[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

then they must be replacing them, presumably with more intelligent republicans, given the latest rasmussen poll

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

I don't buy for a minute that you were trying to shed light on the motivations of the various scientists; nor do I think that you were trying to show the wide variety of different reasons that said individuals claim for their skeptics. 

You were trying to promote/popularize their ideas.

no, i was trying to show that there are learned men and women of different intellectual disciplines who disagree with the consensus - for one reason or another... as for factually incorrect information, we can all show charts and stats that promote our particular bias... the least an intellectually honest person can do is admit to such bias

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 2 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

then they must be replacing them, presumably with more intelligent republicans, given the latest rasmussen poll

Nate Silver did some great work showing that Ramusussen's polling results are consistently out of line with just about every other poll.

Andrew Sullivan has a simplified analysis here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-rasmussen.html

There's some good discussion available here:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv..._elites_ver.php

[PassedOut]

Interesting article in Politico about Pelosi corralling the votes the votes needed to pass Waxman-Markey: Chaos and arm-twisting gives Nancy Pelosi a major win

Quote

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passed by only 219-212, after an epic day replete with Republican ambushes, petty betrayals, hastily rearranged flights and disappearing acts.

Yet for all the apparent chaos, the action was commanded by a House speaker maneuvering with the urgency of someone who knew her reputation was on the line.

Despite Republican promises to punish battleground state Democrats for supporting a “cap and tax” plan, Pelosi and her fractious caucus passed their most serious test to date.

And whatever the fallout, aides say that both Pelosi and President Barack Obama now know that their majority can hold together — barely — when placed under withering pressure — which may bode well for the equally arduous trials on health care reform.

At the end of it all, Pelosi, who floated in and out of the House cloakroom all day, impossible to miss in an arctic-white linen pantsuit, gambled big and pulled off one of the most important legislative victories of her career, a win she views as a personal vindication, according to those close to the San Francisco Democrat.

“There’s no question about it,” Clyburn said after the vote. “She went back to her whipping days of old. She is an incredibly good whip. I’m trying to learn from her every day.”

Seems as though some democrats had to be strongly persuaded to vote for this first step because it did not go far enough (hope they will keep pushing for more). And, of course, there are always the delusional...

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 2 2009, 01:14 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

then they must be replacing them, presumably with more intelligent republicans, given the latest rasmussen poll

Nate Silver did some great work showing that Ramusussen's polling results are consistently out of line with just about every other poll.

you mean the rasmussen polls (or some of them) aren't the consensus? i seem to recall a decent result in the 2008 federal election polls

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jul 1 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

And, of course, there are always the delusional...

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jul 2 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

If it had been established that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere had the effect of releasing more heat into space rather than trapping heat -- and I contended nevertheless that pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air would cause global warming -- then yes, it would be fair to call me delusional. Hope that answers your question.

[luke warm]

nope, but thanks anyway

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 3 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Jul 1 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

And, of course, there are always the delusional...

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

If it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no impact on climate change, then it would probably be fair to claim the expression delusional applies to individuals (myself included) who argue in favor of sharply curtailing CO2 emissions to combat climate change.

So what?

[Winstonm]

Quote

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

It is noteworthy I believe to point out the frequency of your use of "thought exercises" in an attempt to create an aura of validity to the point for which you argue. It wasn't so long ago we had the thought exercise of (paraphrased here) suppose L.A. were to be bombed by a terrorist nuke would torturing the terrorist be a valid response? In either case, answering the question creates no new information and only serves to deflect attention away from facts.

I don't know if you use this technique due to your philosophical nature or if you believe misdirection to be a valid (and maybe it is - I don't know) debate tool. Regardless, I don't see how these constructs help lead to accuracy in our knowledge.

More to the point, I believe them to be an example of the lack of integrity in journalism that Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out and criticizing, that to our present "journalists" there are only two sides, the beltway Democratic viewpoint and the beltway Republican viewpoint, and the role of the journalist is not to determine truth but simply to "report" accurately the "spin" from each side - the modern stenographic approach to journalism.

In this twisted Ministry of Spin scenario, truth occurs when there is a bipartisan acceptance of the correct lie - and therefore we live with the whitewashing phrase "enhanced interrogation" while real reporters in other countries use its proper name: torture.

So in this sense I don't fault you for your beliefs - you seem to have chosen to believe the beltway Republican spin, which is pronounced by our corporate media as simply one "version" of the truth, not to be discounted or challenged but simply reported.

In this respect I agree with Richard - it is dangerous to allow this type of "spin" to go unchallenged; however, I do not care whether it is Republican lies or Democratic distortions. all must be brought to task for unsubstantiated claims.

And our best hope to reveal lies and uncover truth is an adversarial press. Unfortunately, we no longer have that in the U.S. And thus we muddle along with mass confusion created by orchestrated half-lies reported as "news", and all we have to do instead of think and analyze is simply chose whose "views" we are more comfortable with - almost as if truth had become nothing more than another phone-in vote on American Idol, subject to the whims of the brain-numbed masses.

[mike777]

The following points I read in some media reports. These may be biased sources so take them with a grain of salt. I have not read the bill.

1) Most of the permits will be given away in the largest corp. giveaway in history.
2) States are asked to put price controls on the permits which I would think would kill the anticarbon incentives.
3) EPA is banned from studying carbon produced by corn ethanol.
4) SMoot-Hawley type tariffs imposed on goods imported from countries that do note reduce their emmisions. This sounds like protectionism and calling for a trade war.
5) The goal of 17% reduction by 2020 is not binding and US greenhouse emmisions might not be reduced at all by this bill.

Just going back to the OP, I guess I have come to the conclusion one can be against this bill and not be a traitor to the planet.


"Paul Krugman views the 212 votes in the US House of Representatives against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill as a kind of treason: Betraying the Planet"

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 3 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

The following points I read in some media reports. These may be biased sources so take them with a grain of salt. I have not read the bill.

1) Most of the permits will be given away in the largest corp. giveaway in history.
2) States are asked to put price controls on the permits which I would think would kill the anticarbon incentives.
3) EPA is banned from studying carbon produced by corn ethanol.
4) SMoot-Hawley type tariffs imposed on goods imported from countries that do note reduce their emmisions. This sounds like protectionism and calling for a trade war.
5) The goal of 17% reduction by 2020 is not binding and US greenhouse emmisions might not be reduced at all by this bill.

Just going back to the OP, I guess I have come to the conclusion one can be against this bill and not be a traitor to the planet.


"Paul Krugman views the 212 votes in the US House of Representatives against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill as a kind of treason: Betraying the Planet"

In a starting development, Mike "All Taxes are wrong" 777, has found reason to complain about a new tax. In other news, day follows night.

Don't get me wrong: There is plenty to bitch about regarding this particular bill, and the compromises that proved necessary to get this passed. If I were judging this bill in isolation, I'd a lot to complain about. However, I see this bill as one step in a long, convoluted, and quite suboptimal process.

This sure isn't perfect - I've said for a long time that I prefer an outright carbon tax - but its certainly a step in the right direction.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 3 2009, 11:08 AM, said:

Quote

just a thought exercise question here - if it could be shown that man-made co2 has little or no bearing on climate change, would the word 'delusional' apply? if so, to whom?

It is noteworthy I believe to point out the frequency of your use of "thought exercises" in an attempt to create an aura of validity to the point for which you argue. It wasn't so long ago we had the thought exercise of (paraphrased here) suppose L.A. were to be bombed by a terrorist nuke would torturing the terrorist be a valid response? In either case, answering the question creates no new information and only serves to deflect attention away from facts.

then don't take part... aside from that, i never introduced such an exercise (if i'm mistaken, point me to it)... secondly, you sound as if you are philosophically opposed to such exercises when, imo, thought exercises are a necessary component of conspiracy theories... even so, i don't find it 'noteworthy' that you use them

as for the question itself, i have long admitted that we all approach certain things from within our own worldviews - we all have presuppositions... there have been many peer-reviewed papers stating that co2 has little or no bearing on climate change... i do *not* know how those papers have been accepted or the qualifications of those who either accept or don't accept their conclusions (the list of references is too daunting to delve into)... one paper, which to my knowledge hasn't been peer-reviewed, is here... another, which i *think* was reviewed, is here... another is referenced here

as i said, there is a lot of data on both sides and there is a lot of criticism of this data from both sides... we all have to rely on certain authorities, and the authorities we choose to rely on are those whose conclusions mirror our own presuppositions - why admitting that is such a problem for some is beyond me

having said all that, i would favor some action that honestly tried to move us away from the "dirtier" hydrocarbons as fuel sources - i just think there are better ways to do it

