toughness") in '66-'67, and became a crusader for antipoverty efforts even though he detested LBJ.

The reason people thought he had such great political prospects was because he retained appeal to the blue-collar Democratic constituency through '68--the voting bloc with which Nixon made big inroads and Reagan ultimately claimed--on emotional and ethnic grounds, but also had a foot in the New Democrat camp with the activists. What I don't think gets enough attention is the strong likelihood that, had he lived and won in '68, he would have taken actions that lost him one or both constituencies.

by **Philly the Kid** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 18:34:03

VoxOrion wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
VoxOrion wrote: The other, Ross McKitrick (economics professor from Canada) was invited to by the IPCC to review their latest report and responded with his own study concluding "with overwhelming statistical significance" that the IPCC's data is contaminated leading to a large warming bias.

it may be just me but an economics prof will have an extra hurdle to jump in gaining credibility for any position he takes on a 'hard science' controversy.

It may be just you, as the IPCC thought he weas good enough to invite to review the report. I would think an economist would be an execellent person to consult in terms of data analysis and statistics. No? His gripe has nothing to do with science, but with the data models used to track warming trends.

following the shifting labeling, 'global warming' is sputtering out (due to the ambiguous 'science'?) and climate change' is being ushered in.

As hard as it is to bring a concept like 'global warming' to the masses, imagine how elusive 'climate change' implications will prove to be.

my feeling is any movement that attempts to pillory an old warlock like Freeman Dyson is just begging to be at the wrong end of a karmic beat-down.

Dyson is great.

My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.

There is no doubt that in all circles, there are "hard core" zealots and lots of intolerance and non-objectivity. But more of that is associated with religious extremists, than with people whose goals are for a more clean planet or maintaining some balance with our planet. Just reported on evening news last night that in SF area and Nor Cal we are having the lowest salmon run in recorded history...

Now that there is a heightened global awareness, yes, people will fight to own territory, own technology, decide how to define priorities -- set policy. But no one is really disputing that we have problems. We've known this stuff for decades.

Anyone remember the old public service tv ad from the 70's with the old Native American guy on the side of the road with a tear coming down his cheek with all the pollution around him as the cars whiz by... I remember wearing my Earth Day pin on the first one. It didn't get built upon. We had awareness about what was up and where it was heading and instead we got Regan and the neo-cons, and bad Supreme Court justices and the corporations have made things worse and worse and the planet has never been more toxic, and it is having impact that no one can deny. Whether clear-cutting, bad famring practices, the use of combustion engine and fossil fuels, etc... we could have been investing in wind and solar and changing the consciousness -- I remember when cars got smaller and Datsun and Toyota took over the US-market after gas lines in '73...

Stay on the big picture. How will we change people's behavior and attitudes and expectations. And how will we reign in trans-nationals and profit for the sake of profit -- for the better good of mankind?! Not how will get better statistics and methods, and let's not forget to filter the loud climate-zealots.

That seems minor relative to the big picture.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 21:20:25

Apparently Palin and O'Reilly are currently having a conversation where the phrase "effing retard" is being used frequently.

Can't wait for it to hit the youtubes.

by **dajafi** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 21:45:20

Good WSJ piece on "what's wrong with the Senate":

The Senate is merely a symptom of the U.S. political system's larger dysfunction. The Senate is worth examining mostly because it is like a giant X-ray machine, allowing us to peer into the broader body politic to examine its broken pieces.
...
[T]he real issue here isn't the number of filibusters and cloture votes needed to stop them, but that there is so little common ground between the parties that the tactic is so easily employed.

After all, if there is a rough consensus on a matter, spanning the two parties in the center of the ideological spectrum, filibusters are a futile gesture. They are worth mounting only in a highly partisan, highly polarized environment.

And that's precisely the environment the nation—not just the Senate—has right now. This loss of common ground in the center is why filibusters matter.

There are multiple reasons for this evolution. The first is how senators view themselves. Veterans will tell you that there was a time when lawmakers thought of themselves as members of the Senate first, as representatives of a region of the country second, and only third as members of a party.

