Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
To be clear, which theory are you disputing - the existence of global warming, or that it is anthropogenic in part or whole?

Right now I'm willing to accept a 0.1-0.2 degree rise over the last 100 years, but cannot opine as to where that might fall in a much longer cyclical period, and in fact lean towards the idea that it is entirely consistent with that longer period cycle (meaning, there is no showing that this is different than pre-human times). Concerning claims of a higher 100-year rise, past methodology showing anything else has been very poor, and is being directly contradicted by newer, more reliable measurement. Concerning cyclical behavior, more recent means of measuring temp change over last 10,000 years indicate cycles of up-down that easily encompass the change demonstrated. No reliable showing of deviation from cycles, no showing of causation at all.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, Ty doesn't usually descend to quite THAT level of cheap dismissive misdirection.

I have nothing to say regarding the value of the essay as an analysis of the state of science on this issue, having not had a chance to get past the first 2 paragraphs yet. It could be brilliant for all I know. But, dude, it's Michael Crichton, whose main contribution to scientific thought is to use dinosaurs and alien artifacts as mediocre allegories to get all superficially preachy about scientific responsibility. That, and that alone, screams out for a cheap dismissal, even if just to uphold the rule of all internet chat boards that the highest form of rebuttal is the short, pointed quip. Whether it is actually meaningful criticism is an entirely different question. I look forward to reading it late tonight.

I'd much rather be pointing people to Lomborg, but who here's gonna read that?

Oh, man, now THAT is a situation that reflects poorly on "consensus science." He just got a nice court victory in Sweden, did you read?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I have nothing to say regarding the value of the essay as an analysis of the state of science on this issue, having not had a chance to get past the first 2 paragraphs yet. It could be brilliant for all I know. But, dude, it's Michael Crichton, whose main contribution to scientific thought is to use dinosaurs and alien artifacts as mediocre allegories to get all superficially preachy about scientific responsibility. That, and that alone, screams out for a cheap dismissal, even if just to uphold the rule of all internet chat boards that the highest form of rebuttal is the short, pointed quip. Whether it is actually meaningful criticism is an entirely different question. I look forward to reading it late tonight.

The guy does know scientific methodology, whatever you might think of his money-making activities, but, like I said, I mostly liked the essay because he took concepts with which I am familiar with and agree with, and said them better than most have managed. I figure that, on lawyer boards, I'm talking to a high percentage of soc majors, ya' know?

Oh, man, now THAT is a situation that reflects poorly on "consensus science." He just got a nice court victory in Sweden, did you read?

Yep. Loved it. I cancelled the kids' S.A. subscription back when they ripped into him. (They had never actually got old enough to really get into it by then, but that was one of those mags that you just really should have lying around for kids to find. Or, at least, it used to be.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
It's not like this is an issue-specific fundraising venture. This money is to be used for any of Schwarzenegger's future ballot propositions. In other words, these folks are still giving money to AS to pursue his as-yet-undefined political goals, and are naturally going to expect that whatever he spends this money on will at least have some of their interests in mind. I just don't see this difference as being stark at all.

It's different because it does not directly benefit AS, except to the extent that AS is benefited by his policies being enacted.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's different because it does not directly benefit AS, except to the extent that AS is benefited by his policies being enacted.

Uh, by that strict standard even the contributions directly to AS's campaign didn't "directly benefit" him, because he went from a star making $20MM for three months of work to a public servant earning $175,000/year.

I didn't read the recent S.Ct. decision on McCain-Feingold, but I thought it pretty much conclusively established that limits on issue ads within the context of a campaign* aren't a 1AD infringement.

*As I recall, there was a temporal limit, but clubby's position is that any limit, however defined, is unconstitutional.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yep. Loved it. I cancelled the kids' S.A. subscription back when they ripped into him. (They had never actually got old enough to really get into it by then, but that was one of those mags that you just really should have lying around for kids to find. Or, at least, it used to be.)

The SA thing was a minor sideshow compared to what the Swedish organizations were trying to do to him.

Re: Crichton, I'll take Stephen Jay Gould for my "popular writing making science accessible" author of choice. But your point about soc. majors is well taken (says the English major, though at least I got 3 or so years of science and math with the engineers).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Right now I'm willing to accept a 0.1-0.2 degree rise over the last 100 years, but cannot opine as to where that might fall in a much longer cyclical period, and in fact lean towards the idea that it is entirely consistent with that longer period cycle (meaning, there is no showing that this is different than pre-human times). Concerning claims of a higher 100-year rise, past methodology showing anything else has been very poor, and is being directly contradicted by newer, more reliable measurement. Concerning cyclical behavior, more recent means of measuring temp change over last 10,000 years indicate cycles of up-down that easily encompass the change demonstrated. No reliable showing of deviation from cycles, no showing of causation at all.

This is all I meant when I said we don't have good data to work with. As always, I am impressed with bilmore's comprehensive grasp of an arcane and sophisticated body of knowledge, just as I was when he told us that a UC economics professor was surely confused about the data he was looking at.

I don't keep up with this stuff at all. I do think, though, that people intuitively think that people are unlikely to have much of an effect on the planet, and that this is probably wrong, and reflects our limited perspective. There's a book called Changes In The Land, by William Cronon (?), that is an environmental history of New England, pre- and post-1620, that suggests that both Indians and settlers had very significant impacts on the landscape. And I've heard similar theories about Australia -- that the aborigines had a tremendously devastating effect once they arrived.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
. . . just as I was when he told us that a UC economics professor was surely confused about the data he was looking at.

Ah, but "confused", in that case, was code for "intentionally misleading".

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Uh, by that strict standard even the contributions directly to AS's campaign didn't "directly benefit" him, because he went from a star making $20MM for three months of work to a public servant earning $175,000/year.

They didn't directly benefit him as a candidate. Stop being obtinate.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch *As I recall, there was a temporal limit, but clubby's position is that any limit, however defined, is unconstitutional.

That is in fact my position for political speech.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

OK, conservatives -- you voted for him, and this is what he's doing:

• Next week, a band of experienced budgeteers convened by the Brookings Institution think tank -- most of them Clinton administration veterans such as Isabel Sawhill, Alice Rivlin and Peter Orszag, but including Ron Haskins, a former Republican congressional and White House aide -- will detail what it would take to balance the budget by 2014. Without action, they project, that year's deficit would be $687 billion, or roughly 3.7% of what the Congressional Budget Office guesses will be the gross domestic product then.... In a clever analysis that could frame the deficit debate -- if one ever emerges in this presidential campaign -- the analysts offer three paths to eliminating the deficit: a "small government" plan that Republican conservatives can embrace; a "big government" plan that puts numbers on the rhetoric of Democratic candidates; and an in-between plan that is three parts tax increases and one part spending cuts.
  
  Like Goldilocks, the authors think the in-between one is just right.... Two conclusions are particularly important.
  
  First, it is impossible to balance the budget by 2014 simply by cutting spending. Using wish lists of small-government-is-better think tanks such as the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, the analysts tally savings from wiping out business subsidies; eliminating federal spending on K-12 education, housing, worker training, environmental protection and manned space flight; squeezing out waste; raising the Social Security retirement age; and trimming Medicare payments to health-care providers.
  
  All of that gets them only three-quarters of the way to the goal; it still takes $134 billion in tax increases during 2014 to balance the budget. You won't read that in Mr. Bush's Feb. 2 budget, which likely will avoid looking beyond the next five years....
  
  Second, undoing all of the Bush tax cuts, as Democratic front-runner Howard Dean proposes, won't be enough to balance the budget either. That yields about $300 billion in 2014. Even if Mr. Dean banked that whole sum and didn't keep his $1 trillion health-care promise, he still would be only 55% of the way to balance.
  
  The Bush administration declined to send budget director Josh Bolten to join former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and ex-Congressional Budget Office directors Robert Reischauer, a Democrat, and Dan Crippen, a Republican, at a forum on all this next week.... Once there was a Republican budget director who took the long view. In the official White House budget, he wrote: "At some point, it is appropriate to put games aside -- at least for a while. At some point, partisan posturing must yield to the responsibility to govern. Sooner or later, the American political system will rise to the responsibility to complete the job of fiscal policy correction." His name was Richard Darman.... His message, dated 1990, remains relevant.

The idea that anyone in the current administration could say such a thing with a straight face is laughable.

This is from David Wessel in the Wall St Journal; editing by Brad DeLong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, but "confused", in that case, was code for "intentionally misleading".

My respect for your mastery of the field is all the more profound, then. You don't even need to explain how you know a tenured professor at a top university is lying -- you just say he is, and, of course, we all must agree. Your dismissal of climate scientists is just another masterpiece in this ouevre.*

If only you were to hold others who are less intellectually gifted -- government officials, say -- to the same standards when they try to "intellectually mislead." The rest of us are just waiting for the day when you turn your piercing intellect to more deserving targets.


*Pronounced, per Monty Python, oov-REE.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
My respect for your mastery of the field is all the more profound, then. You don't even need to explain how you know a tenured professor at a top university is lying -- you just say he is, and, of course, we all must agree. Your dismissal of climate scientists is just another masterpiece in this ouevre.*

If only you were to hold others who are less intellectually gifted -- government officials, say -- to the same standards when they try to "intellectually mislead." The rest of us are just waiting for the day when you turn your piercing intellect to more deserving targets.

Well, I certainly can't argue with your skillful use of scientific facts in this argument to refute what I said, can I?

You didn't use any.

Probably your strongest possible approach.

(Edited to add: once again, seeing your results argument as unsupportable, you jump to the process argument. Do you take Dramamine frequently? I would have to, what with all of your reversals and direction shifts.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I certainly can't argue with your skillful use of scientific facts in this argument to refute what I said, can I?

You didn't use any.

Probably your strongest possible approach.

(Edited to add: once again, seeing your results argument as unsupportable, you jump to the process argument. Do you take Dramamine frequently? I would have to, what with all of your reversals and direction shifts.)

Maybe the problem is that you assume I'm going to disagree with you on the strongest possible terms. I've said I don't know much about the issue. My original post pointed out that we have bad data and that scientists are making predictions therefrom, and asked you what you would want them to show. You misunderstood my first comment, and ignored my second. So I said again that I don't know much about it. I think I've made prettty clear that I don't really have a dog in this fight, except that I generally have the sense that there is a consensus scientific view that global warming is happening. (My step-father has a PhD in a related field, and thinks it's a problem. That's about the total of my knowledge on the subject -- I generally trust him on such things, and he trusts me when I tell him about constitutional interpretation.) You evidently disagree, and I suspect that you will not be impressed when I tell you that my step-father disagrees, so I haven't tried that. And Hank says the consensus view is suspect, which would be an interesting theory to apply to all areas of science. I'm really not arguing with you, or trying to "refute" what you've said. Get a freaking grip.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Using wish lists of small-government-is-better think tanks such as the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation, the analysts tally savings from wiping out business subsidies; eliminating federal spending on K-12 education, housing, worker training, environmental protection and manned space flight; squeezing out waste; raising the Social Security retirement age; and trimming Medicare payments to health-care providers.

Raising the retirement age and trimming Medicare? Fuck that. How about my wish list:

Means test SS so payments are only made to elderly with assets and income enabling them to live only below the official "poverty" level (and then only to top them up to that level). Why the richest quintile of the population is getting income-support transfers that disproportionately come from the working poor is beyond me.

Means test Medicare, too, for that matter, and strictly ration all services paid for thereunder (based probably on a combination of cost, expected efficacy and expected longevity). Ah, nevermind all that, abolish Medicare outright and offer universal and comprehensive healthcare to all children under 18 instead, THAT would be a benefit to society.

Wipe out subsidies for housing but hugely increase subsidies in education, both of which should, actually, be pretty big gainers for the productivity of the economy over the mid to long haul.

BR(fuck those greedy, entitlement-bloated oldsters who are sucking the life-force out of the productive members of society - that would be you and me, my friends)C

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm really not arguing with you, or trying to "refute" what you've said.

After my response to SAM, indicating exactly what I think represents the true state of current knowledge regarding global warming, you bounce back and just generally sarcastically call me an idiot. But, thank goodness, you're not arguing with me, and you say you know little about the subject, but the consensus scientists have spoken, and so who the F am I to disagree?

I'm changing my mind. I would have to be on something far stronger than Dramamine.