Fred Thompson in an amusing display of adulthood:
Or do you think he was too disrespectful to the moderator? She had no back-up solution and ended up looking like a substitute teacher. The "hand show" device is spiffy and efficient when everyone goes along. But this was a moment waiting to be seized, and Thompson seized it well. Will demands for a show of hands ever work in a debate again?
१४ डिसेंबर, २००७
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६३ टिप्पण्या:
It's telling that the mutiny was necessitated by Thompson's fear of having to be honest about his global warming denial.
Or do you think he was too disrespectful to the moderator?
Actually I think its the other way around. Lemme see a show of hands is something you ask grade schoolers whether or not they like lima beans, not a presidential candidate on a serious topic.
These debates are a joke. Instead of asking real policy questions, we're treated to questions on how they feel about the confederate flag or if they believe every word in the bible. Yes those are all poignant issues of our time.
She had no back-up solution and ended up looking like a substitute teacher.
A generous description as that would probably be too challenging.
Doyle,
If he were afraid to be honest, why did Thompson ask for a minute to explain what he thought?
what he didn't like was the mode, rather than the topic.
Ann said...Will demands for a show of hands ever work in a debate again?
The next day, the Dem's volunteered to raise their hands on all sorts of "religious tests", (e.g. GW), even though the Constitution says they can't be used to exclude one from office :)
Among many terrible debates, NPR hit a new high in lows in their conduct of the Iowa debates.
It would have been interesting to poll the candidates by show of hands if they agreed with the 57 of Americans polled by CNN who "believe the US economy is in a recession."
Awful debate, awful moderator; I'm no Thompson fan, but I loved what he did and wondered why no one had done it earlier. He was not disrespectful of the moderator -- she was disrepectful to the whole tribe she had up there, asking huge questions and expecting them to answer them in clipped 30 second sound bites. What a disasterous choice for moderator.
It's telling that the mutiny was necessitated by Thompson's fear of having to be honest about his global warming denial.
Doyle,
Actually its more telling that the moderator refused to allow Thompson or anyone elaborate on the issue. Kinda how like Al Gore doesn't want to actually debate this issue with anyone.
Then again, that piece of logic is lost on the Kool-aid drinkers.
If he were afraid to be honest, why did Thompson ask for a minute to explain what he thought?
Because the question do you believe the phenomenon is real and man-made does not require a lengthy response.
You only want to give a lengthy response to let the "unfettered carbon emissions or death" crowd know that you're really on their side.
Oh wow, I like the new comment section format - "Blogger Doyle," "Blogger HoosierDaddy" etc. It's like being in The Brethren or something.
I think Thompson did the right thing - it's not that shows of hands can never be valid in debates, but it has very limited application, and I thought it was perfectly reasonable for Thompson so refuse to answer a complicated policy question being mispackaged as a distorting yes/no question. And the moderator looked totally flummoxed by the idea that someone wanted to discuss the question. In a debate and everything! It called to mind "Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
Kinda how like Al Gore doesn't want to actually debate this issue with anyone.
Because there is no reasonable debate anymore. It's just liars, fools and paid shills on the other side.
Who is the moderator?
"Because there is no reasonable debate anymore."
Lol. Science laughs at you.
Doyle: you remark about the "simplicity" of AGW reminds me HL Mencken's aphorism: "for every complex problem, there is a solution--neat, simple, and wrong."
Most complex problems require considerably more explanation than a yes or no answer. Its all about the nuance.
Brother Doyle said...
"Because the question do you believe the phenomenon is real and man-made does not require a lengthy response."
Yes it does, unless it's being used as some kind of shibboleth for the cognoscenti rather than an adult question with real impact on real policy and real lives.
Because there is no reasonable debate anymore. It's just liars, fools and paid shills on the other side.
How very Soviet.
It's prety clear that you think anyone who disagrees with the official party line is a liar, fool etc.
"It's telling that the mutiny was necessitated by Thompson's fear of having to be honest about his global warming denial."
Oh for sweet Mary's sake, shut up.
Brother Doyle said...
"[Al Gore doesn't want to actually debate this issue with anyone b]ecause there is no reasonable debate anymore."
You're right about that. Every time I raise the question of how a putative cause can precede its supposed effect, Gorelistas have no answer. And you'd think that they would, give that it's really a very simple question: if rising carbon dioxide concentrations are the sole or primary driver of temperature rises, why do they lag rather than lead those changes?
It's not about debate and reason, as your 9:44 comment demonstrates: it's about an article of faith, a shibboleth of the congnoscenti; all goodthinkers believe this, so anyone who doesn't is an agent of Goldstein to be ignored if possible and sent for reeducation if not.
These "debates" are a joke. The questions are posed by partisan liberal Democrats to the Republican candidates to address issues that the dems are interested in, not addressing the issues that the voting base of the Republican party is interested in. They are crafted in order to make the Republicans look bad. The Democrat debates have questions posed by partisan Democrats that are softball questions designed to make their candidates look good and avoid any issues that they are weak on.
There is no "debating" allowed. Just 15 to 20 second sound bites that reveal nothing about the policies or ideas that the candidates may have. It's as if they are auditioning for a trivia game show like The Weakest Link instead of President of the United States. It is insulting and demeaning to use this format.
The MSM is trying to manipulate the election and pre select the candidates. They are pushing Huckabee and ignoring the other candidates like Thompson because they know that this Gomer Pyle goober of a Christian fanatic has no chance to win the national election.
Good for Fred. I think all the candidates should have told the moderators, CNN and the rest of these self important talking heads and empty suits to shove it where the sun doesn't shine long ago.
Why do we put up with this charade in the first place? How about some real debates that are not controlled by the media?
Also.....what's up with the blogger display. All I see is a box with an X in it in front of each comment. Very disturbing.
Yes it does, unless it's being used as some kind of shibboleth for the cognoscenti rather than an adult question with real impact on real policy and real lives.
If we elect a president who thinks the jury's still out on this, it will have an impact on real policy and real lives.
What would be nice would be if the moderator didn't have to ask, because Republicans had finally stopped insinuating that global warming is a Communist plot or something. Fruitcakes.
That moderator needed a swift kick in the you know what; which Thompson administered.
This is the Thompson I really want to vote for.
It is a presidential moment. He doesn't play the game as dictated by another but asserts his own independence and in doing that others follow his leadership. How many expressions of real leadership have we seen in these debates? This was one because when Thompson refused, everyone followed.
He did not argue the point asserted he argued the very premises of the approach. Just the kind of thing I want to see a president do in facing foreign leaders and global issues.
Thompson is not suited to these kinds of debates but he stood out anyhow, and from what I saw he had the least amount of speaking time.
I just hope he can turn this whole campaign season around in the next month.
Fred Is It, the carbonated favorite of voters everywhere. He adds life. He is the real thing.
Huck's a laughingstock. Giuliani's got a serrated edge.
So match up Romney vs. Fred...
Who has a better chance of carrying the South? Fred.
Who has a better Q score, probably? Fred.
Who is not the favorite of the GOP establishment? Fred.
Who helped dump Nixon? Fred.
Who has a life story that Joe Six-Pack can better identify with? Fred. He ain't no shiny tooth, slick haired millionaire's son.
Who is taller than Obama? Fred.
The first thing Doyle has said right in three years of commenting:
"If we elect a president who thinks the jury's still out on this, it will have an impact on real policy and real lives."
But I suspect I see those impacts far differently than does Doyle.
I'm glad Thompson put Nurse Rachet in her place. She was much more flexible and friendly to the Democrats. Was it the Thompson effect? And give Tancredo credit for skipping the Hispanic pander-fest on Univision. ¿Quién ama a hispanos más?
We need to get rid of these absurd puffed up liberal Moderators who think its all about them. They're either pushing the liberal agenda (CNN) and/or on an ego trip (Hello Chris Matthews).
Have 2 debates, with no more than 4 candidates each, preset topics and just have the candidates ask each other questions. Or have the RNC sponsor a debate with Fox.
Who helped dump Nixon?
Fred was a mole.
Because there is no reasonable debate anymore. It's just liars, fools and paid shills on the other side.
The dirty little secret behind why Gore isn't running is because he'd be put on the spot by open-minded people and actually have to defend his global warming hoax rooty-tooty. Pffffftttt.
I say bravo to Thompson for not playing the stupid hand-raising game. As for the AGW argument that's related, it's awfully fishy how the true believers, when questioned on their beliefs, can't defend them. If the deniers are so wrong then it should be a simple matter to point out how. Red flags should go up when the only way they have to deal with dissenters is to impugn their motives and attack them personally.
And this Blogger label tacked on to each commenter's name is kind of weird. When and why did that start?
Doyle said: ....because Republicans had finally stopped insinuating that global warming is a Communist plot or something.
That's interesting Doyle cause I found this particular quote regarding a proposed 'carbon tax' quite telling:
The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
No, nothing communistic about that at all. No sirree.
Hoosier Daddy, but you only noticed that because BIG OIL is paying you!
Brother Doyle said...
"If we elect a president who thinks the jury's still out on this, it will have an impact on real policy and real lives."
I join Brother Roger's reply, but add this:
The question of whether mean surface temperatures are rising is an empirical question. A range of potential consequences can be reasonably inferred by making various assumptions, and reasonable minds can differ on that. But what's really important from a public policy standpoint is: what's causing this change and even more important than that (but necessarily proceeding from it) is what can we do about it. And no, Doyle, the jury is not back in on those questions. And until the question of what's actually driving temperature change is answered scientifically - and science is concerned with truth, not best guess by consensus of UN Committee - the policy debate is necessarily limited. Correlation is not causation, and we shouldn't shipwreck our economy trying to rein in carbon dioxide output unless we know that really is the problem. And there's a very good reason for that which even eco-carebears ought to appreciate: if we do that and the problem turns out to be something else (even assuming the something else isn't solar activity or something else completely beyond our means to effect), we may find that we've deprived ourselves of the means to save the earth because we threw away the economic capacity to deal with the problem in a misguided effort to deal with carbon dioxide.
Of course, since most supposed eco-carebears are really just using concern for the environment as a front for the same quasi-marxist collectivism they were and would be pushing anyway (if it's true, it's a very, very convenient truth for such people), that outcome would be just fine, because then they'd have an excuse to liquidate the economy and place its total direction into the hands of the state (conveniently controlled by themselves) for the more efficient direction of the national resources to dealing with Eastasia. I mean Eurasia. I mean global warming. One or the other.
I don't mean to minimize the impact on policy that the consequences of global warming would have. Obviously there are a range of possibilities depending on what assumptions you make, and policy should be guided according to how much we think each possibility is likely and undesirable. I've got to say that if the worst thing about global warming is that Massachusetts, New York City and California are going to disappear within a century, I think the best policy response is probably to wait a century and see what happens. I'd also mention that it's pretty hard to take the doomsayers seriously when so many of them live in precisely the areas that they identify as ground zero. If I believed that catastrophic flooding of the coasts was imminent, I might be minded to, I don't know, head for higher ground, perhaps.
It was a nice moment for Fred, getting to be the adult in the room. Repubs tend to be dubious of the global warming diagnosis and strongly opposed to the proposed mandatory cures. So it was an easy issue on which to slap away the "hand shows." But the "I'm not doin' hand shows" bit might not have worked so well if the question had been: Will you commit not to raise taxes if elected?, or some other policy at the core of Rep orthodoxy. The "hand shows" thing is a bit childish, but only as a matter of form. It's not all that different from a question inviting a sound-bite answer -- the sort of things candidates love to spout. The sound-bite seems more adult ("read my lips - no new taxes") but isn't much different in substance from a "hand show."
Still, form matters. It's what etiquette is all about, and as any parent knows, it takes time for kids to master those social arts. Good for Fred on insisting that proper political etiquette -- the forms appropriate for adults in a discussion -- be observed.
Simon, I'd be satisfied if they'd cut back on flying around in private jets if they really believe it's dooming the planet.
Simon: I would have said that were I not so lazy! Good job
Let's have a show of hands here: who here thinks that carbon dioxide is primarily responsible for global warming and can explain why historically, the very graph that Al Gore uses to prove the correlation of rising temperature and CO2 concentration indeed shows rises in carbon dioxide closely tracking rises in temperature but following them by in some cases hundreds of years?
In the alternative, if you want to admit that Carbon Dioxide can't be the only (or even the primary) driver of temperature change - can you quantify how much impact it has relative to the primary driver (whatever that may be), and give us a ballpark for how little an effect CO2 would have to have on overall temperature before you'd consider the economic harm of given regulations worthwhile? Give us a window into your thinking by raising your left hand.
I'd also mention that it's pretty hard to take the doomsayers seriously when so many of them live in precisely the areas that they identify as ground zero.
Not to mention that the same doomsayers live lifestyles in direct contradiction with what they preach. Does Al still maintain three homes? Is Ted Kennedy still opposed to the windfarm off Cheasapeke Bay cause it will tarnish his view?
Sorry but too many of the GW proponets follow maxim of 'rules for thee but not for me'.
Bilby said...
"Simon, I'd be satisfied if they'd cut back on flying around in private jets if they really believe it's dooming the planet."
Oh, yeah! You have to ask yourself: why didn't Gore accept that award by videoconference? Just how much carbon did that jet he took over there on a completely unnecessary trip release? Lifestyle restrictions for thee but not for me is what these people preach. It's rank hypocrisy - they want people to cut back on personal and business flights, but Algore and Nancy's flights to and fro are important, damnit! They aren't hypocrits though, you understand; they don't want to cut out ALL flights, just nonessential flights, and their flights, unlike yours, are important, essential even. Sure you're driving around in a beat up lada if you're lucky, and they're in a nice shiny Zil limo, but they have important matters of state to conduct, comrade. Really, when you think about it, they're the ones sacrificing for you.
Not into hand raising on the issue of AGW and its policy solutions, but I have raised a few middle fingers as a symbolic statement.
Who thinks GW is an incredibly boring topic, and isn't an important issue to Republican primary voters?
Raises Hand.
I like Thompson's objection to hand raising. Honestly, someone over the age of 18 should never be forced to raise their hand. It looks silly, especially when it's ten old men doing it en masse awkwardly looking at each other. And isn't it rather unfair to McCain?
Here's an eco-friendly measure that I'm sure that comrade General Secretary Pelosi won't propose, since it asks Congress rather than ordinary citizens to sacrifice: while it's in session, Congress presently spends about three or four days working, and then members go back to their districts for consultations and R&R. Well! A lot of unnecessary carbon being generated right there! So here's a simple way to improve how green Congress is: Congress should change its schedule. From now on, it could meet for fourteen or twenty-one days continuously - weekends included - followed by an equal period back in members' districts. That would reduce unnecessary commutes significantly while maintaining the same balance between feigning interest in constituents and doing real work.
But again, since this calls for personal sacrifice on behalf of the people who warn about climate change, it won't happen. Tammy Baldwin flies back and forth between Madison and D.C. a lot more often than Ann flies back and forth between Madison and Brooklyn, and while I'm willing to bet Baldwin would happily regulate Ann's flights, I'm willing to bet she wouldn't call for a rule change that asked her to make a sacrifice. Because she's important, you know. You start to get a feeling for these people's priorities when you read between the lines.
This is the Thompson I really want to vote for.
It is a presidential moment. He doesn't play the game as dictated by another but asserts his own independence and in doing that others follow his leadership. How many expressions of real leadership have we seen in these debates? This was one because when Thompson refused, everyone followed.
Well said, Paddy O. I also noticed all of the other candidates willing to get in line behind Thompson. (I also liked his "agreement" with Alan Keyes' position on global warming.) As someone who has tried to watch all of the debates, this was FT's high-point thusfar.
Also, members of Congress will hereinafter be issued bicycles rather than cars, and - people who watch C-SPAN a lot will appreciate this - the lights in the chamber will be turned down whenever there is less than a quorum present, and turned out completely when there are less than fourteen members present not including the presiding officer. No more of these late night sessions in the House chamber with Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and Kendrick Meek just waffling at one another about nothing of any moment - for God's sake, we know you don't care about the taxpayer money you're wasting, but maybe you could at least show some concern for the unnecessary carbon dioxide output - take it to Bertucci's, lovebirds!
Nor will heating or air conditioning be supplied, given their carbon footprint, although the Speaker's office will provide each member with hand fans for summer and one warm coat and gloves for winter. If the Democrats won't run a green Congress, it's hard for them to ask us to run a green anything.
Remember all the kids in school who would never, ever raise their hands?
They're all voting for Fred.
Vote Fred: He Won't Raise His Hand
Bet he got paddled a lot back in that middle Tennessee school district...be a good story...find the principals who spanked Fred.
It's rank hypocrisy - they want people to cut back on personal and business flights, but Algore and Nancy's flights to and fro are important, damnit!
This is the dumbest of all the dumb attacks on the non-dumb, and there are some very dumb ones.
It depends on the idea that Democrats want to abolish or drastically restrict air travel. As far as I know, no Democrat has advocated such a policy.
Might the absolutely necessary policy changes to limit carbon emissions make flights more expensive? Sure! But the price of oil is probably going to do that first and to a much greater degree.
The real meat and potatoes of a serious legislative effort to limit emissions will revolve around automobiles and power plants.
In any case, it will cost money, at least in the short run, to limit carbon emissions. There's no free lunch. But the idea that the policymakers who advocate such action should first have to don sackcloth, read by candlelight, and walk to Stockholm to accept their Nobel Prize only resonates with people as nuts as Simon.
And "if you're so worried, why do you still live on the east coast"? Speaking for myself, I don't anticipate that the massive flooding will start in my lifetime. I just think it's morally abhorrent to knowingly allow it to happen to my kids or grandkids.
Plus I'd rather drown in New York than live in Nebraska.
Who thinks GW is an incredibly boring topic, and isn't an important issue to Republican primary voters?
Raises hand also.
