Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Thoughts on IWF/C-SPAN Debate: Where is Buffy when we need her the most?

By Joe Romm  

"Thoughts on IWF/C-SPAN Debate: Where is Buffy when we need her the most?"

Share:

google plus icon

buffy.jpgI will post a link to the video of the Independent Women’s Forum debate if C-SPAN gets around to uploading it. It was me against 3 or 4 disbelievers, so I had only a limited ability to reply to the endless stream of misinformation.

One thing is clear — the Denyers just keep repeating the same myths over and over again. I promised on air I would post debunkings. The following aren’t exact quotes.

“The same scientists who are screaming about global warming today were screaming about global cooling two or three decades ago.” NOT. Like Dracula, this myth can’t be killed, but if you want some good rebuttals, try this RealClimate overview post and this one too, as well as this excellent post on “Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70′s by scientists, in scientific journals?

“17,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition saying climate change isn’t happening.” Another vampire-like myth. A good rebuttal is at Deltoid and Mediamatters.

And, of course, the newest baby vampire, “NASA was recently forced to revise its temperature data proving the 1930s were warmer than today.” That one’s so new, even Climate Progress has debunked it.

Where is Buffy when we really need her?

Stossel was pretty good as moderator, I thought, only betraying his bias a couple of times, most notable at the very end when he “reminded people that James Hansen predicted in the 1980s that New York’s Westside Highway would be underwater by now” — a claim I can’t find anywhere on the web, and needless to say is nothing Hansen ever said.

The best part of the whole debate involved, yes, toilets. Before the panel, I reminded Stossel he had interviewed me ten years ago, but he didn’t remember, even when I reminded him it was about “high-efficiency toilets” — he did realize it must have been part of his “Give us a Break” series, and told me this would be my chance to get even with him. But about halfway through the debate he remembered the story and brought it up, seemingly to give me the chance to make a solid point — that at first the government regulations led to some toilets that people complained about but the marketplace soon responded and solved the problem.

All in all, not a waste of time and Stossel told me afterwards he might write about toilets and global warming in his column. I told him he can say anything he wanted as long as he mentioned my blog….

‹ Prius easily beats Hummer in life-cycle energy use, “Dust to Dust” report has no basis in fact

Forecast: Storm Warning — Preparing for Global Warming ›

31 Responses to Thoughts on IWF/C-SPAN Debate: Where is Buffy when we need her the most?

  1. Chad says:

    I can’t wait to see this video.

  2. Shepard says:

    Excellent job on C-Span today, Dr. Romm

    It is my opinion that the economics of high altitude wind energy capture using tethered technology to generate electricity will be better than fossil fuel and nuclear, and therefore lead to addressing our energy and climate change problems through market forces, not depending on legislation.

    This is going to happen. Wait and see!

  3. Chad says:

    I tracked down that quote from Hansen. Bob Reiss, the author of The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future, was on George Noory’s program “Coast to Coast” on February 18th, 2003. Here’s what it says on Noory’s website:

    “In an investigation into global warming, Reiss went to visit James Hansen of Columbia University. ‘If your predictions are right about global warming will anything down there (pointing out his Manhattan window to Broadway) look different in 10 years?’ Reiss asked him. ‘Then he said ‘there’ll be more traffic’…’because the West Side Highway will be underwater’,’ Hansen told him, adding that there would also be a drought and the trees on the median strip would be dead.”

    Can’t say that I’ve read the book. Who knows what the context was.

  4. raj says:

    I am watching it right now. What a waste of your time. Next time don’t bother debating with John Stossel and the libertarians. They are worst then Republicans.
    If you think you can change their mind. You should have done some research on John Stossel’s false reporting from the past and really laid it on him. You definitely did not
    do a good job regarding the notion that market and new technologies are going to save your soul. Hybrid SUV is just laughable.

    Biggest fallacy that you would’nt dare touch is that 150 years of Pollution spewed by West then the west goes to China and India forces them to open up and now Think tank talking point is blaming China and India of not doing anything so the US doesn’t have to lift a finger.

    may be I missed it but you didn’t cover Peak Oil.
    http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4820/ncmo01
    1 CubicMileOil = 4.17 cubic kilometers= 26.22 Gb (assuming 1 US barrel= 42 gallons)
    Last year, the world produced around 26.86 Gb of crude oil + condensate or 1.02 CMO. The figure below gives you an idea of the scale of a CMO.

  5. Joe says:

    I think you meant 3 or 4 disbelievers and ‘the mustache’…your friendly ‘non-partisan’ moderator. Raj stole my thunder… How can we blame China for gg emissions when the products they make are for first world consumers?

