Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'm not arguing that what he's doing is illegal. I'm just saying that it's seems somewhat hypocritical when he criticized davis for his pay-to-play fundraising practices. I see no qualitative difference between the prison guard unions giving davis huge contributions as he was protecting their appropriation levels in his budgets and the business interests who are now giving AS >$21k donations as he drafts his worker's comp ballot measure.

On top of this I think a large part of California's problem is that too much governing is done by ballot initiatives, including the after-school spending mandated by AS's own prop 49 from 2002. I'm not thrilled that instead of working with the legislature to (for example) craft a solution to the worker's comp question AS is building a slush fund to push a take-it-or-leave-it referendum in November.

I also think AS is being remarkably disingenuous with his advocacy for the $15b ballot measure in March, but I'm not in the mood to type another six paragraphs that no one will read, so instead I'll just sit here and draw devil horns and stink lines on
the picture of AS from today's paper. Take THAT, Quaid.

Seems to me there is a stark difference in raising money from interest groups for a governor's personal campaign for reelection and raising money from people to push IDEAS from people who back those ideas.

As for the bond measure, how is he being disingenuous?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So . . do you really think that the present and potential future "global warming" is a myth, or merely that the extent and effects may be overblown? I've heard from relatively few relevant scientists (i.e climatologists, etc.) not in the employ of the energy industry who believe the former.

I think that it is likely that our presence on earth in such numbers is going to cause some effect. That's sort of common-sense, to me. I can't say that we have figured out the zero-impact camping philosophy quite yet.

But, at the same time, (and I make this statement as someone coming from a traditional empiricist hard-science background - yes, I had a real life before the law) I have seen nothing that supports the global warming thesis being propounded. Like Crichton, I hate "consensus science", 'cuz it ain't science - it's voting. It's a popularity contest. It's like CNN polls about "will cloning work?"

There is NO hard data supporting the thesis. Given that, it's incredible to me that pseudo-scientists actually claim to be able to quantify the effect - an effect they can't even prove the existence of.

Like I said, I don't actively disbelieve that it could be happening. I don't know enough to do that. It just offends me that the argument is made, by supposed "scientists", that they can show it, and quantify it. They don't know enough to do that, either. Scientific method puts the burden on them to prove their point. They haven't done that, but they proclaim it anyway, and so abdicate their roles as scientists.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
However, now that the R's are working to purge their racists and to cut back or mask the policies that visibly oppress the poor and working classes . . .

Just a sidelines wordgames question:

If I don't give you something that belongs to me, am I oppressing you?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just a sidelines wordgames question:

If I don't give you something that belongs to me, am I oppressing you?

That depends. Are you a fan of Monty Python?

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That depends. Are you a fan of Monty Python?

S_A_M

But I haven't GOT a womb!

[Hank Chinaski]

New claims up for the week ending 3 January, but overall the nuibers are the lowest since Bysh took over:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107725,00.html

New applications filed for unemployment insurance rose to 353,000, an increase of 14,000 for the week ending Jan. 3. That compared to 339,000 new applications in the previous week, when claims were at their lowest level since President Bush's inauguration day, Jan. 20, 2001.

The report came on the eve of the government's report Friday on the overall civilian unemployment rate for December. The rise could have resulted in part from filings by people who took temporary holiday season jobs, but the Labor Department (search) did not cite any special factors

Sure it could have been part seasonal, but my theory is that the discouraged are becoming hopeful, and getting back on unemployment.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that it is likely that our presence on earth in such numbers is going to cause some effect. That's sort of common-sense, to me. I can't say that we have figured out the zero-impact camping philosophy quite yet.

But, at the same time, (and I make this statement as someone coming from a traditional empiricist hard-science background - yes, I had a real life before the law) I have seen nothing that supports the global warming thesis being propounded. Like Crichton, I hate "consensus science", 'cuz it ain't science - it's voting. It's a popularity contest. It's like CNN polls about "will cloning work?"

There is NO hard data supporting the thesis. Given that, it's incredible to me that pseudo-scientists actually claim to be able to quantify the effect - an effect they can't even prove the existence of.

I don't understand what you want them to show. It's predictive. If you wait until the globe has warmed, it's too late. And everyone acknowledges that the data we have to work with are incomplete.

Like I said, I don't actively disbelieve that it could be happening. I don't know enough to do that. It just offends me that the argument is made, by supposed "scientists", that they can show it, and quantify it. They don't know enough to do that, either. Scientific method puts the burden on them to prove their point. They haven't done that, but they proclaim it anyway, and so abdicate their roles as scientists.

If most other scientists think it's good science, that's a good indication that it is. You know, it being their field and all.

I don't know enough about the science involved to know, but it strikes me that most of the people on the "It's not a problem" side have ties to industry with a direct stake in the problem. This is not dispositive, since you would expect those industries to support the folks with those views, but . . . .

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You fiscal conservatives are to the R's as the African-Americans were to the D's for years.

However, now that the R's are working to purge their racists and to cut back or mask the policies that visibly oppress the poor and working classes ("compassionate conservatism") , the Ds are starting to lose that monopoly on the minority voters.

Just as the Rs are going to lose their monopoly on fiscal conservatives if they keep up this "hey, let's expand Medicare! Let's have some steel tarrifs!" shit.

Join the new millenium, my bretheren! Move into the future! Vote Libertarian!

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
[blah blah blah]

Dude, you could totally have just said "Michael Crichton? And will you be hiring John Grisham to argue your next case?" and been done with it.

Would have been a more effective argument, too.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And everyone acknowledges that the data we have to work with are incomplete.

No, it's nonexistent. There is no data that supports the thesis. There are guesses. I can accept "predictive" if it's based on extending a line, a trend, extrapolating some hard data. It ain't there yet.

If most other scientists think it's good science, that's a good indication that it is. You know, it being their field and all.

"Most" don't comment on it at all, because they don't have any data. "Some" who have looked at it are coming to a group agreement that it "might" show something. Scarily, to me, these all tend to be the "mankind is ruining the earth" ideologues. To a large extent, their conclusions are as sound as the guy's statement, back in WWII, that the absence of sabotage in the West Coast was an ominous development.

I don't know enough about the science involved to know, . . .

Then you know as much as the "experts".

. . . but it strikes me that most of the people on the "It's not a problem" side have ties to industry with a direct stake in the problem. This is not dispositive, since you would expect those industries to support the folks with those views, but . . . .

Who else is going to have the time and resources and interest to even look at the field?

Read the article if you get a chance. It's interesting.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Dude, you could totally have just said "Michael Crichton? And will you be hiring John Grisham to argue your next case?" and been done with it.

Would have been a more effective argument, too.

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

(I like the essay because he has a very good grasp of the science involved, and communicates it in an understandable-to-non-techies manner that most other interested writers haven't been able to find. I'd much rather be pointing people to Lomborg, but who here's gonna read that? The Scientific American editors couldn't even manage to figure him out.)

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Seems to me there is a stark difference in raising money from interest groups for a governor's personal campaign for reelection and raising money from people to push IDEAS from people who back those ideas.

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.

To me it's the same thing as Bustamante's harebrained attempt to wash his hands of those huge donations from the Indian gaming interests. Instead of keeping the money in his recall campaign account he transferred it to his "no on 54" fund. It cracked me up how after he thought the coast was clear he started buying "no on 54" tv spots which were exactly like his recall ads where he was shouting populist slogans before a bunch of seemingly lobotomized admirers cheering in no apparent relationship to what he was saying.

Again, my disdain for this practice is probably heightened by my general disdain for Calif's love of the ballot initiative. But I think I'd have a problem with this fundraising anyway, just not as wordy a problem as I seem to have now.

As for the bond measure, how is he being disingenuous?

See my prior post re: AS's statements warning of state bankruptcy (and Mark Leno riding my coattails in a decidedly non-FB sense).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If most other scientists think it's good science, that's a good indication that it is. You know, it being their field and all.

Actually, its not a good indicator. The saddest scientist is someone who has spent decades investigating what he discovers to be a deadend. Sure, he's added to science by identifying a deadend, but try telling him the 10 years were worth that.
Scientists who work in climate issues thus have an interest in global warming being something real. They also have an interest in making it a big bad public problem.
The point of Bilmore's article is that at least the extent of the problem is conceived from whole cloth.
Keep that in mind as you read the WPost article someone posted earlier today. You know, the one about how 1.5 million species will be extinct by 2100 if the temperature goes up 10 degree. We can discern only a slight increase in the last 100 years, and that may well be cyclic. Yet here is "a scientist in the field" studying what will happen if it goes up 10? Worse a major paper prints it as science.

I don't know enough about the science involved to know, but it strikes me that most of the people on the "It's not a problem" side have ties to industry with a direct stake in the problem. This is not dispositive, since you would expect those industries to support the folks with those views, but . . . .

There are really 2 problems with the global warming theories, as sold to the public. First, they may force technology to the market earlier than it should go. This is inefficient, and perhaps ultimately harmful to the technolgies' public acceptance when it is actually ready.

The part that bugs me, though, is the political selling of the issue. If one questions the theory, which appears supported by little real evidence, one is a tool of the oil industry. The supporters say massive infusion of gov't money for research is neccessary now. The supporters say industry must put crap on cars that will greatly increase the price.
Why? "Because, global warming. You don't question global warming, do you?"
So, because Bush doesn't sign Kyoto, or order cars to burn tofu, he is a deranged tool of Cheney's oil brothers. It is not just dishonest, but insulting to anyone who understands science at any level.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
(I like the essay because he has a very good grasp of the science involved, and communicates it in an understandable-to-non-techies manner that most other interested writers haven't been able to find. I'd much rather be pointing people to Lomborg, but who here's gonna read that? The Scientific American editors couldn't even manage to figure him out.)

He also has an excellent knowledge of the proper growing conditions of different medicinal plants, and this appears to contribute to his acuity.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that it is likely that our presence on earth in such numbers is going to cause some effect. That's sort of common-sense, to me. I can't say that we have figured out the zero-impact camping philosophy quite yet.

But, at the same time, (and I make this statement as someone coming from a traditional empiricist hard-science background - yes, I had a real life before the law) I have seen nothing that supports the global warming thesis being propounded. Like Crichton, I hate "consensus science", 'cuz it ain't science - it's voting. It's a popularity contest. It's like CNN polls about "will cloning work?"

There is NO hard data supporting the thesis. Given that, it's incredible to me that pseudo-scientists actually claim to be able to quantify the effect - an effect they can't even prove the existence of.

Like I said, I don't actively disbelieve that it could be happening. I don't know enough to do that. It just offends me that the argument is made, by supposed "scientists", that they can show it, and quantify it. They don't know enough to do that, either. Scientific method puts the burden on them to prove their point. They haven't done that, but they proclaim it anyway, and so abdicate their roles as scientists.

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