This is the crux of the issue. These debates for the PARTY'S Primary are not addressing the issues that the Republican voters want to hear. Instead the Democrats are controlling the dialogue between the Republican Candidates and the Republican voters.
Now then, when we are in the National debating (ha ha ha) mode, we should be able to have those questions thrown out for the candidates since we are now speaking to ALL voters. Of course then, we will get a 15 second answer on how the President of the United States is going to save the world from Global Warming. I hope they get to wear their super hero outfits and exhibit their flying stances too.
Get serious people. These debates are one huge unfunny joke on the American People.
"Plus I'd rather drown in New York than live in Nebraska"
I think the people in Nebraska feel that way about you too.
I'm glad Fred took a stand. AGW is a scam. It is no coincidence that the "solutions" to the fraud match the goals and means of Communist dogma. There were only 51 scientists who worked on the IPCC summary report, not the thousands touted by the True Believers and all objections made by anyone in that working roup were dismissed, ignored and left out of the final summary.
Manmade CO2 accounts for 0.117 of greenhouse effect gases. Water vapor accounts for 95%, of which man is responsible for 1%. Some scientists say that all water vapor is naturally occuring. The actual data shows CO2 increases occured after the warming and not before. Kyoto is bullshit designed for Marxist goals, not environmental ones.
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Manns "hockey stick" is a "cooked books" fraud and he won't release his code for independent varification of his results. In order for GW models to be accurate, they should be able to predict what has happened in the past and they can't, which means they are useless for predicting the future. Nasa has also been caught out with bad tempurature data which puts the hottest year in the past century at 1934, rather than 1998, as originally claimed. Either they are dishonest, or they are incompetent. Each way, they have no credibility on the issue at this point.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=62
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
The Bali bullshit conference has admitted that their proposals have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with redistributions of wealth. It is also refusing to hear contrary views from scientists sceptical of AGW. This shows that it isn't about the science; it's about top down socialist control of the major economies of the world.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c
Gore told Grist in the May 9, 2006 Grist Magazine. “Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” Translation: We need to lie about it in order to gin up this phoney 'crisis".
So Doyle, quit pissing down my neck and telling me it's raining.
THE SOUND YOU HEAR IS A CHEER!
My Lord, that woman sounds exactly like a lower-school headmistress with whom I'm acquainted--and provokes the same tingling, itching sensation in the hand I would use if ever I were to give into the impulse to slap the crap out of someone.
And the question was a compound one--TWO, not one. If you're demanding a straight up or down "yes" or "no" answer (in voice or gesture), you've turned it into a loaded one.
Blecchhh.
About the "blogger X" thing:
It's a new feature, apparently. I checked over night and it's not a universal change on all blogger blogs (yet?).
What I see here and on some other blogger blogs: In comments view, I the word blogger precedes the commenter. In the "Post a Comment On" view, I see the blogger icon.
A more annoying change, from my POV, which took place quietly before this one, is the disappearance of the deletion icon next to one's own comments. For those of us who are preview-challenged or who for whatever reason prefer a bit more after-the-fact control, this is the real pain in the ass.
You know, some people might find it problematic to answer just the second part of that question, as phrased in simple "yes" or "no" fashion. I mean, what if someone thought that human activity was a contributor but not necessarily the "cause"? (I know some science types who think just just that.) Should that person answer "no" or "yes"?
Oh, and about "...I want to take on a new issue": it seems to me that what she wanted to do was "inflict" the issue, not "take on," much less pose.
She certainly ended up "taking on" more than she bargained for, however.
OK, now I'm seeing trash cans again, on this post.
I'm seriously considering supporting Thompson instead of Giuliani.
Great response, anyway. Ok, Doyle didn't think so, but he's Doyle.
"She was much more flexible and friendly to the Democrats. Was it the Thompson effect?"
No. Just a sorry lefty excuse for a "moderator" showing her true colors. She isn't smart enough to be subtle about it.
As for global warming: Temps go up, temps go down. Have for millions of years. The present "crisis" is not one, nor was the previous (Global Cooling!!!), or the many before before that.
This momentary frenzy is providing an excuse for certain politicians, activists and second rate scientists to acquire money and use it to benefit their personal agendas. Of course they can't stand an open debate, because there's no "there" there - which should be obvious from the strident insistence that "the debate is over", in spite of data and analysis to the contrary.
It's the old declare victory and stamp out dissent trick so popular in totalitarian regimes, aided and abetted by MSM liberals and those generally ignorant and prone to panic. End of story. Move along now.
First let me just say that I'll take a Sgt. Ted over a Simon any day!
But without getting deep in the scientific weeds, where he's obviously in his element, I have to take issue with the translation he made of Gore's comment.
"Over-representing...factual presentations on how dangerous this is" is different from over-representing certain data over others to make inaccurate (or non-factual) presentations.
He's saying he wants to beat people over the heads with images of catastrophe because he believes that what we're going to get if we keep whistling past the graveyard.
That may annoy you if you think he's wrong, but it's still playing fair. If you disagree you must really hate those drug PSAs on TV.
it's awfully fishy how the true believers, when questioned on their beliefs, can't defend them.
I don't have beliefs, I have facts. Facts show that the Arctic is getting progressively warmer. As shown here, for example. Read about it here. It's not clear to me what I'm believing when I see those charts and recognize a warming.
It alarms me that the Arctic is becoming ice-free. Open ocean at the Poles means there's plenty of moisture up there and lots of snow will fall on the continents, paradoxically leading to glaciation. (The ice has also been thinning, as noted here -- the article also has a nifty widget that automates the erosion of ice.)
My beef with Global Warming is that any environmental cause wants to glom on to AGW as if that lends credence to either AGW or the environmental cause. Huge Carp heading for the Wisconsin River? How can this be related to AGW? Ozone levels increasing along the Pacific coast because China added Britain's Electrical Generation to its capacity this year? Well, that's related to AGW as well.
The question posed by the moderator was a yes or no question. Actually it was a yes question because only a fool could answer "no." It is the same type of question as "Is the earth 6,000 years old as stated in the bible?" or "Do you believe the earth is flat?"
Although that said, I would have given him, and the others, a minute to not answer the question. By opening their mouths, they'd show what big fools they really are.
Thompson was first out of the gate to show what a big fool he is by not answering an obvious question correctly. She could have reiterated the question to the others and his snippy refusal to answer should be taken as a "no" - clearly the wrong answer to a deadly serious question of our time. All those who don't raise their hand are unqualified to be president.
As for the horserace angle, all I can say is that I don't think Fred Thompson is the same candidate without the hearty jowls he had in his "Hunt for Red October" days.
That guy was awesome. "Things are out of control. They are out of control and we will be lucky to live through it!"
Doyle saidI don't anticipate that the massive flooding will start in my lifetime. I just think it's morally abhorrent to knowingly allow it to happen to my kids or grandkids.
Fret not Doyle. The experts were telling my mommy and daddy in the 1970s that we were facing the next ice age and starvation was a very real possibility because growing seasons would be drastically shortened and there would be massive food shrotages. 30 years later, obesity is the new epidemic so chances are, your kids and grandkids will suffer from diabetes or heart disease long before Manhattan becomes Atlantis.
Sgt Ted said Translation: We need to lie about it in order to gin up this phoney 'crisis".
Precisely. Follow the money folks. AlGore is making huge bucks off this crisis with his thousands of dollar speaking fees, movie rights and now his own little fund management company. Now they’re talking carbon taxes and aren’t even shy to call it wealth re-distribution.
It is the same type of question as "Is the earth 6,000 years old as stated in the bible?" or "Do you believe the earth is flat?"
No, it was not. Those examples you gave--regardless of their content--are single questions, not compound ones. They each raise a single issue, not more than one.
You're flat-out wrong.
So the issue of AGW is the same as that of the age or shape of the Earth? I've seen that talking point before. However, it's a rather straightforward proposition to show that the planet is older than 6000 years old and round. You'll need something better to convince AGW skeptics they're wrong than "That's like believing Earth is 6000 years old and flat."
That may annoy you if you think he's wrong, but it's still playing fair. If you disagree you must really hate those drug PSAs on TV.
Actually, I do hate those ads. Because they are junk science and they discredit the message. I used to be very symathetic to environmentalists arguements until I discovered they were flat out lieing to me.
sister Reader_Iam said...
"What I see here and on some other blogger blogs: In comments view, I the word blogger precedes the commenter['s name]."
That's exactly what I'm seeing too.
"And the question was a compound one--TWO, not one."
In wisconsin, that'll buy you a challenge to the Constitutionality of a Constitutional amendment. ;) In any event, I agree with your point. Those who are saying that this was a simple yes or no question are being disingenuous at best.
Brother MadisonMan said...
"I don't have beliefs, I have facts. Facts show that the Arctic is getting progressively warmer. As shown here, for example. Read about it here. It's not clear to me what I'm believing when I see those charts and recognize a warming."
Smith must have killed Jones because it's a fact that Jones is dead. Good luck getting a jury to buy that kind of argument. It's not a question of whether your fact is wrong - that's not where the belief comes in. The belief comes in as to the cause and thus the appropriate response.
Brother Doyle said...
"As for the horserace angle, all I can say is that I don't think Fred Thompson is the same candidate without the hearty jowls he had in his "Hunt for Red October" days."
Thankyou! I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Thompson was first out of the gate to show what a big fool he is by not answering an obvious question correctly
By correctly I assume you mean that his answer would have to agree with your own biases for it to be correct and that anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't walk in lock step with your beliefs is incorrect?
Anyone who answers such a question as the moderator asked would be a fool. It was an 'are you still beating your wife' type of question that cannnot be answered by raising hands like first graders asking to go to the bathroom.
Like this one: "Raise your hand if you have stopped asking strange men in airport bathrooms for sex." Come on... raise your hand or don't raise your hand. :-)
"Raise your hand if you think that Michael Vick was involved in dog fighting and that dog fighting is an acceptable cultural practice." another compound stupid question....come on raise your and and correctly answer the question.
And as to MM worry about the Artic ice sheet melting. Not to worry the world is coming to an end in 2013... haven't you heard? So, I suggest we just enjoy the global warming while we can.
I hate to call people big fools willy-nilly, but you are one on this issue Reader-Jam. You are totally flat-out wrong on a deadly serious issue. It behooves you to read "Our Angry Earth" by Isaac Asimov & Frederik Pohl. The book was published for the first time in 1991. So you are only 16 years out of step with common knowledge & reality. You have your head deep in sand, precisely where the fossil fuels are located, the burning of which is giving rise to the greenhouse effect, and the resultant disastrous global warming.
MM,
I don't have beliefs, I have facts. Facts show that the Arctic is getting progressively warmer.
There are three claims here:
(A): The Earth is warming.
(B): This is caused mostly by humans.
(C): This is a bad thing.
The first of these, (A), is a fact. The other two are beliefs. Of those two beliefs, only the first, (B), has enough scientific support for us to be at all confident that it is correct. However, in order for global warming to be a "problem" that requires changes in human behavior, all three have to be true.
So while the statement "the Earth is getting warmer" is a fact, the global warming issue as it is described in politics and the media -- "we need to do something about man-made global warming in order to avoid disaster" -- is just a belief, and one which true believers are not interested in having a discussion about.
That may annoy you if you think he's wrong, but it's still playing fair. If you disagree you must really hate those drug PSAs on TV.
Well...uhh...yeah. Who the hell doesn't?
An Inconvenient Truth: a Reefer Madness for our time!
You'll also need something better to convince skeptics than "If you don't believe then you have your head stuck in the sand."
But without getting deep in the scientific weeds, where he's obviously in his element, I have to take issue with the translation he made of Gore's comment.
And there's the crux of the problem I have with AGW supporters. They spend all this time telling me to "look at the science, it's settled, no more arguement needed." So I go and look at the science, find out they are wrong/mistaken in their assertions/assumptions, so the proponent says, in effect, "lets not talk about the SPECIFICS of the actual science, lets talk about how it's OK for Al Gore to tell lies in furtherance of committing Kyoto-cide with our economy".
I won't respond to you Bilby because your comments are inane.
TRUMPIT: I'm discussing the way the question was posed in relation to the way in which the moderator restricted how it could be answered.
Are you having a problem following?
Not ONE THING I wrote in this comments thread has addressed GW or GCC. I'm discussing the narrow subject of Althouse's post.
I'll let you off the hook on your assumptions about what is or is not in my vast personal library, much less the larger universe of what I've read. Because, how could you know?
I have a love/hate relationship with that damn trash-can function, in blogger. I like the option, but when it's there, I instantly go blind when it comes to the preview function.
The poles can't be melting, Al Gore has a big house!
Back at ya Doyle ;)
[This is so easy....]
trumpit said:
I won't respond to you Bilby because your comments are inane.
Translation: We don't need any stinking logic in this debate! It's inane!
Brother Doyle said...
"[T]he idea that the policymakers who advocate such action should ... have to walk to Stockholm to accept their Nobel Prize only resonates with people as nuts as Simon."
That misrepresents what I said, and noticably fails to address the point. I didn't ask why Gore didn't walk, swim or sail to Stockholm, I asked why he had to appear in person rather than by video link. "[A] return transatlantic flight will create roughly 1.3 tonnes of CO2 per passenger"; what is the footprint of appearing by video link, and what compelling rationale can you offer for why it was worth the difference for Gore to be there in person?
"It depends on the idea that Democrats want to abolish or drastically restrict air travel. As far as I know, no Democrat has advocated such a policy."
I don't think that's true - my recollection is that they have done exactly that (on travel generally, not just air - see the gas tax, for exampe) - but even assuming it is, they certainly propose restrictions on things that other people think are important or enjoyable but which they don't, and ensure that there are personal exceptions that cover those things that will be regulated which they do do. To take your example, regulations that raise the cost of air travel for everyone else - perhaps prohibitively - seem nice and neutral until you remember that those who are voting for those regulations will not themselves bear the increased costs. Their travel allowance - which is to say, we - will pick up the bill.
If the poles are melting that in itself isn't proof that human activities are causing it. The poles have been ice free many times in the past. The scare mongers depend on folks believing climate has been stable since the formation of Earth and therefore any observed changes must be caused by human activities. Evidence of climate change or GW is not proof of AGW.
"Plus I'd rather drown in New York than live in Nebraska."
What an astonishingly silly thing to say. I would be nearly everyone would relocate than die. The debate isn't necessarily global warming, who knows what the next few thousand years will bring, but the cause of global warming. What is the "normal" climate?
My prediction is that the usual suspects such as brother doyle will ramp up the necessity to spend enormous amount of money to "fix" the weather, and then when we get a "average" winter or summer, point to the spending as the reason. Meanwhile Brother Doyle will continue to duck Brother Simon's reasonable question concerning CO2 lagging temp change. The fear and I think the urgency in attacking global warming comes from the knowledge that if we don't do anything and the weather shifts cooler or more to the recent (last few hundred years) then the chicken littles will be seen as fools. Brother Doyle, fear not. Or rather, you will not be seen as a fool for that one particular reason. There will always be gulible fools to take up the Al Gore lead fight against Global Cooling. Or Warming again. Or cooling. Whatever.
Trumpit said You are totally flat-out wrong on a deadly serious issue. It behooves you to read "Our Angry Earth" by Isaac Asimov & Frederik Pohl.
It would behoove you to read the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich. That also was a doomsday tome that didn’t come to pass.
Like I said before, I have heard a lot of doomsday predictions in my 40 years on planet earth and none of them have come to pass. If you want to cling to it, be my guest but I’m betting that 20 years from now the crisis du jour will be planet-killing meteors.
Again, I have to defer to the scientists on the science, but here's a breakdown of the various panels, organizations, etc. who agree with the IPCC's formulation of "mostly man-made over last 50 years", those who are "non-committal" (including the American Association of Petroleum Geologists), and those who dissent from it.
You'll find the last list quite brief, since the AAPG finally gave up the ghost.
Speaking of apocalyptic predictions, who can forget the epidemic of heterosexual aids that faced the US and was the crisis d'jour in the early 1990s--Michael Fumento was right and his myriad critics were wrong. Too much angst; too little perspective.
Doyle: I hate to break this to you, but I think that those of us Philistines, deniers, and general run of the mill scum bags, don't put a lot of stock in your talisman: "scientific consensus." The fact you continue to dredge it up tells us how little you understand Science.
Science doesnt work by consensus--if it did, we could conduct periodic polls and result such issues as the space time continuum and the real nature of dark matter.
and we would have distilled phlogiston, lived in a geocentric universe, and never acknowledged continental drift, and still believed ulcers were caused by stress.
"The question posed by the moderator was a yes or no question. Actually it was a yes question because only a fool could answer "no." It is the same type of question as "Is the earth 6,000 years old as stated in the bible?" or "Do you believe the earth is flat?"
I think that this is what makes the question unfair. It seems almost certain that human beings have some effect on the global climate. One answer can yes to the question, but also believe that:
1) The human contribution to global warming is either small or has not been established to a reasonable degree of certainty; 2) CO2 is not driving current changes in global climate and therefore controlling CO2 emissions will not significantly reduce global warming
3) The costs of controlling CO2 emissions far exceed the benefits;
4) The computer models that project global climate changes have not been shown to be sufficiently reliable guides on which to base trillion dollars investments
If one answers yes to the question posed, however, most viewers will assume that the candidate supports current Gore orthodoxy. So it is perfectly reasonable to refuse to answer the question with a simple yes or no.
There are three claims here:
(A): The Earth is warming.
Maybe and maybe not. Some of the apparent rise may be caused by a shutdown of about half the Russian weather stations when the USSR fell apart. Plus, there is the slight problem that the Southern Hemisphere appears that it may be cooling.
(B): This is caused mostly by humans.
Actually, as someone pointed out above, this has to be better qualified. And there is the added problem that the sun spot cycle seems to be having a bigger affect than increases in human CO2 production.
(C): This is a bad thing.
This is the big step here. Even assuming the previous two points, which I don't, this one does not necessarily follow, and there is a lot of reason to believe that it is false, including the historical record of the last couple thousand years of recorded history, where humans appear to have done better when the climate was warmer than when it was cooler. I should also point out the obvious possibility that global warming may open up billions of acres of farmland across the two largest countries in the world, that is currently too cold to farm (just look at any globe to see what I mean).
But without the later, the only justification for massive economic sacrifices is the quasi-religious belief in gaia the Earth Mother.
Finally, I would add:
(4) That reducing CO2 emissions is the best way to combat global warming.
All we can really say here is that it is one of the more expensive solutions. There is reason to believe that combating global warming can be done much more cheaply.
PaulD, you don't understand. The only correct answer is to agree with Al Gore and all of it. Otherwise you have your head in the sand and are no better than people who think Earth is 6000 years old. Oh, and you're a poopyhead on top of that. If none of this makes sense to you then you're inane.
I hate to break this to you, but I think that those of us Philistines, deniers, and general run of the mill scum bags, don't put a lot of stock in your talisman: "scientific consensus."
LOL. No kidding!
What would do the trick for you? Jesus appearing in the plume of a coal-fired power plant, wagging his finger?
Revenant said...
"There are three claims here: (A): The Earth is warming. (B): This is caused mostly by humans. (C): This is a bad thing."
And even that doesn't go far enough if what you want is a policy prescription. Even assuming that the answers to all three of those questions is "yes," to formulate a policy response requires us to take several more steps. We need to know specifically what the causes are in order to determine what steps there are (if any) that we could take to remedy or at least ameliorate the problem. And then we need to weigh what we're willing to do when all factors are taken into account. And nobody, not even the most insane eco-carebear would argue that ANY policy response that''s available should be undertaken - obviously if the problem is too much CO2, we could isolate the United States and release a deadly toxin that kills 60% of the humans on earth, thereby dramatically reducing total carbon output and demand for carbon-producing activities, but I think most people would not regard that as a policy choice we're willing to take. But there would presumably be other, less drastic steps we could take that may or may not be worth the cost when considered next to what we believe the consequences of not taking them would be.
Blogger Palladian said...
Who is the moderator?
9:47 AM
Don't know if you've already gotten the answer, Palladian. The moderator was Carolyn Washburn, who is currently editor of the Des Moines Register.
Simon, don't forget the only acceptable "solutions" appear to be wealth redistribution and carbon trading schemes. Nuclear power is out.
in my 40 years on planet earth
Jeez, Hoosier Daddy, you just blew my stereotype. I always thought--not negatively, or positively, but neutrally, though wrongly--that you were at least 10 years older than I (around Ann's age).
Ya whippersnapper!
Doyle: Since I dont put any stock in theology I would prefer the proper application of the scientific method. Replicability along with validity are the hallmarks of an explanatory scientific theory. Mann's underlying coding for his data which led to the "hocky stick," have not been made available, and thus cannot be replicated. Its rather like cold fusion: no one could do it again. Now then, in our next science lesson, we will discuss the concept of validity. Your home work: explain why a scale that always weighs five pounds heavy is replicable but not valid.
Bother Roger said...
"Doyle: I hate to break this to you, but ... [s]cience doesn't work by consensus--if it did, ... we would have distilled phlogiston, live[] in a geocentric universe, ... [would have] never acknowledged continental drift, and still believe[] ulcers were caused by stress."
Bingo. If the history of science teaches anything it's that the scientific consensus has often been wrong. Time and again, science has been dragged forward kicking and screaming by those who dissented from the consensus; the theories of Galileo, Newton, Einstein and Bohr, for example - now all accepted as tantamount to settled fact - did not emerge as products of the then-existing consensus, but athwart it.
That is, I thought you were at least Ann's age.
Well I eagerly await the arrival of the brave Galileo who proves the current consensus wrong, because the current consensus is a real downer and praying that it's wrong makes more sense than acting on it.
I'm sure he or she is out there somewhere, and just hasn't gotten their totally convincing research noticed yet. Because of course no one has a financial interest in seeing the consensus debunked.
American Astronomical Society AND American Chemical Society? Plus The Institution of Engineers Australia?
Well then. If anyone should know global warming it is those folks. I need to shoot them a email, get their expert opinion about a medical issue I have.
Even if humans are responsible for global warming, guess what? Thats right, I'm sorry I simply don't care.
I will believe it's a crises when the people telling me it's a crises start acting like it. Now I gotta run my private plane is leaving for Bali in a few minutes. Don't wanna leave it idling ya know.
I mis spelled crisis. In fact I did it twice and almost did it in this correction. Huh. How 'bout that.
Bilby said...
"Simon, don't forget the only acceptable "solutions" appear to be wealth redistribution and carbon trading schemes."
Naturally - that's because it's a front. It's not about the environment, it's about control. As I've said before, "today's environmental left ... wants to control our economic behavior, lately [justifying it] under the rubric of a response to climate crisis. Of course, it's a 'curious coincidence that the solutions advaced by advocates of this putative crisis just happen to line up with the pre-existing political preferences of these people. A lot of climate change evangelists come across as people who possesed the solution long before they hit on the problem to justify it. Global climate crisis, if true, is an extraordinarily convenient truth for most of its proponents because it can be used to demand the kind of solutions of massive regulation of what businesses and individuals can and can't do that those people have long believed in. Are we to believe that it's just coincidence that climate change is the orthodoxy of the left, and the solutions they advocate [for it] are basically the same solutions they advocate for everything else?'" (Emphasis added). Climate change is just a hook - a hook being what one looks for after discovering a need to hang one's hat on something.
"By the time I get on stage, I will have spent between one and four to five hours with most of the candidates," Washburn said. "I got to look them in the eye and get a sense of who they are."
Re: The emphasized part
Please, someone else do it, so I don't have to.
Uh.. sounds like Bush?
Yeah, a real cheap shot--but, damnit, I read that and instantly thought of That Putin Thang.
Doyle: well done! There's hope for you, if not for the Mets. (well, except for the red herring in your last paragraph).
And you believe there is only money available for those who may be working to challenge global warming (and of course it comes from big oil, big pharma, and big nuclear). I suppose you think that all those brave scientists establishing AGW are working alone in their labs bereft of financial support.
Hand Jive
Hand Jive
Hand Jive, doin' that crazy Hand Jive.
(Johnny Otis, 1958)
Doyle, are you going to answer the questions posed above or not? These are the key ones:
(1) If rising carbon dioxide concentrations are the sole or primary driver of temperature rises, why do they lag rather than lead those changes?
(2) What is the carbon footprint of appearing by video link vs. flying a return transatlantic flight, and what compelling rationale can you offer for why it was worth the difference for Gore to accept his award in person?
If you don't have an answer for these, I think that hurts your credibility considerably. It should be easy to answer both if your position on climate change is a result of reason and science rather than received wisdom and faith.
1) You should direct question to any of the scientific organizations listed above. My not being a scientist doesn't hurt my credibility. If you stump them, maybe you're the Galileo we've all been waiting for.
2) See my aforementioned comment on the rank stupidity of this line of argument.
You should direct question to any of the scientific organizations listed above.
The questions have been directed to them. We're still awaiting answers, which means either (a) they know the answer and are concealing it or (b) they don't know the answer. In the former case they're being deliberately deceptive for unknown reasons (with the most likely explanation being that the data hurts their theory), and in the latter case their theory has a great big hole in it that needs to be closed before it can be taken seriously.
2) See my aforementioned comment on the rank stupidity of this line of argument.
You haven't made an argument. You've just said it is stupid.
If excess CO2 harms the planet (and the people living on it), then emitting extra CO2 unnecessarily is morally wrong. So in order for a transatlantic plane flight to be morally acceptable, it must be shown that the benefit of the flight outweighed the harm done.
So, Doyle -- what IS the moral value of having your ego stroked in person? :)
I think a better analogy for the question would be if the same moderator asked the Democrats for a show of hands for "Do you believe that terrorism is a serious threat to the United States and that it is primarily caused by Islamo-fascism?"
Do they answer "yes" or do they answer "no."
They answer "yes" and open themselves up for demands as to why they don't take it seriously then. They answer "no" and they open themselves up as entirely and completely unserious about the matter.
I'm not at all convinced that Fred Thompson is a skeptic or a denier. It's entirely possible that he's simply smart enough to realize that answering "yes" without qualification would open himself up to demands that he support Kyoto and whatever they cook up in Bali. Answering "no" means appearing unserious about the matter.
Just like Gore (and everyone else who does it) claiming over and over that the science is settled and it's all about the necessary solutions now, the question itself has to be understood to be about the *solutions*, just the same way that such a stupid question about terrorism and Islamo-fascism would be interpreted as being about the solutions.
That can't be answered with a "yes" or "no."
Does anyone really think that Al Gore's air travel proves that global warming isn't real? I know some of you do. Fess up.
Okay I'll give up and explain this:
I don't consider air travel immoral.
I don't especially care whether people think Al Gore is awesome.
I just want a government that takes steps to limit the amount of carbon emissions we put out so the earth stops getting hotter and hotter until we all, or some large number of us, die.
Brian, you're being a coward. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you're smart enough to know why you ought to have answers to those questions, so answer the damned questions or stop with the meaningless sniping. Rev put it perfectly - if you can't answer a question that basic and that fundamental to your beliefs, you're running on nothing but faith and received wisdom.
So in order for a transatlantic plane flight to be morally acceptable, it must be shown that the benefit of the flight outweighed the harm done.
How does Al Gore riding on a plane that is already flying affect anything? Even if he chartered a private jet, that jet is more than likely flying somewhere if not with Al Gore on it.
I'm sure the Althouse Blog Experts on anything from atmospheric chemistry, military tactics, international treaties, to stem cell research will have a snap answer to my question.
Does anyone really think that Al Gore's air travel proves that global warming isn't real?
It proves that Al Gore doesn't really believe there's anything wrong with emitting tons of unnecessary CO2 into the atmosphere. And heck, he's spent so much more time than me looking into it, I figure if HE thinks there's nothing wrong with producing tons of CO2 he must have a good reason for thinking it. :)
Doyle said...
"I just want a government that takes steps to limit the amount of carbon emissions we put out...."
They could start by choosing for themselves to reduce THEIR unnecessary output before mandating that WE reduce both necessary AND unnecessary output. I've described a few ways they could accomplish it above, but it's crushingly obvious that they aren't going to do that. It's also crushingly obvious why. It's one thing to preach the Climate Gorethodoxy and be something less than a saint - one unrecycled can doesn't make you a hypocrit. But To demand sacrifice of others while refusing to sacrifice even convenience or ego yourself DOES make you a hypocrit.
I just want a government that takes steps to limit the amount of carbon emissions we put out so the earth stops getting hotter and hotter until we all, or some large number of us, die.
You realize, don't you, that the "scientific consensus" you keep bleating about is that your nightmare scenario is not going to happen?
You're trying to have your cake and eat it to -- you rely on scientific consensus to establish that the earth is warming, then discard it in favor of the fevered paranoid of environmentalist wackos once it turns out that the actual scientific consensus is that global warming's impact will be far from catastrophic.
"Does anyone really think that Al Gore's air travel proves that global warming isn't real? I know some of you do. Fess up."
Well, of course not. Al Gore's excessive energy consumption merely shows that he does not take his own propoganda seriously.
Lisa: That's a bullshit question.
Jim Trotter: Does that mean you can't answer it?
Lisa: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Lisa: Nobody could answer that question!
Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as an expert witness!
Judge Haller: Can you answer the question?
Lisa: No, it's a trick question!
"You realize, don't you, that the "scientific consensus" you keep bleating about is that your nightmare scenario is not going to happen?"
You know this illustrates one of my concerns about appeals to the "scientific consensus." People talk about the so-called consensus without defining what it is. I think you could find complete agreement among scientists that CO2 is a greenhouse and that increased CO2 emissions will cause some degree of global warming other things being equal. I think that you could also find a general agreement amont scientists that there the global climate has warmed over the last 200 years or so, although there are some disagreements regarding the extent of the warming. If these two propositions are the "consensus" then I have no problem with it.
The definition of what the consensus is, however, appears for many people to be "whatever I believe". So, for example, while Al Gore appeals to the so-called "consensus", he doesn't note that many of the scenarios he desribes in "An Inconvient Truth" are well outside of the consensus.
I have read extensively on global warming and it certainly appears to me that the "consensus" of opinion among scientists is much narrower than many people believe.
Garage: the answer to your question is 48
Doyle--
What a wonderful Fred quote from Red October.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it."
Sums up all of human history....
PaulD said...
"People talk about the so-called consensus without defining what it is. I think you could find complete agreement among scientists that CO2 is a greenhouse and that increased CO2 emissions will cause some degree of global warming other things being equal."
Never mind a consensus among scientists, I would think that you could find at least one scientist who could explain the lag-lead problem, and I'd think they'd have a pretty strong incentive to do so if they could given that standing unrebutted, it's a gaping hole in the Gorethodoxy's reasoning. It's a very elementary question of logic: a cause must precede its effect. If changes in CO2 levels are the cause of temperature change, the rise in CO2 concentration must occur before its supposedly-correlative temperature rise. If it doesn't, it didn't cause it. It seems to me that what Gore's graphs proves is completely the opposite of what he claims - they show that all this stuff about carbon footprints is utterly specious. They show that either temperature change drives carbon dioxide concentration changes, or that some third-party phenomena is driving both.
Can we see a show of hands for how many Gorelistas understand this incredibly basic bit of science 101: correlation ≠ causation.
The fact that neither Gorelistas nor actual scientists seem able or willing to address this problem with their thesis suggests to me that they're proposed remedy is a solution in search of a problem, that climate change is a marketing gimmick for the same old tired economic interventionist dogma that hitherto lay discredited and unelectable.
So lets say we "take steps".
If human produced CO2 is what is putting us over the edge and human produced CO2 (the straw that broke the climate's back) is 0.117 of greenhouse effect gases, reducing our CO2 by 50% would take it down to .0585, reducing human produced CO2 by .0585, because we've cut our CO2 emissions in HALF. Right?
Now, never mind that it doesn't even make sense that a .0585 % reduction in CO2 is going to pull us back from the brink of runaway global warming. We're going to pretend this actually makes sense and it *will* in fact, save us all.
What would we have to do to cut our CO2 contribution in half?
Doyle?
Take "steps"?
Use less toilet paper? Buy a Prius? Drive into town one less time a week? Put plastic over our windows in the winter?
How can you *believe* and not be against air travel?
Or will it only take a 25% reduction in CO2 production? So we reduce TOTAL CO2 by... wait for it... .02925 % and we save the world.
Assume for a moment that this actually makes sense.
What would we have to *do* to reduce total human CO2 contributions by 25%? Extremely vigorous transition to nuclear power might reach those numbers but will take years to achieve.
If you *believe* that a 25% reduction in human contributions of CO2 will save the world, how can you *not* be against nearly all air travel?
And yes, the plane was going anyway, but if only 25% of those people stayed home, one of four planes wouldn't have to make that flight. EVERY SINGLE PERSON individually contributing to the demand for overseas (or even domestic) flights is responsible for the number of aircraft in the air.
Now *I'm* not against air travel because *I'm* a denier.
Roger
48?
Look, let me add a personal note here. I never used to be a climate change skeptic, and I still don't think of myself as one. I'm 27 and I was raised in Britain; those of my age and background were fed the Gorethodoxy by our schools as if it were the theory that the Earth is round, fire is hot and water is wet. It's not so much a question of accepting the dogma as being brought up in a mindset where the idea of questioning it doesn't even occur to you.
But when I first read about the lag-lead problem, and crunched the numbers for myself, it became readily apparent that if there wasn't a really good answer to this problem, that wouldn't so much punch a hole beneath the waterline as it would rip the keel and the bottom of the hull right off of the Gorethodoxy. So I started asking questions of people I expected to be able to answer, because it seemed to obvious a question and so obviously fundamental - and no one has an answer. No one. I've not found an answer, and when I've asked people, they've not been able to offer one (or at least, nothing credible). This problem is fatal; it isn't a minor problem with the thesis, it is absolutely central, and screw the damned consensus, Brian, if every scientist on Earth bought into the Gorethodoxy, if they couldn't answer to the lag-lead question the theory would still be worthless.
Science does not proceed on consensus, it proceeds on the process of asking questions and providing them with credible answers. It's not good enough to rest on the received wisdom. If you, personally, don't have an answer to how a putative cause can precede its supposed effect, dear reader, maybe you need to start asking questions.
Al Gore's air travel proves squat about global warming.
What it proves is that Al Gore doesn't believe what he tells us is true when it comes to the need to "take steps."
Jeez, Hoosier Daddy, you just blew my stereotype. I always thought--not negatively, or positively, but neutrally, though wrongly--that you were at least 10 years older than I (around Ann's age).
Well sometimes I feel that way but that’s usually after a century ride or too much Sam Adams.
DoyleDoes anyone really think that Al Gore's air travel proves that global warming isn't real? I know some of you do. Fess up.
You keep missing the point Doyle. Al jetting around the globe preaching about cutting back carbon emissions to save the planet is like me telling you that alcohol is bad for you while sipping a vodka martini. As Brother Simon has pointed out, video conferencing has a small carbon footprint.
In all honestly, is there a scientific consensus as to what the ‘optimal climate’ should be? Cause until there is a ‘scientific consensus’ as to what that should be I’m not convinced a warmer planet is necessarily bad. Can’t grow food in the snow unless its penguins. You’re worried about the planet getting hotter and hotter but that inconvenient truth you keep avoiding is that 30 years ago it was supposedly getting cooler and cooler.
"...reducing our CO2 by 50% would take it down to .0585, reducing human produced CO2 by .0585, because we've cut our CO2 emissions in HALF. Right?"
Oops. Take out that middle bit.
Reducing our CO2 by 50% would take human contributions down to .0585 % of the whole.
*sigh*
Because Math is grammar.
Garage: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Sorry for the obscure reference--its the answer to the eternal question.