Today, the last has become first. The two parties' more-sophisticated machinery, the 24-7 news cycle and the blogosphere all combine to make lawmakers national party figures first, legislators second.
...
Perhaps most important, the band of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who stand in the ideological center of the Senate, providing a human bridge between left and right, has grown thin. As recently as the administration of the first President Bush, the Republican White House could often find support among a healthy contingent of Southern Democrats such as Sam Nunn of Georgia, and Howell Heflin of Alabama, while having to worry about whether liberal Northeastern Republicans such as John Chafee of Rhode Island and Jim Jeffords of Vermont would hew the party line.

The middle ground such senators represented is lonelier now, and a more polarized Senate the result.

What I wish he'd mentioned is that there's a relationship between the trend toward parliamentary politics and the evaporation of the center. Republicans didn't want to save Lincoln Chafee in 2006; Democrats aren't shedding many tears for Blanche Lincoln now. They're not perceived as good team players, and most followers of politics are all about the team these days.

by **drsmooth** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 22:07:51

VoxOrion wrote:
It may be just you, as the IPCC thought he was good enough to invite to review the report. I would think an economist would be an execellent person to consult in terms of data analysis and statistics. No?

You're perfectly welcome to invite an economist to do your bookkeeping or accounting. or your environmental science. I probably wouldn't.

I might give it more thought if we're talking about an econometrician. But probably not a lot.

I'd sooner go with Freeman Dyson

by **Bucky** » Tue Feb 16, 2010 22:16:06

dajafi wrote:
Bucky wrote:Not sure if this belong here on in the TV thingy, but accidentally saw theAmerican Experience show about the Kennedy clan last night. Lots of stuff I didn't know.

I'm not sure if this is revisionist history, or just set up to glorify things, but one thing I "learned" is that Bobby Kennedy was key to many of the "good" historic decisions. For instance, he was allegedly the only cabinet member who didn't want to bomb Cuba when the missile crisis arose. Likewise, he may have been the only cabinet member to recommend proceeding with the equal rights bill. Everyone else thought it was too risky politically.

So what's the thinking amongst you guys- was Bobby the brains of the operation??

To take more recent examples of prominent Democrats, Bobby was interesting as a guy who began public life as Rahm Emanuel and gradually turned into Paul Wellstone.

He was the uber-pragmatist through the '60 election, but once JFK was in office he began to show a moralistic streak (in a good way, mostly) on questions like going after the mob and advancing civil rights. After his brother's assassination, that became a larger and larger part of his political identity; he turned against the war (of which he'd been a big early booster; both Kennedys were counterinsurgency geeks and generally enamored of "strength" and "toughness") in '66-'67, and became a crusader for antipoverty efforts even though he detested LBJ.

The reason people thought he had such great political prospects was because he retained appeal to the blue-collar Democratic constituency through '68--the voting bloc with which Nixon made big inroads and Reagan ultimately claimed--on emotional and ethnic grounds, but also had a foot in the New Democrat camp with the activists. What I don't think gets enough attention is the strong likelihood that, had he lived and won in '68, he would have taken actions that lost him one or both constituencies.

Thanks. Interestingly enough, the show sort of portrayed that as sort of the arc of JFK during his term. Basically he grew into the job, his intellect and morals being shaped by early failures, most notable Bay of Pigs.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 03:45:26

jerseyhoya wrote:Apparently Palin and O'Reilly are currently having a conversation where the phrase "effing retard" is being used frequently.

Can't wait for it to hit the youtubes.

Connection to Rush Limbaugh's "There's going to be a retard summit at the White House" comment yesterday?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 09:48:23

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Apparently Palin and O'Reilly are currently having a conversation where the phrase "effing retard" is being used frequently.

Can't wait for it to hit the youtubes.

Connection to Rush Limbaugh's "There's going to be a retard summit at the White House" comment yesterday?

Rush makes everything special

by **Werthless** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:52:29

drsmooth wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:
It may be just you, as the IPCC thought he was good enough to invite to review the report. I would think an economist would be an execellent person to consult in terms of data analysis and statistics. No?

You're perfectly welcome to invite an economist to do your bookkeeping or accounting. or your environmental science. I probably wouldn't.

I might give it more thought if we're talking about an econometrician. But probably not a lot.

I'd sooner go with Freeman Dyson

An econometrician is generally an empirical economist. Many people don't really know what an econometrician is, as it isn't really a part of a layperson's vocabulary. I'm sure the economist that was used was quite familiar with econometrics, so I wouldn't get hung up on how he was labeled.

Archived

Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread