Columnist Grossly Distorts Study To Argue ‘We Can’t Do Much’ About Global Warming
Columnist Grossly Distorts Study To Argue ‘We Can’t Do Much’ About Global Warming
In today’s paper, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson asserts that there is little we can do about global warming:
The real truth is that we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and — barring major technological breakthroughs — we can’t do much about it.
Samuelson draws his conclusions from “a new report from the International Energy Agency.” Actually, the study – Energy Technology Perspectives, Strategies and Scenarios for 2050 (purchase required) — concluded the exact opposite:
[B]y employing technologies that already exist or are under development, the world could be brought onto a much more sustainable energy path. The scenarios show how energy-related C02 emissions can be returned to their current levels by 2050.
Samuelson twists the data to argue we are now “powerless” in the face of global warming:
[T]he IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent…the IEA report indicates we’re now powerless. We can’t end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades.
Here is what Samuleson doesn’t tell you. Without taking action, the IEA estimates that greenhouse emission will increase by 138%, so even the most pessimistic action scenario decreases growth in emissions by 111%. Samuleson doesn’t bother to mention a sixth scenario where greenhouse emissions decrease by 16%.
You can contact the Washington Post at ombudsman@washpost.com. Please be polite.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I would like to see more use of existing technologies like hybrid fuel cells for automobiles and less dependency on unrenewable fossil fuels. The longer we wait to start making effective changes, the less likely we are to make a long term difference.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:26 amNothing more idiotic than persistent idiots.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:27 amYou can contact the Washington Post at ombudsman@washpost.com. Please be polite.
Judd, if you’re going to put on conditions and take away all the fun — forget it! ;)
July 5th, 2006 at 10:28 amThe EU uses per capita half the energy of the US. There is your solution right there. To claim that “nothing can be done” is supremely ignorant, and it really makes my blood boil.
I unplug the TV, DVD and computers at night, takes me 10 seconds and it’s exercise. Merely promoting energy conciousness aggresivley will shave 1 or 2% off consumption. What a jackass!!!!
July 5th, 2006 at 10:43 amSaying nothing can be done about it is a typical conservative’s strategy.
Deny the problem exists until you can’t prove it anymore.
Then deny there’s a solution to the problem you didn’t believe existed.
Next: deny any progress has been or will be made from the proposed solutions.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:50 am“I unplug the TV, DVD and computers at night, takes me 10 seconds and it’s exercise. ”
If thats exercise to you, you need to get out more.
July 5th, 2006 at 10:51 amSure Europe uses 1/2 the energy, thats why when they have heat waves, thousands of people die instead of turning on the air conditioning.
oh my god, my comment got thru instead of being spam filtered like on the Think Fast? Interesting.
“Nothing more idiotic than persistent idiots.”
July 5th, 2006 at 10:53 amIs that sort of like my new catchphrase at work: You can’t fix stupid
?
Fired this off to them.
Hi Robert!
I read your article and I have to say you really annoyed me! To claim that “nothing can be done†about global warming is supremely ignorant, and it really makes my blood boil. The EU uses per capita half the energy of the US. There is your solution right there.
I unplug the TV, DVD and computers at night, takes me 10 seconds and it’s exercise. Merely promoting energy consciousness aggressively will shave 1 or 2% off consumption.
Solar and wind can be generated locally and fed back into the grid, the technology is already available, target it with good tax exemption and in 15 years every middle class house in the developed world could be generating 20 or 30% of the energy they use.
If the developed world stopped subsidizing farmers to grow food we don’t need and instead paid them for useful crops to generate energy, another 5 or 10% could be knocked off. This is just off the top of my head, good God man. Not only was the article factually wrong in it’s assertions, but it shows an incredible failure of imagination. Snap out of it!!!
July 5th, 2006 at 10:55 amIf thats exercise to you, you need to get out more.
That was actually directed at the kind of people who take their cars to pick up the post.
Sure Europe uses 1/2 the energy, thats why when they have heat waves, thousands of people die instead of turning on the air conditioning.
Are you suggesting no one dies during heat waves in the US? You understand that heat waves are fairly local?
The EU uses half the energy because energy is taxed. Therefore people come up with creative solutions to reduce energy consumption. Nonetheless, the poor in Europe do not have to rely on free handouts from Hugo Chavez to ensure they don’t freeze to death …. the governments ensure that the less advantaged in society have some kind of security. A for a caring society, you should give a try some time, you might like it:-)
July 5th, 2006 at 11:04 amAre are you people crazy. Bush and the post ,What ever happened to erroring on the side of caution. Shouldnt any steps we take to prevent further warming better then doing nothing . No matter how global warming is caused .
July 5th, 2006 at 11:14 amDammit wake up.
Dear Washington Post,
With all due respect, you in the press cannot be surprised that blogs are taking over your jobs when you publish such unresearched and ignorant articles as written by Mr. Samuelson that actually state “The real truth is that we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and — barring major technological breakthroughs — we can’t do much about it.”
Not only is this statement incorrect, but it is also misleading. I would like to request that you do your homework and print a correction to acknowledge that there is plenty we can do, and should be implementing immediately, to address the Global Warming crisis.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:20 amBrian,
Squeegie is the sort who entered a contest with a friend to see which one could get the fattest by a certain date (last week). I think a turnip has more compassion for and awareness of the world. We’re all hoping that it’s just because he’s 22 and is just a personal crisis away from growing a conscience… :)
I’m the same as you. And for the lazy sort, they can even put all the plugs into a power strip that is easily turned off with the flick of a switch.
One of our biggest problems here is a lack of functional public transportation outside of the largest cities. I think we could do a lot to conserve if ‘car pooling’ methods were more affordable and efficient, instead of just pathetic government attempts to get the poor from Point A to Point B…
July 5th, 2006 at 11:28 ami posted this earlier on the ThinkFastAM thread… this is a good place to do it again! …and this article is 18mos. old! …we gotta get busy!!!
New Study Finds Strategic Investments in Clean Energy, Efficiency Would Create 3.3 Million High-Wage Jobs and Pay for Itself
July 5th, 2006 at 11:32 amWASHINGTON – January 14 – An unusual alliance of labor, environmental, civil rights, business, and political leaders today laid out a vision for a “New Apollo Project†to create 3.3 million new jobs and achieve energy independence in ten years.
Zoo
“Squeegie is the sort who entered a contest with a friend to see which one could get the fattest by a certain date (last week).”
It was called the fat man because we were both fat, and it was over who could lose the most (Turns out it was me, hooray $$)
“I think a turnip has more compassion for and awareness of the world. We’re all hoping that it’s just because he’s 22 and is just a personal crisis away from growing a conscience”
Turnips win on compassion, but not awareness, Turnips 1, Mike 1, tie score currently.
Brian
“That was actually directed at the kind of people who take their cars to pick up the post.”
Well my mom does that, but thats cause she has a post office box, as opposed to a mail box, so I think its allowed in those cases.
Also, is there some energy benifit from unplugging as opposed to turning off? I generally unplug during lightning storms(even with several levels of surge protection) but at night I just hit the power button.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:37 amOops, those first few where for unbelievable, not zoo, my bad.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:39 amYa, it’s an easy 2 step process to stop global warming
1. Sign the Kyoto accord for a f**king start
2. Stop buying SUV’s that cost 10 m/g and 2 soldiers/day and emitt 3X the emissions of a normal car, and start buying more Hybrid cars.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:43 amDear Ombudsman,
Dr. Samuelson uses hyperbole in describing the challenge in reducing global
warming pollution. A combination of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fuel
switching in the near term; changed urban patterns and carbon sequestration in the
mid=term; and the inevitable technological advances in the long term – this is the viable
engineering path to a reduction in the rate of change in the planet’s climate. The
engineering challenges are surmountable; the economic challenge is tough; but
the political failures we are witnessing (the continued enormous subsidization of
high-carbon use in the economy relative to the alternatives) will likely be the reason we
fail. THE important question is whether the political leadership will materialze
before it is too late; i.e will the damage done in the short-term be so great so as to
make those future engineering solutions useless?. James Hansen (NYROB 7/06)
estimates we have to start within this decade to reduce carbon and methane
pollution or the climate change effects already in motion (i.e. glacial melt and sea
rise, permafrost methane release, ocean acidifcation, etc….) will be irreversible.
And it is rather astounding that Samuelson states we are “powerless”, when in his
previous paragraph he recognizes the possibility to change the result in increased
emissions from 27% down to 6%. THAT reduced emission scenario is exactly the
minimum path we have to start on now, to get us to tomorrow so we can solve the
problem with our newly available tools then.
By the way, Samuelson is plain inaccurate when he states that cities have ‘ratified’
Kyoto but have done nothing to match the rhetoric. Actually, Portland, and
Multnomah County, Oregon have already (by 2004) reduced their carbon emissions
to below the Kyoto required benchmark 1990 levels, with an economy performing
perfectly well.