Ooh, Roger, the correct answer was 42, not 48.
42.
Al jetting around the globe preaching about cutting back carbon emissions to save the planet is like me telling you that alcohol is bad for you while sipping a vodka martini.
It's more like you telling me that your consumption of alcohol will kill me and all my offspring, while chugging a 40.
There's something very telling about garage mahal's "plane would've been flying anyway" rebuttal.
It reminds of the drug dealer's excuse, "If I don't deal drugs, someone else will."
But I think it also points to a core difference in thought processes. Some folks seem to feel that, having identified a serious problem, they should no longer contribute to it.
Others seem to feel that they should be able to contribute to it until everyone else is forced to stop contributing to it.
Blake: you are, of course, correct--I plead senior moment
Sister Synova said...
"Al Gore's air travel proves squat about global warming. What it proves is that Al Gore doesn't believe what he tells us is true when it comes to the need to 'take steps.'"
I don't think it proves that - I think he's absolutely sincere when he says that we have to "take steps." It's just that he means that people like you and I need to "take steps," not people like him and Nancy. Well, that's not strictly true, either: they're going to "take steps" by forcing other people to "take steps." So they've got a clear conscience: it's okay for Gore to dump masses of CO2 into the atmosphere by jetting around the world, because he's doing it to ask others to dump less CO2 into the atmosphere, so really, net, these trips pay for themselves in carbon credits.
The Amnswer is actually 42.
It seems to me that what Gore's graphs proves is completely the opposite of what he claims - they show that all this stuff about carbon footprints is utterly specious. They show that either temperature change drives carbon dioxide concentration changes, or that some third-party phenomena is driving both.
The scientific theory that is posited as to how/why there is CO2 lag is that warming causes evaporation, which releases CO2 along with water vapor. As atmosphere condenses and cools it traps CO2 back into the water. Which is why more and more independent scientists are leaning towrds the warming being due to the solar activity.
Simon I understand where you are coming from. I grew up tho when the environmental crisis was going to be a man made Ice Age. That was the consensus then and there were credible scientists actually proposing blanketing the poles with soot to warm the earth. The socialists were demqnding we do the same things to fight Global Cooling that they say will cure AGW.
Blake
Did Gore tell you that you shouldn't fly in airplanes? Or anyone?
Simon
The 800 yr lag in C02 means only that C02 didn't cause the first 800yrs warming of a 5000 yr event. I'm no scientist, but I know C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas, or the only thing that can cause warming. But you seem to admitting in essence that the two are correlated. Am I right? So my question is -- all but the dimmest bulb knows we are warming, is it more responsible to assume we are affecting it and take some reasonable actions, or disregard it entirely and ramble on about Al Gore?
But you seem to admitting in essence that the two are correlated.
Ice cream sales and murder are correlated. Dark skin and criminal activity are correlated. Lots of things are correlated -- that doesn't mean one causes the other.
all but the dimmest bulb knows we are warming, is it more responsible to assume we are affecting it and take some reasonable actions
I did take reasonable actions. I improved the insulation in my house and installed air conditioning.
Now if, on the other hand, you actually meant "take reasonable action to stop the earth from warming" -- why would I want to do that? Cold kills more people than heat does. If you want me to fight to keep the planet chilly, prove to me that a warmer Earth will be a worse one.
Brother garage mahal said...
"The 800 yr lag in C02 means only that C02 didn't cause the first 800yrs warming of a 5000 yr event. "
Correct. That means something else did. But let's stop to ponder on that point for a moment. A theory has to fit the available data, right? And you'd think that if something else initiates the increase in temperature, then if the contribution of CO2 was statistically significant, we'd see the rate of temperature increase accelerate once CO2 enters the picture. Right? Yet we don't see that, so how could we explain that? Well, I suppose you could argue that we don't see such an acceleration because the initiator - whatever it is - ceases to operate at exactly the same time as the Co2 increase begins to come into play, coincidentally decreasing in exact proportion to the rise in CO2 levels. It just drops out of the picture. But while that might fit the data, I dont think that's a very plausible explanation. I think there's a better explanation and we'll come back to that in just a second.
"I'm no scientist, but I know C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas, or the only thing that can cause warming. But you seem to admitting in essence that the two are correlated. Am I right? So my question is -- all but the dimmest bulb knows we are warming, is it more responsible to assume we are affecting it and take some reasonable actions, or disregard it entirely and ramble on about Al Gore?"
I think it's pretty hard to deny that when you run the numbers there's a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean surface temperature. But as I said upthread, correlation doesn't equal causation. Suppose for sake of argument - and I know that this argument is made by so-called deniers, so I want to make clear that I'm raising this as a hypothetical not asserting that it's the case - that strong evidence suggested that changes in solar activity track the temperature changes. That is, posit that solar output goes up, planet begins to warm, thus oceans slowly begin to warm, causing CO2 outgassing from the oceans after a short lag (water doesn't change temperature on a dime as we all know); the solar cycle cools, the temperature drops, in due course the ocean temperature drops allowing it to reabsorb the CO2. Now, that theory may be right or wrong, but it would fit the data at least as well - and arguably better - than the Gorethodoxy. My question for you would be, within that rubric, would you still think it's responsible public policy to destroy the economy worrying about our carbon output? Why? What goal does it serve?
It seems to me that it can't possibly be good policy to regulate carbon dioxide output unless we have good reason to think that CO2 concentration is really what's driving temperature change. And as I've pointed out, there's a massive, fatal flaw in that theory that no proponent seems to want to address.
(And by "driving climate change," I mean at least "has an effect that is statistically significant," not merely that it theoretically plays a de minimis role as an exacerbator. In other words, it may be reasonable to regulate Co2 output if doing so is
likely to have any kind of substantive, significant effect on climate change.)
The biggest problem with the CO2 causes warming theory is that it requires CO2 to behave in a way that it simply doesn't. This was empirically tested over a hundred years ago.
A second huge problem is that scientists have been measuring the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the early 1800s. The methods used haven't changed much since. Turns out the CO2 concentration has been higher in the past two centuries than it is now. The current hysteria about CO2 is largely based on ice core proxies, which are extremely unreliable, completely ignoring the huge amount of evidence including actual experiments done and verified by contemporary scientists.
A third problem is that most AGW advocates and computer models assume the sun is static. Not only is this manifestly false, there is a direct correlation between global temperatures and the behavior of the sun (including orbital variations, sun spot activity and its magnetic field.) Unlike theories of CO2 warming, there are definitive TESTED theories of how, for example, sun spot activity changes weather patterns on earth.
Fourth, far too much global warming "science" is nothing more than doing extremely imperfect computer modeling. Computer modeling is great for studying small, closed systems where most the variables are known. It's very bad at studying large, open systems with thousands of unknowns.
Finally, there is pretty good evidence the earth hasn't warmed at all in ten years.
Between Fred's tax plan and this slap down, I growing to like him more. Unfortunately, he's about as exciting as a rock and a really boring rock at that.
"Fourth, far too much global warming "science" is nothing more than doing extremely imperfect computer modeling. Computer modeling is great for studying small, closed systems where most the variables are known. It's very bad at studying large, open systems with thousands of unknowns."
Outstanding point. I have personally seen people "prove" things with computer models (in very isolated and presumably "modelable" systems) that are not only not supported by ANY experimental evidence, but in fact are contrary to every form of evidence regarding the issue at hand. And he was awarded a Ph.D. for it. Computer modeling is most useful when it is used to help determine what actual experiment to do next. They are not in and of themselves "actual experiments." Put another way, communes are an actual experiment. SimCity 4 (or 5 or 1346) is not. I don't see very many cities using SimCity 4 to formulate policy...
Joe said...
"The biggest problem with the CO2 causes warming theory is that it requires CO2 to behave in a way that it simply doesn't. This was empirically tested over a hundred years ago."
Could you expand on this point, please?
gm,
Did Gore tell you that you shouldn't fly in airplanes? Or anyone?
I'm not sure to whom your "anyone" applies, people doing the telling or people being told.
In any event, this is what I'm hearing from the AGW crowd:
1. Humans emit CO2.
2. CO2 causes global warming.
3. GW will have a catastrophic effect, including millions of deaths.
I'm being straight here, and not trying to exaggerate. This is what I've heard, from Gore and others.
If you accept all three principles--I think #1 is the most uncontroversial (heh)--I don't see how you could morally not work to reduce your carbon output.
One of the most CO2-intensive activities humans normally partake in is flying in an airplane. And for rich people, flying in a private jet (low capacity, not filled to occupancy).
QED.
I mean, even if I don't agree with the premises behind AGW, I could reduce my carbon output (though I believe it's already lower than average). Hell, I can do that, and I'm not even convinced it's a good idea. (I've always thought of CO2 as plant food....)
So, that's what gets me: I don't believe any of the premises of AGW. I'm not convinced the earth is getting warmer (the placement of the thermometers has been dubious); I'm not convinced man has any measurable impact on global climate (local impact can be quite severe, but when I extrapolate it to the volume of the earth's atmosphere, I get some tiny, tiny numbers); I'm not convinced that any given change is bad, colder or warmer.
