Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why Spanky doesn't believe in global warming?

• Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
  
  National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
  
  Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.
  
  Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
  
  The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
  
  You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
  
  In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday yesterday dismissed "scientific consensus," saying that science is the search for fact, and that because climate models can't predict tomorrow's weather, no facts have been established here. He could not have sounded more stupid.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is true but incomplete and offered without full context.

The author totally disregards that the Left does the same thing. The Left paints the fringe religious right as the mainstream of the GOP and uses their shrillness and lack of rational thinking to demonize economic conservatives.

So your theory is that you can't criticize one group without criticizing all? How very egalatarian of you.

But the difference here is that the republican party is currently controlled by religious fringe, whereas the democratic party is not controlled by those with the most extreme environmental views.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
But the difference here is that the republican party is currently controlled by religious fringe, whereas the democratic party is not controlled by those with the most extreme environmental views.

No, the GOP is not controlled by the religious fringe at all. You're either misreading the current crop of articles about how the Religious Right is upset with the current crop of GOP candidates or you believe the crap you hear from Lefties on the subject.

The GOP, just like the Dems, is controlled by big business. The GOP placates the Religious Right and the Right's influecne is disproportionally large. But there's no "control." If anything, the GOP's constant struggle is to find new ways to lie to the Religious Right to keep the dumb sons of bitches voting.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday yesterday dismissed "scientific consensus," saying that science is the search for fact, and that because climate models can't predict tomorrow's weather, no facts have been established here. He could not have sounded more stupid.

That network's getting harder and harder to differentiate from Comedy Central. Hume's a fucking Jesus Freak. It's well documented.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is true but incomplete and offered without full context.

The author totally disregards that the Left does the same thing.

Totally disregards in the sense of saying this, you mean:

• "No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too."

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, the GOP is not controlled by the religious fringe at all. You're either misreading the current crop of articles about how the Religious Right is upset with the current crop of GOP candidates or you believe the crap you hear from Lefties on the subject.

The GOP, just like the Dems, is controlled by big business. The GOP placates the Religious Right and the Right's influecne is disproportionally large. But there's no "control." If anything, the GOP's constant struggle is to find new ways to lie to the Religious Right to keep the dumb sons of bitches voting.

When said control, I meant decides who the candidates for office are, sets significant portions of the agenda, and makes up the bulk of the R membership in the House.

But you are right, overall big business is a bigger influence. My real problem with your analysis of the situation, though, is that you still seem to believe there that fiscal conservatives and liberatarians still have much of the voice in the party. But we have had this conversation before.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Totally disregards in the sense of saying this, you mean:

• "No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too."

That's a tepid admission at best, and offered solely to allow him to make the remainder of a very laking argument. "We kinda do this too, now look how atrociously they do it!"

But nice catch on my use of "totally." It totally disregards the author's admission.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
When said control, I meant decides who the candidates for office are, sets significant portions of the agenda, and makes up the bulk of the R membership in the House.

But you are right, overall big business is a bigger influence. My real problem with your analysis of the situation, though, is that you still seem to believe there that fiscal conservatives and liberatarians still have much of the voice in the party. But we have had this conversation before.

I don't think liberatarians do, but the fiscal conservatives still hold sway. It's just very quiet.

I'd say your admission that big business owns the GOP admits that fiscal conservative control the party. But from what I've seen of Big Business trying to get govt assistance (airline bailouts, oil royalty credits... and just watch how they manipulate any carbon credit system to create a profit center for themselves), they're pretty bi-partisan.

Shit, John Edwards was getting cash from Wall St.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Totally disregards in the sense of saying this, you mean:

• "No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too."

Question:


I read that some scientists believe we are 10 years away from a tipping point, after which we will no longer be able to reverse global warming. That is, we need to reduce emissions starting right now and drastically. Given that, how can one defend burning tons of energy but buying "credits?" Gore is not reducing any of the coal plants that burn all day for the TVA AND he believes that w/o reduction NOW we will lose the earth. I mean, to believe in the "tipping point" and not do things to reduce strikes me as almost criminal. Or does Gore not believe in the "tipping point?"

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think liberatarians do, but the fiscal conservatives still hold sway. It's just very quiet.