The report, prepared by [the Office of Sustainable Development] and the
Multnomah County Department of Business & Community Services, says the largest
drops came in the industrial, transportation and waste-management sectors. It cites
an array of reasons, including: Creation of two more light-rail lines and a 75 percent
growth in public transit since 1990. Portland’s purchase of renewable energy for 10
percent of its electricity. Planting of more than 750,000 carbon-dioxide absorbing
trees and shrubs since 1996. Weatherization of more than 10,000 multifamily units
and 800 homes in two years.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:45 amAlso, is there some energy benifit from unplugging as opposed to turning off?
Depends what you mean by “turning off”. Many devices, even when turned off have a standby mode which uses about 2 – 5% of active power. I have a TV, DVD, Video, Computer,printer, external hard drive, monitor cluster in the living room that I can simply unplug (well 3 plugs) so I do that rather than turning off all the individual devices.
Turning off may be enough, but given the cluster of devices, simply unplugging them is best.
I also use energy saving bulbs in the house, they cost more upfront, but use only about a 6th of energy and last 10 times longer. That’s a real easy one to do as well.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:46 amI really hope that the Dems will finally wake up and start supporting the technology we have avaliable to fight Global warming. I am sick and tired of hearing Dems scream about global warming and then turn around and shun technology that will help us prevent it. We need to unite as one and start supporting Nuke Technology for starters as it is readily available today and can easliy substitute for horrible Coal plants.
As far as subs for gasoline, that gets harder. Do we have an alternative for gas that is equally as powerful, as usable, and can be purchased for equal or less money per gallon today? My guess is no, but that still means there is a market untapped. Maybe George Soros and the boys should stop throwing billions away on stupid political ads and start a research company for an alternative fuel. Think about all that cash they would be making (and contributing). They would even get better press (currently they are simply viewed as wackos with cash). If they could actually bring us something to stop global warming instead of simply screaming about it while being hypocrits, they would have much more clout!
July 5th, 2006 at 11:46 amsqueegee, and all:
REDUCE YOUR IMPACT AT HOME
July 5th, 2006 at 11:46 amUnplug electronics from the wall when you’re not using them
Even when turned off, things like hairdryers, cell phone chargers and televisions use energy. In fact, the energy used to keep display clocks lit and memory chips working accounts for 5 percent of total domestic energy consumption and spews 18 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year! (page 2)
Dear Ombudsman,
Dr. Samuelson uses hyperbole in describing the challenge in reducing global
warming pollution. A combination of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fuel
switching in the near term; changed urban patterns and carbon sequestration in the
mid=term; and the inevitable technological advances in the long term – this is the viable
engineering path to a reduction in the rate of change in the planet’s climate. The
engineering challenges are surmountable; the economic challenge is tough; but
the political failures we are witnessing (the continued enormous subsidization of
high-carbon use in the economy relative to the alternatives) will likely be the reason we
fail. THE important question is whether the political leadership will materialze
before it is too late; i.e will the damage done in the short-term be so great so as to
make those future engineering solutions useless?. James Hansen (NYROB 7/06)
estimates we have to start within this decade to reduce carbon and methane
pollution or the climate change effects already in motion (i.e. glacial melt and sea
rise, permafrost methane release, ocean acidifcation, etc….) will be irreversible.
And it is rather astounding that Samuelson states we are “powerless”, when in his
previous paragraph he recognizes the possibility to change the result in increased
emissions from 27% down to 6%. THAT reduced emission scenario is exactly the
minimum path we have to start on now, to get us to tomorrow so we can solve the
problem with our newly available tools then.
By the way, Samuelson is plain inaccurate when he states that cities have ‘ratified’
Kyoto but have done nothing to match the rhetoric. Actually, Portland, and
Multnomah County, Oregon have already (by 2004) reduced their carbon emissions
to below the Kyoto required benchmark 1990 levels, with an economy performing
perfectly well.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:48 am
[...] To support this contention, he refers to a new report from the International Energy Agency. But that report, as ThinkProgress points out, comes to the opposite conclusion: [B]y employing technologies that already exist or are under development, the world could be brought onto a much more sustainable energy path. The scenarios show how energy-related C02 emissions can be returned to their current levels by 2050. [...]
July 5th, 2006 at 11:49 amKaty, Brian
Thanks for the info.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:49 amRobert J. Samuelson’s column is a mixture of reality and pure bunk. It is a measure of reality that we will need technological change to get us out of the global warming mess, that much I agree on. That this makes efforts to draw attention to the problem some kind of sham crusade is baloney. Money follows political will, and technology follows money. Perhaps Mr. Samuelson would like, as an economist, a subject that he presumably does understand, to tell us how we will get the technological changes necessary without any kind of campaign. And don’t say leave it up to the governments, universities, etc., we have people in our government actively working to preserve the causes of global warming, and to deplete the universities of resources.
But beyond the illogic of asserting that because it is a technological issue we should stop talking about it, Mr. Samuelson has some odd assumptions. He, together apparently with many of his economics colleagues, believes that the population growth figures he cites are inevitable. In many economic circles they are being touted as desirable and possibly needing to be increased. There is a very good argument, Mr. Samuelson, that global warming is just the first catastrophic consequence of overpopulation of the planet.
Overpopulation, as far as I know, is a sociological, not a technological problem. And economists who base their bread and butter on a corporate economic system that requires infinite unlimited growth of both consumption and population, are part of the problem, not the solution.
So the first technological problem is how to dispose of all the pro-growth, free-for-all economists and their destructive public corporation models. The economic models are hazardous to the planet and need to be disposed of with great care. The economists? They’re just a problem in obsolescence. We have people in corporations who can plan that for us.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:58 amBushes Ignorance is deliberate to kill more people worldwide its that easy
July 5th, 2006 at 11:59 amIt was called the fat man because we were both fat, and it was over who could lose the most (Turns out it was me, hooray $$)
Oh good, I was having horrible visuals over that one… :) Well, congrats.
Turnips win on compassion, but not awareness, Turnips 1, Mike 1, tie score currently.
I’m not convinced…
Well my mom does that, but thats cause she has a post office box, as opposed to a mail box, so I think its allowed in those cases.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 11:37 am
I think he meant the ones who live next to their mailboxes.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI like how Think Progress distorts this reporters true meaning. he is simply saying that the “world” would never adopt these solutions as a whole, meaning the problem is impossible. Do any of you really think countries like China are going to play alone with this? They already have 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world. They are also estimating that they will be going 24 million cars to over 100 million cars by 2020. The real way to estimate a nations wastefulness is by looking at how much energy they use to generate $1. China spends 3 times the world average on energy to produce $1 of gross national product (which is much much worse then the USA). With the China problem, everything else is small potatoes sadly. How are you going to get a Communist regiem to change anyways?
To nice articles detailing the China problem:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/07/content_380099.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928070.htm
July 5th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#24 Hawley Rising Quote:
“So the first technological problem is how to dispose of all the pro-growth, free-for-all economists and their destructive public corporation models.”
Man I hope your not an American. What your wrote there should make everyone disgusted. While I agree that global warming is a problem we need to handle, trying to say we need to change our economy to reflect of communist view is simply off and wrong. America was founded on the Free Market and I pray it will always be that way. The day we lose that is the day we are Communists. Furthermore, I truly hope your not asking that we stop the idea of public corportations. You just can’t be serious sir.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pm#28
July 5th, 2006 at 12:33 pmJust a little historical note. There was no such thing as a public corporation when this country was created. Now saying that I don’t think that changing the mentality of economy will reverse us to Communism. If a citizen can own a business and run it in a way that isn’t inherently destructive to the land, water, air, and health of people then that’s a good thing. When it gets to a point(right now) where a “corporation” is legally treated better than a citizen and has more “rights” than siad citizens then there is a problem with our economic mentality in this country. Getting rid of that won’t make us Communists just a better country.
Judd can’t criticize anyone else for distorting the contents of a study. It seems that Sherry might have a point. Anyone care to address it?
July 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#29 Let the free market handle it, not government. If we the citizens don’t like how a company is doing business, we don’t buy from it and it dies. I don’t see the problem. Why people think government is the answer to all lifes woes, is something I may never understand. Has government actually done something better then the free market in recent history?
Free market schools do better then public, free market retirement account do way better then SS, etc.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pmSherry – China still only uses about one-eighth as much energy apiece as Americans.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pmFree market schools do better then public, free market retirement account do way better then SS, etc.
Comment by Gary — July 5, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Actually… studies show that “free market schools” (I assume you mean private), do NOT do as well as their public school counterparts.
And, as for those free market retirements, well, let’s just say that a lot of retired people had to go work in places like McDonalds and Wal-Mart after Ken Lay stole their retirement money… Can’t say the same of social security.
The government exists to provide over-sight and look out for the people. The ‘free market’ exists to make a dollar. Unfortunately the neocons are turning the government into a free-for-all-rich-people system…
July 5th, 2006 at 12:57 pmI think it’s time to promote zero population growth.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:59 pmI have to ask, when someone like Samuleson isn’t interested in facts or evidence, which have over the course of decades become a consensus in the scientific “community”, we have to ask what the benefits are for him to deny the evidence and proclaim the problem solved by saying it is unsolvable.
The throwing-the-hands-up-in-apathy as arguement is dishonest. Just because Samuleson doesn’t know what to do about global warming doesn’t invalidate the problem or mean we should all just give up too. Nor is that a reason to distort facts to suit his claim that there is no solution.
That is shoddy journalism, which is one of the byproducts of the anti-science Bush administration.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:00 pm“Actually… studies show that “free market schools†(I assume you mean private), do NOT do as well as their public school counterparts.”
True, after they handicap private schools by lowering their averages a silly amount to make up for ‘factors’.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:01 pmfree market retirement account do way better then SS
Social Security is NOT an investment program.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:08 pmit is retirement INSURANCE.
it is RETIREMENT Assurance
July 5th, 2006 at 1:11 pmwith a GUARENTEED payout.
I think it’s time to promote zero population growth.
Comment by Lily — July 5, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
I’m all for that! And numerous studies show that giving women equal rights to men in a society is the best way to achieve that.
That when women are empowered, they have fewer babies. Plus, the societies experience greater health, less crime, high employment rates, and less social issues that stem from women being semen recepticles. Seems like common sense to me, but you’ll be amazed at the number of conservative men who cannot stretch their tiny little… uh, minds… around the notion that it’s better for a society if women are seen as equals.
I read a book that said that 250,000 humans are the ideal number. Not sure where he got that, but I’m guessing the ideal number is significantly less than 6.4 billion…
July 5th, 2006 at 1:15 pmTrue, after they handicap private schools by lowering their averages a silly amount to make up for ‘factors’.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
Not very good at math are you? I thought that math was an important requirement of being a computer science major?
July 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pmOkay
First off: Social Security actually works fine in America. If you want to see the alternative, try looking at countries without it.
Second up, private versus public education: It more depends on the children involved. If your kid doesn’t want to learn, generally it won’t. If it does, it will.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:18 pm“Not very good at math are you? I thought that math was an important requirement of being a computer science major?”
Private schools, in every study I’ve seen, always beat out the public schools. Then the liberal media goes and tweaks the numbers to make it ‘fair’ and drops the private schools averages by at least 2-3 letter grades.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#6 If thats exercise to you, you need to get out more.
Sure Europe uses 1/2 the energy, thats why when they have heat waves, thousands of people die instead of turning on the air conditioning.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 10:51 am
But using air conditioners consumes lot more energy and spews a lot of gases who kill the ozone layer.
In short, using too much the air conditioners will cause bigger heat wave in very short time. Your answer doesn’t seem the adequate one. But is the usual one for USA air conditioned lovers.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:26 pmPrivate schools in general are about a million times better then there public school counterpart and I don’t care what whack job statistic you have. Any rational person can easily see that.
Social Security: I guess many of you like putting in $100 dollars 20 years ago to get $100 back today. To me, that just means you lost a ton of money you could have received if you invested it yourself. To simply state that Enron took some people is misguided. Any rational person diverisifies there investment portfolio to eliminate risk. Once they are close to retirement they should be out of stocks completely anyways so I am not sure why any “near retirement” worker had Enron stock in the first place. Bonds and money market accounts, etc. are the only choices once you near retirement age. Stocks like Enron should have really only hurt those under 45 as anyone older then that was taking an unguided risk. In the end, I would much rather have my cash in something as crappy as a CD instead of letting the government bury it for my entire working career to simply give it back to me. Again, that is just a logical choice anyone “should” see.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:28 pmAnd donating a new wing for a private school gives your sonny a nice graduate too. Talk about tweaking… BTW, ask G.W. Bush how got the grade with all that booze, coke, parties and cheerleading…
July 5th, 2006 at 1:30 pm“BTW, ask G.W. Bush how got the grade with all that booze, coke, parties and cheerleading…”
C average. He didnt get good grades. Even if you party during class, you should still be able to get a C.
“And donating a new wing for a private school gives your sonny a nice graduate too.”
Because the majority of private school kids are that rich…..95% of the people I know who went to private school were upper middle class at best.
“In short, using too much the air conditioners will cause bigger heat wave in very short time. Your answer doesn’t seem the adequate one. But is the usual one for USA air conditioned lovers.”
July 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pmSo your saying you want people to die from heat waves instead of use air conditioning? Although they were mostly French…..so I guess I have no real issue in this case.
You really need to look at what a country spends on energy per #1 of gross national product. You will see that China beats everyone badly and they are estimated to get roughly 10-20 times worse. The rest of the world is doing much better, including the USA. The USA uses tons of energy because we are most of the worlds economic output. In that light, you are basically saying we in the USA should simply reduce our economic output. That would of course be very short sighted as the world still needs that economic output and some other country would simply fill the gap and use the energy we didn’t anyways.
Reductions are fun to talk about, but they aren’t reality since the only true way to do it is by reducing ones economy (that wouldn’t work either since the “economy” is a world one and someone will always fill that reduction).
THE REAL WAY to reduce emissions: Find a different fuel that will be as powerful, as useable, and is economically equal or cheaper then the currently used product. That would be a winner.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:35 pm“Nothing more idiotic than persistent idiots.”
I agree. Of course the persistent idiots in this case are the people who continue to insist that human’s have a significant effect on global climate change. Take the mental effort to actually read a few articles about global warming in *modern* (i.e. not from 1999) scientific journals some time. It is time much better spent than reading simpleton propoganda from both sides of the global warming debate.
July 5th, 2006 at 1:40 pmGary – our economy will be in the toilet in the not so distant future. Somewhere else besides this country will be WAY AHEAD OF THE CURVE. Stop funding our schools, dumb down its population, and graduate less physists, scientists, engineers…
July 5th, 2006 at 1:42 pmmadashell
See 48. What do you mean “not so distant future?”
July 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pmhe is simply saying that the “world†would never adopt these solutions as a whole, meaning the problem is impossible. Do any of you really think countries like China are going to play alone with this? They already have 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world
Go back 30 or 40 years and the US and Europe would top the list for most polluted cities. The criticisim stands. This guys throws up his hands and spreads the message that nothing can be done, when plenty (as has been demonstrated on the thread) can be done. Millions of individuals acting independently are already addressing the problem.
Never you mind the Chinese, or if you are really that concerned, get your representatives to pass legislation that prohibit importing products from countries that don’t meet agreed environmental standards. You’ll see them clean up their act quick enough.
You’re like a kid that won’t eat their dinner because Johnny won’t eat his dinner. Eat your damn dinner!!!
July 5th, 2006 at 1:45 pmsqueegee, gary – just curious about this:
July 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pmdid either/both of you go to private elementary schools?
Illconsidered puts things in perspective on China :
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-should-us-join-kyoto.html
July 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pmillconsidered.blogspot.com
nuff said…
July 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmKaty
Public school K-12
July 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#46 So your saying you want people to die from heat waves instead of use air conditioning? Although they were mostly French…..so I guess I have no real issue in this case.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
First, a little lesson on geography: Spain is to the south of France, nearest to the Ecuador, therefore our country is, in average hotter, than France. In plus, we have winds bringing sand from the Sahara desert routinely in summer, fact that raises the average temperatures in all the Iberian peninsula, and contributes to athsma and breathing problems. We had our share of the heat wave, trust me. And the number of deaths in Spain were masked by the rightist governmen in charge then, so can seem that the numer of deaths in Spain is not higher than in France, but initially were greatly understated. It’s not a thinfoil idea, just dig the data, Squegueeboo.
And second, I say that a reduction of air conditioning use (along with other energy consuming activities) would reduce the heat waves, thus reducing the deaths by heat waves.
Think globally and end with the causes, not the effects. It’s easier and cheaper.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmoops … not to diecredit the persepective...
July 5th, 2006 at 2:03 pmHow are you going to get a Communist regiem to change anyways?Comment by Sherry — July 5, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Dont worry about them. You should start no matter what.
Let the free market handle it, not government.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:10 pmComment by Gary
Lets all become products for some small group profit.
Whats with the free-market brainwashing, eh? Like free-market had done a thing for humanity.
“Like free-market had done a thing for humanity.”
Look at nations with an economic base in free-market, then look at every other type of economic-base for countries like Cuba or Africa.
In which nations is humanity better off?
July 5th, 2006 at 2:14 pmIn which nations is humanity better off?
July 5th, 2006 at 2:20 pmComment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Good, Kentucky Fried Chicken has done its job on you, buddy. Free market is the savage part of capitalism. Your country promotes free market OUTSIDE its boundaries, which means that sanctions countries that dont buy US products, but, surprisingly, US subsides its own products so you dont get much from the OUTSIDE. See? Free market in equal conditions probably would be a thing to consider, but that doesnt happen. So, if your country is rich, that is because it has ravaged and plundered other countries economies. Read some history.
“US subsides its own products so you dont get much from the OUTSIDE. See?”
O’rly? Juan C, meet our trade deficit, Trade deficit meet Juan C.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pmReductions are fun to talk about, but they aren’t reality since the only true way to do it is by reducing ones economy (that wouldn’t work either since the “economy†is a world one and someone will always fill that reduction).
July 5th, 2006 at 2:26 pmComment by Gary — July 5, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
Have you tried to reduce your energy inputs? Why are you so afraid of your economy? So far is not been doing that good, so maybe it doesnt depend on that…maybe. Alternative sources of energy could be huge prosperous bussiness, that wont damage your economy, that would destroy oil companies, but thats the whole point in DONT STOP USING YOUR CAR propaganda. Maybe you should try walking instead of using the car, maybe thats the whole obessity problem in US. Remember homo sapiens evoluted without cars, oil or armies. Just the brain.
Look at nations with an economic base in free-market, then look at every other type of economic-base for countries like Cuba or Africa.
In which nations is humanity better off?
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Sure, the embargo has nothing ado.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:26 pmsquegeeboo
Those that have a reasonable balance between the free market and a controlled one. An absolutely free market can actually destroy the economy just as well as an absolutely controlled one (communism) does.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:26 pmO’rly? Juan C, meet our trade deficit, Trade deficit meet Juan C.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:27 pmComment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
Well, do you defend free market or not?
evoluted???? evolved…sorry.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:28 pmBruce
I’m well aware that total free market would screw us hardcore, but this is the interwebs, might as well argue from as far in one direction as I can, otherwise, wheres the fun.
Juan
July 5th, 2006 at 2:29 pm“Well, do you defend free market or not?”
Only when it’s in the interests of the US.
In fact, in the Dark Years of the Middle Age there existed small government and free market. A king, enough soldiers, and all the rest, the vasals. Ah, the good times! We all were so happy then. So few functionaries, and only a law: obbey the king!. And the king was free to market all his goods at his will. The dream of every Republican!
/Sarcasm off
July 5th, 2006 at 2:34 pmBruce, unlike squegeeboo I am not aware as to how a free market can destroy the economy. Last I checked Keynes’ ideas have long since been completely discredited and the new world order in economic thought is that the market is infinitely smarter at progressing world wealth than any interventionist government. This idea really isn’t that new, but for some reason people keep on trying to ‘improve’ upon a free market until they realize how badly they are hurting the economy and a new generation of economists must set everything straight.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:35 pm“Well, do you defend free market or not?â€
Only when it’s in the interests of the US.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Then, it’s not free market. But I think you’ve figured it, isn’t?
July 5th, 2006 at 2:36 pmEvil Spaniard, that is the least logical comment on this board yet, which is saying a lot. The king was the government. The feudal system was about as far from free market as possible.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:38 pm#53 It is a very poor way of looking at emission to base it on population. Basing it on productivity (i.e. GNP) is the very best way as it shows how well countries untilize there energy. China and India do very poorly compaired to the USA. The USA is actually much more efficeint energy wise then China and India as well as many other unimportant countries such as those with crappy economies in Europe. Once again, while the USA is a problem, we aren’t nearly the problem the rest of the world is.
#62 You may be right that alternative energy “might” be a huge money maker. Once again, the free market will decide as groups/people will bring there money and there ideas to it and we will decide if we want to buy it. So we agree unless you really just want our government to push it down our throat. The only arguement you could bring is that the Oil companies currently get an unfair advantage with the $20 billion dollar substidy they receive. While that could be valid, it isn’t simply because they don’t need it to survive and prosper. Take that $20 billion away and they will still make untold billions every year. Either way, I am agreeing with you and people need to put there money/idea’s where there mouth is. You need to stop whining about the problem, stop begging the government to force it on us, and go make all that money you claim is just waiting there for the person that brings the new energy source.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:39 pmSeixon The Norwegian should be on this thread > I will take a pass on this TP thread > have fun all!
July 5th, 2006 at 2:43 pmFrom the article:
“[B]y employing technologies that already exist or are under development, the world could be brought onto a much more sustainable energy path. The scenarios show how energy-related C02 emissions can be returned to their current levels by 2050.”
450 million years ago atmospheric CO2 levels were TEN TIMES what they are now, while the earth was going through the coldest period in the last half-billion years.
In light of this FACT, I defy you to give a logical (as opposed to faith-based) explanation of how CO2 causes global warming.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:44 pmChristopher Clarke
If you go fully free market, things like the EPA would cease to exist, and polution would begin to become a major problem again, saftey standards would become lax, and there would be higher job injury/mortality rates, basically you would see living standards begin to resemble the US during the 1800’s, as opposed to were they are now. However, if you allow groups like the EPA to grow to powerful, then you screw over living standards by over regulating and stifiling business’s enough to seriously hamper the economy. What you need to do is find a level were regulations etc, are high enough to benifit the majority of the population with out crushing business, going in either direction to the extreme just hurts everyone.
In my opinion of course, others might disagree, but then they’d be wrong :)
July 5th, 2006 at 2:45 pmPrivate schools, in every study I’ve seen, always beat out the public schools. Then the liberal media goes and tweaks the numbers to make it ‘fair’ and drops the private schools averages by at least 2-3 letter grades.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
You read biased reports and news. You’ve already demonstrated that you consider Newsmax a viable source.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:47 pm“You read biased reports and news. You’ve already demonstrated that you consider Newsmax a viable source.”
Every report is biased. And Newsmax is viable
July 5th, 2006 at 2:51 pm75 – People(consumers) won’t stop caring about the environment simply if the government stops controlling (I hope).
And getting back to the point of the thread… yes protecting the environment is very important. But, Attempting to reduce CO2 emmisions as a means of controlling global warming is completely unfounded. There are 100s of ways to evidence this fact, see 74 for one. And to E Pluribus Unum can you post a source?
July 5th, 2006 at 2:52 pmPrivate schools in general are about a million times better then there public school counterpart and I don’t care what whack job statistic you have. Any rational person can easily see that.
Oh, well why didn’t you say that it is YOUR opinion based on they way you wish the world runs rather than how it really is? Well, that just matter so much more than reality based studies and the fact that I teach.
Private schools pay less. By your capitalistic standards that attracts less competent teachers to them.
The one child abuse scandal in my town (to ever occur in the history of the town) happened at the private Christian Academy. How is that better?
Social Security: I guess many of you like putting in $100 dollars 20 years ago to get $100 back today.
The stock market comes with no guarantees. I guess you slept in your private school during the history lecture on the Great Depression? But since mommy and daddy paid so much money to have you go there, they just sorta over looked it.
To simply state that Enron took some people is misguided. Any rational person diverisifies there investment portfolio to eliminate risk.
Comment by Gary — July 5, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
Risk is an inherent part of life. You cannot eliminate it without eliminating your life. Every time you do anything there is a risk involved. The Social Security program sought to reduce that risk – as I hope even your neanderthal brain and understand – $100 is better than $0.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:54 pmUm, that’s not twisting. It’s called fabrication.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pmIn my opinion of course, others might disagree,
You made some good sense there.
The bottom line is a mixed economy (which is what the US has) is a powerful engine for wealth generation. It’s impossible to argue that this is not the case. However, there is no such thing, and never has been such a thing as a free market.
In fact, government has created a vast web of infrastructure, conventions and institutions that make our advanced industrial society possible. For a a long, but hardly exhaustve list of examples of basic legal infrastructure, try these:
The Judicial System
Land Records
Corporation laws
US Patent Office
The Banking System
Negotiable Instruments
Stable Currency
Property and Contract Rights
Consider the business corporation – a fictitious “person†made possible by laws enabling them. Legislatures decided – in the late nineteenth century – that making it easy for wealthy investors to form large-scale organizations was in the “public interestâ€. Without them we would have no steel industry, oil industry, automobile industry, aerospace industry or shipping industry. [In fact, syndicating the risks of shipping were the origin of business corporations – and they were promoted by government from the beginning.] We would also have no air pollution, no “sweatshopsâ€, and little need for labor unions.
Quote courtesty of http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/showthread.php?id=88
July 5th, 2006 at 2:57 pmread the whole thing, it’s really rather good.
Why is everyone on this site so against the private schools. You should chill for a moment and go figure out why they are doing so well.
As far a public schools, I know I would be much happier to pay more for them if we got rid of the teacher’s union. I still remember having so many crappy old teachers that got paid 50k+ while I watched young great teachers get cut. Hell, last month the town I live in had this situation. The teacher’s union demanded that they get a pay raise which cost out local school $400,000. The school of course couldn’t pay for it so they ended up cutting many of the younger teachers and even some of the class’ completely. Of course they now want us to vote on giving them more money. While I will vote yes simply because I don’t want to see the kids hurt anymore, it is completely BS. Until we have the right to fire crappy teachers for being crappy regardless of how long they have worked there, giving money to the schools will continue to be a sour spot for many.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:57 pmEvery report is biased. And Newsmax is viable
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Not it’s not. If you would read independent journalism sometime, you’d understand.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pmWhy is everyone on this site so against the private schools. You should chill for a moment and go figure out why they are doing so well.
They aren’t doing better. That’s the problem. Because they take resources away from public schools to do a worse job.
As far a public schools, I know I would be much happier to pay more for them if we got rid of the teacher’s union.
We have no teacher’s union in Georgia. I think Georgia ranks about 45th or so on the list of educational standards. You really should learn what you’re talking about Gary.
I still remember having so many crappy old teachers that got paid 50k+ while I watched young great teachers get cut.
Define ‘crappy’…
Until we have the right to fire crappy teachers for being crappy regardless of how long they have worked there, giving money to the schools will continue to be a sour spot for many.
Comment by Gary — July 5, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
You are blaming the wrong people. Blame the Bush regime for sending $300 billion to Iraq instead of spending the money on revamping the education system. A few ‘crappy’ teachers do not ruin a system. The system itself needs far more than that to be failing.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:07 pm“Not it’s not. If you would read independent journalism sometime, you’d understand.”
HA!!! Every reporter spins every story, regardless of if it’s done intentionally or not. Even something as simple as a list of facts can be shown to have bias based off of what was left off/included, or the way it was sorted.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:08 pm450 million years ago atmospheric CO2 levels were TEN TIMES what they are now, while the earth was going through the coldest period in the last half-billion years.
Source please, ideally a scientific peer reviewed paper, not some hacks half baked what if.
think everyone’s asked the questions, over and over. The answer, unfortunately, keeps coming out the same. There’s a difference between informed dissent and simple obstinacy, and when thousands of studies support the case for global warming, and some people still maintain that the jury’s out, I believe that the burden of proof shifts toward them. I believe that those who say global warming is taking place have asked and answered the questions — now it’s your turn, so let’s get started: Why do you believe it isn’t happening? Which data points do you believe are flawed, and why? How do you account for the temperature rise over the past century? Do you dispute scientists’ contention that the polar ice caps are not only in danger of melting, but are currently doing so? If so, why? Please cite at least three peer-reviewed studies by different authors to support each argument you make.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:15 pmEvery reporter spins every story, regardless of if it’s done intentionally or not. Even something as simple as a list of facts can be shown to have bias based off of what was left off/included, or the way it was sorted.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Nonsense. Stop reading the Inquirer.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:20 pmGot it … this 450 million years ago business originates from this guy :
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Patterson
Sorry, shill and hoaxer.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:20 pmGary, don’t bother with the private/public school debate in here, they all agree with the conservatives that something needs to be done, but when it comes to idea’s all they do is explain why ours won’t work, and then say they also have no ideas (beyond more funding). So basically just like the liberals in congress.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:21 pmGood Summer reading: Ishmail by Dan Quinn
It will open your mind to a whole new world of possabilitiy. Mesmerizing!!!
July 5th, 2006 at 3:24 pmAnd another thing … 450 million years ago plants had not even evolved, in effect we are talking about a different planet. Even if you are a creationist, we are talking about a different planet.
Damn, you had really had me going for nearly 10 minutes with that comment. Never heard it before.
Such insidious shit.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:31 pmChristopher Clarke
Keynes’ idea was geared to a specific set of conditions, and it worked beautifully for those conditions. The conditions I am referring to are of course, those of the Great Depression, which largely began with the Laises Faire economics of Hoover, and ended with the Keynesian Roosevelt. Monetarism works when your country is at capacity, Keynesian works when it is far below capacity or in a depressed state.
Laises faire doesn’t really work very well at all, because the “hands off” aspect of it ignores the fact that conmen do in fact exist at all levels, ponzi schemes do go up and can sink entire economies, and Enron isn’t the first company to have lied about its books. People do sell shit quality if they feel they can get away with it, children would be shoved down the mines if companies were still allowed to do that, and I wouldn’t drink the water in a laises faire economy either.
Some of what comes with a hand on economy is more in the lines of an investment, for example an educated workforce is more productive then an uneducated one, and thus public education can be argued to be the more economically viable route, a strong union ups wages, which means more people can buy your country’s goods and fall within the tax brackets, and frequently a public health system takes the burden off of businesses to provide health benefits. A lot of the public works initiated under Roosevelt are still baring fruit, such as the improved infrastructure his reign brought in.
The thing the laises fair economist forgets in general is that stupid people do run companies. There is a such a thing as a totally thick CEO, and while we might all say that the long term harm that can come of a CEO deciding to screw the future and grab a buck while he can make it unlikely for the CEO to do that, the fact is that a lot of CEOs aren’t even in their respective companies long term, and a lot of others just aren’t that bright. They see the quick profit and they go for it, forget about the future loss. Like most generalizations this isn’t all CEOs but it is a fair portion.
While you might call regulation unneeded, history, even recent history, has shown that without a certain degree of it, you can have real problems in your business sector.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:35 pmTypical ignorant logic from TPJUDD. The IPCC report found:
If greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised (even at
July 5th, 2006 at 3:37 pmpresent levels), sea level would nonetheless continue to rise for
hundreds of years. After 500 years, sea level rise from thermal
expansion may have reached only half of its eventual level,
which models suggest may lie within a range of 0.5 to 2.0 m
and 1 to 4 m for CO2 levels of twice and four times preindustrial,
respectively. The long time-scale is characteristic of
the weak diffusion and slow circulation processes that
transport heat into the deep ocean.
Bruce
July 5th, 2006 at 3:38 pm“The conditions I am referring to are of course, those of the Great Depression, which largely began with the Laises Faire economics of Hoover, and ended with the Keynesian Roosevelt.”
It ended due to WW2, not Roosevelt’s New Deal. Beyond that, sounds good to me.
It ended due to WW2
Lets have a war then … on energy heavy devices. Replace all the old crap. The industrial benefits of an artifical boom, without the inconvience of all the killing and death.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:41 pmMaybe TPJUDD will attack the BBC for this “gross distortion”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3928017.stm
How much will temperatures rise?
If nothing is done to reduce emissions, current climate models predict a global temperature increase of 1.4-5.8°C by 2100.
Even if we cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically now, scientists say the effects would continue because parts of the climate system, particularly large bodies of water and ice, can take hundreds of years to respond to changes in temperature.
It also takes greenhouse gases in the atmosphere decades to break down.
It is possible that we have already irrevocably committed the Greenland ice sheet to melting, which would cause an estimated 7m rise in sea level.
There are also indications that the west Antarctic ice sheet may have begun to melt, though scientists caution further research is necessary.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:44 pm86&91 – For some reason I doubt everyone here has access to scientific literature databases so even if one person wishes to cite journal articles other people can’t read them…
In regards to the supporting evidence, please apply that to the pro-global warming side of the debate. The main argument there is that the Earth’s surface temperature has increased over the last 150 years and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over the last 150 years, therefore there must be a correlation between the two events. That is bad science. As far as simple evidence for the other side, here is one article everyone has access to:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991013081741.htm
Here is another simple article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
Listen, we do not know enough about climatology to warrant sanctions on carbon dioxide at this time. Furthermore there is no evidence that we will ever be able to definitively blame global warming on CO2. If you want to be further convinced that global warming is not being controlled by humans, go to space.com and read about global warming on Pluto and Mars. And ask yourself, what is different about Pluto and Mars from Earth? Or you can go read a number of essays written by climatologists and geologists with PhDs in their fields who are predicting a mini ice age within 100 years.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:47 pmSqueege,
It was Calvin “silent Cal” Coolidge who was responsible for the economic conditions leading up to the great depression. Hoover got alot of bad press, because he was president when it started, and was pretty much unable to end the depression.
July 5th, 2006 at 3:58 pmKrazny
Touche, should have remebered that myself.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:03 pmAnd ask yourself, what is different about Pluto and Mars from Earth?
That says it all really. I think you mean what do these planets have in common. The much touted fallacy is the sun is getting hotter ergo this is the cause of global warming. What is the martian warming based on …. 3 years ofvmeasurements, FROM ORBIT. Three. No core samples, no tree rings, no sediment samples, no thousands of global readings going back over 150 years.
On the one hand it’s not happening and you can’t trust the data, and on the other the most superficial of data is enough to explain the entire thing to your satisfaction. Try and stick to a single line of bullshit, it makes the case more compelling.
Still though, it is gratifying to see you’ve retreated to a new bolt hole “ok, it’s happening but :”
a) It’s not our fault
b) We can’t do anything about it.
Listen, we do not know enough about climatology to warrant sanctions on carbon dioxide at this time. Furthermore there is no evidence that we will ever be able to definitively blame global warming on CO2.
Says you, or perhaps some obscure economist in a 4th rate university. Why are there no major scientific figures onside? Why is it always some 4th rater trying to promote themselves through the press instead of the scientific process? Because they have no meaningful case.
The best they can come up are desperate ploys to turn the natural debate in the scientific community against the scientific community. Mars and Pluto, JESUS.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:04 pmKrazny
Ultimately, I take it as being where the buck stops. While Calvin Coolidge caused the depression, it was ultimately Hoover’s unwillingness to do what needed doing that made it as bad as it was. Well, that and his whole speech about how America was about to enter a golden age.
Squegeeboo
The depression would have taken longer to end without WWII, but it was ultimately the new deal that ended it. The New Deal had already started to have effect before America entered WWII so its a bit of an open question.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pmUnless you are involved in academic research CO2 levels in the paleozoic are irrelevant because so many other important variables affecting climate were different from today. Even the length of the day was shorter.
Here’s a paper that shows CO2 levels ver geologic time:
http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/Courses/Eeb477/Dudley_98.pdf
Notice the rise of giant insects in the late Paleozoic that parallels the rise of giant Newts and praying man-tids in the late Phanerozoic.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:15 pmUnbelievable,
Thanks for not reading my post at all. Like I said before, any rational person that is closing in on retirement age wouldn’t be investing in stocks so I really have no sad feelings for morons that did. Investing in something as simply as a CD or a money market when your approaching retirement would net you alot more then the big fat goose egg you get with SS. The funny thing is that people my age (under 30) are advised by our brokers to not even include SS in our retirement portfolio since most of the economic minds don’t even see SS as something that will be around in 20 years since it isn’t viable. It is also a meaningless amount of money by the time we retire since it get devalued by inflation. Basically, it is a horrible program as it stands right now.
If we can’t agree to just can this failed program, why can’t we at least agree that SS needs to be invested to some extent? Even if that doesn’t include Stocks. How about CD’s, Money markets, and even the Bond market? At least that would allow my money to stay with inflation.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:17 pm“The depression would have taken longer to end without WWII, but it was ultimately the new deal that ended it. The New Deal had already started to have effect before America entered WWII so its a bit of an open question.”
The first new deal helped, however towards the end of the second new deal, a new recession was starting that was lowering the country back to the worst points in the great depresion, what stopped that slide was the increase in military spending that began to employ more people in factories etc, as we began to become the ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ now these build ups where gov’t programs, so you could always argue that it was still gov’t intervention that stopped the depression, but it was not the New Deal, that was like a band-aid on a wound that needs 10 stiches.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:18 pmA short summary of the reasons trotted out on this thread to muddy the waters on the global warming consensus.
1) 450 million years ago CO2 concentrations were higher, but global temperature was lower. This is like saying blue is different from green, because it’s blue!!! Given that plants had barely evolved, and the composition of the earths atmosphere was so different that it was practically another planet, we can bin this nonsense directly.
2) Three years of measurements of global temperatures on Mars show martian warming. Quite apart from the fact that we know almost nothing about mars compared to the earth, 3 years of measurements simply do not cut it. Given relentless whining from the uninformed that the vast swathe of Terran GW data is inadequate, wheeling out this weak martian data is a stupendous feat of compartmentalisation and hypocrisy to boot.
3) Pluto is warming … I think this is what was meant. Hard to know what to say here, except perhaps to point out that there is some doubt now as to wether Pluto even qualifies as a planet. As regards having the faintest inkling whats going on 5,906,376,272 kilometers away on an object that may (or may not) be a planet … if that is the best you got, I suggest you ask for your money back:-)
July 5th, 2006 at 4:28 pmbut when it comes to idea’s all they do is explain why ours won’t work, and then say they also have no ideas (beyond more funding). So basically just like the liberals in congress.
Comment by squegeeboo — July 5, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Selective reading skills? We have and give ideas. You were part of a discussion once that went on for several threads and I thought was actually a good discussion about WHY schools are failing (parents), and that nothing can be done to fix the school system without parents raising their children to be respectful of the FREE education they are receiving. Schools in general are exercizes in baby sitting unless you teach special programs where the kids are interested in learning, and trouble makers are not present. It is something that I will give to private schools – they have the ability to remove problems (behavior) from the classroom. But that in itself doesn’t make them better. It’s more complicated than that.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:40 pmThanks for not reading my post at all.
I did read it. Not agreeing with it isn’t the same as not reading it.
Like I said before, any rational person that is closing in on retirement age wouldn’t be investing in stocks so I really have no sad feelings for morons that did.
Again – you are defining the system by YOUR ideals and not reality.
Investing in something as simply as a CD or a money market when your approaching retirement would net you alot more then the big fat goose egg you get with SS.
Only if you have a lot of money to begin with… What about those who don’t? Too bad, you don’t care? Nice.
The funny thing is that people my age (under 30) are advised by our brokers to not even include SS in our retirement portfolio since most of the economic minds don’t even see SS as something that will be around in 20 years since it isn’t viable. It is also a meaningless amount of money by the time we retire since it get devalued by inflation. Basically, it is a horrible program as it stands right now.
Your age explains your naivete. Things happen Gary. I realize you have been lucky to have avoided learning that at this point in your life. But some day, should you ever not be so fortunate, you will understand why SS is meant to help people who lose their money or never have any to begin with.
If you are rich, then don’t take it.
If we can’t agree to just can this failed program, why can’t we at least agree that SS needs to be invested to some extent? Even if that doesn’t include Stocks. How about CD’s, Money markets, and even the Bond market? At least that would allow my money to stay with inflation.
Comment by Gary —July 5, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
How is it failed? It’s not at all failed, if you consider the reality of the stock market versus SS. I was like you at your age. Young, naive and thought that I had all the answers. And then life happens and you find out that any system or government who wants to help people is a very long way from failing.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:47 pmSelective reading skills?
Always, you know me.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:50 pmJust to post on the topic for once: If we can’t do much, we must do what we can.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pmUnbelievable,
Please explain how I will “loose” all my money I have invested? I simply don’t see that as possible since I have a very diversified portofolio of various Mutual Funds, an IRA, Bond Funds, a Few select individual stocks, and even a real estate trust. Historically, the market will go up by 7%-12% per year. At my age, I can handle more risk since I have more years till I retire so I can take some slides if need be and I am prepared for it. As a rational person, I will move my investments to safer investment tools as I approach retirement as anyone would.
You say you need loads of money to do that? You must not invest. You can open an IRA for as little as $20 per month. Investing in Mutual funds, Bond accounts, and individual stocks cost as little as $7 per trade. BTW, you can have a money market account as your checking (look into it, its pretty cool as you can net around 3%-4% per year). You can also purchase CD’s for as little as $25. You don’t have to be “rich” sir.
Lastly, I am truly curious why you are against letting the government invest in extremely safe investment tools like the money market and even CD’s (which are backed by the federal government). Please explain your opposion to this? Maybe I am missing something. I just look at SS as a big waste right now as it doesn’t even have the means to keep with inflation. BTW, unless they change SS in a big way, it is going to fail. It is already running way way behind and without a huge change will run dry sooner then later. For starters, Greenspan has proposed raising the retirement age to 75 as that would give SS more longevity before it dies (some 50+ years by some estimates). He also suggested investing it safe investment vehicales as that would also give it new life. Allowing SS to generate 3%-5%+ per year in extremely safe investments is more then wise, it is obvious. Again, I just don’t understand why your againt that.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pmWith all due respect i think you have missed Samuelson’s point. Did you read the whole article all the way to the conclusion: “The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless” ?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:12 pmGary,
You won’t listen to me… I hope you have a great life and don’t have to find out what I’m trying to explain. It is clearly more important to you to be right than to care about other people. Good luck with that.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:22 pmWith all due respect i think you have missed Samuelson’s point. Did you read the whole article all the way to the conclusion: “The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless†? (sorry for my previous post, got the http wrong, hopefully someone will delete it)
July 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pmUnbelievable,
I care about others deeply and it saddens me to see so many well spoken people, like yourself, simply not realize the fate of SS. I don’t think it is cool in any way that millions of americans have put there hopes on a program that is currently headed south. Fixing it now seems very smart. Allowing the government to invest it in super safe investments like the money market and CD’s is a no brainer to me as they will fetch 3%-5%+ each and every year. Historically, never of these options has ever had a negative year (CD’s really can’t and the money market account has a near impossible risk). Why are you against that idea, I do really want to know?
Furthermore, it saddens me that the average american only saves 2% of his/her pay check. Our society has a huge problem with spending. Americans spend way to much money and most people don’t save a single penny, which is very sad since it is easy to do. For even those that make $400-$500 per week before taxes, automatically taking out $20-$40 per check and putting it straight to an IRA is very doable as they would spend it on something else they wouldn’t need anyways (as we all do).
Personally, I would love to see the federal government add that to education and it would be something many would get behind. Give money to the schools to start a true program. One that teaches our children the basics of how to save for retirement, how to keep a checking account, and how to calculate gains from interest. Honestly, something like that would really help our society as a whole. Americans are generally the worst savers in the world which is ironic since the general American makes on average much more then the rest of the world population.
July 5th, 2006 at 5:50 pmgary – do yourself a favor and get some information from “the other side”:
Progressive Guide to The Social Security Debate
Social Security has been and remains our country’s most successful social program. The President’s agenda to privatize Social Security will do nothing to strengthen the program’s ability to provide a guaranteed benefit to workers upon retirement. We need real solutions to ensure Social Security’s future success, and to help workers prepare adequately for their retirement years. This page will be updated daily with the latest news, commentary and analysis on the Social Security debate.
it should take you a little while… bookmark it for perusal at your convenience…
July 5th, 2006 at 6:28 pmThe Kids at the Corner (NRO) loved the oped from Robert “no relation to Paul” Samuelson. Check out how they take the failed logic to further extremes.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:28 pmfor that matter, bookmark this page for all the issues you have concerns about… and you will be able to tell your friends, “sure the dems have plans!”
As we grow, the Center for American Progress will explore issues in each of these areas. Our goal is to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and to develop policy proposals that support those solutions.
July 5th, 2006 at 6:31 pmA lot of what I see here is useless, wasted words. The fact is that a news writer gave out mistaken information. We’re not talking about china or whether the article he was talking about is right or wrong. He misinformed readers about other information. It’s a consistant problem in this country, and it needs to stop.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:19 pmGary,
You are wasting your time with unbelievable. In her mind—respect is a one way street, and she’s always right. Attempting to have some meaningful dialogue with her is a lesson in futility—unless you agree with her. She’s her own guiding light in the universe, prescribes her own moral dictates, and avoids absolutes like the plague. Don’t believe me? Try pressing her about a comment that she has made. She’ll slip and slide all over the comment board. What you thought was a pretty direct statement on her part, (because words have meaning) suddenly becomes ambiguous and indistinct. She turns her statements into moving targets—all the while accusing you of being too stupid, or too black and white to know what she really means. You seem like you’re a pretty sincere person, but trust me…unbelievable will never respect you.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:50 amAntagonist,
In your mind, respect is just a word.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:57 amIt’s more than just aword to me, it goes hand in hand with honor.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:03 amAntagonist
honor, which you don’t have.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:09 amWhy would you say that?
July 6th, 2006 at 9:19 am100 – No, I meant what is different about them – referring to a suspected lack of human activity.
Attacking my education really is not necessary.
I never tried denying the existence of global warming. Go back to my very first post (48).
Funny that you should bring up statistics since that is the one area of science all intelligent global warming alarmists (there are some… just none here) avoid. Go ask a statistician what the difference between 3 years and 150 is with this subject at hand. Better yet just ask the statistician what 150 years means when discussing temperature shifts of the Earth.
I’m still waiting for your true scientific evidence in support of humans impacting global climate shifts.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:51 amAntagonist
It has to do in part with who you hold as being your heroes. Delay, Coulter, etc…
I mean, you look at the leftwing on Jefferson and we are happy the bastard is out. He was a corrupt politician, and boom, he got booted it was a very good thing.
But Delay? Frankly to call him the rightwing’s second coming is a bit of understatement.
Look at Coulter, does she demonstrate any respect for anything? She accused grieving widows of profiteering off of their spouses deaths, celebrating those deaths in fact. That it not respect, nor respectable. What is your answer to that? Point to a leftwing cartoonist and claim she was making an argument. There was no argument, it was just vile.
Look at your treat of GW Bush. You don’t question his motives, you don’t even really look at what he has done, and whenever even a mild question of what is going on gets asked? Call the questioner the liberal press. That isn’t respect, or even honest, the press in America is anything but liberal right now.
Look at how much responsibility you assign to Democrats, who aren’t even in a position of power, compared with the Republicans, who have all three houses. You buy the meme of the liberal supreme court, when if you look at that court, how many of them are Republicans? It isn’t the minority.
You don’t hold Bush accountable for anything, yet you call the Democrats incapable of taking responsibility. That is hypocrisy at its worst. You cite Bill lying about a blowjob, to defend Bush lying to pull America into a war.
Hell even the outing of Valerie Plame, you try to make excuses. It was politically motivated, not in the interests of America even if you buy the lie that Bush had declassified it before the outing.
We argue about holding leaders accountable for current problems, and you argue against it unless that leader is a former president, who has about as much political power as a ordinary citizen.
Look at how you are willing to defend torture, and how little it took to bring you to that. You lie to yourself and claim, well waterboarding isn’t torture, it is. There is nothing else you can call it.
None of these issues are rightwing/leftwing issues. This isn’t about improving social security or how much taxes Americans should be paying, it isn’t even about party lines, its about what you are willing to have done in your name. You don’t have any honour, not because you are a conservative, but because you accept what the Republicans have turned the concept of conservative into.
July 6th, 2006 at 9:57 amThanks for the link,
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=289148
Obviously the page was set up as a prank. I can’t believe anyone actually thinks that SS would go “bust” if the stock market goes down hill. SS should be invested, but correctly. To say it could go bust is just hilarious. It would be so diversified it wouldn’t even be funny. Do people think it would all be invested in a few select stocks? What makes people believe it would even be invested in stocks in the first place? I would guess that the government would start out by investing it in investment tools that are backed by the US government anyways. If they went further, they would certainly diversify it throughout every single sector of the Bond, Commodity, and Stock market. Frankly, the “risk” that SS would just die due to the stock market going down hill is completely unfounded. Obviously anyone who believes that hasn’t ever studied investment strategies.
Again, I loved the link but it couldn’t be anything but a joke. It was simply playing on fake fears.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:08 amBen
Every few years, there are people just like you, who claim the stockmarket will never go down. They claim that if you diversify enough, you will make money no matter what happens.
Every few years, those claims are proven wrong. The stockmarket does crash, bubbles pop, things go wrong.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:14 amI’m still waiting for your true scientific evidence in support of humans impacting global climate shifts.
Comment by Christopher Clarke — July 6, 2006 @ 9:51 am
You are unlikely to find climatologists here, only informed amateurs. Here is some suggested reading. This blog was recently voted 3rd best science blog of the top 50 by the magazine nature. If you really want enlightenment, these folks can provide it.
I’m guessing a self confessed amateur is unlikely to convince you, and your postings so far put at least in the same category, so you are unlikely to convince any of your position. My suggestion find a serious like the one I mention and browse through the arguments, join if you dare.
You’ll be richer for the experience:-)
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
You will of course find that these sites are shockingly liberal, because the truth has a well known liberal bias.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:01 am128 – See here is the thing… I actually do have access to all the scientific literature I can handle. Also, I am able to make decisions for myself based on nothing but journal papers… not propoganda. And almost every paper I have read on the subject of global warming (since around 2003) has concluded that CO2 is far from the most important greenhouse gas, that the activity of the sun is increasing, and more broadly that the climate of the Earth is very cyclical and it happens to be on the upward swing of a cycle right now which will eventually break. Basically most of the recent scientific community has concluded that our current attempts at controlling global climate change are asinine.
Yes there are some papers coming out to the contrary. Most of them fail in the peer-review process. More importantly most of these scientists’ labs are funded by organizations who have decided not to fund anyone still “worrying about the trivial issue of whether or not human’s cause global warming and not working to solve the problem” (read: the U.N). That is not a healthy approach to the scientific process.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:43 amBruce,
You are saddly mistaken about a great many things.
1. DeLay and Coulter are not my heroes.
2. I never called DeLay the right wings second coming, in fact I know very little about the man. I’ve only questioned the bogus indictment and the dirty politics employed to remove him from his position.
3. Anne Coulter is a little over the top for my liking, however, I did see her point about the four specific widows known as the “Jersey Girls.” Because of their husbands deaths, and because they oppose Bush, they’re given a political voice. It is the left and the media that have exploited them, and the likes of Cindy Sheehan—using their loss to promote their anti-Bush rhetoric. That was Coulter’s point, but everyone focused on her widow comments—which I aslo disapprove of.
4. I do have my share of doubts and concerns about President Bush. I just choose not to join in the feeding frenzy that occurs in every single thread on ThinkProgress. I am somewhat supportive of him, but for the most part I try to remain objective. When I read comments that liken Bush to Hitler, that accuse him of being the biggest terrorist in the world, and other such nonsense, I sometimes say something in his defense.
5. My biggest complaint about the Democrats is that they stand in automatic opposition to every single thing. They accuse Bush of dividing the country, yet they are the ones most responsible for that division. They have their oppositional talking points, they get ampified by the media, and the left in this country echo them in adoration.
6. The GOP has been a huge disappointment to conservatives. Need I say more?
7. Bush did not lie about going to war. The left has repeated that so many times now, that they actually believe it. Go back to 1998 before Bush was president. Clinton, Gore, and nearly every Democrat in power is on record saying the very same things about Sadaam and Iraq that Bush said.
8. Clinton sat there and lied under oath about his blowjob, and redifined “sexual relations” in the process. Consequently we have a generation of teenage girls who engage in this activity, and don’t think they’re sexually active. I know two men who are family counselors, who attest to this.
9. That whole Valerie Plame thing was a joke. The real security leaks involved the revealing of the supposed “warrentless wire tapping” and the viewing of bank records.
Of course the facts are distorted to make it appear that the leaker is really a whistle blower, concerned about our civil liberties.
10. When members of the United States special forces undergo waterboarding during their training, it’s hard to feel sorry for suspected terrorists who undergo the same.
I simply do not have the time, nor the interest to follow politics as closely as many here seem to. I have no blind allegience to any political party or president. When I vote, I do my homework and make careful choices. If my candidate wins, I stand in support of them, unless they completely betray my trust. That’s called loyalty in case you were wondering, not blind, not hopeless, just simple loyalty—it goes along with respect and honor.
I detest intellectual dishonesty, I have litte tolerance for unfairness, and I’m appalled by the continual lack of decency and consideration displayed here. I would never post comments on this site if it were not for the detestable behavior flaunted here. I am not threatened by opposing views, and I do respect opinons opposite of my own. I have little respect for those who are hate-filled, and unreasonable—who viciously attack, and who won’t even consider that there just might be another side to the issue. No one here has all the answers. No one here can possibly stay abreast on all the issues facing America, yet the second ThinkProgress posts a story and sets up their little manure pile underneath, scores of you leap into it, flinging shit at Bush, the GOP, and conservatives for all you’re worth. Some have thoughtful and insightful comments—most do not. Even so—interaction with those who appear thoughtful and insightful usually result in them show casing their arrogance, and them telling me what an idiot I am for holding to conservative values. In fact, someone just told me that I had no respect and no honor following a long list of misrepresentations.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:58 amAlso, I am able to make decisions for myself based on nothing but journal papers… not propoganda. And almost every paper I have read on the subject of global warming (since around 2003) has concluded that CO2 is far from the most important greenhouse gas, that the activity of the sun is increasing, and more broadly that the climate of the Earth is very cyclical and it happens to be on the upward swing of a cycle right now which will eventually break.
You have bought into propaganda I’m afraid.
Try these sites they’ll straighten you out.
http://www.realclimate.org/
July 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pmhttp://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
false, and to prove it:
He was found guilty, your liberal courts hypothesis, is purely your own fantasy, and slur on the honour of every single person working in the justice system. That is why you have no honour.
Actually, that in an of itself is a false point right there. They chose to stand up and campaign for reforms to the very systems that allowed 9/11 to happen, to strive to prevent the same thing happening again. That they got coverage is a tribute to their success at this, that they got demonised, is a tribute to just how the Rightwing actually prefers to act towards those who disagree with them.
False again. I have read your posts, you always, always defend Bush.
What, you mean the way that the Democrats did not roll over on Iraq? Yeah, right.
Actually, the only reason why you say that much is because the GOP showed precisely why your policies do not work. You were cheering Bush on in everything right up until his policies proved to be utter disasters.
Yes, but do you know what? They didn’t go to war over false intellegence, which has thus far been shown to have been manipulated by the current Administration. You would have had a point if in fact, Bill Clinton had declared war on Iraq.
Bill Clinton’s redefinition did not suddenly start a spate of blow-jobs. I have not noticed a particular increase in the number of teenage girls giving blowjobs since that statement, in fact the most I have noticed is that most people figured “Yeah right†to Bill Clinton’s statement. While I am sure in your fantasy life school girl’s have taken to sucking schlong by the multitudes since then, I somehow doubt that that is the truth.
The Valerie Plame issue was no joke. It was outing a NOC CIA agent purely for the purpose of discrediting her husband. It was all about political gain, and I feel qualifies as treason.
Further, the warrantless wire-tapping is illegal. I am not too sure about the case law on this but can criminal acts be deemed government secrets? Ditto the bank records.
Yes, so that they can endure a very common torture technique. That they are trained to endure torture tells you something doesn’t it? In South Africa, our special forces go through a period of starvation while in training, does this mean we can now starve our prisoners?
It isn’t unfair if you deserve it boet. You have no decency and see no reason to treat with respect. I have never seen you treat anybody on the left here with anything resembling respect, yet you demand it from us? False.
I agree we don’t have all the answers, but do you know what? We also don’t support torture, and we wouldn’t still try to call ourselves honourable if we did. You call us arrogant, look at yourself. I treat you with no respect because you are not worth the consideration respect entails.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:41 pminteraction with those who appear thoughtful and insightful usually result in them show casing their arrogance, and them telling me what an idiot I am for holding to conservative values.
It’s up to you to make your case. The long whining diatribe you just spent hours labouring over has done little to improve your standing.
I am not an american, but I am informed enough to know that the GOP, and the hard core of conservatives that run it, are detesable nationalists trumpeting a kind of USA uberalles philosophy. I have nothing but contempt for them, because they have nothing but contempt for me.
In your “post” you have defended torture, Tom Delay and God help us, Ann Coulter. You are still banging on about lies about consensual sex that killed no one. That really puts you in a seriously bad box as far as I’m concerened. It’s not personal though, so try not to take it so personally:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pmBrian
To be fair, it is personal, I accused of having no honour, and he is trying valiantly to justify himself. The fact is, the only justification he can have is to face these issues honestly, and ask himself “What if George was a democrat, running on a liberal platform, and he did all of this, would I still defend him? Would I accept my own defense of him?”
July 6th, 2006 at 12:54 pmBruce,
I’m really disappointed in you—I really am. Some of your responses are so typical of the abhorrent attitudes I’ve encountered here, and for some reason I expected better from you. I took the time to be sincere and honest with you. I told you exactly what my positions were, and why I even bothered to post comments here.
Your responce?
false, and to prove it:
2. I never called DeLay the right wings second coming, in fact I know very little about the man. I’ve only questioned the bogus indictment and the dirty politics employed to remove him from his position.
This is not a false statement. During the time Delay was indicted, the left was cheering and the right was saying that Ronnie Earle had been threatening to take DeLay down, that it was a bogus charge, and that he had to shop for a grand jury. My position was one of suspicion—there was reason to have some considerable doubt. Nobody really knew the truth, but all of you had him behind bars. That is why I defended DeLay—innocent until proven guilty, but as usual my appeals to be rational fell on deaf ears.
You also responded with;
False again. I have read your posts, you always, always defend Bush.
4. I do have my share of doubts and concerns about President Bush. I just choose not to join in the feeding frenzy that occurs in every single thread on ThinkProgress.
I either defend Bush for the sake of being fair-minded—I did the same as DeLay, or I say nothing. Did you not understand my comment?
I’m deliberately being open and honest with you Bruce, and look at how you’re treating me. You can’t even take my words at face value. I’m speaking as plainly as I know how, and still you assign your own meaning to what I said. We can have different opinions regarding policies and events, but I truly don’t understand why you’re responding as if I’m lying to you. I said that Delay and Coulter were not my heroes. I said that I have my share of doubts and concerns about Bush, yet that’s not good enough for you. I don’t hate the aforementioned people, nor do I agree with them per se’, but unless I join in the daily bludgeoning of them, I will be forever deemed as “extreme right wing,” or a “Bushite,” or whatever term you choose to assign to my position.
I used to post under another name. My comments were probably similar to how I’m addressing you now. After receiving numerous hate-filled attacks, complete with constant and vicious name-calling, I decided to change my handle and give a little of that back—as sort of an experiment. Do you know what I found? I get the same respect as I did before, but I receive far less personal attacks than I used to.
I’m trying to maintain a level of respect for you Bruce in spite of our political differences. Where I’m from, men know how to disagree and still respect eachother. If that’s not how you want it, then fine—I can go back to playing the usual Antagonist.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:16 pmI’ve been thinking about it, and you know what? It wasn’t really right of me. Sorry Antagonist, I was in the wrong.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThanks Bruce, I appreciate that—I really do. You have my respect.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:47 pmAntagonist
I have a long way to go before earning anyone’s respect.
My trouble is my view of the world is still fluid and not much past my disgust at torture is set is stone, yet my basic inner core is overly dogmatic, its why I actually enjoy reading the law so much. One day, maybe I will earn respect, until then, well lets just say I’m human.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pmBruce,
On the contrary, I don’t think you deserve to be disrespected. All of the subjects posted here are capable of inflaming one’s passions. I’m afraid it brings out the worst in all of us at times. I too am in a state of flux on many subjects. I tend to wait and see a lot, and I resist being too hasty in my judgements. That in itself makes me a lightning rod for abuse when it comes to posting comments, as many seem to have already made their minds up about things. I also tend to be fiercely loyal, yet I’m open-minded. Consequently I need lots of proof and plenty of time to think about things before I change my mind about them. I don’t expect to ever be highly esteemed, but I do think I’m worth at least some respect and common courtesy. It’s been nice chatting with you Bruce, I’m sure we’ll run into eachother on another thread sometime—hopefully we can continue this level of respect.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm[...] Noonan also laments that, if global warming is real, scientists won’t tell us what we need to do in response. Actually, they’ve done that too. Here’s Noonan’s big finish: If global warming is real, and if it is new, and if it is caused not by nature and her cycles but man and his rapacity, and if it in fact endangers mankind, scientists will probably one day blame The People for doing nothing. [...]
July 20th, 2006 at 11:06 am