A Matter Of Opinion

You pick the topic

Posted by Gary

Feb. 22, 2010 5:16 p.m. • 86 comments

Below is a thread that was suggested by a reader. Want to start a thread? Send me an email and I’ll consider the topic.

garyc@spokesman.com

86 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

garyc on February 22 at 5:25 p.m.
garyc@spokesman.com
empyrius on February 23 at 10:45 a.m.
Are the local democrats and republicans gone??? Those people are crazy! One party says down with big government as their political party was responsible for the massive expansion of the federal government in the last ten years, and the other party thinks the U.S. government is “a force for good in the world” (hey wait, don’t the repubs say that 2!!!!).

And both political parties that “represent” the people in Washington DC are wholly owned by international financiers; heck, the republican/democrat American government even says the economic wizards “too big to fail” are indispensable for the future of capitalism (hence they are all too willing to accommodate their every economic need).

The American people have been sold out by the republican and democrat parties, but have no worry, because you can change all of that by voting for …, a republican or democrat next election: now that is change you can believe in! NOT!

Well, before China dumps the dollar and the federal government declares a state of emergency on the continental U.S. (don’t worry, only people making less than 50 thousand a year need worry), and Halliburton and U.S. troops put American on lockdown, let us Americans use what little freedom we have left and decriminalize marijuana this November!

If we are to be owned by the bankers at least let us fight for our freedom to get stoned!

Amen
Gary D Rhodes on February 23 at 11:40 a.m.
Hallelujah brother!

Now pursue some happiness.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 24 at 8:28 a.m.
There’s a question that’s been nagging the back of my mind for the better part of a week now and I thought I’d share it.

Just exactly *why* do we need two monolithic political parties anyway? What function do they serve - other than the obvious function of giving us to readily identifiable, polarizing ‘teams’ upon which to hang our allegiance and thus organize our partisan division?

Two sides that endlessly strive to score a ‘win’ over the opposition … at what cost?

Maybe they once had a purpose - back in the days when information was harder to come by. Back in the day when it took a week or two for an issue of the New York Times to make it out to the little hamlet of Burning Stump, if it made it at all, maybe we needed the support of an organized national political party to fill in the gaps. ‘Don’t worry about the details. You know what we [Republicans / Democrats] stand for at least with respect to The Big Picture. So just vote [Republican / Democrat] and trust us.’

But nowadays… When a candidate’s perhaps over-enthusiastic victory celebration or an off-hand, off-the-record comment made to someone is the next half-hour’s lead story on CNN and the stuff of several thousand blog posts a half-hour after that…

It seems to me that these days, the tangible costs of our adversarial two party system are rather obvious.

So what exactly are the tangible benefits that we receive in exchange for those costs?
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 8:41 a.m.
First make the third parties more credible Jeff Grey, THEN people will be more likely to vote for them. Both the Dems and the GOP could use some useful competition.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 8:45 a.m.
Druid, the Campaign for Liberty IS the competition in and for the GOP. There is a clearly laid out platform.

What is the equivalent in the Democrat Party?
Have they laid out their comprehensive vision and plan to get there?
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 8:56 a.m.
In short, you declare that there is NO credible third party Rhodes to compete WITH the GOP and the Dems? I believe that instead you have made the case for the previous posts of party monoliths by both Empyrius and Grey.

That’s not the question I asked.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 9:11 a.m.
Yes both parties are very similar.

Despite all the hand-wringing about our war on Iraq, Nancy Pelosi could have ended the war in early 2007, but did not.
Are the Dems anti-war or not?

Recognizing the frustration and futility of trying to get a third party viable, C4L decided to take over one of the federally subsidized parties. We are working from the grass-roots, at the precinct level, to drive the neo-cons from dominance.
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 9:24 a.m.
Back in 2007, Rhodes, when the GOP STILL had enough power to put a halt to any effort by the Dems to halt the war AND GW who practically called any such effort treasonous. Exactly how do you figure that Pelosi could have ended much of anything? LOL!

Now, I saw a most excellent take on RADICAL PAC by “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” The RADICAL PAC was denouncing EVERYTHING commie that they could get their hands on, INCLUDING the Trostkyite founders of their movement. I guess the RADICAL PAC is whom you mean as the people you’d drive out of power? Go for it dude, I’ll agree with you.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 9:34 a.m.
<<go for=”” it=”” dude,=”” i’ll=”” agree=”” with=”“ you.=”“>>

We are doing it Druid. Join the parade.

The Speaker could refused to bring up GWB’s special funding bills. She could have told Bush that she was willing to bring up one more of his funding bills, but this would be the last one, so he better use it to start bringing troops and equipment home.
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 9:43 a.m.
And when she did, as I recall, the GOP went nasty. As did GW. I’d “join the parade,” Rhodes the time you take a look at ALL the facts. Problem is, the people you want to drive the “neo-cons” out of dominance don’t look at all the facts. Neither do the neo left.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 10:27 a.m.
Druid, <<and when=”” she=”” did,=”” as=”” i=”” recall,=”” the=”” gop=”” went=”“ nasty.=”“>>

So Pelosi could have stopped the war, made the US more lovable in the eyes of the world, saved hundreds of billions of dollars, saved thousands of lives, and kept many thousand more from being wounded, but didn’t because George Bush would have been mad.

Is that your opinion Druid?
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 10:36 a.m.
Guess you have a problem with short term memory, Rhodes. What you described WAS the case in 2007. Not “could have been,” not “might have been,” but WAS the fact in 2007.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 10:38 a.m.
Druid, did the Speaker have complete power over war funding or not?
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 10:44 a.m.
Rhodes, apparently you do not have an understanding of the situation as it stood back in 2007. War funding can be introduced. But it had to be VOTED ON. Attempting to pull war funding? It had to be VOTED ON. Do yourself a favor and do the research before continuing on in putting forth these ridiculous assertions.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 10:51 a.m.
I have a very good grasp Druid.

Just as Ron Paul has 312 co-sposors of his bill to audit the Fed, the Speaker has no obligation to bring anything to the floor that she doesn’t want to.

GWB kept asking for supplemental spending for the wars.
This should have been the easy opening for Ms. Pelosi. She could simply have said, “this will be your last 100 billion, George. Spend it to bring home the troops.”
MatthewRoot on February 24 at 11:02 a.m.
Rhodes, sure the Democrats could have cut funding for the Iraq War, and if that happened the Republicans, Faux News, and the pro-war Yakarazzi propaganda machine (Bill Kristol et al.) would have made that political suicide. Once troops are in the field, just stopping all funding would have been a disaster, for the troops and for innocent Iraqi citizens. You can not just stop a war and walk away, the real world doesn’t work that way. That would cost many lives.

Democrats are not anti-war (enough evidence of that), the current Democratic party is against stupid interventionist, nation-building wars built on a pack of hyped up “intelligence” that was known to be wrong by those who hyped it. Before the war, I listened to Hans Blix say that the U.S. “intelligence” on Iraqi WMD was the worst he had ever seen. All we had to do was listen to the UN weapons inspectors to know it was all a bunch of malarkey.
Gary D Rhodes on February 24 at 11:06 a.m.
So you agree Chip. Political considerations kept Pelosi from using her whip hand, and bringing the Iraq war to an end.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 24 at 11:32 a.m.
AD,

– First make the third parties more credible Jeff Grey, THEN people will be more likely to vote for them. –

Well… I suppose within the current context, that’s a reasonable suggestion.

But I guess I’m asking why we need political parties - Dem, Rep, Lib, Ind, etc, etc… *at all*? To my knowledge, I’ve never seen someone named “Republican Party” running for a specific office.

I vote for the candidate or for the issue based on the candidate’s or the issue’s merits. How much more credible does a person or an issue need to be? How much less credible is a person if they don’t align themselves with one of the two Great Monoliths? (To be blunt, these days I’m finding ‘monolithic’ affiliation to be less and less a badge of honor.)

If John Doe is running for office and you’ve taken the time to inform yourself on where he stands on the issues, if you like his character and believe he’s a good choice for a person in whom to place the trust he’s asking for - inquiries that our modern Information Age makes possible as never before… Do you sadly shake your head and tell yourself, ‘Ah, too bad. Not worthy’ if you see an ‘i’ (versus an ‘r’ or a ‘d’) behind his name on the ballot? Do you then dutifully mark your ballot instead for the approved ‘r’ or ‘d’ because… well, just because? Or worse yet - do you reflexively vote ‘d’ (or ‘r’) because those damn ‘r’s (or ‘d’s) can’t be allowed to win, who cares who the actual candidate is!

If we as a nation have truly come to that - and more and more these days I wonder just how far along that road we’ve come - then no wonder we’re in the partisan, polarized mess we’re currently in.

Again I ask, just what actual benefit do political parties - *any political parties* - provide to justify the price we pay for them?

That’s not a rhetorical. I’m really asking. Does anybody know?
MatthewRoot on February 24 at 11:46 a.m.
Gary Rhodes, I agree that after a disastrous war was started, sudden withdrawal of troops would have made the situation worse after 5 years of war and destabilization. Just can’t stop a war and walk away without consequences.
I agree that Pelosi would not consider introducing a surtax to pay for the war because of politics.
I agree that Pelosi and Harry Reid are hyper-partisan, and they would rather score political points than do what is best for the country, same with all of the Republican leaders. Senator McCain used to seem like an exception, but now, not so much.

Everything in politics has political considerations, guess that’s why it called politics.
garyc on February 24 at 11:51 a.m.
<<everything in=”” politics=”” has=”” political=”” considerations,=”” guess=”” that’s=”” why=”” it=”” called=”“ politics.=”“>>

Even if you’re “principled!”
MatthewRoot on February 24 at 12:15 p.m.
Yup, see rationalizations of principle compromises above.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 24 at 12:20 p.m.
Chip,

“Political considerations”?

Or “Party considerations”?

I agree that in the real world, decisions are - or at least *should be* - based on considerations that can be branded ‘political’. ‘Should we go to war?’ ‘Should we remain neutral?’ ‘What are the benefits and liabilities arising from either choice?’ Etc.

And I would say those kinds of ‘political’ considerations are valid. They need to be considered if good decisions are to be made.

But if the consideration is, ‘What are the benefits and liabilities *for our political party* accruing from this decision - especially with respect to our chances in the next election? How can we keep The Other Side from scoring a point on this?’…

If I’m a Republican (which I am, by the way), why do I really care what benefit accrues to the Democratic National Committee as a result of this or that decision? (Or vice versa for the Democrats out there.) For that matter, why should I care about the benefit to the Republican Party? When you get right down to it, what has the Republican Party ever done for me? (The Party, as distinct from the people I elected.)

Why should that in any way be a factor in the day-to-day working of *everyone’s* government?
garyc on February 24 at 12:57 p.m.
Jeff,

I understand the sentiment, but are you calling for some sort of action, like banning political parties?

First Amendment wouldn’t allow for that. I agree that we shouldn’t be financing their activities, such as paying for primaries.
MatthewRoot on February 24 at 1:03 p.m.
Jeffrey, I meant party considerations by your explication. I should have said that Pelosi and Reid make some decisions based on political party considerations. They don’t always play partisan politics for party advantage only.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 24 at 2:41 p.m.
Gary C,

Frankly, I don’t know what I’m demanding. I haven’t thought it through that far yet. I’m still asking questions.

Chip,

I haven’t sunk so deep into a partisan bunker mentality that I have lost the ability to appreciate how our elected representatives - on both sides of The Great Divide - still make at least *some* good decisions for the right reasons.

But even when the right decision is made for the right reason, it seems like more and more these days that in and of itself becomes a partisan politics football.

‘Quick! Fire up the spin machine! Rally the troops! Those damn [Rs] [Ds] [fill in the blank] are about to score a point! Remember that this is an election year!!’

It all seems to be getting quite ‘cart before the horse-ish.’ Do political parties exist to serve the system and thus the electorate? That’s what I would have thought.

But more and more these days it seems to be the other way around: That the system and the electorate exist to serve the parties.
gmorton on February 24 at 5:33 p.m.
Chip Jones, wrote,

“Before the war, I listened to Hans Blix say that the U.S. “intelligence” on Iraqi WMD was the worst he had ever seen. All we had to do was listen to the UN weapons inspectors to know it was all a bunch of malarkey.”

Plenty of precedent. The Vietnam War was based on a hoked-up claim of an attack by N. Vietnamese PT boats on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin.

War, as Randolph Bourne said, is the “health of the State.” It reliably generates higher taxes, more and bigger bureaucracies, more control over the economy and more police power over citizens. No statist can resist it.
gmorton on February 24 at 6:36 p.m.
Well, well. A new paper by a WMO team in *Nature Geoscience* concludes that “We cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.”

(This if for you, J. Grey).

The paper re-affirms the conclusions of a paper published in 2005 in *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society* by a group led by Roger Pileke, Jr. and Chris Landsea (Director of the National Hurricane Center at NOAA). This paper was ignored by the authors of the 2007 IPCC AR4, and “hockey team” stalwart Kevin Tremberth described it as “shameful” and said it “should be withdrawn.”

Among the conclusions of the new WMO paper:

* “Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase.”

* “[Atlantic] Basin-wide major hurricane counts show a significant rising trend, but we judge these basin-wide data as unreliable for climate-trend estimation before aircraft reconnaissance in 1944.”

* In terms of global tropical cyclone frequency, it was concluded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbers from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers for any individual basin over that period, except for the Atlantic (discussed above). Landfall in various regions of East Asia during the past 60 years, and those in the Philippines during the past century, also do not show significant trends.”

* The short time period of the data does not allow any definitive statements regarding separation of anthropogenic changes from natural decadal variability or the existence of longer-term trends and possible links to greenhouse warming.”

More on Pielke Jr.’s blog:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.html
Jeffrey_Grey on February 24 at 6:58 p.m.
From the WMO’s own website:

– GENEVA – 23 February 2010 (WMO) – The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Expert Team on Climate Change Impacts on Tropical Cyclones (i.e. hurricanes, typhoons) concluded that, if twenty-first century warming occurs as projected, there will likely be an increase, on average worldwide, in the maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones of +2 to +11 % and in rainfall rates of approximately 20% within 100 km of the storm centre. The experts concluded that the total number of tropical cyclones worldwide will likely either decrease or remain unchanged. However, a likely increase in tropical cyclone intensity means that the frequency of the strongest tropical cyclones will more likely than not increase under the projected warming scenarios. –

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/infonotes/infonote62_en.html
Arch_Druid on February 24 at 7:01 p.m.
Jeff Grey, I do not vote the party line. If an Independent ran against a GOP I disagreed with, I’ll vote for the Independent. Am I cheered when Independents win public office? Yes.

I am a Republican, but I am not a blind ideologue.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 24 at 7:09 p.m.
– * “[Atlantic] Basin-wide major hurricane counts show a significant rising trend, but we judge these basin-wide data as unreliable for climate-trend estimation before aircraft reconnaissance in 1944.” –

So the ‘significant rising trend’ is acknowledged.

Therefore consider:

– There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995. [the ‘significant rising trend’ jg] *This corresponds to an upswing in tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperature, which is very likely a response to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases.* – (emphasis mine)
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

I stand by my original premise.
gmorton on February 24 at 7:41 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Expert Team on Climate Change Impacts on Tropical Cyclones (i.e. hurricanes, typhoons) concluded that, if twenty-first century warming occurs as projected, there will likely be an increase, on average worldwide, in the maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones . . .”

Of course. More “If pigs had wings …” prognostications from unvalidated climate models. Meanwhile, there has already been a 1C temp increase (approx) over the past century, yet no observable increase in the frequency or intensity of storms.

“– There has been a large upswing in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes, beginning in 1995.”

No there hasn’t, based on the US record. And the data outside the US prior to 1944 is insufficient to support any conclusion. Without past data, any claim of an “upswing” is baseless.
gmorton on February 24 at 7:45 p.m.
It was interesting that the abstract of the paper – all that is accessible outside the paywall – focused on the model predictions, rather than the actual, empirical data and findings.
richard on February 24 at 9:27 p.m.
Just a couple of articles about the collapsing charade we adoringly call - Global Warming:

Wall Street Journal -
First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state.”

But as Jonathan Leake of London’s Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, “did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning.”

The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell’s corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.

All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby’s regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC’s shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

Washington Times -
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome’s international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.
gmorton on February 25 at 2:08 a.m.
Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and long a confirmed “warmist,” has recently been participating on a number of skeptical blogs in order to open a dialogue.

Today she posted a rather remarkable admission on her own blog, which was quickly picked up by several others:

“No one really believes that the ‘science is settled’ or that ‘the debate is over.’ Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”

She also acknowledges that many skeptical blogs are written by “technically educated people, mostly outside of academia.”

“Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as ‘lukewarmers.’ They are independent of oil industry influence.”

Curry advises climate scientists that, because of the grave policy implications of their work, it will be subjected to much more intense scrutiny than most scientific research – and should be.

Curry’s post here:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/towards_rebuilding_trust.html
Jeffrey_Grey on February 25 at 5:15 a.m.
– Of course. More “If pigs had wings …” prognostications from unvalidated climate models. –

So when the WMO publishes a paper from which you can pick and choose bits you like, then it’s authoritative and persuasive.

But when ***the very same organization*** discusses ***the very same paper*** and draws from it fundamental conclusions that contradict your agenda…

‘Pigs with wings’ lies and deception.

It just doesn’t get more blatant than this. It really doesn’t.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 25 at 5:22 a.m.
Regarding Dr. John Christy:

– In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is “still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”

“It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.”

The AGU has issued milder statements on global change in the past, with more emphasis on theories about natural changes than on evidence of human- caused rapid warming. But this statement declared: “Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century.” –

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable

How’s that for ‘context’ Richard?
gmorton on February 25 at 5:42 a.m.
“So when the WMO publishes a paper from which you can pick and choose bits you like, then it’s authoritative and persuasive.”

Observations and data, upon which the paper’s conclusions regarding the historical trend in storm frequency and intensity were based, are authoritative and persuasive. It’s prognostications for future storm frequency, based on computer models, are not.
gmorton on February 25 at 5:43 a.m.
BTW, Jeffrey, that was a review study – not new research, but an exegesis of the results of previously published studies.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 25 at 5:48 a.m.
The **very same organization** discussing **the very same paper.** And yet; ‘When it agrees with me, it’s authoritative. When it contradicts me, its spurious and unreliable.’ So you find yourself running in circles impeaching the authority you yourself just cited.

It’s actually rather comical.
gmorton on February 25 at 6:02 a.m.
You realize, Jeffrey, that the sfgate piece is 7 years old?

But Christy has not changed his views. He (along with most other “skeptics”) agrees that CO2 has had some role in the observed temperature rise over the last century. But he also thinks

1) That the increase has been overstated, due to urbanization and other land use changes, especially in the N hemisphere, and

2) That the IPCC’s projections of future temps, based on computer models, are worthless.
gmorton on February 25 at 6:13 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“The **very same organization** discussing **the very same paper.** And yet; ‘When it agrees with me, it’s authoritative. When it contradicts me, its spurious and unreliable.’ So you find yourself running in circles impeaching the authority you yourself just cited.”

You don’t get it, do you? The “authority” is not the organization, nor the paper. It is the data. If a conclusion is based on data, then it is authoritative. If it is based on unvalidated computer models, then it isn’t, regardless of the organization.

You have a hard time understanding the concept of evidence. “Authorities” and computer models outputs are not evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Evidence is observed and observable phenomena.
MatthewRoot on February 25 at 6:24 a.m.
Jeffrey,
You are correct. Some dismiss the observations they don’t like and cherry pick those that they do. That is how the argument works. No amount of scientific evidence will alter that view. Just as evolution by natural selection is dismissed, so are hypotheses of climate change (never mind the melting ice packs and glaciers, and observed warming).
Some effects and causes may be uncertain, but it is happening.
Gary D Rhodes on February 25 at 7:05 a.m.
Let’s jump ahead. Let’s assume humans are causing some part of global warming.

We need a peer-reviewed study of what the changes proposed will do lower temperatures, and what will the costs be.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 25 at 7:09 a.m.
— You have a hard time understanding the concept of evidence. “Authorities” and computer models outputs are not evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Evidence is observed and observable phenomena. —

So you have no evidence since the authority you cited as persuasive depends on the very same ‘evidence’ that you then turn around and dismiss as unpersuasive.

You want it both ways. Deny it all you want. It doesn’t matter. People really aren’t as stupid as you think. They can in fact read and understand and reach informed conclusions if they make the effort.

Case in point:

— But Christy has not changed his views. —

So be it.

If Dr. Christy hasn’t changed his position, then he says - *in so many words* - that he is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.

— “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.” —

— You don’t get it, do you? —

Oh, I get it just fine. As I’ve said, it’s all become so blatant that it’s really not all that hard to get.
gmorton on February 25 at 5:19 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“So you have no evidence since the authority you cited as persuasive depends on the very same ‘evidence’ that you then turn around and dismiss as unpersuasive.”

*Sigh*.

No, Jeffrey, it doesn’t. The trend over the historical period is constructed from records and observations. That is evidence. The projections for future trends are based on computer models. Those are not evidence.

“f Dr. Christy hasn’t changed his position, then he says - *in so many words* - that he is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.”

Yes, that’s right. But (in Christy’s view) CO2 is only one of those “human activities,” and not the most important one. More important are land use changes (which affect albedo, respiration, and heat retention) and urbanization.
richard on February 25 at 6:26 p.m.
<<how’s that=”” for=”” context,=”” richard?=”“>>
Well Jeff, I don’t really know what you are trying to say. No one has ever said that there may have been warming in the past century. No one has ever said that we have not contributed CO2; that has never been the debate.

Where is the evidence of “catostrauphic disasters”? All you “warmer” syncophants got all chocked up after watching “Inconceivable Truth” and you are still believing the world will end.

No, it won’t. And there really is very little evidence that there will be any kind of “catostrauphic” calamities. So, why do we want to spend tens of trillions of dollars to fix something that probably is not all that broken?

You have refused to answer that in the past – even tho THAT is the relevant question – so I doubt you will even try to answer it this time.
richard on February 25 at 6:45 p.m.
gmorton is correct. Jeff and chip are incorrect.

Do you remember the old saying when PC’s were becoming popular; “garbage in, garbage out”?

Computer models are subject to the same concept. As I have told you over and over (and no one has offered any evidence to the contrary) today’s computers are not powerful or fast enough to make the kinds of projections needed to make ACCURATE projections! So they make … “kinda close projections and call it “evidence.”

It is speculation based on incomplete evidence.

You can doubt it all day long, but that doubt will not effect the truth one iota.

Dr, Christy also understands that wator vapor is a far superior “greenhouse” gas then CO2 is. Why don’t we ever talk about water vapor? Why aren’t the greenies worried about water vapor?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there are no BIG GREEDY vapor companies who are the primary targets of most of the angst by the greenies.

Again, they demonstrate their hypocricy.
Arch_Druid on February 26 at 7:45 a.m.
Bob Holliday (CDA Press Readers Write) sent in an editorial length letter to the editor really screaming and slamming away at a woman who expressed pro-choice views. They guy could have said all he needed to in a few sentences: Women, bad. Women who are promiscuous or immoral, worse. Women who make the decision to have an abortion on the previous behavior, evil.

Now for the rebuttal. Wonder if anyone has told Mr. Holliday about the bill being introduced by a Republican in the Idaho state legislature. (Blogged about on Huckleberries online.) Where the age of consent can be reduced to 16 or 17 if the PARTNER is “only” 3 years the teenager’s senior. The reason for that bill’s introduction, that a young man of 19 or 20 who could otherwise find himself registered as a sex offender for “doing it” with a young lady 3 years his junior under current law. And therefore the new legislation is designed to PROTECT him from his irresponsible behavior. But, would a 19 year old male marry a 16 year old female the moment he got her pregnant? This new legislation would certainly up the ante of “young women, before the age of 25 getting abortions.” So, Holliday, on the one hand slams hard at the “evil” women who populate the American landscape, and on the other hand, the Idaho legislature is being asked to consider NOT holding accountable the OTHER half of the problem, the immoral and promiscuous men.

Seems to me that the “problem” of abortion would rapidly reach zip and nada IF the young men were responsible enough to just say no. It takes two to create a promiscuous or immoral situation.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 26 at 7:57 a.m.
Richard,

– Well Jeff, I don’t really know what you are trying to say.–

You say that as if it would come as a surprise to anyone.
Gary D Rhodes on February 26 at 8:52 a.m.
Funny Jeff!!
Gary D Rhodes on February 26 at 9:24 a.m.
Proof that the killer orca was brainwashed by the tea party.

http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/animal-rights/photo-emerges-of-murderous-killer-whale-at-tea-party-rally/
Gary D Rhodes on February 26 at 9:36 a.m.
At least the D+PS was televised.
But as far as listening to what the people want, not so good. Obama gave the middle finger and assigned motive to anyone whom disagreed with him.

Nancy Pelosi has accused the Tea Party movement of “AstroTurfing,” the political advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but designed to mask its origins to create the impression of being spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior.

Well, this page, at BarackObama.com is a real example of AstroTurfing.

I would like to suggest that bottom-up, People-driven campaigns can also be effective, and encourage you to visit Organizing for America’s webpage and serve them a portion of their own stew.

Skip Step 1 and Step 2 — go straight to Step 3, and use the “Report Your Call” dialog to send David Plouff and company your thoughts — make sure you click the “Yes” button next to the question, “Was your call on the air?” — that should encourage the Obots to take the time to read your message.

Bury this site in counter-comments. Go there two, or three times a day. You don’t even need to use your real email address. Send the link to your friends and associates and ask them to do the same. If enough comments are submitted we can blunt this attempt to control the discussion, and have some fun at the same time.

Remember Alinsky’s Rule 6, “A good tactic is one ‘my people’ enjoy” — so, enjoy!
Arch_Druid on February 26 at 9:47 a.m.
Rhodes, if you can’t stand by your comments by utilizing your REAL e-mail address, they aren’t worth the internet you put them on. LOL! And you could just as easily visit White House.gov with valid comments and concerns at any time. You are invited to do so.

As for presidents giving the finger; did you have to wait 8 years to project that onto the current one?

I heard what Obama said. It sure didn’t look like it from here.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 26 at 9:58 a.m.
– Funny, Jeff! –

If you say so. I stopped smiling about a lot of this the other day.
garyc on February 26 at 1:49 p.m.
Jonathan Leake’s journalism was cited above. Better check his record on the topic. It ain’t good.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_how_jonathan_leake_c.php
garyc on February 26 at 2:06 p.m.
This John Christy?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

“In the Vermont case on the state’s effort to embrace California’s tailpipe GHG emissions standards, the car companies brought in Christy as an expert witness to rebut Hansen (see here). In one footnote on the sea level rise issue, the judge noted, “it appears that the bulk of scientific opinion opposes Christy’s position.” By the way, for all you deniers/delayers/doubters, let me quote further from the judge:

“There is widespread acceptance of the basic premises that underlie Hansen’s testimony. Plaintiffs’ own expert, Dr. Christy, agrees with the IPCC’s assessment that in the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations. Tr. vol. 14-A, 145:18-148:7 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Christy agrees that the increase in carbon dioxide is real and primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, which changes the radiated balance of the atmosphere and has an impact on the planet’s surface temperature toward a warming rate. Id. at 168:11-169:10.”

<< Dr, Christy also understands that wator vapor is a far superior “greenhouse” gas then CO2 is. Why don’t we ever talk about water vapor? Why aren’t the greenies worried about water vapor? >>

There’s nothing to be done about vapor. It’s discussed here by a scientist, not a greenie.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
gmorton on February 26 at 6:19 p.m.
Gary Crooks wrote,

“This John Christy?

“http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22…”

Oh, no! Not Joe Romm’s blog! Might as well cite WWF.

” …most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations.”

That would have been a reasonable position in 2007, before the problems with the surface temperature record and the impact of land use changes became clear.

Keep in mind that the question turns on the term “most.” No one denies that GHGs have some impact.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 27 at 3:54 a.m.
– That would have been a reasonable position in 2007, before the problems with the surface temperature record and the impact of land use changes became clear. –

What problems with the surface temperature record would that be? “The impact of land use changes”?

In a GISS discussion of the surface temperature record from 2010 we find:

– Still further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, *which shows largest values at locations remote from any local human influence*, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean). – (emphasis mine)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

If ‘data is everything and the only thing’, then why don’t you believe the data from places that aren’t corrupted by parking lots and air conditioners? (Not a lot of parking lots and air conditioners in the Arctic or screwing up the readings of orbiting satellites.)
Gary D Rhodes on February 27 at 6:10 a.m.
Jeff, let’s just say the warmers are right. The planet IS warming.

What effect will there be on earth’s temperature over the next 100 years if humans stop burning fossil fuels altogether?

What will the cost be to humans?

What is the plan?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 27 at 7:58 a.m.
Is the insinuation that there are no plans?

They’re actually thick on the ground. Try a Google search with the term ‘alternatives to global warming.’ I got 10,600,000 hits.

Here’s one of the hits you might really like. It’s from The Arch-Fiend of Climate Change Lies himself; Dr. James Hansen.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200111_altscenario/

Here’s another document written by Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University addressing the economic impact of global warming and apparently offering a critique of various economic proposals for addressing that impact. I just discovered it and haven’t even begun to study it - it’s 253 pages. (I’m not quite sure what he has to say, but at 253 pages and glancing at the index, I would venture to guess that he has at least *something* to contribute toward answering your questions.)

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf

The point being; it’s not all just hand-wringing and exploitation of baseless fears to advance an agenda without any solutions or thoughts for how to fix the problem. Quite the contrary.

As I say; try that Google search. See what you can come up with for yourself.
Gary D Rhodes on February 27 at 9:01 a.m.
What do you mean by alternatives?

I read that second study and their conclusion was that they haven’t reached one yet.

If human activity causes 5-10% of greenhouse gasses, how can eliminating that portion have much impact?
Gary D Rhodes on February 27 at 9:31 a.m.
Does Obama have a specific plan with a cost/benefit analysis that I can look at?
gmorton on February 27 at 5:46 p.m.
“– Still further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, *which shows largest values at locations remote from any local human influence* . . .”

A nice, vague statement. Which locations would those be?

The Arctic? The Arctic has been warming – because the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation entered its postive (warm) phase in about 1970.

“The correlation coefficient between the annual Arctic temperature and the AMO index is 0.69 and 0.79 for the AMO as given by Parker et al. [2007] and NOAA, respectively. We consequently propose that the AMO is a major factor affecting inter-decadal variations of Arctic temperature and explaining high value of the Arctic to global temperature trend ratio during the cooling period of 1940–1970. A strong empirical relationship exists between the AMO and many Atlantic and worldwide climate phenomena [e.g., Baines and Folland, 2007; Knight et al., 2006; Chylek and Lesins, 2008]. Recent ensemble simulations of several coupled models with the late nineteenth century forcings failed to detect the observed AMO [Knight, 2009].”

http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

AMO affects ocean temps and thus sea ice concentration. Extent of sea ice affects land temps.

“The results demonstrate that changes in SIC and cloud cover played major roles in the magnitude of recent Arctic surface temperature trends… . If the SIC [sea ice concentration] over the Arctic Ocean is reduced by half, our analysis shows that the surface temperature will increase by approximately 10 K in winter and 6 K in spring and autumn. In winter, surface temperature trends associated with changes in cloud cover are negative over most of the Arctic Ocean, and with cloud cover trends explaining -0.91 out of -1.2 K decade-1 of the surface temperature cooling. In spring, 0.55 K decade-1 of the total 1.0 K decade-1 warming can be attributed to the trend associated with cloud cover changes. After eliminating the effects of the changes in SIC and cloud cover on surface temperature trends, the residual surface temperature trends can be used in a more robust diagnosis of surface warming or cooling in the Arctic.”

http://soa.arcus.org/abstracts/linkages-arctic-sea-ice-cloud-cover-and-surface-temperature-satellite-observations

A large part of the N hemisphere warming since 1970 is attributable to the Arctic warming, which is attributable to the AMO – which has nothing do with atmospheric CO2.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif

Another large part is attributable to land use changes, which, though anthropogenic, has nothing to do with CO2 either:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf

The Antarctic?

Numerous compilations of actual temp measurements in Antarctica show cooling:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%E2%80%99t-cooperating/

A 2009 paper (Steig, et al) purported to show warming – by extrapolating LTS satellite correlations with ground temps. That is not measurement; it is guesswork.

Antarctic sea ice has also been increasing, which is consistent with cooling:

http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

(See tables at end)

If you remove the effects of AMO and land use changes from the NH trend, it resembles the SH trend, and also the SST and LTH trends.

A few other probs with the IPCC’s temp trends have been reported (in the peer-reviewed literature) also. See here for links:

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/why-the-epa-is-wrong-about-recent-warming
Jeffrey_Grey on February 28 at 5:58 a.m.
– We consequently propose that the AMO is a major factor affecting inter-decadal variations… –

But gmorton… That’s a THEORY!! Don’t you remember? DATA is all that matters! We only read the thermometer and report. We don’t come up with these heretical theories! Theories aren’t science!!

– You have a hard time understanding the concept of evidence. “Authorities” and computer models outputs are not evidence. *Opinions are not evidence.* [“We consequently propose…”] Evidence is observed and observable phenomena. –

‘Right if it supports me. Wrong if it doesn’t.’
Arch_Druid on February 28 at 9:35 a.m.
Ron Spencer does a mish mash argument from what I’ll assume is “legal immigration” where those who immigrate (not necessarily because they want freedom) but because presumably this country offers certain economic advantages, to using that pretext to slam the current administration for its “socialist” agenda. As discovered in the CDA Press 28 February 2010.

Got a question, just how ignorant can you get?

It took progressives to create the Declaration of Independence, to win the Revolutionary War against British authority, to create the U.S. Constitution and its first 10 amendments. And therefore, it took progressives to hold forth that beacon of liberty that would encourage immigration to this nation throughout its entire history.

Granted that “socialism” is now one of the darker elements of “progressives” today. However, Mr. Spencer was a beneficiary of progressives in the early formation of this country. If not for them, he would not be free to make inflammatory arguments and attacking the leaders of this nation.

How ignorant can you get?
gmorton on March 01 at 12:32 a.m.
More greenie nonsense debunked:

“Green Jobs”:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022503945.html

Biofuels:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece
gmorton on March 01 at 12:54 a.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“But gmorton… That’s a THEORY!! Don’t you remember? DATA is all that matters! We only read the thermometer and report. We don’t come up with these heretical theories! Theories aren’t science!!”

Shame on you, Jeffrey. You can’t resist distorting (or simply fabricating) others’ statements in order to create strawmen, can you?

I’ve never asserted that theories are “not science.” What I said (as you well know) is that projections of computer models are not evidence.

You need to learn the meanings of a few crucial terms, i.e., theory, hypothesis, and evidence. A computer model is a variety of hypothesis.

The AMO is a measurable phenomenon. So are Arctic temperatures. The *hypothesis* of the Chylek paper was that there is a correlation between the two. Statistical methods verified that hypothesis – the correlation is 0.69-0.79.

That’s what you do with hypotheses, Jeffrey. You verify them with data, which is the evidence.

Let’s see … . I now *hypothesize* that you will respond with some statement which includes the term “semantics.”

I await the evidence for that hypothesis.
gmorton on March 01 at 1:28 a.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“However, Mr. Spencer was a beneficiary of progressives in the early formation of this country.”

For a dialogue to be productive, Arch, you have to stick to dictionary meanings of terms. The 18th Century founders you denote with the term “progressives” had nothing in common with those who denote themselves with that term today. Nor did that earlier group denote themselves with that term.

“Progressive” is merely the latest euphemism adopted by the Left for describing themselves, after earlier terms (“socialist, “communist,” “communitarian,” “Marxist,” et al), acquired unflattering connotations and had to be abandoned.

“Liberal” was the preferred term for a few decades – a term with favorable connotations which the Left appropriated and redefined in an effort to rehabilitate their image and conceal their statist ideology (the term “liberal” originally denoted advocates of freedom. It derives from the same root as “liberate,” and “liberty”). It meant the opposite of “statist,” which of course the Leftists were. But, having become associated with the Left, “liberal” too acquired a foul smell, and was also abandoned. So now the lefties use “progressive,” which is actually an oxymoron when applied to them, as was “liberal” when it was appropriated.

Trying to unify contemporary statists such as Obama with the American founders by denoting them both with the same oxymoronic euphemism is gross distortion of history, Arch.
Jeffrey_Grey on March 01 at 5:13 a.m.
Shame on YOU, gmorton!

How many times have we seen it now? When the evidence points toward scientific conclusions that you don’t like, it’s all ‘opinion and computer models and theory’. It’s, “Evidence is observed and observable phenomena.”

But let the evidence and the observed and observable phenomena turn against you and out come the theories.

Oh, and…

– You need to learn the meanings of a few crucial terms, i.e., theory, hypothesis, and evidence. A computer model is a variety of hypothesis. –

… as always, there’s semantics.
MatthewRoot on March 01 at 7:31 a.m.
Jeffrey, that is why I call it contrarianism. In a scientific sense, it is useless, and indicates a misunderstanding of the scientific process. Anecdotal exceptionalism is also a useless way to proceed. That is just not how science proceeds forward.
All hypotheses are essentially models of how we perceive the world to work. Even simple things like explaining electron “orbital” states are mathematical models, not direct observations Extremely complex mathematical models, like those that model climate change, can never be entirely accurate, nor do they pretend to be. They also model climate on scales of several decades and in very broad spatial parameters. The vast majority of climate scientists think that the models are pretty good, and that empirical observations support the models.
Just because yesterday’s weather forecast was not entirely accurate, does not mean that all meteorological models are wrong and that meteorologists are “tricking” up the data.
Paraphrasing other postings on contrarian web sites and on wikipedia does nothing to challenge the present models of climate change.
Now, time to go enjoy the sunshine and warm weather.
Jeffrey_Grey on March 01 at 8:14 a.m.
Chip,

It’s the blatant double standard that gets my goat. ‘Right if it supports me, wrong if it doesn’t.’

I admit I bristle at the arrogance that assumes I don’t understand how science works in the first place and therefore can’t recognize such a double standard. I’ve had enough scientific training in college and in the military to know science works the way you say it does.

I also don’t much care for the arrogance that assumes my comprehension of the English language is so flawed I need constant lessons on what words mean.

After all, I do have a Master’s Degree. I know that such degrees don’t necessarily mean the person holding them is smart or even necessarily smarter than average. But they usually mean their possessor isn’t *completely ignorant.*
garyc on March 01 at 11:02 a.m.
<<jeff, let’s=”” just=”” say=”” the=”” warmers=”” are=”” right.=”” the=”” planet=”” is=”” warming.=”” what=”” effect=”” will=”” there=”” be=”” on=”” earth’s=”” temperature=”” over=”” the=”” next=”” 100=”” years=”” if=”” humans=”” stop=”” burning=”” fossil=”” fuels=”” altogether?=”” what=”” will=”” the=”” cost=”” be=”” to=”“ humans?=”“>>

Try this.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
garyc on March 01 at 11:26 a.m.
I’ve continued the discussion at the Global Warming thread.
gmorton on March 01 at 5:52 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“… as always, there’s semantics.”

Hypothesis confirmed.

“But let the evidence and the observed and observable phenomena turn against you and out come the theories.”

To what evidence do you refer?

You should relinquish this one to Chip, Jeffrey. At least he understands the terminology.
gmorton on March 01 at 5:55 p.m.
Jeffrey_Grey wrote,

“It’s the blatant double standard that gets my goat.”

You think it is a double standard because you think model projections are evidence.
gmorton on March 01 at 6:07 p.m.
Chip Jones wrote,

“All hypotheses are essentially models of how we perceive the world to work.”

Yes.

“Even simple things like explaining electron “orbital” states are mathematical models, not direct observations.”

Yes. And like climate models they make predictions. The difference is that the atomic models are testable experimentally, and the predictions can be confirmed, whereas the predictions of climate models which can so far be tested have failed.

“The vast majority of climate scientists think that the models are pretty good, and that empirical observations support the models.”

What the “vast majority of climate scientists think” about the models is irrelevant to their predictive power. And which empirical observations over the last 10 years have supported the predictions made 10 years ago? Global temp trends? N hemisphere snow cover? Antarctic sea ice? Tropical rainfall? Increasing storm frequency/intensity?

??
Arch_Druid on March 01 at 9:08 p.m.
GMorton, you can nitpick “dictionary definitions” all you want, by of course resorting to different dictionaries, LOL! But, “the left” are ALWAYS people who go about changing things. And when the founding fathers got sick and tired of the way things were under British rule, they became “the left” or “progressives” to in fact end it. “Progressives” have existed long before any “socialist,” “Communist,” or “Marxist,” connotation was applied to them. It is only AFTER the turn of the century, in fact as this country suffered and endured the Great Depression that Socialism or even Communism began attaching itself to a measurable degree within any Depression era “liberal” movements, inclusive of Feminist movements. Because of course, people were desperate, angry and afraid. Of COURSE they’d be more than happy to hear out any Socialists by that time.

But since that time, GMorton, Trotskyites, people who praised Trotsky for his “capitalist” tendencies (but of course the man was still a Communist) founded the so-called “conservative” movement that in due course decided what it didn’t like about this nation and went around trying to CHANGE things. YET, GMorton, these people were called (despite their Communist beginnings) CONSERVATIVES!
How about that.

The problem with calling the opposition “Communist,” “Socialist,” or “Marxist;” is that the people doing all the name calling have Communists in the wood pile. Sorry, GMorton, but the “left” is still the left if it wears an R or a D.

At least Obama doesn’t play any games of let’s pretend. With him, what you see is what you get. Now for Spencer, the man is STILL ignorant.
Gary D Rhodes on March 01 at 9:49 p.m.
I believe gmorton prefers statist.

The Framers wanted the opposite of big, oppressive government control. They wanted freedom for the individual to pursue happiness as that person saw fit. Liberty.

I guess that would make me a Libertarianic.
gmorton on March 02 at 1:54 a.m.
No, Arch. The label “progressive” does not denote someone (anyone) who advocates change. That would make Nazis, Marxists, anarchists, and Muslim theocrats all “progressives.”

Those who (mis)describe themselves with that term advocate a *particular* change – a change to a more extensive, intrusive State. “Progress” implies a direction – a movement *toward* something. What the lefties wish to move toward is a totalitarian State. And that was hardly the aim of the American founders.
Jeffrey_Grey on March 02 at 5:58 a.m.
– You should relinquish this one to Chip, Jeffrey. At least he understands the terminology. –

Well, at least we can find something to agree upon, apparently. As I’ve said, I don’t much care for the intellectual dishonesty and since I don’t need anything else to raise my blood pressure, I’ll indeed let Chip take over if he wants to.

I will just say this…

– At least he understands the terminology. –

And as we have already seen, terminology (semantics) is everything with you. Hypothesis proved indeed.
MatthewRoot on March 02 at 7:37 a.m.
Jeffrey, you understand this better than I do. I am not a climate scientist. As you, my degrees are not in climatology, though I did take many classes in chemistry, geology, physics, paleoclimatology, and petroleum engineering (and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night - that’s a joke richard).
I read the major articles that come across my desk, but I don’t have time to address every contrarian argument that is pulled off the internet. Others do that much better elsewhere.

I learn much from the information you present, Jeffrey. Thanks.
Arch_Druid on March 02 at 11:56 p.m.
GMorton, you just really crack me up. Apparently only SOME people who demand an all intrusive gvt should be labeled “progressive.” As opposed to Republicans who demanded “change” right along with Democrats who demanded “change.” And including feminists, anti-slavery movements, anti-child labor movements, movements to form unions, movements to rid men of their vices, movements to end “abortion on demand,” movements to prevent stem cell research, etc. And by the way, GMorton, at some point, they ALL demanded an all intrusive gvt. Imagine that.

And yes, all the other political groups that you mentioned, to include terrorists “demand change.” And the more extreme they are, the more brutally they will go about implementing change. That is why they are called “extremists,” GMorton. I do believe.

Now, would you like to try explaining who ISN’T a progressive?
Arch_Druid on March 03 at 12:13 a.m.
GMorton, progress “to something.” The only person I see mischaracterizing anything is yourself. Exactly how is it that this nation won its independence from Great Britain IF, GMorton; the founding fathers had been quite satisfied with *oh my gosh* the status quo? Progress to something in this case, meant the Boston Tea Party, the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary war, the preliminary development of a confederation of states before the eventual drafting of the U.S. Constitution and the forming of a *why yes* a federal government. With an eventual James Madison engineered first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A great deal of history lies behind “progress to something.”

GMorton, as explained above ANYONE can demand change, ANYONE can call on an all intrusive gvt. Indeed, SOME factions could create a totalitarian state. But, they aren’t *your” definition of “lefties.” Just because you bought into a popular political myth promulgated by people who’s own political history is highly questionable, does not mean that you have much grasp of history. Even when that history is graphically described to you.

Progress to something. Ever consider applying that TO an actual reading of history? Yes, our founding fathers were progressives, or we would not now be the U.S. of A.
gmorton on March 03 at 1:29 a.m.
Arch_druid wrote,

“Progress to something. Ever consider applying that TO an actual reading of history? Yes, our founding fathers were progressives, or we would not now be the U.S. of A.”

Arch, Arch. *Tsk, tsk*.

Yes, Arch, one may properly describe anyone working toward some goal – any goal – as a “progressive.” But that is a generic definition. It is not the meaning of the term as it is used today in political discussions. The persons who today describe themselves with it are pursuing a specific goal; they do not apply that term to others pursuing other goals (even though, in its generic sense, it may apply to them also).

The term today is used to denote lefties, pursuing leftist goals. When you try to apply it to the Founders, you are sneakily trying to associate today’s lefties with the Founders – with whom they would not wish to be seen in public.
Arch_Druid on March 03 at 10:05 p.m.
GMorton, NEVER put words into the mouths of people who in their time left copious records of what they thought and how they felt. James Madison would be regarded as a “lefty” today because of his advocacy of a separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson would be regarded as a “lefty” today because of his being a Deist and writing his own bible. George Mason would be regarded as a “lefty” today because of his advocacy for the human rights of man. Thomas Paine would be regarded as a “lefty” today because of his grim views of overwhelming gvt and the corruption of man. Also for his opinion that reason trumped religion.

There are a great many others whom historians can name, GMorton, including those who prior to Marx believed that gvt should provide total equality.

Those whom you PREFER to call “lefties” should instead only be called what they SHOULD be called, Communists and Socialists. Not “lefties.” Whereas a “statist” can be anyone from a Federalist to a religious activist. ANYONE who believes that only gvt can answer their demands. Which means that pro-business GOP are JUST as statist as pro-labor Dems. Isn’t it about time, GMorton, that you left off throwing out labels that absolutely should NOT apply in all generic situations. After all, if you want to spout statist/communist/lefty all in one breath; then you run the greatest risk of applying it to yourself. And anyone you agree with.

As you were previously informed, “statism” supplied you with roads and other infrastructure, education, a national defense, a social security check, laws by which criminal perpetrators can brought to justice. “Statism,” GMorton, provided you with good food, good medicine, and the freedom to believe and express what you like.

You hate “statism,” but you have still benefited greatly from it. Now how about getting over it.