Opponents of Waxman-Markey

[PassedOut]

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

 

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

 

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

 

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

I think that it's fair at this point to say that those who still deny man-made global warming fall into two camps (with some overlap):

- people seeking personal gain of some kind by denying the truth, and

- the delusional.

 

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

I saw most of the "debate" too, and concur with Krugman's description. But I don't consider those who are simply delusional to be treasonous, even accepting Krugman's usage. (Treason is an apt label only for those simply seeking personal gain.)

 

It did make me quite sad to witness so starkly that so many delusional people have been elected to office. We really do need to fix the education system in the US. Otherwise we'll just keep getting more representatives with heads full of rocks.

[helene_t]

Agree.

[Trinidad]

It did make me quite sad to witness so starkly that so many delusional people have been elected to office. We really do need to fix the education system in the US. Otherwise we'll just keep getting more representatives with heads full of rocks.

Don't worry. The US are not alone in this. :(

 

Our democracies are in fact "representocracies". And representatives often rely on believes (or wishful thinking), because they aren't always able to interpret the facts.

One way to give the "facts" more power over the "believes" would be to blend a little more technocracy into the democracy. But the "representocracy" is against that.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

One way to give the "facts" more power over the "believes" would be to blend a little more technocracy into the democracy. But the "representocracy" is against that.

That's how it works. The level of education of the average parliamentarian is higher than that of the average voter. And politicians delegate power to civil servants and judges who are even higher educated.

[cherdanno]

The individual congressman in the US has a lot more power than an individual congressman in a system with proportional representation. Which might make his or her stupidity a bit more apparent.

[luke warm]

I think that it's fair at this point to say that those who still deny man-made global warming fall into two camps (with some overlap):

- people seeking personal gain of some kind by denying the truth, and

- the delusional

according to this wiki article, most scientists who are skeptical (from different countries and different disciplines) are so for different reasons... i've put a few quotes from some of the camps... this doesn't mean you are wrong, perhaps some or all of those on the wiki page have a dog in the fight, or perhaps all are delusional... why didn't you make the claim that some man made gw proponents are "seeking personal gain" or could be "delusional" as well?... probably for the reason i've given several times - we all (mostly) seek authorities who already share our views... in any case, i doubt you or i or anyone posting in this forum are in a position to know to what extent personal gain or delusion influences some

 

Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased

* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview) "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)

 

* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."

 

* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."

 

Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

# Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

 

# Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".

 

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

# Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

 

# Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."

 

# Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

 

# David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

 

# William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."

 

# William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."

 

# Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

# Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

 

# Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

 

# Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."

 

it's true that the (present) consensus favors man made gw, just as it's true that consensus does, sometimes, change (static state universe, anyone?)

[awm]

"[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview) "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)

 

This quote is a typical "moving target" sort of argument. Note how his reason for disagreeing with global warming keeps changing. First the earth has been "cooling down since 1940" then a few years later he admits there has been warming and questions the cause. Then he talks about changing consensus with the idea that it might change again. His reasons keep changing but the end result "do nothing about global warming" stays the same. This sounds very much like someone with an ulterior motive rather than someone who is analyzing the facts as he understands them. It's also questionable how much a professor of geography really knows about climate science (sure he could know something, but his academic qualifications aren't really indicative).

 

A number of the other quotes Luke Warm gives indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of what the science is saying. It's not claiming that we can predict weather on a local scale. Certainly we can predict global trends without having a "horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer." It's also not the case that temperatures will increase steadily everywhere -- in fact the proponents of global warming predict an ice age in Europe! It's the global "average temperature" that is rising.

 

Finally, the largest percentage of these quotes are from people who believe that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. This could be true, but even if it's mostly nature driving the process, that doesn't mean that warming will be a good thing for human civilization on Earth. Any contribution that we are making to the problem will make things worse. Just because more people die of cancer than gunshot wounds doesn't mean it should be legal for me to go around shooting people at random.

 

The cost-benefit tradeoffs have to favor doing something about this problem. Even if there is some non-negligible probability that climate science is wrong, look at our options:

 

(1) Do nothing about climate change. If the scientists are right, this will lead to a global catastrophe. Coastal cities will flood. Heat waves will kill millions. If the small minority who disbelieve in climate change are right, then by doing nothing we will save what I've recently seen estimated at $175 per household per year.

 

(2) Deal with the problem. Even if climate change is not a real problem, there are a lot of other energy-related issues such as running out of fossil fuels, pollution arising from the acquisition and burning of fossil fuels (i.e. oil spills and the like), and the fact that the USA gets a lot of our fuels from unstable regimes in the middle east. By "solving" this and encouraging renewable energy, we potentially solve all these problems plus avoid the possibility of catastrophic climate change. And all for a cost of a few hundred dollars per household per year... if that -- in the long run we may actually save money since once a large wind farm (for example) is built the cost of energy from that farm is much less than the cost of oil (the issue is the startup cost of building the windmills, but then, we have an awful lot of out of work construction experts these days).

[mike777]

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

 

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

 

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

 

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

I think that it's fair at this point to say that those who still deny man-made global warming fall into two camps (with some overlap):

- people seeking personal gain of some kind by denying the truth, and

- the delusional.

 

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

I saw most of the "debate" too, and concur with Krugman's description. But I don't consider those who are simply delusional to be treasonous, even accepting Krugman's usage. (Treason is an apt label only for those simply seeking personal gain.)

 

It did make me quite sad to witness so starkly that so many delusional people have been elected to office. We really do need to fix the education system in the US. Otherwise we'll just keep getting more representatives with heads full of rocks.

We must have watched different debates.

 

Basically what I saw was no debate or real discussion on what this Bill, if passed, will do. I saw little or no discussion if this bill will save or at least be a good first step in saving the planet. I heard the Speaker of the House say vote for jobs, jobs and more jobs.

 

I heard many Republicans and a few Democrats say with little or few facts that:

1) This bill will do nothing to really save the planet.

2) It will kill the economy.

 

I totally agree with the beginning of your quote:

 

"But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth."

 

 

At the very least debate what this bill would do and if one can vote against it because it stinks and does not work. But I suppose Congress would actually have to read the BILL first which I doubt anyone did.

[hrothgar]

"[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview) "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)

 

This quote is a typical "moving target" sort of argument. Note how his reason for disagreeing with global warming keeps changing. First the earth has been "cooling down since 1940" then a few years later he admits there has been warming and questions the cause. Then he talks about changing consensus with the idea that it might change again. His reasons keep changing but the end result "do nothing about global warming" stays the same. This sounds very much like someone with an ulterior motive rather than someone who is analyzing the facts as he understands them. It's also questionable how much a professor of geography really knows about climate science (sure he could know something, but his academic qualifications aren't really indicative).

Its also worth noting that the claim that "in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus" is incorrect.

 

Real Climate has a decent write up at:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

[luke warm]

It's also questionable how much a professor of geography really knows about climate science (sure he could know something, but his academic qualifications aren't really indicative).

you bring up good points, but there were plenty of disciplines other than geography amongst those who question the consensus... in any case, i don't see that passedout is justified in assigning motivation contrary to a search for truth to one group without doing so for the other

Even if climate change is not a real problem, there are a lot of other energy-related issues such as running out of fossil fuels, pollution arising from the acquisition and burning of fossil fuels (i.e. oil spills and the like), and the fact that the USA gets a lot of our fuels from unstable regimes in the middle east. By "solving" this and encouraging renewable energy, we potentially solve all these problems plus avoid the possibility of catastrophic climate change. And all for a cost of a few hundred dollars per household per year... if that -- in the long run we may actually save money since once a large wind farm (for example) is built the cost of energy from that farm is much less than the cost of oil (the issue is the startup cost of building the windmills, but then, we have an awful lot of out of work construction experts these days).

i agree with this, and can't understand why such an argument couldn't be made on its own merits... i suppose one reason has to do with china, india, and other emerging economies - ones that have no plans to succumb to what is perceived to be policies that will kill their economic growth

Its also worth noting that the claim that "in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus" is incorrect.

 

Real Climate has a decent write up at:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

maybe true, but also true is the statement that consensus within the scientific community changes - sometimes quickly, sometimes not

[cherdanno]

It is one thing to have doubts about climate change. But when the claim "climate change is a hoax" gets applause in the house of representatives (as Krugman claims), then that is indeed a sad moment for American democracy. Or politics as usual. Or both.

[jdonn]

I read the last two quotes. Neither claims that global warming isn't happening, or isn't being contributed to by humans, or isn't an important concern. All that they both claim is that natural factors are more important than human factors, or more important than previously thought. Neither of those claims (the same as made by most of the quotes) even support the opposition argument.

 

I can't be bothered to read any more of them.

[Mbodell]

You'll always be able to find people who believe the other side of any "issue". That doesn't mean there isn't scientific consensus. The scientific consensus on evolution is overwhelming. There are still many dozens of credentialed scientists who don't believe it. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who agree with the consensus for every one that disagrees. Climate change is similar.

 

As long as people who want to disbelieve evolution or climate change (or whatever other reality of the day doesn't match their beliefs) approach it by "Can I find 1 or 2 credentialed people who agree with me?" their minds will never be changed. If you are looking to confirm your own preexisting beliefs you are very likely to find success. If you are instead looking with an open mind into what is the consensus you will find that the scientific consensus is overwhelming that climate change is happening, man made activities are a significant part in this change, and that the climate change is likely to have catastrophic effects.

 

A place where consensus is a little less clear, though, is what to do about it. Should there be carbon taxes or cap and trade with auctions for permits or cap and trade with industry give away of permits or should the main thrust of the solution be post-carbon pollution and instead on technology and processes for scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere.

[helene_t]

..... that is indeed a sad moment for American democracy. Or politics as usual. Or both.

I vote for "both".

 

If someone makes a bold factual statement that is politically convenient, he will get an applause, no matter how obvious it is that the statement is absurd and/or that he has zip knowledge about the issue. I have seen it happen in moderate and left-winged organizations as well. Often.

 

Not that it is any excuse for congressmen to behave like that.

[hrothgar]

Its also worth noting that the claim that "in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus" is incorrect.

 

Real Climate has a decent write up at:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

maybe true, but also true is the statement that consensus within the scientific community changes - sometimes quickly, sometimes not

Which is completely beside the point:

 

Claims that global cooling was consensus in the 1970s are obviously and patently false. Anyone who has done a modicum of research knows that this is untrue.

 

Consequently, individuals who introduce this type of claim aren't engaging in honest discourse. They are are spinning for political effect.

[luke warm]

Its also worth noting that the claim that "in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus" is incorrect.

 

Real Climate has a decent write up at:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

maybe true, but also true is the statement that consensus within the scientific community changes - sometimes quickly, sometimes not

Which is completely beside the point:

 

Claims that global cooling was consensus in the 1970s are obviously and patently false. Anyone who has done a modicum of research knows that this is untrue.

 

Consequently, individuals who introduce this type of claim aren't engaging in honest discourse. They are are spinning for political effect.

that's your assertion, mine is that there's more than enough dishonesty to go around... i've rarely seen it mentioned that at the unesco sponsored 'symposium on climate change' in 1961 (held to address the threat to world food supplies posed by global cooling - full meeting minutes here) there was what i'd call a consensus of opinion by scientists concerning the cooling of the planet... this view continued through the 70s and led to the many 'coming ice age' articles and speeches

 

it's true that advances in scientific disciplines should be evident from one decade to another, but it would have been just as arrogant of scientists in the 60s and 70s to say the danger was imminent based on their level of understanding as it would be for scientists today... nothing man does will stave off an ice age (assuming one is coming) and nothing man does will stave off global drought... there may be, as adam said above, good reasons for legislation dealing with fossil fuels, but at least the case needs to be made on those merits

 

a world in which politicians make policy and base long-range economic judgments upon the scientific consensus of the day is just as scary as a world in which such consensus is ignored

[hrothgar]

Its also worth noting that the claim that "in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus" is incorrect.

 

Real Climate has a decent write up at:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

maybe true, but also true is the statement that consensus within the scientific community changes - sometimes quickly, sometimes not

Which is completely beside the point:

 

Claims that global cooling was consensus in the 1970s are obviously and patently false. Anyone who has done a modicum of research knows that this is untrue.

 

Consequently, individuals who introduce this type of claim aren't engaging in honest discourse. They are are spinning for political effect.

that's your assertion, mine is that there's more than enough dishonesty to go around... i've rarely seen it mentioned that at the unesco sponsored 'symposium on climate change' in 1961 (held to address the threat to world food supplies posed by global cooling - full meeting minutes here) there was what i'd call a consensus of opinion by scientists concerning the cooling of the planet... this view continued through the 70s and led to the many 'coming ice age' articles and speeches

 

it's true that advances in scientific disciplines should be evident from one decade to another, but it would have been just as arrogant of scientists in the 60s and 70s to say the danger was imminent based on their level of understanding as it would be for scientists today... nothing man does will stave off an ice age (assuming one is coming) and nothing man does will stave off global drought... there may be, as adam said above, good reasons for legislation dealing with fossil fuels, but at least the case needs to be made on those merits

 

a world in which politicians make policy and base long-range economic judgments upon the scientific consensus of the day is just as scary as a world in which such consensus is ignored

In case it wasn't clear, the comment about not engaging in honest discourse was directed as much at you as the professor that you quoted.

 

In all seriousness, do get paid to pollute this newsgroup with all your crap? You don't contribute anything of note other than echoing the Fox talking points d'Jour.

 

(For the record, I just scanned all of your postings dating back to last Thanksgiving. I haven't found a SINGLE post in any forum other than the Watercooler. Any idea when you might have posted anything that was even peripherally realted to, oh, say bridge????)

 

Seems appropriate to (once again) close with the following quote

 

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/cl...tive-fallacies/

 

Come to think of it, there’s a certain class of rhetoric I’m going to call the “one way hash” argument. Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. A one-way hash is a kind of “fingerprint” for messages based on the same mathematical idea: It’s really easy to run the algorithm in one direction, but much harder and more time consuming to undo.  Certain bad arguments work the same way—skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID afficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples: The talking point on one side is just complex enough that  it’s both intelligible—even somewhat intuitive—to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. (If it seems too obvious, perhaps paradoxically, we’ll tend to assume everyone on the other side thought of it themselves and had some good reason to reject it.) The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it’s really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is “snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems” vs. “rebuttal I probably don’t have time to read, let alone analyze closely.”

 

If we don’t sometimes defer to the expert consensus, we’ll systematically tend to go wrong in the face of one-way-hash arguments, at least outside our own necessarily limited domains of knowledge.  Indeed, in such cases, trying to evaluate the arguments on their merits will tend to lead to an erroneous conclusion more often than simply trying to gauge the credibility of the various disputants. The problem, of course, is gauging your own competence level well enough to know when to assess arguments and when to assess arguers. Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect,  those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don’t know enough to know that they don’t know, as it were.

[PassedOut]

..... that is indeed a sad moment for American democracy. Or politics as usual. Or both.

I vote for "both".

 

If someone makes a bold factual statement that is politically convenient, he will get an applause, no matter how obvious it is that the statement is absurd and/or that he has zip knowledge about the issue. I have seen it happen in moderate and left-winged organizations as well. Often.

 

Not that it is any excuse for congressmen to behave like that.

Yes, this type of thing is not only found among right-wingers, and I've certainly seen it elsewhere too. But in the US these days it seems that the republicans are hell-bent on forcing anyone capable of reason out of the party.

 

What bothers me most is that voters here are so poorly educated that politicians who do this kind of thing can be elected.

[y66]

I saw this chart by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies on Paul Krugman's blog recently.

 

I don't see how anyone can be smug about this problem or about the urgency of tackling the part of it that we can do something about.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

 

Figure 1 above. Left: Annual-means of global-mean temperature anomaly Right: Global map of surface temperature anomalies, in degrees Celsius, for 2008.

 

The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980). Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of tropical temperatures, La Niña being the cool phase.

 

...

 

Summary: The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.

About GISS

 

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies is located in the Morningside Heights-Columbia University neighborhood of New York City, at the corner of West 112th St. and Broadway. Our building, officially Columbia University's Armstrong Hall, is shown at right above.

 

If you watched the TV program Seinfeld, you may recognize our corner from the exterior shots of the diner where Jerry and friends hang out. The restaurant is Tom's Restaurant, and GISS occupies five of the building's seven floors. Four blocks up Broadway is the main entrance to the Columbia University campus, while a block east on 112th St. is the West Front of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine.GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center's Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC's Sciences and Exploration Directorate. The institute was originally established in May 1961 by Dr. Robert Jastrow to do basic research in space sciences in support of Goddard programs. Much of the institute's early work involved study of planetary atmospheres using data collected by telescopes and space probes, and in time that led to GISS becoming a leading center of atmospheric modeling and of climate change.

 

Current research, under the direction of Dr. James Hansen, emphasizes a broad study of Global Change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales (from one-time forcings such as volcanic explosions, to seasonal/annual effects such as El Niño, and on up to the millennia of ice ages) and affect the habitability of our planet. Program areas at GISS may be roughly divided into the categories of climate forcings, climate impacts, model development, Earth observations, planetary atmospheres, paleoclimate, radiation, atmospheric chemistry, and astrophysics and other disciplines. However, due to the interconnections between these topics, most GISS personnel are engaged in research in several of these areas.

 

A key objective of GISS research is prediction of atmospheric and climate changes in the 21st century. The research combines analysis of comprehensive global datasets, derived mainly from spacecraft observations, with global models of atmospheric, land surface, and oceanic processes. Study of past climate change on Earth and of other planetary atmospheres serves as a useful tool in assessing our general understanding of the atmosphere and its evolution.

[luke warm]

In case it wasn't clear, the comment about not engaging in honest discourse was directed as much at you as the professor that you quoted.

and in case i wasn't clear, my comment about enough dishonesty to go around was directed as much at you as anyone else

In all seriousness, do get paid to pollute this newsgroup with all your crap?  You don't contribute anything of note other than echoing the Fox talking points d'Jour.

do you?... it's pretty much always been your way to attack the person rather than to engage in "honest discourse"... btw, what crap are you speaking of?

(For the record, I just scanned all of your postings dating back to last Thanksgiving.  I haven't found a SINGLE post in any forum other than the Watercooler.  Any idea when you might have posted anything that was even peripherally realted to, oh, say bridge????)

quite a while ago i suspect... why, has fred or uday asked you to referee posts on certain subjects? somehow i doubt it (but maybe i'm just listening to too many rumors)

What bothers me most is that voters here are so poorly educated that politicians who do this kind of thing can be elected.

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

[PassedOut]

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

Considering that politicians like this from all political parties get elected, those particular stats probably don't matter much. Voters who always vote one way (no matter what way) probably depend more on emotion than reason regardless of education.

[luke warm]

What bothers me most is that voters here are so poorly educated that politicians who do this kind of thing can be elected.

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

Considering that politicians like this from all political parties get elected, those particular stats probably don't matter much. Voters who always vote one way (no matter what way) probably depend more on emotion than reason regardless of education.

ok, but it seemed that your original point only referred to certain voters of a certain party (those "who do this kind of thing")... in any case, going by your "Voters who always vote one way ... " criterion, it should be relatively easy to see what groups of voters in what percentages vote a certain way - and thus are voting more on emotion than reason... agree?

[hrothgar]

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

The two most power predictors of voting behaviour in the US are

 

1. Religious intensity (Positively correlated with voting Republican)

2. Population density (Positively correlated with voting Democrat)

 

Education is a tricky one.

 

Income level is correlated with voting Republican.

Income is also highly correlated with education level.

 

As I recall, if you adjust for income level, education is correlated with voting Democrat. Moreover, this trend has intensified in recent elections (The Republicans are hemorrhaging members of the professional classes)

[PassedOut]

ok, but it seemed that your original point only referred to certain voters of a certain party (those "who do this kind of thing")... in any case, going by your "Voters who always vote one way ... " criterion, it should be relatively easy to see what groups of voters in what percentages vote a certain way - and thus are voting more on emotion than reason... agree?

You forgot to include the part of my post that noted that not just right-wingers ignore reality to gain political points.

 

Yes, this type of thing is not only found among right-wingers, and I've certainly seen it elsewhere too. But in the US these days it seems that the republicans are hell-bent on forcing anyone capable of reason out of the party.

 

What bothers me most is that voters here are so poorly educated that politicians who do this kind of thing can be elected.

There certainly are significant groups of voters who always support democrats or always support republicans because of social ties, or of tradition, or of a sense of belonging, and so forth (or say they do, anyway). Things will never be perfect on that score. The voters who swing elections are those of us who can get beyond that stuff and decide based on reason.

 

At one time there were many principled republicans willing to adopt positions based on reason, reality, and common sense. In fact, on the local and state levels, there still are quite a few, in my experience.

 

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.

 

Eight republicans supported the Waxman-Markey bill rather than kowtow to the (ridiculous) positions espoused by republicans during the debate. Now the nutjobs in their own party have unsheathed the knives and are trying to force them out.

 

Forty-four democrats voted against the bill, some because it was too weak and some because democrats, too, can be delusional. Is there a strong effort to push them out? No.

 

Just saw these articles:

 

Conservative Ire Rains on 8 Republicans Who Voted for House Climate Bill

 

In the wake of last week's landmark passage of the House climate bill, conservatives have focused their fury on the handful of Republicans who voted in favor of the sweeping legislation.

Inslee, Reichert play key roles in energy bill

 

Only eight Republican congressmen voted for the bill. One of them was Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

 

"Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to leading on these issues at a global level," he said in a statement. "Teddy Roosevelt was the true example of a Republican engaged in conserving resources for our children and grandchildren, but he also had the foresight to seek a brighter future for them."

So the republicans want to keep the dope who called global warming a "hoax" and the idiots who applauded, but want to get rid of the representatives who recognize the (no longer deniable) need for action now.

 

That's what I'm talking about.

Edited June 30, 2009 by PassedOut

[mike777]

I understand the bill is 1300 pages long and I have not read it.

 

 

One thing I just heard that would concern me if true is that in the cap and trade bill many if not all of the permits are being given away in some bizarro procedure rather than being auctioned off which guts the whole bill.

 

Again I have no idea if this is a good bill or a real stinker.