  6. Olin C. says:

    Dear Joe,

    I love your work. I first saw you on UCTV where you did a great job dispelling the myths surrounding ‘the hydrogen economy’. Just like there (California) where Arnold hasn’t ‘seen the light’ surrounding hydrogen, it seems folks on the IWF panel are similarly ‘lost in the dark’ regarding global warming–I mean climate change.

    My purpose here is to plant two seeds. The first has to do with this nonsense about humans not affecting the climate. The second has to do with the nonsense about climate change not being real. Let me shoot you the second one first.

    While I should think evidence like the glacier atop Kilimanjaro shrinking from 12 to 2 sq. km. sufficient, obviously it’s not. Yet, one of the people most lost in the dark, President Bush, had the audacity to tell The Canadian Prime Minister last week that he (Bush) considers the fabled Northwest Passage opening-up to be “international waters”. So Or-jay (pig-latin for George), let me make sure that I have this straight: global warming isn’t real but melting ice opening-up The Northwest Passage is? And what, you’re going ‘to put your money where your mouth is’ by sending The US Navy to bully Canada into forcing–I mean “allowing”–toxic oil traffic to short-cut through Lancaster Sound from Prudhoe Bay? So if not global warming, what’s causing Lancaster Sound to open-up? Magic pixie dust? (I wished that you’d asked that one lady on the panel why Lancaster Sound didn’t open in the 1930s.)

    The second seed that I’d like to plant has to do with all this nonsense concerning whether or not it’s human activity responsible for dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon. What seems to be ‘missing from the equation’ is the alternative argument, which is: if it’s not due to human activity, then what? A dramatic die-off of life! This argument takes two forms. One is that it’s life that’s responsible for transforming CO2 into O2, so if CO2 is rising (but not because of us), the only other logical explanation is that there’s a problem with this transformation process, most notably these lifeforms being compromised at best (despite increased CO2 “food”) and dying at worst. This feeds into form two which is: when life dies, it decomposes aerobically into CO2 and anaerobically into CO2 & CH4–both processes increasing atmospheric carbon. Now, it’d be bad enough to have ‘the bottom of the food-chainers’ dying–you know: the ‘guys’ who transform CO2 into O2–and decomposing primarily into CO2 (because they tend to get eaten & metabolized), but the thing that ought to be even MORE alarming is that this precipitates a COLLAPSE of the entire food chain as the proverbial “rug” gets pulled-out from under ‘the web of life’. This leads to anaerobic decomposition because those members at the top of the food chain who die but don’t get scavenged (metabolized) decompose into both CO2 & CH4–CH4 being a much more potent greenhouse gas (some 20 times more) than CO2–which threatens to knock us from our perch atop the food chain. Yet, not only are the poo-poo’ers not alarmed by this but also do they seem totally oblivious to it(!); they love to resort instead to throwing-out their ‘red herrings’ like ad nausea study. I’m not sure what your definition of “brain-dead” is, but this behavior fits mine.

    (To me, their nonsense is especially telling when they claim that CO2 is “food”; hey bozo, poo & pee are “food”, too, but I think Or-jay’s panties would get in a twist if we started dumping untreated poo & pee indiscriminately on The White House lawn like we do CO2 into our atmosphere. “But, it’s lawn food; we’re just trying to ‘green-up’ The White House; I don’t know why he’s gettin’ his panties in a knot…”)

    To be fair, there has been another argument that’s been put forth by the guy who wrote the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, where he says that increased atmospheric CO2 is coming from the oceans because the oceans are warming–like soda water left-out of the ‘frig losing its fizz. To me, his argument is absolute nonsense because he claims that our atmosphere isn’t warming–that’s just an aberration caused by Russian funding cuts of Siberian temperature monitoring stations thereby removing this data from average global temperature calculations. This begs the question, “If the atmosphere isn’t warming then what’s causing the oceans to warm? Magic foo-foo juice?” He doesn’t say. Moreover, it’s well documented how ocean pHs are falling due to increased dissolved CO2 and how this is having a devastating effect on creatures like coral who need higher pHs to fix calcium, but let’s not go into that right now because I’ve already gone too long.

    I hope that I’ve given you some “ammunition” here with which to “shoot” these brain-dead bozos between the “eyes” (he said metaphorically). Keep-up the good work and don’t lose hope. It’s just a matter time before we prevail; the concern is whether we hit the ” reversible window” while it’s still open or whether the brain-dead bozos are so brain-dead as to delay us until that window slams shut–which is to say climate change becomes irreversible. I pray that this ammo helps you on your quest for the former, your quest for the ideal, your quest for reversibility. So be it.

  7. Ronald Lindeman says:

    I saw you Joe. I just read your book ‘Hell or High Water.’ You’re pretty much on of everything. except.

    One point you didn’t mention was the possiblity of tax trade, carbon taxes for reducing property, income, social security and/or sales taxes.

    The US has taxes of 4 trillion dollars in an economy of 13 trillion dollars. Out of that 4 trillion, very little of it is taxes on carbon. (if you include gasoline taxes, which are to make roads anyway) If you have taxes, at least have them on things that can do some good by making them more expensive.

  8. Jenet says:

    Hi Joe
    I caught part of this brutal so-called ‘debate’ (as if there are two sides on the question of the climate crisis). You are such a calm, reasonable, logical, patient person. I don’t know how you do it. I was left sputtering. Thanks for being such a great spokesperson for humankind.

    Cheers,
    Jenet Dechary
    Presenter, Slide Show (The Climate Project)

  9. Ronald Lindeman says:

    what would be bad about this is if C-span tells itself, well we had something on Global Warming, now we’ll go on to something else.

    We should e-mail c-span and tell them it had not much to do with Global Warming, just disinformation.

  10. Ron says:

    ““The same scientists who are screaming about global warming today were screaming about global cooling two or three decades ago.” NOT”

    Here’s a link to an article about that.

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

    Were SCIENTISTS saying an ice age was coming? Yes. ALL of them? No, of course not.

    Are ALL SCIENTISTS today saying manmade global warming is real? Not hardly.

    But it’s not a myth Joe that the last big climate panic was about cooling. Maybe you’re too young to remember firsthand.

  11. Joe says:

    Sorry, Ron, that link is about “journalists” not scientists. You should read “Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s by scientists, in scientific journals?” http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

    You just can’t find many climate (or other) scientists who believed an Ice Age was imminent. Sorry. VIRTUALLY ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS today say manmade global warming is real.

  12. Ron says:

    Joe,

    You didn’t actually read that article, did you?

    Journalists read press releases and exaggerate the stories – then and now – but they don’t make up the story out of nothing.

    To say that no scientists ever said that is totally dishonest on your part. You are fostering a myth yourself.

    Although you may be right that we can’t find most of them. That was 30 years ago and most of those scientists are probably dead.

    And please stop deleting my posts. Or stop inviting comments.

  13. Joe says:

    Ron:

    I have been deleting your posts because they are gratuitously uncivil and condescending — and replete with mistake-filled accusations. I did read the article. Did you even read my post?

    This is the LAST warning for you. You write: “To say that no scientists ever said that is totally dishonest on your part.” That is NOT what I said. As all the readers of this blog can plainly see, I wrote: “You just can’t find MANY climate (or other) scientists who believed an Ice Age was imminent.” I’d say there were about as many back then as their are Denying climate scientists today — not bloody many.

    I am torn here — I have tried to maintain an open comment policy, but you keep pushing beyond the limit of civility. If you continue, then I will delete your posts.

  14. Olin C. says:

    Dear Joe & Ron,

    I don’t understand the conflict here. Are there some other posts elsewhere that I’m missing?

    It seems to me that the debate here is the same as the age old debate that got Jesus into trouble. This is to say that people don’t remain the same but that people change. It doesn’t matter if it’s “the forgiveness of sins” (which got Jesus into trouble) or ‘the changing on one’s view regarding climate’. To me, the thing that’s critical here is that, given new information, people CAN & DO change their viewpoint. This is, in large measure, what it means to be HUMAN! While there’s little hope that my cat will ever overcome her deathly fear of my vacuum cleaner, humans grow & develop everyday to overcome the feebles & foibles disempowering them, holding them back, “graduating” into the bold, new reality of opportunity & potential with which our future beckons. It’s called “revelation”, but other words like epiphany or realization mean the same thing. Just because Ron hasn’t grown up enough to have revelations doesn’t mean that we should be like The Pharisees and castigate him to some sub-human realm like Hitler would.

    Maybe you don’t know what I mean by ‘red herring’, so let me clarify that in a minute, but that’s all that these brain-dead bozos are trying to do when they bring up this former notion of ‘global cooling’. What these bozos are really saying is that: “Jesus was wrong. People can’t change. People can’t be forgiven. It doesn’t matter how much new information becomes available, you can’t change your position. Don’t bore me with the facts, my mind’s made up. It’s etched in stone.” What these bozos are really saying is that this is what they are (you know: ‘it takes one to tell one’), that they are more stone than human, that they can’t change, that they can’t forgive, that they can’t forget, that their viewpoint is forever fixed and yours should be, too — no matter how much ‘new information’ becomes available through research. (OK, remind me again what the point of research is, then? I don’t know what your definition of “sad” is, but this fits mine.) If you think calling them “stone” too extreme, let me compare them to my cat, never overcoming their deathly fear of the “vacuum cleaner”, whatever metaphoric form “vacuum cleaner” takes. That’s all that these brain-dead bozos are saying: that it has more to do with what’s going on in their own, pathetic, little minds rather than the new revelations streaming in daily from modern climate research.

    Before I drive this point home, let me be sure that you know what I mean by ‘red herring’. Arguably, the most classic example of this is The North Koreans in the ‘peace’ settlement of The Korean War. The ‘red herring’ that they threw out took two forms: 1) to argue for 2 weeks over the table upon which the peace agreement was to be signed, and then 2) to argue for another 2 weeks over where that table ought to be positioned for the signing. (If memory serves me right, it ended up out on The White House lawn near the rose garden. And then, they didn’t sign a peace agreement but rather just a cease fire — big surprise.) While I should hope that, to people like me & Joe, it doesn’t matter what table or where the table upon which the peace agreement is to be signed is placed, the thing of foremost importance is to get ‘the blessed thing done’, whether peace agreement or climate treaty being immaterial. The thing that’s important to note here is to realize, to have revelation, that there are those like Ron & The North Koreans out there who don’t give a rat’s @ss about the real matter at hand but rather who are more interested in deflecting the matter (I won’t pretend to know why beyond simple facts like stupidity or immaturity or ignorance) to serve their own pathetic ends which escape the likes of me & Joe & Harry Truman. Thus, I should hope it no surprise that, to this very day, The Korean War still rages because a peace accord was never signed, and you get brain-dead bozos using the exact same tactic when it comes to global climate change. In negotiation terms, all this nonsense (and the multi-varied forms that it takes) is summed in the term ‘red herring’.

    You see, Joe: the thing that disturbs me here isn’t Ron’s posts that I’ve read above but rather your response to his posts. If he’s a brain-dead bozo when it comes to global climate change, why not allow his posts so that God & everyone can see just how brain-dead he is? Just like I don’t know why The Truman Administration didn’t blow the doors off of North Korean nonsense, I don’t see why the likes of you (Joe) don’t blow the doors off Ron. If his (Ron’s) purpose is Enlightenment, then that should become evident from his posts; I should like to think the fact of his posts seeming to be more ‘red herring’ most telling. But though he does seem to be wading in on the side of brain-deadedness, I should like to think that, instead of alienating him, our best interests are served in offering him a chance at redemption like Jesus would do, a chance at forgiving his sin, offering him chance at trying to ‘hit the mark’. How’s he ever going to be able to ‘hit the bulls-eye’ if he doesn’t practice? We’re talking about transformation here, and I should like to think that transformation is what you (Joe) are all about: transforming those who are ‘lost’ into those who are ‘found’ when it comes to global climate change. This is to say that, if Ron is brain-dead (which I don’t want to assume here because I don’t want to judge), he’s your (Joe’s) ‘best case scenario’ for transformation into the ‘flock’ of the Enlightened; he’s here, he’s now, he’s engaged. If you’re not just ‘preaching to the choir’, Joe, then Ron’s your audience. Don’t alienate, embrace!

    (OK. If he’s poisoning the ‘brethren’, then you’ve got a case for alienation. But from my read, all he’s showing is just how brain-asleep he is, which means our job is to ‘wake him up’. Any brain-deadedness which Ron expresses I should think ought to uplift the brethren [and the 'sistren' he said, not wanting to be sexist], NOT casting doubt among ‘true believers’).

    Again, I realize that I’ve gone too long, but what I’ve said up to this point has just been a build for what follows. This gets into the concept of a tipping point, a thing that shifts our climate from warming to cooling. You see: what really happened back in the 70′s & 80′s was that enough data finally became available for a high functioning few to begin to realize that we face the very real & present danger of a tipping point. I vividly remember learning about the previous Ice Age in 4th grade in 1970 because it played a big role in shaping the region in which I grew up (Northern Indiana, the topography of which was vastly influenced by glaciers versus southern Indiana, the topography of which totally differs from the north having been spared glacial influence). This is to say that, by 1970, the fact of the previous glaciers was understood, but it wasn’t until later in the decade (and on into the 1980s) that enough data became available to suggest that the threat of a return Ice Age became known. If you think about it, it makes sense: how can you know something before you know it? (Duh.)

    So, what’s the argument of the likes of Ron? That we should have always known? That we ought to know now? That, if we don’t know exactly when & where & how & why, we know nothing? Who knows what’s the point of the likes of Ron — maybe he’s North Korean? Maybe I’m totally misconstruing his point, I just don’t yet know it because his point is so convoluted that even she doesn’t know what her point is. My point is that I should like to think that rummaging through such nonsense in order to make sense of it makes us stronger, makes us human. Thus barring some ‘poisoning effect’ from the likes of Ron, please don’t be too hard on him. Maybe he’ll repent; maybe we can forgive & forget his nonsense when he ‘sees the light’; maybe he’ll transform and, instead of wasting his energy on throwing out ‘red herrings’, he’ll become more like Joe investing his time in more productive pursues. Who knows? Certainly not me. While I hope, I won’t pretend to know. Only Ron knows for sure. But in the meantime, who am I to judge? I hope & pray, but only time will tell.

    In conclusion, let me restate my confusion at this debate. If Ron is throwing ‘red herrings’, shame on him. If Joe is “biting” at ‘red herrings’ like Truman, shame on him. I’m not entirely sure of Ron’s point beyond acting like The North Koreans, but I should hope the historic climatological record clear on the fact that another Ice Age is coming, with or without human activity. If Ron thinks stepping on the proverbial “accelerator” to hasten this Ice Age is a good idea, that’s his prerogative; I beg to differ. I must admit that I’m more aligned with Joe’s thinking in these regards. I should hope it obvious that the real point of discussion isn’t whether we get there or whether 70′s & 80′s viewpoints are still relevant; the real point of discussion is HOW we get there. I should like to think that Joe’s point is that we get there in as most responsible and as painless a process as possible, like disrupting a positive feedback loop by putting our hand over the microphone instead of being so stupid as to let the speaker ‘blow’, while I can’t be sure of Ron’s point beyond throwing a ‘red herring’ like The North Koreans. My prayer is that Ron has just been a little confused to date and that my comment might do much to clear up his confusion (given him something constructive to which to respond). Moreover, I would pray that, if Ron is so brain-dead as to throw ‘red herrings’, these would act to help Joe sharpen his “sword” so that, in the future, he might be able to better “slay the beast” as he faces it. So be it.

  15. Joe says:

    Wow! Thanks for the thoughtful post. I don’t think he’s brain dead — I think he’s uncivil. Ron has been posting uncivil comments for a while. You’d have to search all over the blog to find them. He’s the only one of all the commenters who keeps doing this, and so he’s the only whose posts keep getting deleted. Otherwise I do very little moderating. For instance, you’ve compared Ron to the North Koreans, which is harsher than anything I’ve ever written but I did no moderating :)

    I hope you’ll keep commenting!

  16. Jeffrey says:

    Dr. Romm:

    You state “VIRTUALLY ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS today say manmade global warming is real.” There is no published scientific study or poll that leads to this conclusion. If you can show any non-political body that has even attempted such a study, please post the link to it. Otherwise please stop stating this falsehood.

  17. Gavin says:

    There’s a good wikipedia article with lots of statements from non-political bodies (like the American Geophysical Union) at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    I’m a mostly-libertarian skeptic, and I think it’s pretty clear from the science that we’re making the world get warmer.

    I’m much more skeptical about trusting our government to find the right way to fix the problem, though. It seems to me Carbon Caps and Credits might end up being just like the Farm Bill in 2050; a government program that seemed like a good idea at the time, but turned out to be just a transfer of wealth from consumers to the corporations with the best political connections and lobbyists.

  18. Smitty says:

    Apparently our UN delegates don’t believe in global warming either.

    We just voted to NOT curtail our greenhouse gas emissions, our excuse?

    We’re (our hostile govt) planning on increasing our population by 60% through immigration http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070830/ts_nm/climate_population_dc

    Our UN delegation just said that.

  19. Tom Thung says:

    How much CO2 is supposed to be in the atmosphere?

  20. another not fooled by the Left says:

    So you are the guy to blame for all the millions of gallons of wasted water that was and STILL IS required to flush those junk ‘low-flow’ 1.6 gal toilets! Shame on you for your deception and lies! Those 1.6 gal toilets STILL for sale at the Home Despot STILL DO NOT flush adequately and are avoided by a number of contractors that I see on a regular basis.

    Come on – you have to at least admit the double flushes required by the users of those toilets wasted far more water than even you ever expected or predicted. Decades of waste!!!

    This – this – is what happens when left-wing wonks and socialists who would prefer the Soviet-style control of society, gain control of the presidency and Congress. Yours is a ‘religion’ and I am, for one, not fooled by the feel-good sentiments that you cast around like manna from heaven….

  21. Joe says:

    This was George H. W. Bush’s energy bill. The Energy Dept. just helped oversee its implementation. You are the first person I have heard complain about these toilets in many years. Yes, there are lemons in all product categories, more often in ones the government does not regulate (like Chinese imports). This country has serious water problems, and many states were taking separate action, which the manufacturers didn’t like.

  22. Randy says:

    The Left couldn’t stop at destroying our inner cities with their Great Society programs, they had to come after our toilets too. There’s a real reason why incompetents gravitate towards government – they are not held accountable for their failures.

    Aside from this, it’s laughable that the very people who take it upon themselves to defend us all from those who would “impose their morality” on us are the most egregious practitioners of doing just that.

    Here’s a challenge. Answer my question: “Why should I as a high income earner be forced to pay taxes at a higher rate than anyone else?”, but do it without invoking your version of morality.

    While you’re trying to answer that, I’ll be flushing three or more times every day like I have been forced to do for years. Congrats, you’ve succeeded in imposing your morality on us all.

    Cream isn’t the ONLY thing that floats to the top.

  23. Joe says:

    It’s more laughable that someone defending conservatives, who supposedly are defenders of faith and family, would insist that government act without concern for morality. Apparently you missed that part in the New Testament where Jesus tells a wealthy man the way to get into heaven is to give away all his wealth.

    The rich should pay higher taxes because they have achieved their wealth through the security, legal, and economic framework established by the government they scorn. They should pay higher taxes because they have more to lose from a loss of security, domestic Tranquility, and the like. And that’s assuming the rich see no moral value in having government help the poorest among us. I would note a certain document begins

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    So, yes, the government’s job is to promote the general welfare, even if you don’t think so.

  24. Randy says:

    Yeah, verily, and then we shall use this blunt instrument of moral force that you have fashioned for us to end abortion and generally impose our righteousness upon our fellow men.

    Note that Jesus used the word “give”. He was not petitioning the government to forcibly remove wealth from those who had earned it.

    “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

    Neither would he have to flush three times I guess.

    BTW, even though we are 180 degrees out, I appreciate your reply.

  25. Bladernr1001 says:

    So if the press overhyped the global cooling thing back in the 70′s what is so hard to believe that the same thing is not going on now?

  26. Joe says:

    Because today it is the scientific community that has raised the alarm bells and they have been doing so for three decades.

  27. Bladernr1001 says:

    You mean those same scientists that depend on government financing for their scientific studies?

    I do agree with the premise that the pressure to procure government funding leads some scientists to “pre-ordained” findings. Perhaps not all but some probably do succumb to this temptation.

    There are a lot of scientists out there who do not think we have enough data/evidence to justify the huge, huge changes being proposed that could have enormous impact on the economy. I mean, let’s keep this in perspective, the world has risen 1 degree in like 100 years.

  28. Olin C. says:

    Dear Randy,

    This comment is in response to your question about ‘why should high wage earners pay more taxes than lower ones’. It uses ecology instead of morality for enhanced understanding.

    Consider the ecology of blue whales & plankton. Blue whales eat plankton, and plankton are eaten by blue whales; it’s a classic predator-prey ecological relationship. I’m sure that blue whales, were they able, would share a sentiment similar to yours when it comes to whalers harvesting them. Their protest might go something like this: “Whalers ought to harvest a ton of plankton for each ton of blue whale harvested”. The point that the blue whales would seem to miss, just like you, is that the whalers are smart enough to let the blue whales do the harvesting of the plankton for them. Why should whalers waste their time on the drudgery with little reward of harvesting plankton when the blue whales are delighted to do it — it’s what blue whales do. In fact, I should hope it obvious that it’s counterproductive for whalers to harvest plankton because that’s taking ‘food out of the mouths of babes’ — baby whales that whalers need fed in order to maintain & boost future harvests!

    Here, it becomes evident where misguided tax policy goes wrong just like whalers. While whalers are smart enough to know to harvest just ‘the top of the food chain’ (unlike existing tax policy makers), they’re not smart enough to recycle a sizable portion of their profits back into the bottom of the food chain, to feed the plankton that blue whales eat, thereby ensuring enhanced future harvests, thereby growing the entire food chain. In the vernacular, it’s called “cultivation”; others terms like “responsibility” & “prudence” also seem fitting. This would be like tax policy makers not only skimming money just from the top but also recycling a goodly portion of that money back into ‘the bottom of the tax chain’ thereby creating more ‘tax plankton’ upon which ‘tax whales’ like yourself might feed. Sounds like ‘tax heaven’; so, what’s the problem?

    Of course, the problem is that you can’t trust tax policy makers. To me, what we’re really saying is that they’re “imbeciles”. By strict definition, the difference separating idiots from imbeciles is that idiots can never learn to use the bathroom whereas imbeciles can be taught to use the bathroom but can’t be TRUSTED to use the bathroom. Thus, both idiots & imbeciles go through their entire lives wearing diapers. While we’re not talking about literal imbeciles here in discussing untrustworthy tax policy makers, we are talking about metaphoric imbeciles, people who can’t be trusted, people who make horrific messes and who don’t have enough sense to clean up their own messes; they require other, higher functioning human beings to hold their hands and to clean up their messes for them. Thus, the secret to ‘tax heaven’ becomes simple: cut the tax imbeciles out of the equation and turn it over to the higher functioning human beings who not only are capable of cleaning up the messes made by the imbeciles but also who have enough going on ‘upstairs’ to not make the freakin’ messes with which to begin! So, what’s the problem? Why do we continue to suffer under a nonsensical tax system? It should be easy tell the low functioning tax imbeciles from the high functioning care givers, right?

    Well, I’ve answered your question and look forward to your response. Now, I’ve a question for you. I’m assuming that you support GW because he “cut” your taxes. But, you do realize that GW’s run up more debt than all other previous Administrations combined, don’t you? When GW entered office, the national debt was $4 trillion, and, at the rate that he’s ‘burning through cash’, he’s going to leave office with the national debt somewhere between $9 & $10 trillion — money that’s going to have to be paid back at some future date by tax revenues; it’s a freakin’ mess. The making of a mess that one can’t clean up one’s self has nothing to with “left” or “right”, but everything to do with indicating the presence of one (or more) imbecile(s). So here’s my question for you: what’s the difference between a “tax cut” and a “tax deferral”?

  29. Bladernr1001 says:

    Well Olin C.,

    You seem to be addressing the tax side of the problem. What about the spending side? At what point do we you hold the government’s feet to the fire to spend only what they have available to them and not incurring debt? We have been running deficits since at least the 30′s. In that time, taxes have been raised and taxes have been lowered. Didn’t matter which it was….we still ran deficits. So what does that tell you about the government? Whatever amount of money it has it will spend it…..and then some.

    The other concept we need to embrace is the what the government is spending money on. Most of what the government spends money on is unconstitutional. SS, medicare, welfare special interest programs, federal money to build say a presidential library. None of this has ever been explicity written into the constitution. Why? Because most of would get shot down. Why? Because most of this maybe is just not as good an idea as everyone thinks it is. Something to think about.

  30. Bladernr1001 says:

    Randy,

    Thanks for your inputs. That’s a point that I consistantly bring up to liberals and they never provide a satisfactory answer:

    Most religions of the world encourage giving to those less fortunate. None of these religions, however, stipulate that the government should force this. At that point it is not “giving” anymore. It is confiscating.

    You know the old saying….If government robs peter to pay paul the government will always have the support of paul.

  31. Olin C. says:

    Dear Bladernr1001,

    I’m thinking that we agree here, though it may not be clear from your comment. I think that “that government which governs best is that government which governs least”. I agree with you that government spending not only is way out of control but also has migrated far into unconstitutional realms. I should hope it obvious that it’s immaterial to talk in terms of “left” or “right” is these regards, as the so-called “right” has proven itself grossly more guilty of said violations than “the left” could ever have hoped over the past few years. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad how GW (George W. Bush, not global warming; I’ll start using GWB to avoid confusion) supports our Constitution to the nth degree when it comes to feeding his LUST FOR POWER (far beyond what I should hope most Americans consider Constitutional), but he gets his panties in a twist when it comes to empowering Constitutional civil rights (see violations of habeas corpus [Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2], and 4th, 5th, 6th, & 8th Amendments)!? GWB is joking, right? (I’m not sure how his motivations could be any more transparent [to the extent of sending a brain-dead "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" to testify before Congress], but obviously 30% of our population is either permanently fooled or totally brain-dead in these regards.) Of course, these Constitutional violations have nothing to do with spending, except for paying the salaries of those who (and amortizing the equipment & facilities needed to) commit said violations via government dole. You’re probably talking about a host of other nonsensical government expenditures that have little to nothing to do with governing, but everything to do with social engineering. We probably shouldn’t go there because I’m going too long as it is, but I’m thinking that I’m with you on this one here, brother. (Or is it sister?)

    (Hey, I was just addressing Randy’s question about non-moral reasons for taxing only the “whales” and leaving the “plankton” to feed the whales — I mean, the rich. Randy wasn’t “busting Joe’s chops” over what government should do with the money once it got it, was he? Or was he, which means that I’m chasing a ‘red herring’ here?)