And still (STILL!) I do no more than the high priests of AGW to reduce my carbon output.
Fred was right not to use a show of hands. One finger would have sufficed.
And I'll add, that at the very least, we need to see some economic models of what will happen 100 yrs from now if a given set of policy proposals are put in place (and then have the results of those models be used in the process of formulating policy). Since models tell us so much...
By the way, I think it was Simon talking about what the next big environmental crisis was going to be and I think it's pretty apparent: Overpopulation.
The thing about environmentalism is that it repeats its tropes as religiously as any storyteller.
You can see it with the repositioning of AGW as "climate change". It doesn't matter that the earth is getting warmer or colder, all that matters is that man is changing it, and that's Bad.
But overpopulation, which used to be about the horrors that would come with not enough food, will be replaced by the carbon impact of people.
I mean, far dwarfing the impact of a plane trip, is having a child, another evil CO2 spewing machine.
These ideas never really leave us: Man altering God or nature's intended course deliberately (whether by selective breeding of plants and animals or through genetics, and soon nano-tech); Man altering God or nature's intended course accidentally (global warming, overpopulation, etc.); Man spreading out to all corners of the earth and using resources (you user you!).
Somewhere in the next 20-40 years, if nanotech really takes off, we'll have at least one nanotech "crisis".
Doyle,
Fred Thompson used to be on the station that has the morning traffic reports where I live, doing syndicated commentary.
As such, I knew for a fact that he has no fear of making his views on global warming public.
It took all of a second to google to find this.
It's telling that you were in such a hurry to make the first post to get in a negative slam against a Republican that you did not bother to find out if you were talking out of your ass.
Crimso,
Actually, I'm pretty sure Arnold Kling did just that. He concluded something like, "Why should we sacrifice economic prosperity now for a bunch of rich people?"
In other words, if we can sustain our current economic prosperity for another 100 years, our grandchildren will be far more capable of handling any repercussions than we have.
Myself, I don't trust 100 year predictions but it's an amusing take on it.
Fourth, far too much global warming "science" is nothing more than doing extremely imperfect computer modeling. Computer modeling is great for studying small, closed systems where most the variables are known. It's very bad at studying large, open systems with thousands of unknowns.
I can't stress this point enough. The late Lucky Oldson scoffed at this point, trying to compare AGW software to the stuff that engineers use to build cars and planes.
C'mon. Didn't we all see the overpopulation models they used in the '70s? And that should've been easy to predict, right? We understand exactly how babies are made! (If not always why.)
Give me some money and I'll come up with a model to prove whatever point it takes to keep the money rolling in.
I don't mean to be bragging or anything, but I just wanted to let y'all know that I today received in the mail a personally signed letter from Fred along with a photo of him and his bald head campaigning somewhere in a short-sleeved shirt.
Fred writes, and I quote, "Our opponents know that you and I are the ones to beat. So they're coming after us. They're attacking our ideas. They're twisting the facts about what we believe in. It's up to you and me to battle back against these politics-as-usual campaign tactics."
And that is not all Fred had to say. He also wrote, "It's up to us to get people focused on issues that really matter. Issues you care about. Like tax relief. Government reform. National defense. Strong families. These are issues that will strengthen America's security, unity and prosperity."
I am sure that you, too, are for strong American families. Fred thanks you for your vote.
Drudge Report December 14, 2007:
A low level member of the Hillary Clinton Campaign charged that Senator Barack Obama’s cocaine use was a significant cause of global warming. He stated that the Senator could not keep his crack pipe lit and kept flicking his lighter leading to a significant carbon footprint while he was in high school. Senator Clinton immediately denounced her aide, said she did not know he would mention Senator Obama’s cocaine use, did not think that Senator Obama’s cocaine use would be an issue, and hoped that the Republicans would not stoop so low in their campaign in the politics of personal destruction so as to mention Senator Barack Obama’s cocaine use. She would not ask if he ever sold cocaine. She would not ask if he ever shared cocaine. She would specifically never ask if he ever shared any cocaine with white girls at a Superbowl party. She announced that the low level aide had resigned for mentioning Senator Barack Obama’s cocaine use. She asked that we should put the questions about Senator Obama’s cocaine use behind us and that we should not mention his use of cocaine. However she did feel the fact that he did eat paste in kindergarten was a legitimate issue……developing
Drudge Report December 14, 2007
In a related story, Senator John McCain has stated he will not make an issue of the fact that Rudy Giuliani was addicted to Rogaine throughout most of the 1990’s. Mayor Giuliani has admitted in his autobiography to abusing Rogaine, often buying it off street dealers to get the potent mixtures not approved the by FDA. This powerful rogaine called “China White” was distributed in Chinatown in the 90’s and was allegedly obtained by Bernie Kerick though his contacts from the prison system. Mr. Giuliani had admitted to experimenting with Rogaine while he was in high school and continued to dabble for years after that. However his addiction became a real problem while he was mayor and eventually led to a stint in rehab at the Hair Club for Men treatment facility in Palm Springs. Senator McCain has stated that the aide has been dismissed and that his campaign will not mention the mayor’s addiction to Rogaine. However he did feel the fact that the mayor married his cousin and didn’t live in Alabama was a legitimate issue……developing.
Trooper York
All I want to know is whether you still plan on posting here once the writer's strike is over.
Cause you could pretty much write your ticket mate. Well done.
"Never mind a consensus among scientists, I would think that you could find at least one scientist who could explain the lag-lead problem, and I'd think they'd have a pretty strong incentive to do so if they could given that standing unrebutted, it's a gaping hole in the Gorethodoxy's reasoning. It's a very elementary question of logic: a cause must precede its effect. If changes in CO2 levels are the cause of temperature change, the rise in CO2 concentration must occur before its supposedly-correlative temperature rise."
First, I agree with you that Gore's graph is highly misleading and that he is wrong to suggest that the graph shows that CO2 has driven temperature change historically. Your observation is correct that the CO2 concentration lags the temperature change.
Scientist believe that the historical relationship shown in the graph is a result of outgassing from the oceans as the ocean's temperature rises. The oceans store vast amounts of carbon. It is released as the oceans are warmed. This is similar to what we all observe when a carbonated drink warms up. CO2 is released.
Although Gore used the graph to suggest that CO2 has historically driven temperature change, the graph do not support this suggestion. On the other hand, I don't think serious scientists view the historical relationship as the principle evidence for AGW.
The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established in the laboratory. It is based on the observed physical properties of CO2 and light. I don't think anyone disputes this. So one would expect or hypothesize that increases in CO2 will cause some degree of global warming. The question is how much?
If one looks at CO2 in isolation, and bases calculations on the effect of CO2 by itself, the warming caused by CO2 is relatively small. Those who are concerned about AGW generally believe that the effects of CO2 is amplified by positive feedbacks in the climate system. For example water vapor has a far more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2. A small increase in temperature caused by CO2 could be amplified by an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
Computer modelers try to estimate the effect of these feedbacks through their computer climate models. Those who are most concerned put much faith in the accuracy of the existing computer models, which predict significant positive feedbacks. Skeptics are much less confident that the computer models have accurately described potential positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system.
Going back to Al Gore's graphs, the AGW proponets would argue that some small disturbance started the climate change, and that the initial change was amplified by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the oceans and by other related positive clmiate feedbacks.
I don't see anything in Al Gore's graphs that support this interpretation. Moreover, it is not the interpretation that Al Gore represent in his movie. Al Gore's interpretation is basically incorrect. The argument he makes from the graphs, however, is not the argument being made by serious scientists.
"The Amnswer is actually 42."
And it also served as the inspiration for the name of a very cool British pop band from the '80s.
"I can't stress this point enough. The late Lucky Oldson scoffed at this point, trying to compare AGW software to the stuff that engineers use to build cars and planes."
I've been away for a few weeks. Did Lucky get himself banned or something?
At a certain point, celebrity isn’t going to wow us.
Hoo boy. Forget that lifted bit (or not) as a standout. This NYT piece is pregnant to bursting with them.
I've been away for a few weeks. Did Lucky get himself banned or something?
I actually don't know. I just haven't seen him.
I hope he's having fun, wherever he is.
"Kinda how like Al Gore doesn't want to actually debate this issue with anyone.
Because there is no reasonable debate anymore. It's just liars, fools and paid shills on the other side."
Just out of curiousity, how do you classify Freeman Dyson? a liar, fool or paid shill?
see http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds."
If Stephen Hawking publicly expressed any skepticism about Global Warming we'd find out that he's not qualified to have an opinion either.
Simon, don't forget the only acceptable "solutions" appear to be wealth redistribution and carbon trading schemes. Nuclear power is out.
And we all know how that will play out: members of the Politburo [like me!] will be granted a lifetime carbon waiver for "choosing to have one less child" or "influencing others to reduce their footprint". The rest of you wogs will become Bicycling Vegetarians, trying to sneak firewood out of the local greenspace so your family won't freeze to death when winter arrives.
Thanks for sharing this I didn't see this episode.
==>mens dress pants
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा