Aloha Arnold
Governor Schwarzenegger got his heiny handed to him on Tuesday nite. He fought the unions -- and the unions won. Wednesday at noon P.S.T. I will be punditizing about this on Public Radio International's To The Point which you can listen to online.
Meanwhile, here's more or less the election night report that will appear in The Nation under my name this week:
Beverly Hills-- California voters resoundingly handed the Arnold Show its cancellation notice on Tuesday night. All eight ballot measures that constituted the special election that was called by Governor Schwarzenegger and that was widely considered a referendum on his political agenda, went down in tatters.
As word came toward midnight that the most tightly fought of the ballot props was going down in defeat– a so-called paycheck protection measure that would effectively bar public employee unions from making political donations—a restaurant full of Hawaiian-shirted nurses broke into a victory conga dance singing “We are the nurses, the mighty, mighty nurses!” They had come together in an “Aloha Arnold” election night party ready to bid a political farewell to their Republican rival and now that’s exactly what they were doing.
Wiping the running mascara from her eyes, the emotionally charged leader of the 60,000 member California Nurses Association, Rose Anne De Moro. proclaimed total victory telling the elated crowd: “A year ago Arnold said he was kicking our butts. But tonight, you know what? The shoe’s on the other foot.”
Indeed, it was back in January that Schwarzenegger targeted organized labor as the major obstacle to his “Year of Reform” agenda. Unionized nurses, teachers and firefighters lustily joined the battle, spent more than $70 million in anti-Arnold TV ads, drove the Governor’s favorability ratings down into the sub-arctic mid-30’s, and now can take full credit for handing him a crushing defeat that throws his 2006 re-election chances straight into the air.
Along with paycheck protection, voters also turned down the Governor’s proposals for granting himself more budget authority, for political redistricting and for extending public school teacher probation from two to five years. So sweeping was the anti-Arnold backlash, voters rejected what was previously thought to be a slam-dunk measure also endorsed by the Governor that would have imposed parental notification on minors seeking abortion. Even a deceptive prescription drug measure backed with $80 million in support from Big Pharma was knocked out.
“Here is a lesson that Democrats across the country can learn,” said consumer activist Jamie Court who has been advising the nurses’ union. “Follow the lead of these nurses and firefighters and run a populist campaign against corporate interests and see that you can win.”
The special election was the costliest in state history, with at least $250 million spent on campaigning. Schwarzenegger had tried to use the vote as a direct appeal to the people over the heads of a strongly Democratic legislature. But the Governor’s proposals and his campaigned skewed hard to the political right, transforming his image in a very blue state from centrist dealmaker to partisan polarizer. The out-of-calendar vote sparked a wave of voter disgruntlement that the Governor’s political team failed to quell. The timing of the vote, just when anti-Bush sentiment was mounting nationwide, no doubt also contributed to the Governor’s defeat.
Just upstairs from the nurses, in a ballroom of the posh Beverly Hilton Hotel, Schwarzenegger appeared briefly before his dispirited supporters while the votes were still being counted and while he refused to acknowledge defeat he contritely hinted at a more bi-partisan approach to governance. “There is much work to be done,” he said. “Believe it or not, I want to thank the people who were so vocally passionate against us.”
At the nurses’ victory party, actor-activist Warren Beatty responded to Schwarzenegger’s vow saying “I don’t think he has any choice. The governor now has to work in a bi-partisan fashion.” But there seems to be little incentive for Arnold’s opposition to let up any of the pressure they have brought to bear. In anticipation of Tuesday’s defeat, speculation had been rampant that the governor might recruit a high-profile Democrat to serve as his post-election Chief of Staff to give his administration a more centrist sheen. Yet, the cinemascope dimensions of Schwarzenegger’s defeat has rendered him as much as politically radioactive. The next year is sure to be marked only by increased efforts by Democrats and organized labor to defeat the Governor’s coming re-election bid. “Everything we did yesterday, we’re gonna do tomorrow,” said nurses’ union leader De Moro. “Where are we gonna be tomorrow? Wherever Arnold is.” -- +--
Here's the link to the official results from the office of the California Secretary of State.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:58 am
Good work, Marc. (And fast!) Go nurses!
November 9th, 2005 at 4:44 am
Terminated. Sweet…
November 9th, 2005 at 5:13 am
so with all those ballot initiatives what, exactly, do the elected representatives do?
luckily for arnold, he doesn’t need the job.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:49 am
“luckily for arnold, he doesn’t need the job.”
I believe that to a “man” these pols make more money out of office than in. Some of ‘em do it for “public service” (or service to some special interests), but for most a big piece of it has gotta be ego. We can only guess which of these fits Arnold.
The myth of Arnold the Outsider who’s Not a Politician and Can Ignore Special Interests died about the time Pete Wilson’s cronies took over the operation. The guy’s simply being seen for what he has been since Day One of his political circus…a self-promoting jerk who’s out of his depth whenever he steps into a world with more than two dimensions. “Smash the Car Tax!” indeed…that was the most crass, idiotic gubernatorial campaign I’ve seen over four decades in California.
Remember the “Arnold for President” fantasy that was being seriously promoted by some insanely opportunistic GOPer hacks back in the day. What a bunch of bullshit…thankfully the most outlandishly hubristic wing of their party appears to be in freefall.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:54 am
Back to the movies for Arnold?
Terminator 4?
November 9th, 2005 at 5:58 am
Remember the “Arnold for President†fantasy that was being seriously promoted by some insanely opportunistic GOPer hacks back in the day.
Yes. If that had actually happened, Arnold as President, I am not sure the rest of the world would have stopped laughing.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:44 am
Politicians motivated by anything other than self-interest are an anomaly – but, then, I believe that about most people.
Power and ego are what politicians seek – and the money always finds them. Arnold doesn’t need the Governor job for any of that, except for the potential damage that a high-profile, public failure as Governor would do to his ego.
Isn’t schadenfreude enjoyed most in these (big ego busting) situations?
November 9th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Yeah, din’t hear much about ammending the Constitution these days do you.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Bravo!
November 9th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Amazing. On the maps the redneck areas of the state went for just about all of them except spending and deregulation. That’s the same fan base that elected him in that shame two years ago.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Ahhhhhh.
Now back to work. Marc, I think there is a real danger in the unions believing that agressive populist posturing is what gave them victory. It’s easy to overestimate one’s own agency when you’ve worked as hard as they have and won such an impressive victory. But that doesn’t mean it had it’s roots in their hard work and clear themes. While the unions won, the headlines had it right, ARNOLD LOST.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:22 am
I was really savoring this moment; a complete shut out. A rebuke of arrogance! California saved from the dark forces of corporate evil!
What beauty, what glory, what… WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
What’s with you people???? Didn’t anybody actually see the Terminator movie?!
Right about this moment — just when we’re all in the warm, fuzzy close-up saying “WHEW! THAT WAS CLOSE!” — the Terminator slowly, impossibly, inevitably, horrifying-ly, ALWAYS comes bacl to life and continues his relentless attack.
The movie ain’t over. Plenty more big scares and close calls still to come. And then there’s the sequel…
November 9th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Yeah, but when he comes back we shoot him in the head. Or our hot friend that we thought was dead takes care of him for us. You can’t worry too much, his demise is already scripted.
November 9th, 2005 at 11:08 am
As word came toward midnight that the most tightly fought of the ballot props was going down in defeat– a so-called paycheck protection measure that would effectively bar public employee unions from making political donations.
Unionized nurses, teachers and firefighters lustily joined the battle, spent more than $70 million in anti-Arnold TV ads, drove the Governor’s favorability ratings down into the sub-arctic mid-30’s, and now can take full credit for handing him a crushing defeat that throws his 2006 re-election chances straight into the air.
Now, let me get this straight. The paycheck protection proposition would have made unions get permission from its members before they could use their dues for political purposes–which would give workers the right to determine how their hard-earned money was spent, see that the dues were spent for causes which they support, and hold union leaders accountable to all members.
But, those who wanted that right did not get it because those same unions did an “in your face” and spent $70,000,000 of their members dues, without individual permissions, to fight against those very members. Simply stated, the unions abused the very point of the propositon.
Uh, huh. And, you guys think that’s right, are proud of it, and are even gleeful at it? Who is supposed to be supporting whom? Do the unions support the laborers or are the laborers just there to bankroll union leaders?
This is one thing wrong with democracy versus a republic–it just takes 51% to take rights from the other 49% for the majority’s own selfish purposes. If your selfish attitudes and self-interests had been applied to civil rights, then blacks might still be riding in the backs of buses as long as 51% said so.
The left is so afraid of people thinking for themselves and wanting to make choices for themselves. The “group think” and domination of the left is stupid and it’s dangerous. You say that your governor lost? In the long run, the citizens will be the losers.
If attempts to permit rights, to control spending, and to increase accountability and productivity in schools is something to be feared by the left–then, the left is something to be feared by those who want a better state and a better country for themselves and future generations. Those who oppose a better future in favor of today’s greed and corruption will deserve what they ultimately will receive–a bankrupt state, both financially and morally.
Today’s “wins” of the left are the losses for tomorrow.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Wait a minute…has Woody’s absentee ballot been counted yet ?
November 9th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
“Those who oppose a better future in favor of today’s greed and corruption…”
I couldn’t capsulize the Republican platform any better myself.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Is the governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Arnold Stang? It’s getting a little difficult to tell the difference.
Oh, and Woody? Keep crying. Sooner or later nanny will be along to change your nappies.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Woody, you’re missing two details maybe worth repeating: All union members currently have the right to opt out from having their dues used for political contributions and can very easily do so. And all union members have the right to vote their leadership out if they don’t like the decisions being made.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
They already have the dues option. I’ve said this repeatedly to the deaf ears on the other side, but they reman stone deaf to reality. The party of density, obtusness and greed. At the country’s found the Jefferesonian Republicans were the democrats. The Federalists were the entrenched, entitled, plutocrats who wanted a king. Same as today.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
reg & Robert, the left is like a bunch of selfish children who take, take, take and live for today with no regard for consequences of tomorrow, but they expect someone else to pay for it and want “daddy” to bail them out later. Proposals voted down in California represent nothing more than voters with selfish interests saying “me first” and not caring about who stands in the back of the line or their kids who will be stuck with their problems. That is irresponsible.
R.F., that’s not crying by me but simply stating facts. I’m across the country from California and simply observe how policies of the left have been destroying the economics of that state. Davis was voted out because people wanted a cure, but now they don’t want to swallow their medicine.
reg, you see greed and corruption with Republicans whereas I have witnessed far worse with Democrats. Taking aside specific players, the overall philosophy of the traditonal Republican is reponsibility, moderation, and respect for the individual. The philosophy of Democrats have been to wrecklessly spend–spend for projects with minimal return and with likely long term costs. Not all the politicians on either side always live up to the ideals of their parties, but over a period of time the Republican view , if properly implemented without caving into the left, would result in a fiscally sound country, a more secure country, and more opportunities for anyone with initiative.
If I were a parent to your state, I’d ground the voters for a month and take away their car keys until they started acting a little less selfish and a little more grown up.
——
Mark, I just caught your response before I posted this. It was my understanding that the rejection of the proposal results in “no say” by the members as to opting out. Until now, no one has contradicted that in discussions, so I don’t know if we’re dealing in a fine point in interpretation or not. I would really like to understand that. I do remember a federal law that got hidden in the bushes during the Clinton era that required unions to make their members aware of their rights for controlling their dues for political purposes, but this was not enforced.
Regarding voting out leadership, that goes back to the 51%-49% rule where rights and desires of a minority are trampled by the majority. Also, it ignores the tremendous power of existing
mobunion leaders and the disadvantageous positions of challengers. You have as much chance of replacing incumbent union officials as you do incumbent congressmen. The first point you raised may be an option. The second one is harder and sometimes requires burying the union head in the end zone of Giants Stadium.November 9th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
I believe The Terminator was lowered into a vat of molten steal and melted. That’s what happened last night. Bad Republican ideas were terminated. Never accept a bad idea from anyone.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
You’re terminally ignorant: All union members have to check off whether they want a percentage of their dues to go to political campaigns or not. I don’t know how to be any clearer or cut through the myriad of wingnut myths you subscribe to. Go interview the unions. You can’t paint them all as mobsters either, as you just did, anymore that all businessmen and women are crooks.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
The idea is a right-wing ploy meant to create more bureacracy for the unions in their favor, as if you require members to file specific papers over and over when they’ve already given permission once, sooner or later they’ll forget to grant said redundant permission and the funding will decrease by default. That’s the idea. No dice.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
“This is one thing wrong with democracy versus a republic–it just takes 51% to take rights from the other 49% for the majority’s own selfish purposes.”
Now you know how we feel about Bush. 575 votes from hell.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Jeez, Woody, you really have become deranged. In a free country, people are entitled to set up whatever lawful associations they want, and to regulate them as they see fit.
People are then free to choose whether or not to join, and, if members, to manage them in accordance with their internal rules, which, in the case of a union, extends to voting out any leadership that displeases them.
But you seem to want the heavy hand of government to interfere with the basic freedom of association.
Somewhat of a tangent, I know, but if the principle you espouse were one you really felt deeply, how would it apply to a government spending taxpayers’ money of programs (say, a war, for example) that a substantial minority deeply oppose. Wouldn’t you have to think that that was worse?
November 9th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
Woody, the current policy for union dues for non-partisan, educational uses, which is what 75 affected, is that an individual member may request in writing that his/her dues not be used for political purposes. 75 would have switched the burden, and permit no such deduction in any year in which the member had not submitted a written permission slip. Given the size of the unions, it was an onerous administrative burden.
The best analysis I could come up with is this:
Consider the deduction from a state worker’s paycheck for pension (PERS). Some of those dollars will end up being invested in private corporations, let’s say Pfizer. Pfizer does not require the member’s permission to use that money to defeat the union-supported measure, Prop 79. So a private corporation may freely use the member’s money to thwart his/her interests, without permission, but would have to get written permission to use the money to advance those interests.
This does not seem right. [I realize it assumes that the union leadership would be acting in the member's interest, but if it doesn't, it can be voted out.]
Btw, if a union member can demand, under current law, that his/her dues not be used for political educational purposes, why cannot an corporate shareholder demand that none of his/her share of the corporate treasury be used for political purposes?
Is that fair, Woody? Or is the rationale that the corporate officers are wiser than the shareholders, but the union leadership is dumber or more treacherous that the members?
November 9th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
“the overall philosophy of the traditonal Republican is reponsibility, moderation, and respect for the individual”
The traditional Republican is dead. After all, even I liked Ike. But the majority of the party is a conglomerate of corporate whores, Beltway hustlers and Big Hair Preachers with 800 numbers – the most corrupt and clownish crew that have ever tried to grab the levers of this much power for their selfish ends. There have been city halls and state houses worse than the reign of Big Time, Junior Bush, Dr. Frist and The Bugman – but I’ve never seen any gang so uniquely greedy, hubristic and incompetent running rampant where the stakes have been this high. Fortunately, it appears that the Emperor is increasingly being seen as naked by most of the citizenry. God bless, etc. etc.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
“a bunch of selfish children who take, take, take and live for today with no regard for consequences of tomorrow”
2 Words, Woody – Global Warming. You creeps are killing our grandchildren and you don’t give one solitary little shit. You represent the most selfish form of allegedly intelligent life ever to grace this planet – The Right Wing Republican.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
“Taking aside specific players, the overall philosophy of the traditonal Republican is reponsibility, moderation, and respect for the individual.”
Woody, would that were the case. When you wake up from your long winter’s nap, let me know, and I’ll be interested to watch your sleepy eyes blink confoundedly as they adjust to the shocking reality. What’s most funny to me is that if your statement were even remotely in the ballpark of what the actual Republican party and its actual adherents/beneficiaries have ACTUALLY been doing during the past 30 years, then I might even be forced to consider identifying myself as a Republican. But it’s not. And (so) I can’t.
Thanks for the humorous aside, though; it made my day! Oh, aside from seeing Arnold get his long-overdue wake-up call. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some reckless (not wreckless, ahem.. though “wreckful” might well explain the Enronic acts of the new model Republicanesque) spending to do!
November 9th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
He doesn’t believe in global warming and he has wingnut science under Fred Singer to back him up. Like all his positions the foundations are based on lies, myths and misconceptions, thus start and end with a faulty conclusion. No surprise there for those of us with two brain cells to rub together.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Ok Im putting an end to this right now. Please not ANOTHER endless thread heaping abuse on Woody or anyone else merely because he has divergent views. Either argue the points and ideas or keep it to yourself. I for one am sick and tired of the petty personal sniping. The readers are way beyond THAT.
Stop the name-calling now.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Marc, I respond to text, and text alone. Here is the text:
“The “group think†and domination of the left is stupid and it’s dangerous”
“the left is like a bunch of selfish children who take, take, take and live for today with no regard for consequences of tomorrow”
My response is clear and textually based, and quite humorous. I rarely come out on a limb and make an observation as such, and I quite like Woody and his input, but when I say something provocative (and insulting) i can’t be surprised if someone calls me on it. Woody, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn’t either. But not one ad hominem in my post, thank you very much. And it both insults and angers me if your comment falsely implies that there was.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Okay, I just re-read my last post and the ‘angry’ part sounds pretty stupid, so I’m magically retracting it. The original intent was playful and it got lost somewhere, but that’s what happens when I’m neglected my preview button..
November 9th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
The “Paycheck Protection” act had nothing to do with the rights of union members. It had everything to do with “Starving the Beast” as our friend Grover Norquest would say. By depriving Democrats of funds but permitting GOP sources to let er rip the playing field would be tilted. And that’s what they want. Look at the propositions. The pharmaceutical companies got just what they paid for – the profitable status quo.
On Arnold – how long before someone, Say Tom McClintock, decides to challenge the Governator in the GOP primary. If you’re going to lose why not with a real Republican?
November 9th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Don’t divergent views have to stand on merit? This strikes me a just more he said she said I give up and let the extremesits win type of deal to me. Every statement has been quoted and multiple attempts at explaining have been presented to no avail. If a premise is false it’s false. Doesn’t make any difference who it belongs to.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Woody is hurt
Rich, don’t act innocent. You hurt me worse than anyone else. You humiliated me by pointing out my second misspelled word within a week. My mom used to correct spelling and grammar on birthday cards and letters from camp, so I should have learned to be more careful. At least I don’t mangle words like Bush.
For the most part, I overlook a lot of attacks, and I genuinely welcome corrections to information and rational explanations of different ideas. Such helpful comments allow me to understand and consider other views, which is one reason that I visit Marc’s site. You may be surprised, but I listen to Air America about as much as I listen to Limbaugh. Both have the same effect of helping me learn and making me laugh–though Air America doesn’t intend the latter.
I do appreciate Marc’s attempt to maintain civility and, most importantly, trying to keep the thread interesting and on topic. It’s pretty boring reading personal attacks and getting off-topic, like I’m doing now.
Back on Topic (Sort of):
Traditional Republicans
reg & Rich are right about the Republican Party of today. Traditional Republicans in government are as plentiful as honest Democrats–so there are very few, if any. I miss Ronald Reagan. It’s sad that the Republicans have to act and spend like Democrats to expand their base, because the party then abandons its core supporters.
Prop 75
Michael Crosby gave the best explanation for Prop 75. Use of union dues for political purposes is assumed unless the member opts out, whereas the proposition would have made a member give his express approval. I do tend to like the latter. It has nothing to do with administrative burdens on the union but it forces the member to make a decision that he might not have otherwise understood that he was allowed to make or forces him to review it on occasion. Similarly, banks and insurance companies like automatic drafts–no one is giving them any thought after the initial commitment (which is a verey hard word for a man to use and spell.) That’s also why the IRS likes withholding rather than quarterly payments.
One other point about union dues is that, as I understand, the union can classify the use of dues as for education or information rather than politics–even if it is really for that. If I am correct, that should be more closely scrutinized.
Regarding the example about a company using shareholder money to fight unions…shareholders have a greater right to put their money where they want than do union members who don’t have multiple unions from which to choose. Some of my liberal clients invest in “socially responsible” companies and accept returns which may be less than those that rape the land and its workers–if there is one. Also, shareholders may vote out management, which happens as frequently as union bosses getting voted out.
Global Warming and Tenure
reg, I really, really have a problem with the hand wringing over global warming. It just isn’t worth trillions of dollars every year to achieve a temperature change that would be barely measurable, take decades to achieve, and would have no significant effect on our lives or the planet. This global warming parade is almost entirely politics of the left.
What does this have to do with tenure? Not much, but I have to stay on topic. Well, I’d seriously consider dumping science educators who teach politics rather than their subject.
News of Wonderment!
I know this revelation will kill Mark York. Do you like public television? Do you believe that it does a good job and can be believed? Does it has good hosts and instructors? Keep saying yes. Yes, yes, yes. Well, I used to have a science show on public television! It was not a long show, but it was long enough to teach kids some science magic and to learn real science rather than political science. Public television was in its heyday then. They must have selected me for my brains and not just my good looks and personality. I have to know a little about science to have done that. Apparently, you missed my segment on global warming or, as I told the kids, longer summers!
Limit Reached
At this point, I have reached any reasonable limit of comments for this subject. Furthermore, I should let the people who actually live in California and are affected by the vote carry on the discussion. I hope at least one of them is a conservative. Are there any left in the state?
(I hope G.M. doesn’t see that I wrote all of this over here. He’ll see why my posting production has dropped so much, plus I told him to shoot me if I came back here to tangle with the left again. I’ve taken a big chance to help educate you people, so appreciate it.)
November 9th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
I know, I know. It’s have rather than has good hosts. Leave me alone, Rich. It was a change in the sentence for which I forgot to change the verb. Good night, and don’t tell my mom.
November 9th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
Subheadings Appreciated
Can I, for one, express my appreciation for Woody’s use of subheadings to break up his post. That little bit of extra effort made reading what would otherwise have been a large block of text much easier. I have resolved to extend my sincere flattery in the customary manner.
Potential hypocrisy detected
Woody wrote “… but it forces the member to make a decision that he might not have otherwise understood that he was allowed to make or forces him to review it on occasion.”
Now, you have spent a lot of time deriding “lefties” for wanting a nanny state to bail out individuals from the consequences of their own actions. It seems there is an important caveat to the principle: except where those actions might favor Democrats. Republican, heal thyself!
Dangerous bullshit scorned
Woody – your blithe dismissal of the likely consequences of global warming is ignorance elevated to evil. Climate change will result in a lot more than longer summers and elevated sea levels. The are parts of the world that currently feed millions of people where agriculture will be wiped out. Freshwater sources will dry up. It may very well be that these effects are offset by currently arid land becoming productive, but that won’t help the adjustment for people who depend on local agriculture for sustenance. There will be starvation, and there will be wars over diminishing resources. That’s in addition to the increased intensity and frequency of tropical storms … can you imagine the impact on the United States of a couple of Katrinas every year.
In the end, millions of people will die as a direct result of climate change. Decades from now, people will think of those who actively worked to prevent a response in the way that poople think of holocaust deniers today.
And on that score, I have decided to get in early.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Mork
You are not doing Global Warming any justice. You sound just as silly as Woody.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
“This global warming parade is almost entirely politics of the left.”
This is complete bullshit and nothing more need be said.
Again, my source on global warming data is http://www.realclimate.org
The wingnut right doesn’t believe it because they just want to go on burning fuels, collecting the money and ignoring the problems.
As a commenter posted on my blog Woody had a show on public “access” not PBS.
I called it “Woody’s World.” Excellent! He’s no scientist and proves daily he knows nothing about it. He’s not even a Useful Idiot as John Moore calls some.
The only “political” science is the kind this clown preaches. You’re talking to real scientific help here.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Well Josh only if you still don’t get it. Mork is correct in those scenarios, and it doesn’t happen over night. It creeps up on you like a case of the flu.
Lesson for the day: Desertification. Discuss.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
That’s Useful Fool for Moore and Useful Idiot for Mona Charen. Frankly, it’s a tossup.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Mork: “Woody wrote “… but it forces the member to make a decision that he might not have otherwise understood that he was allowed to make or forces him to review it on occasion.â€
Now, you have spent a lot of time deriding “lefties†for wanting a nanny state to bail out individuals from the consequences of their own actions. It seems there is an important caveat to the principle: except where those actions might favor Democrats. Republican, heal thyself!”
Actually, if you look at those on the left (and quite a few of us on the right, and courts etc., there has been a significant movement to “opt in rather than opt out as the preferred way of dong things. You are beginning to see a significant move towards Opt In in internet agreements, signature blocks on contracts and loan agreements etc. So, intellectually, the opt in is the better argument, and of course, with opt in, they do have to suffer the consequences of their choice.
As to the global warming issue, the argument is so full of hype and scare tactics that I for one have decided that it is a political argument and not a scientific argument at all. In fact, while there is some evidence of a shrinking arctic ice cap in the Beaufort sea areas over the last decade, there is growth in the iceland glacier one of the largest in the world, there is growth in the section of ice due north of Candada (a map that Mark York put up) and there is a significant amount of research that shows that the antarctic ice cap is growing fairly rapidly while the Ross Ice shelf is shrinking. So, Josh, I would agree with you.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
GM – I don’t have time for a lengthy post exposing your ignorance on climate change, but to take just the last example, ice volumes in Antarctica have increased recently because of unprecedentedly high precipitation over areas that have not yet warmed to the point that ice melts. In other words, it is consistent with warming-induced climate change, not a refutation of it.
The climate is a complex mechanism with many interrelated moving parts. You need to look at macro trends. The evidence for warming as a whole is irrefutable, and understandable by any person who is genuinely interested in understanding what is occuring. The only people left in the world who believe that the climate is changing are those who are paid not to believe and their dupes, patsies and enablers.
I continue to maintain that global warming deniers are on the same moral level as holocaust deniers, and should be treated with the same scorn.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Only people who believe the climate is not changing!
November 9th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Huh, Mork….that’s pretty strong. I’m sure there are many here that know much more about the global warming topic than I, but it is an issue with which I have always had some trouble. It is undeniable that something is happening to the global climate. And it is also undeniable that it seems to coincide with the widespread use of fossil fuels. But this amounts only to a correlation and is not sufficient for causation. There is a lot of scientific work being done on this, but the jury is very much out despite the much ballyhooed consensus. I recall a recent article about how Science or Nature was declining to publish articles written by reputable scientists, not industry shills, that questioned the consensus. In some respects the preliminary conslusions that we might cautiously begin to accept, have been elevated to orthodoxy and already ossified into dogma.
It seems to me that there is just not enough yet to say anything definitively. The biosphere is a vastly complex system, and there is a kind of hubris in our supposing that we understand how it works. It may be the case that warming is caused by fossil fuels, and that may be the best candidate for an explanation at the moment, but that’s as far as we can go. Why did all of the other historical climate phenomena we know about happen? We really don’t know. Could this warming trend be part of some other cycle? Quite possibly.
See…I have just raised some pertinent questions that science I am sure is trying to answer. This hardly puts me on a level with Holocaust deniers. And scorn doesn’t really advance science.
Lastly, I’m not opposed to Kyoto, but I wonder, if things are going to be as dire as they say, and given that we have been pumping this stuff into the atmosphere for a hundred years, and do so now at an unprecedented rate, what reducing emissions back to 1998 (or whatver) levels is supposed to do for us.
And let me head you off at the pass and say I am a pretty die hard conservationist and liberal on the environment. Even so these questions don’t just go away.
This is massively off topic, but I found those comments a bit much to take.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Well, Dan, let me help you out. There was a fantastic 3 part series in the New Yorker earlier this year that summarised the state of knowledge about climate change, which is unfortunately not online. However, there’s this short interview with the writer, which briefly makes a lot of the points that were covered in depth in the article.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/050425on_onlineonly01
Why don’t you take a quick read and tell me what, if anything, she says that you think is tendentious or wrong.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Another bit of quick reading – here’s a link to the paper that the pentagon commissioned in 2003 to model the security implications of global warming.
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm
November 9th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Eric Alterman had an interesting take on his blog re Prop 77. He is all for proposals to get rid of gerrymandering but doesn’t trust anything that Republicans propose. And thinks most of the voters feel the same way these days.
Seen the latest polling on Shrub? Brutal.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
The New Yorker article is interesting…some of what she discusses there is, at least in broad strokes, addressed here, which is the article I mentioned in passing above: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
I don’t know how to judge these sorts of duelling accounts. I have no doubt the consequences as developed in models are as dire as they say, the question seems to be whether it is all caused, or even mainly caused, by us. It may well be, and I am open to arguments that it is, I’m just not so sure it is a settled matter at this point.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
“As to the global warming issue, the argument is so full of hype and scare tactics that I for one have decided that it is a political argument and not a scientific argument at all. In fact, while there is some evidence of a shrinking arctic ice cap in the Beaufort sea areas over the last decade, there is growth in the iceland glacier one of the largest in the world, there is growth in the section of ice due north of Candada (a map that Mark York put up) and there is a significant amount of research that shows that the antarctic ice cap is growing fairly rapidly while the Ross Ice shelf is shrinking. So, Josh, I would agree with you. ”
Yeah you agree with one of your own who like you has no clue. Cite your your goddamed source Roper. There is no conflicting data on the increase of CO2 and the increase in global temperature and the decrease of ice in the Arctic. Because of ocean fluctuations, atabatic winds, circumpolar currents these things don’t happen uniformly in either pole. If it snows in NY that’s proof global warming is a sham of the left according to the WSJ. Pure bunk and ignorance. Your default setting and scientific knowledge is so weak, nothing is liable to convince someone so politically corrupt.
My advice for a psych major such as yourself is this: go to realclimate.org and present your best debunking effort, if you dare, which you don’t. They’ll explain it much better than I can as a biologist. Reasoned people tend to get it and wingnuts who believe in the tooth fairy and ID in the schools tend not to. Mocking reality is a fool’s errand that your website is firmly attached to. I saw to that.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
Mork did a decent job in my view. These types just insense me, because they always find an invalid opposing premise they believe in. That’s the conundrun with belief. Facts mean nothing.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
“As to the global warming issue, the argument is so full of hype and scare tactics…”
Only if you read the crazy shit scifi fictioneer Michael Crichton has been writing to convince people that global warming is just another form of terrorism. Presumably natural selection is another one of those “hypes” being foisted on us by the faith-based scientific community.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Let me add that anyone who touted Saddam’s “WMDs” as a “national security threat” to the good old USofA and now defends to other people’s deaths the “we erred on the side of caution” argument regarding the actual, documentable hype of Saddam’s weapons capabilities and “al Qaeda ties”, but who then tells us that the scientific concerns over global warming are “full of hype and scare tactics” really has a lot of goddam nerve. And isn’t a trustworthy sort when it comes to good judgement…not even a little bit.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
“that global warming is just another form of terrorism” should read “that dire predictions of global warming are just another form of terrorism”
November 9th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Yeah and Steven Milloy of FOX is another on their sources of BS.
Here Milloy and Roper are debunked last December.
“Local climate variations are generally much larger than global ones. The reason is simple: it is easy to generate large localised temperature changes simply by changing the atmospheric circulation patterns (as happens for example in the North Atlantic Oscillation, NAO) – this will steer the winds along a different track, causing some regions to warm and others to cool. In a global or hemispheric average, in contrast, this kind of redistribution of heat cancels out. To get global-scale variations, you need to add heat overall, not just shift it around to a different place. Global-scale variations are therefore much smaller, and they reflect changes in global climate drivers, for example in greenhouse gas concentrations or in solar activity. For this reason, an anthropogenic warming trend can only be clearly identified in hemispheric or global averages or in pattern studies. It can neither be demonstrated nor debunked by looking at individual local time series. Even as the global average temperature is rising, some regions have been cooling in recent decades (e.g., the Labrador Sea region or the Antarctic).”
Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=22
Reg, up is down to that crowd. We see it here every day.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
By the way the climate credentials of the conservative Milloy? Political science. Bjorn Lomborg? Political science. See a trend in who is political and who isn’t?
November 9th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
That’s interesting, Dan, but let’s keep it in perspective: the article cites three scientists who were told that their research was not up to publication standard. Scientific publications reject research submitted for publication all the time … journals of that stature reject a lot more than they publish, and frankly, Occam’s Razor would suggest to us that it’s much more likely that the reason for the rejection is as stated than that both of these publications is prepared to risk its reputation by participating in a conspiracy to promote a scientific conclusion that they know is wrong, and, which, by the way, they don’t seem to have any ulterior motive in promoting.
Also, I think one of the particularly astute points that Kolbert makes in that interview is about the way that GW-deniers have used disagreements within the scientific community about the extent and specific effects of global warming to cast doubt on the totality of the research. As she says, if your house is burning down, the fact that one spectator thinks it will burn to the ground in an hour while another thinks that it will take a day should not lead you to conclude that it’s not going to burn down at all.
But that’s what the GW-deniers – including the Administration – would have us believe.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:18 am
Congratulations to the Democrats in CA for a well run campaign and total win. Rove should be jealous. That Judge Wapner add was awesome, as an example. Who was that in an earlier MarcPost who predicted the Gov would get all his initiatives past. Fool!
Until there is an opt-in requirement for political spending by Corporations of ALL their share-holders(who don’t even work for their gain), is it fair to require it for Unions of their members? I didn’t think so. Too bad Arnold didn’t write his Initiative fairly.
There is too much money available in campaigns. This is the real and increasing danger too democracy, and the reason few independents can provide any sorely needed competition. But you can’t require ‘disarmament’ unilaterally.
About the other interesting side topic here, global warming, we should leave to scientist what is scientists and to politicians what is political. Scientists are religiously technical and
inquisitive. They don’t give two twits where the data leads and what the political ramifications might mean as a result. It is the politicians and extremists at both ends that make something else out of it.
All scientists do is give their best guess what their apolitical technical data implies at any point in time, which can change as more data becomes available. It is up to the politicians to do whatever they think is prudent with it. It is not prudent to ignore it. It is also not prudent to turn off the world economy’s fuel supply too quickly.
Remember what happened to scientists like Copernicus and Galileo, religiously, politically, and physically, when they first presented their data on planet earth, relative to the sun? Thank goodness scientists no longer have to worry about torture and stake burning, just maybe their hard earned data being ignored by the ignore..ant.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:41 am
Correction to Mark A. Dork
Mark writes: “As a commenter posted on my blog Woody had a show on public ‘access’ not PBS.”
You’re commenter is as wrong as you typically are. The show was through the Alabama Educational Television Network, which was the first public education network in the nation. The show was carried throughout the state and into bordering states. This pre-dated public access. It wasn’t that big of a deal and I don’t want to make too much of it and give people the wrong impression that I’m boasting, but others considered my science knowledge and enthusiam worthy enough to teach kids, and I thought that aspect of my resume was worth sharing to gain credibility. If you liked my thoughts on global warming (aka longer summers), you would have enjoyed them on evolution–not that you really know my views on that.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Jim Russell:” Until there is an opt-in requirement for political spending by Corporations of ALL their share-holders(who don’t even work for their gain), is it fair to require it for Unions of their members? I didn’t think so”
Absolutely the correct analog – and of course THAT will never happen.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:39 am
I believe that “Woody”, who poses here as a humble accountant, has finally been unmasked. Using special intelligence gathering techniques known only Douglas Feith and myself, along with the latest global positioning data and the help of several psychics, I have located The Genius Formerly Known As Woody holding forth at his “secret” website.
http://www.drscience.com/
Welcome to the Ask Dr. Science Web Site, the home of America’s foremost authoritarian on the world around us. Or at least the world around him. “There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance,” he says, “and only I have managed to erase that line.”
November 10th, 2005 at 10:08 am
“Correction to Mark A. Dork”
Oh that’s professional. Look, the bar for reality is low in Alabama. I’m sure you think evolution is a another debate like they do in Kansas, so when ignorant people mock a scientific reality they are clowns indeed regardless of where they appear, but it’s because of how little they know rather than the other way around, oh dimitted one.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:39 am
I want to be sure those who read my previous comment know I was not using name-calling. That “Fool!” I mentioned was me. In addition, understand I separated the word ‘ignorant’ to ‘ignore..ant’ to put the emphasis on ignore, not to imply those who ignore are ‘ants’.
Ignorant does not mean one is unintelligent or even not wise, but is often taken that way which is why I attempted to avert this. It means someone has chosen to ignore a subject and therefore don’t know to much about it, in the opinion of the person assigning it to them.
If this explanation doesn’t work, let me know so I can try something else to avoid Marc shutting off comments. I enjoy commenting in a chamber that doesn’t echo.
November 10th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
I’m going to take it that “Dork” is officially calling a name. It only bolsters my case.
November 10th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
It was a Freudian slip.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Forgive me if I do not defer in the questions of science or politics to a former host of a local science show. Dave Letterman hosted the 4-H TV show (”Clover Power”) when we both lived in Indianapolis, and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near my sheep. And not due to jealousy, either.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
I think that’s a wise choice Michael. In logical terms it’s known as appeal to an inappropriate authority. It’s also the basis for all of the so-called counter debates in science by “the right.” Which ironically makes them “the wrong.”
November 10th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
When this thread ends up with spit balls being thrown about high school term papers as qualifications for climate expertise, I ‘ll know this discussion has reached the bottom of the hill. It’s certainly speeding downhill fast.
My anecdotal contribution to this global warming tussle was one day in the chemistry lab for an organic chemistry course when the fellow at the table across from me turned off his bunsen burner in the middle of a permanganate reduction and left for the day, neglecting to upcork his beaker. Fortunately I was at the sink when the MnO2-powered launch occurred…an unforgettable example that just stopping heat forcing doesn’t in itself necessarily stop change processes already underway.
Anyway, with regards to the original posting, while Arnie’s “reform train” certainly got derailed and left him with no remant of political virginity remaining (not that he exactly had any going into this election), I wouldn’t rule him out for 2006. The CA legislature still doesn’t get high marks from the voters either. Our constitution, however, is probably safe from the “Arnold” amendment that would have made him eligible to run for President.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
“remnant” not “remant” for you typo hawks. I can tell it’s a rough crowd out there by some of the earlier comments…
November 10th, 2005 at 3:43 pm
And to think that the people of California could have had Gary Coleman instead.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
“And to think that the people of California could have had Gary Coleman instead. ”
Don’t blame me, I voted for the porn star.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Is Global Warming Still on the Table?
Mork wrote: “Another bit of quick reading – here’s a link to the paper that the pentagon commissioned in 2003 to model the security implications of global warming.”
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2003/Pentagon-Climate-Change1oct03.htm
Mork, I just had a chance to look at your reference. Initially and from a quick scan, I was impressed. I like tables and historical evidence that support a position. So, I thought, “This is good. Where did he find this?” However, I matched the data to the purpose and conclusions of the report, and there is not as much correlation as I would have suspected from the volume of data presented.
Here is how the report starts:
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change….
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists…. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme….
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible….
That doesn’t do it for me. The purpose and conclusion admit that they are not supported by the data but more by the faith of the writers. They even admit that existing climate models are not satisfactory.
So, I looked at other reports from this group and saw these remarks, which I excerpted:
How is it that the World Trade Center could be destroyed by jets crashing into it? If one watches videos of the WTC falling, it is plain…that this was a demolition job. Many people have some pretty good ideas about what happened. Did any of the mainstream media alert the public to these facts?? Of course not.
Well, I wouldn’t let one article sway me, so I tried another:
Any astute researcher who is not serving the interests of the Central Intelligence Agency is forced to conclude that the murder of JFK was a complicated and meticulously organized coup which guaranteed the unscathed longevity of the military industrial complex and the political pre-eminence of the CIA for decades thereafter.
And, they add this:
During the next four years, the Bush Administration plans to screen all Americans for mental illness. The intent of the Bush mental health screening plan is not to legitimately diagnose and treat mental illness but rather determine who needs to be labeled “mentally unstable†or “subversive .
Boy, I hope so, and I hope they start with these guys.
I was willing to give your referred research on global warming the benefit of the doubt and to try to learn from it, but it turned out to be more disappointing overreaction and misrepresentation of the left which wants to project our country and future in the worst light.
This is not meant to be critical, but I hope you can understand why I continue to be a skeptic of most of the alarmist claims–especially when they are not supported by honest and complete facts untainted by prejudice and conflicts of interest.
To carry that thought forward, similar “scholarly” reports from the left on any subject become more suspect when I see problems with other ones previously submitted. If global warming, unfair labor practices, or any other matters are to be decided in our best interests, then everyone from all sides needs to start being a little more honest about the facts and the analyses.
November 10th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Woody – which “group” do are you talking about? Global Business Network, which wrote the report on contract for the Pentagon, or whatever organization it was that is hosting the copy I linked to?
November 10th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
It depends on what, and whom, you call alarmist. They say it’s happening it’s verifiable and increasing. I don’t know who these two are so it’s not my source. Mine is realclimate and the scientific journals. You know the ones who don’t accept wingnut science you use in your counter arguments.
Civil truth was all too easily convinced by that mumbojumbo over at Roper’s. The experts debunked it easily.
November 10th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Yeah Mork there’s nothing of the sort in that report. It’s obvious the website is political. Woody do you know anything about correlation? You’d sure flunk any class of mine that’s certain.
November 10th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
here’s one of the reports citations: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef_en4.html
Yeah, Woods Hole Oceanographic. You don’t want them.
November 10th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Well Reg you may have voted for the porn star but the state got a good screwing anyway.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Re. Source of Global Warming Article
Mork, if you cut off the extension of the web site, you end up with http://www.mindfully.org . Go to that site and you will find that this is how the group describes itself:
Mindfully.org is to be used as a nonprofit research tool. Our opinion is indeed biased, because it seems to us that the “balanced news” of today’s journalism is accomplished by blending fact with fiction. Fox News is a great example of such a blend, and so are most newspapers. If this were not so, then there would be front page headlines about the intense level of fraud that took place at the poll. The American public, more than any other, seems blind to a multitude of facts that other nations have considerably less trouble seeing. A great deal of this ignorance of fact is directly attributable to the right-wing owned and operated US media. The deception of most of the US has been accomplished with great ease.
That site, which contains the report you offered, also has other reports and opinions, and it was to those that I referenced. I suspect, without going through them, that their site contains both original material and outside material with which they identify or agree.
The words of the report your referenced, along with its association with this strange group, led me to not put faith the report.
MoonBats Create Skeptics on the Right
As an additonal thought, you can take good information and put it in the hands of not-so-well-intended groups and you end up with distortions–as Mindfully.org claims is done in the media. This organization is a classic “MoonBat” group, which gets the amazed attention of the right and often discredits legitimate positions from people such as yourself.
York to Earth
Mark, Civil Truth has a lot more sense than either one of us…well, maybe a little more than me and a lot more than you. This was evidenced in a previous post where you falsely accused me of plagarism in an article that I didn’t author and on a sentence that was, in fact, properly referenced. CT was smart enough to tell me to let it drop, which I did. However, I’m happy to remind you of it here for the purpose of taking up for him.
That’s it. This has gotten boring and too far off topic.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Go screw yourself Wood head. I see if you can’t handle the truth. There is no relationship between that host site and the report except that you have conflated and inserted one’s political comments into the other. Now that’s some out of context work from a pro-propagandist.
As for the plagiarist charge, I recanted it after combing the post for a third hand attribution. The graph was passed down the line yet not referenced to the original author. Besides all wingnuts read from the same page so proper attibution isn’t neccessary.
You really are a sick moron. There’s no other way to put it.
Wood’s Hole. Boy howdy.
November 10th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
On out of context quoting by wingnuts and the myth of global cooling.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
November 10th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
When I was a kid and would argue with my mother over something she said to me, she would say “You’d argue over with a street sign.”
She recognized a street sign when she saw one and would just walk away.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
“You’d argue over with a street sign.†should be “You’d argue with…..” damn it.
November 10th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
This street sign talks back with pure propaganda BS. My duty is to answer.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Mark,
I didn’t want to get dragged into the controversy between you and GM/Woody (which Woody has had a hand in too), but since you did accuse me of being overly credulous, I suggest you might review again my various comments recent and less recently at GM’s site (a number of which are strictly humorous).
In regards to GM’s lastest posting, discussion of which seems to have consumed many electrons, passing over his prologue, I thought his first topic exposed a legitimate dispute over proxy data on which climate simulations were being based. I didn’t see any suspicious political connections with the article discussing the MM challenge to the data. RealClimate.org is a prime contestant on this issue; it would be interesting to know of some third-party evaluations.
In regards to the arctic data, even though GM’s source article may be accurate, since it referred to data from the 90’s, I did express skepticism (based on other articles I have read, including a recent one in the NYT). While melting of the polar ice cap itself won’t significantly raise sea levels, I do see good evidence that other signficant consequences will likely occur, though the time course remains uncertain (including possible impacts on Greenland’s ice pack, which would create sea-level rising if it started melted). As I’ve looked into things more, I think GM did not research sufficiently on the Arctic, relying on just one article linked to the National Center for Public Policy Research, (BTW, I don’t see Fred Singer on NCPRR’s staff lists; is there some secret connection between NCPPR and SEPP that I’m not aware of).
Nonetheless, I still think GM made a commendable (though flawed) effort to look into the whole matter.
Overall, regarding global warming, I remain suspicious of financial interests, which are rampant, and remain of the opinion that the more alarming the claim, the stronger needs to be the evidence. There has been crying wolf in the past on other environmental topics (along with some sensationalism about GW from some quarters) which does raise the level on my BS detector.
I am also aware of the limitations of modeling from my encounters with GCM modeling years ago, though I’m confident that the evidence of GW has been strenthening over time along with evident improvement in models and massive increasese in computing power. I do hope the data disputes can be resolved because GIGO still trumps good modeling.
One big challenge, I think with respect to the public, is with respect to probability and uncertainty. “Absolute” certainty about GW (as with most science) is a myth except in retrospect (which is obviously too late for most reasonable people), but unfortunately most of the popular press and the public want a yes or no answer. Scientists too often come across as vacillating when they speak of uncertainty (there’s always the jokes about percentage chances of rain).
But I would hope that the uncertainties and particularly a discussion of the magnitude of human interventions on the climate system compared with non-human sources (signal:noise ratios, etc.) would be more clearly expressed, because when we move from the science to the political arena, it won’t suffice to stamp feet (I’m not speaking of respectible scientists here) and say “we need to do something because very bad things may happen”. More quantification is needed that is then effectively and honestly communicated if there’s any hope of an intelligent political process occurring.
Some things do mystify me, such as why some political circles refuse to seriously consider reasonable conservation measures, which make sense both economically (the less money we burn up in fuel, the more we have for more lasting expenditures), environmentally, and would benefit national security. (I’m more wondering out loud than expecting you to answer. No big energy conspiracy theories please.)
Anyway, I think I’ve rambled on long enough.
November 11th, 2005 at 7:52 am
See. I told you CT had more sense….
———-
CT wrote above: “Some things do mystify me, such as why some political circles refuse to seriously consider reasonable conservation measures, which make sense both economically….”
CT, I’m not sure whom or what you’re referencing here. Human nature, especially in our free market system, would tend to want to conserve–if it makes sense economically. I don’t use premium gas if regular works fine and I don’t leave the air conditioners on high when I’m gone all day. Why waste my money, even if I had no interest in the environment or national security (which I do)? Businesses also act appropriately to increase the bottom line for shareholders. So, I’m not sure which circles ignore or resist conservation measures that are economically sound. Everyone (with sense) wants to save a buck.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:39 am
“Nonetheless, I still think GM made a commendable (though flawed) effort to look into the whole matter.”
And I don’t. Neither did realclimate which he falsely played off a wingerville nutcase. He started at one false conclusion and arrived right back there through a series of false premises. A sure thing every time. Moreover, if you look at what Woody just did, with those incestuous quotes, no one with a brain could support anything these too amateur political hacks say on anything.
“There has been crying wolf in the past on other environmental topics (along with some sensationalism about GW from some quarters) which does raise the level on my BS detector.”
Not from the experts in the field there hasn’t and that’s not where the BS comes from.
I don’t trust the focus of your skepticism as it seems to defer to those who have no qualifications and considerable right-wing political bias and who use industry funded conservative naysayer think tanks and cite a fiction writer as their expert.
That sends my BS meter to the red zone if not yours. GW is real and buring fossil fuels increases it. At a point that can be determined we will reach the point of no return. Foot draggers who are both ignorant and self-interested should not be given deference. They aren’t qualifed to have it. My people are and can prove it. The same people work to remove evolution and replace it with religion. That’s what they’re doing here.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:44 am
And you’ll notice none of the myth dispelling links I’ve posted here warranted a comment. I take that to mean facts aren’t your fare, but you know, you still want credit for knowledge you don’t have or will even try to understand from those who do. It’s about what I thought.
November 11th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
The words of the report your referenced, along with its association with this strange group, led me to not put faith the report.
Well, Woody, I think you have just provided yet another cut-and-dried example of your pig-headed ignorance.
The report I linked to was authored by a widely respected consulting organization and commissioned by the Pentagon.