Hard to tell these days, given the out of control spending. But if by "fiscal conservative" you mean, "likes tax cuts" then okay.

I'd say your admission that big business owns the GOP admits that fiscal conservative control the party. But from what I've seen of Big Business trying to get govt assistance (airline bailouts, oil royalty credits... and just watch how they manipulate any carbon credit system to create a profit center for themselves), they're pretty bi-partisan.

Shit, John Edwards was getting cash from Wall St.

Yup. Big business is just out to get money for themselves. Which does not make them fiscal conservatives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's a tepid admission at best, and offered solely to allow him to make the remainder of a very laking argument. "We kinda do this too, now look how atrociously they do it!"

But nice catch on my use of "totally." It totally disregards the author's admission.

If he was writing about the way that political parties debate -- like you are -- it would be downright dishonest. But he's writing about global warming, where the Dems are on the side of the angels.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Question:


I read that some scientists believe we are 10 years away from a tipping point, after which we will no longer be able to reverse global warming. That is, we need to reduce emissions starting right now and drastically. Given that, how can one defend burning tons of energy but buying "credits?" Gore is not reducing any of the coal plants that burn all day for the TVA AND he believes that w/o reduction NOW we will lose the earth. I mean, to believe in the "tipping point" and not do things to reduce strikes me as almost criminal. Or does Gore not believe in the "tipping point?"

Malcolm Gladwell should be flogged and soaked in vinegar for coining that idiot concept.

What exactly is a tipping point and how can it be measured? Is there really a scientist who can with any credibility say "In 6 years, it's likely we'll be close to a point where the entire planet will never be able to regain its natural climatological stasis, but it will still be reversible. However, in 10 years, that won't be possible anymore. We will be forever lockd into a vicious neverending cycle of temperature increases."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Question:


I read that some scientists believe we are 10 years away from a tipping point, after which we will no longer be able to reverse global warming. That is, we need to reduce emissions starting right now and drastically. Given that, how can one defend burning tons of energy but buying "credits?" Gore is not reducing any of the coal plants that burn all day for the TVA AND he believes that w/o reduction NOW we will lose the earth. I mean, to believe in the "tipping point" and not do things to reduce strikes me as almost criminal. Or does Gore not believe in the "tipping point?"

I have not read about this tipping point, and I am not privy to Gore's beliefs. (I have not seen his movie, read his book, or watched his testimony either.) Like you, I can use Google, though. A rudimentary search brought me to this, which talks about Gore's testimony last week (?) and both political and scientific tipping points. Poke around and I'll bet you'll find more.

eta "not" for accuracy

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Slave, now being a captain of industy, did indeed miss these outrages while he was out entertaining folks that Sidd would probably like to tax (and take as clients).

But Slave thanks Sidd for pointing out that Sidd is actually aware of the Islamist threat to the West, because Slave, by virtue of Sidd's prior posts, felt that Sidd somehow missed all those stories about how the Muslims would try to assert sharia over established western legal principles.

Did Slave start speaking in third person, or are you Slave's secretary?

Did Slave derive any positive message from the linked article -- like the fact that the stupid judge who cited the Koran has been removed from the case and was roundly criticized from all corners in Germany, including Muslim leaders?


eta: P.S. Yes, I would love to take them as clients. But I wasn't aware that I had the power to tax anyone. Don't tell my wife, she'll just spend it.

[Sidd Finch]

I wonder if Spanky read the Economist this week.

The article: Mugged by Reality

The poll:
Asked "how are things generally in Iraq" compared to before the war, 12% of Iraqis say "about the same." 30% say "somewhat worse." 20% say "much worse".

In other words, a majority of Iraqis think that, after all these years and all of our deaths and dollars, things are no better, or even worse, than they were under one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century.

I would like to come up with some pithy comment that sums this fiasco up, but the Economist did it already:

What would Iraq be like now if America had approached its perilous, monumentally controversial undertaking with humility, honesty and courage? Thanks to the almost criminal negligence of Mr Bush's administration nobody, now, will ever know.

Another note: No reference to the war as a "minor skirmish." Hard to understand that.

And another: 54% of Americans believe that the Administration deliberately misled the American people about whether Iraq had WMD, according to this article.