[mike777]

Please keep in mind while taxes as I said have the power to destroy, I have suggested taxes and increases in taxes for those who care to read my posts in full. Taxes are wrong does not equal no taxes. I do fear this bill is a step in the wrong direction for the reasons posted above. Granted many find it hard to vote against almost any tax increase.

[helene_t]

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jul 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jul 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

From a general believe that taxes while necessary; taxes in so many forms, destroy job creation and inhibit innovation and growth. From a general philosophy that putting economic and political power in the same pair of hands means a loss of freedom, too great a loss of freedom.

In general my top priority is jobs, jobs and more decent paying jobs.


OTOH Danes are the happiest people in the world so I do grant there is a another side worth discussing in this never ending debate.

Got to go to the fireworks and pops symphony, Happy 4th.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jul 3 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

About as productive (and mature) of a statement as "There are major philosophical differences on gun control between those who want thousands of innocent people to be shot and killed every year and those who don't."

[Winstonm]

Quote

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

The group that makes this distinction also tends to deny any scientific basis for evolution, believes that systemic torture as policy of the U.S. saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and agrees that the invasion of Iraq was the "right thing to do" because it brought "democracy" to the desert.

Quote

secondly, you sound as if you are philosophically opposed to such exercises when, imo, thought exercises are a necessary component of conspiracy theories... even so, i don't find it 'noteworthy' that you use them

Your repeated use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" as an insult is getting old - try to find a more mature insult than whispering "nutcase" with the boys in the back taking drags off one cigarette while all snickering with you in unison, won't you, please?

[Winstonm]

Quote

... we all have to rely on certain authorities, and the authorities we choose to rely on are those whose conclusions mirror our own presuppositions - why admitting that is such a problem for some is beyond me

It seems beyond your comprehension that there could be people without a politically-driven bias who simply would like to know the facts about global warming. I take exception to your statement - I believe the politically-guided person does not care about what the authorities say but really cares about what the political leadership has to say about which authorities are correct.

What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Jul 3 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 3 2009, 04:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

I find it amazing that so many people, both posters here and elsewhere, have so strong emotions about this issue. I can sorta understand that is can be difficult to have a constructive discussion about death penalty and abortion, but this issue seems to be even more hopeless. I wonder why.

probably because of the philosophical differences between people tho believe in big gov't and those who don't

About as productive (and mature) of a statement as "There are major philosophical differences on gun control between those who want thousands of innocent people to be shot and killed every year and those who don't."

fine josh, you attempt an answer

Winstonm, on Jul 3 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

Quote

secondly, you sound as if you are philosophically opposed to such exercises when, imo, thought exercises are a necessary component of conspiracy theories... even so, i don't find it 'noteworthy' that you use them

Your repeated use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" as an insult is getting old - try to find a more mature insult than whispering "nutcase" with the boys in the back taking drags off one cigarette while all snickering with you in unison, won't you, please?

the subject was thought experiments, not conspiracy theories... you criticize me for that which you do... it just seems a little inconsistent... btw, why did you throw out nuking LA as a thought experiment re: torture?

Winstonm, on Jul 3 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

Quote

... we all have to rely on certain authorities, and the authorities we choose to rely on are those whose conclusions mirror our own presuppositions - why admitting that is such a problem for some is beyond me

It seems beyond your comprehension that there could be people without a politically-driven bias who simply would like to know the facts about global warming. I take exception to your statement - I believe the politically-guided person does not care about what the authorities say but really cares about what the political leadership has to say about which authorities are correct.

What is beyond me is disregarding evidence because it conflicts with my political views.

fine winston, you have no presuppositions and no biases... my mistake... since you have no biases maybe you can tell me why you accept one 'evidence' over another