You can find it ALL OVER THE INTERNET. There are dozens and dozens of sites that link to it, ranging from individuals, to organizations of every stripe and level of credibility.
The fact that you think that it diminishes the credibility OF THE REPORT that an organization that seems a little nutty happened to have linked to it says A LOT about the quality of your reasoning.
It’s easy to sincerely believe all sorts of stupid shit if that’s the basis on which you arrive at your conclusions.
Why should we take ANYTHING your say seriously?
November 11th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
I think only himself and Roper do, and possibly this civil truth character. The twisted logic process you outlined is why.
November 11th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Mork, I gave two reasons–not one. Can’t you see that, when organizations are paid big bucks to come up a study on global warming, they are going have to come up with something?! They even admitted in their report that they were stretching reality, and their own admission has nothing to do with the nutcases who re-publish the report.
If you want something from the left that you can put faith in, go to the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, which has become the latest science journal for the left and features global warming articles. ( For the latest, go to http://www.gmroper.com/archives/2005/11/taking_global_w.htm )
That really is it for me. You guys can keep it up to your hearts’ content.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
You really are just plain stupid. The report cited Wood’s Hole research, and you haven’t even attempted to address the myth-busting at realclimate. You’re way over your amateur head here. Keep digging.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Yeah http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175241,00.html more unbiased sources. This really is politically hopeless with this bunch. They’re incapable of rational thought.
This is a wingnut source I already discredited.
November 12th, 2005 at 1:36 am
Mark, taking your comments in reverse order…
It’s not fair to argue from silence. Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t respond to your three links because none of them seemed directed at anything that I wrote. Similarly, lack of comments by me on the volleys between you and GM/Woody does not say anything about my positions. The tendency of all three of you to quickly go ad hominem in this thread does not invite me to join in, as my minor forays have confirmed.
About BS meters, as I implied by my statement about my suspicion of financial interests, industry funding or sponsorship would also elevate my BS meter as well. Our calibrations might differ some, but that’s just part of the human condition.
However, again unless I’ve missed something, I’m not aware that the two specific articles that GM cited are themselves illegitimate or tainted by industry funding/sponsorship. From the information I have, the MM versus MBH controversy seems to be a legitimate scientific dispute that is being debated in peer-review journals and scientific meetings, which is an appropriate venue. MM may well be proven wrong, but I don’t see the “wingnut” hallmarks in this debate.
The Windsor arctic ice thickness paper from GPL also seems to be a legitimate scientific study from what I can tell. However, in this case, NCPRR then oversold Windsor’s findings as a definitive refutation of Arctic warming, and as I’ve said, GM was too hasty to accept that assertion. So the “wingnut” factor seems to be in the use/interpretation of the paper, not the paper itself.
So in the end, I guess your biggest gripe is that I hold the character of GM and Woody in higher esteem than you do, and am more willing to commend their efforts and trust their intentions. You and GM/Woody evidently have a longstanding mutually toxic relationship with each other. Well, we all have different experiences and histories, so I guess that’s just going to have to be the way it is.
We all also also have different paths to our positions on issues and are a different points on our journeys. I do try to be fair minded, and do try to listen for content. How your judge me is in your domain.
November 12th, 2005 at 9:26 am
“I’m not aware that the two specific articles that GM cited are themselves illegitimate or tainted by industry funding/sponsorship.”
Fred Singer. Google. Clue. Get one. The links do indeed address your comments, yet none of you three bothered to look, and Woody launched into a fiction campaign with the politics of the study. I didn’t cite that study Mork did. I pointed out the source of one data set was Wood’s Hole. That’s the gold standard. Higher esteem has to be earned, and while your path seems to be more reasoned it’s quite up to par based on these friendships.
The Milloy crap is the dead-ender.
“MM versus MBH controversy” I don’t know what this refers to.
November 12th, 2005 at 9:27 am
“Not” up to par.
November 12th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Concerning wingut sources.
“The National Centre for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) is a US conservative think tank which advocates �free market solutions to today’s environmental challenges� on the basis that �private owners are the best stewards of the environment.� The NCPPR has set up a website, EnviroTruth.org, which has the expressed aim of �injecting badly needed truth into the debate about our environment.� … However, the NCPPR, and specifically the EnviroTruth website, have received funding from oil company ExxonMobil, which must appreciate the research denying climate change. ExxonMobil has also given funding to sources used by Envirotruth: the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and Dr Fred Singer, as �an active contributor in the battle against the ‘politicization’ of science� through the Hoover Institution and Atlas Economic Research.”
The “controversy” concerns the McKittrick paper who is a not a climate scientist. So it’s not a within the paradigm debate. It’s amateurs versus the scientists. That’s not the debate you described CT. Michael Mann and realclimate respond to this tiff at the website no one here will visit: because it’s not a wingerville site. That’s very telling in itself.
November 12th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Mark York, an off-thread note:
“Useful Idiots,” in the context of John Moore’s blog and which you employed wrongly in an above comment, refers to the term Lenin used to describe western liberals, because western liberals like yourself were the ONLY conduit the USSR had to export communism to America. It was always liberals who joined the communist party.
Using the phrase to describe conservatives like GM and Woody is, therefore, ludicrous.
November 13th, 2005 at 10:55 am
This is patently false. We are the last ones to limit freedoms. Go back to your Mcarthy hive.
November 13th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
The only ways you can deny the above facts are by lying or simply speaking of that of which you haven’t a clue. The latter is what is known as bluster.
It is typical of someone I suspect plays the infamous “race-card” when opportunities present themselves to refute a comment by invoking McCarthy’s name.
You are a rabid extremist who dares accuse others infinitely more reasonable and much less excessive of traits upon which you would appear to have a monopoly.
Anyway, sorry, Marc, about going off thread, I’ve been enjoying reading this debate, with one notable exception whose name I won’t mention but can be linked with a peppermint pattie your contributors put up informed and stimulating arguments and share a lot of good information.
I’ll behave.
November 13th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Right back at you Seth. Yours is one of the weaker straw men we’ve seen here. Here’s a match.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Great post! I’m looking forward for more. Red Stake Percieve or not: http://www.cbsnews.com/ , when Table Rape Round Fetch Table will Opponents unconditionally , Roll Make Increase – that is all that TV is capable of right Slot will Roll Pair without any questions
July 31st, 2006 at 9:48 am
blackjack ballroom blackjack ballroom
August 26th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Web Hosting Ct…
For e-commerce, SSL is also required. A select few image hosts also…
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:07 am
deaf people can dance…
can u provide more information ?…
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 am
Cooperative Travel Insurance…
underground!mastermind overwrite:bitternut Insurance Settlements [url=http://www.gearedsun.com/]Insurance Settlements[/url] http://www.gearedsun.com/ …
June 29th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Collin…
Thinking about earning your computer degree online?Here’s a few things…
July 12th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
short term bad credit loan guaranteed…
…
December 10th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Hello people603ded2123104b405e9851d2984462bb
May 12th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
d0a57e9abbb8…
d0a57e9abbb8e83b2b20…
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
They put their hands in to the crystals and Ah’len amazes Trip by telling him that his favourite food is Catfish. ,
February 14th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Happy Valentine’s Day!