    Now, where we might differ is where the likes of Keynes & Galbraith enter the equation. This is to say that I DO agree with the supposition that, when free market banking imbeciles soil their trousers, it’s prudent for government to step in and wipe their proverbial “poopy butts” — like The Great Depression. However, this philosophy is premised on the condition of limited government going into said crisis, and returning to limited government after said crisis. Obviously to your point, this borders on insanity. Your point is well taken that, just like we can’t trust free market imbeciles to not make a “poopy mess” of the economy, we can’t trust government to limit itself — to not go into debt before the mess, to only go into enough debt to clean up the mess, and to pay the debt off as fast as possible after the mess has been cleaned up — and maybe even run surpluses! (Hell forbid!) What do we get instead? To your point: perpetual government debt, perpetual increased government employment. (Even when they run on “Goldwater Conservative platforms” like GWB & Reagan, they’re liars. Oops; sorry; I don’t mean to seem judgmental; what’s your definition of “liar”?) One of the things most disturbing in these regards is government hiring; it’d be ideal to go into the free market’s poopy mess with minimum government employment, to expand government employment only as needed to clean up the poop, and then to shrink government employment back down to “normal” as the “diaper rash” of the free market subsides and the free market is once again able to absorb jobs shed by emergency government employment — jobs created because the free market was too immature to see past 3 months into the future. While I should hope it obvious that it would be ideal to live in such a world, I should hope it just as obvious to realize that we don’t live in such a world, that it would be “insane” to insist that our present officials adhere to such — to see our government the way that our government is and to say, “Our government shouldn’t be this way!”. (I agree with Einstein on this one here which means that my definition of “insanity” is to see Truth the way that Truth is and say, “Truth shouldn’t be this way.”. Thus, my definition of “genius” is to see Truth the way that Truth is and say, “This is the way Truth is!”. What’s the way ‘Truth is’ when it comes to government? Hey! That smacks back to your question!) The sad fact of the matter is that our present officials seem incapable of NOT making WORSE the messes that they’re supposed to be cleaning up!(?) Who’s to blame for that? Who voted these metaphoric imbeciles into office with which to begin? Obviously, we shouldn’t blame government but rather take the responsibility upon ourselves in realizing that we only get the government that we deserve…

    When it comes to government, what is the way that Truth is? I constantly have to remind my friends that GWB isn’t “the anti-christ” as they’d like to paint him — you know: beating plowshares into swords instead of beating swords into plowshares– but rather more of an “anti-Joseph”. This is in reference to The Old Testament story of how Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream and knew to store up 7 years of plenty to alleviate 7 years of want. GWB has done the exact opposite: he’s squandered the “7 years of plenty” that he’s been given, overseeing the peak of the baby-boom generation under his watch (“it’s the economy, stupid”, and it’s demographics that drive the economy) where not only has GWB NOT stored up but also has he run up record deficits!(?) So, where are Keynes & Galbraith going to be when the true realities of the sub-prime crises hit home? Where will Keynes & Galbraith be when the housing market finally bottoms in 2018-19 — the time frame in which baby-boomer demographics are destined to bottom? How will a government ALREADY indebted, a government ALREADY totally over employed, wipe the poopy butt of all those free marketeers who only saw the next “wave crest” — who totally missed “the tide change”? (Spitfire, GWB doesn’t even seem to realize the tide change — and he oversees The Bureau of Labor Statistics for Satan’s sake!) It’d be nice if we could just conveniently blame this on “the left”, except the problem with that is that Clinton left office with a $100 billion surplus (paying DOWN the national debt — acting in accordance with Joseph, & Keynes, & Galbraith) and projections of the surplus growing to $250 billion within a few years. How long did it take for GWB to “hooch the pooch”? Within 2 years, he was pushin’ $500 billion deficits! OK, now I’ve lost the reason why you brought up spending with which to begin accept that you’re a “leftist” and totally opposed to “the brain-dead right”…

    (Let me just say this: I don’t see where $30,000 of federal debt for every US citizen [$9 trillion of debt divided by 300 million citizens] makes us MORE secure. I’d love to know how much of that $9 trillion ended up in Randy’s pockets.)

    Before Joe gets upset with all this non-climate talk, let’s bring this home. While it’s my prayer that the free market might address climate change of its own volition — you know: trading carbon credits in accord with Western European leadership — sadly, this smacks of insanity. It’s funny how government didn’t need to prod the free market to trade crude oil, but when it comes to the mess that crude oil leaves –the “poopy”, if you will — it’s up to government to clean up the mess just like government handles wastewater (you know: literal poopy & pee-pee versus metaphoric). So if the solution isn’t free market carbon credits — if the free market can’t wipe its own “poopy butt” in these regards — then I should hope it obvious that it’s up to government to intervene by doing what government does best: tax. And then, what will government spend said tax revenues on? This smacks back to your point of spending, which I think a good note upon which to end.

    (He said not capable of resisting the compulsion to plant the seeds of alternative CLEAN fuels & energy INdependence & national ENERGY SECURITY. Maybe you don’t realize that 80% of the 9/11 hi-jackers originated from Saudi Arabia? This means that it makes absolutely NO “security sense” to send another dollar to Saudi Arabia — let alone Iran, for that matter; I’d feel much more SECURE sending Federal Reserve Notes to AMERICAN farmers, thank you very little.)

    P.S. If it takes someone like Joe to wipe government’s @ss because they need they’re @ss wiped before they can begin to wipe the free market’s @ss, so be it. Who else? You? Randy? Spitfire, Randy seems to scream unfairness about paying the tax deferrals necessary to fund O.I.L. military — let alone to begin to apply superfund “butt cream” to the free market’s “diaper rash”.