Walter Russell Mead dissects the failure of Al Gore
Bookworm on Jun 29 2011 at 10:57 am | Filed under: Al Gore, Environmentalism
I had heard about a two-part article Mead wrote examining why Gore is a poor leader for the environmental movement, but I only now read it. It is well worth your time.
My favorite quotation from Part I, which goes a long way to explaining the green failures:
Consider how Gore looks to the skeptics. The peril is imminent, he says. It is desperate. The hands of the clock point to twelve. The seas rise, the coral dies, the fires burn and the great droughts have already begun. The hounds of Hell have slipped the huntsman’s leash and even now they rush upon us, mouths agape and fangs afoam.
But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.
What this tells the skeptics is that Vice President Gore doesn’t really believe the gospel he proclaims. That profits from his environmental advocacy enable his affluent lifestyle only deepens their skepticism of the messenger and therefore of the message. And when they see that the rest of the environmental movement accepts this flagrant contradiction, they conclude, naturally enough, that the other green leaders aren’t as worried as they claim to be. Al Gore’s lifestyle is a test case for the credibility of his gospel — and it fails. The tolerance of Al Gore’s lifestyle by the environmental leadership is a further test — and that test, too, the greens fail.
I’ve noted before that Mr. Bookworm’s greenism fails when we’re on vacation and someone else is paying the energy bills for his daily demand for two or three fresh bath towels. I have no problem with being cheap. I’m cheap, and therefore I conserve energy. I’m also cheap on other people’s behalf — I think its dishonest to save my money on electricity, but to waste someone else’s.
The greens have wrapped themselves up in a mantle of moral superiority, and that’s a tough garment to wear all the time. Their problem is that when they periodically cast that rigid mantle off for their own luxury or convenience, it’s pretty clear that they consider themselves so superior, they don’t even need the garb of moral superiority.
Email This Post To A Friend
131 Responses to “Walter Russell Mead dissects the failure of Al Gore”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Would Gore’s lifestyle be considered empirical evidence?
Now here is an example of a smart conservative. His first part, on Gore’s failures of leadership and how that has led to a failure of the green movement, is quite interesting, although he overstates Gore’s impact on the movement globally. But there is no doubt that Gore’s presence on the issue has given skeptics in this country much reason to ignore the science and focus on demonizing Gore, who is so easy to mock. As a political piece, it is very smart, with flashes of real insight–like the point about flawed celebrities taking up philanthropic causes in an effort to have public good cancel private vice. Brilliant.
But there is a huge flaw in the arguments being made here: that Gore represents a failed and flawed salesman, and that the mechanisms demanded to address the problem are unprecedented and highly complex, do not change the reality of the science nor the risks and dangers posed. Further, global warming presents a unique and unprecedented problem not in that it is global, like the threat of nuclear war, that requires global governance, but that the impact from current emissions only manifests down the road, so the evidence is delayed and hits innocent future generations. This is something we haven’t seen before, but the author doesn’t even acknowledge this unique problem.
Now, Mead doesn’t come out and say the science is flawed, which makes him a smart conservative, but he does suggest that much of the green movement is motivated by a desire to avoid wasting the crisis, using the threat of global warming to accomplish a utopian goal of a world government. This is often the canard trotted out by climate science deniers who falsely claim the entire thing is a hoax designed to enslave. There is no evidence of this, but Mead adds a whiff of it to part II, which is rather dishonest of him.
Also dishonest is a balanced account of why Gore and others put the scientific arguments in overstated terms–because there is an entire industry, funded by wealthy polluting companies, to deny the science and use the tiniest of flaws in the data to throw out what is a huge consensus in the scientific community. No mention of the Koch Brothers and their massive funding of fraudulent work undermining climate science is even mentioned.
Finally, while Mead has attacked the idea of developing a global system–and it must be global since emissions from Pittsburgh impact the Seychelles–to control emissions, the Economist has written extensively, citing loads of economic data, on how a carbon trading system is actually the most efficient and least cost way of accomplishing the necessary goal of reduced emissions. One could replace “global carbon emissions system” with “world trade” or “USD/EUR trading” and draw the same conclusions about complexity, and these arguments were made by people resisting our going off the gold standard or the EU forming the Euro, but those arguments were wrong, and so is Mead in this case.
Mead has a choice: either he concludes that the science is wrong and building an emissions trading regime is unnecessary, or he concludes that the science is correct and we better find a way. He wants to remain silent on the science while mocking the effort to address the problem. This seems like a luxury that is as hypocritical and damning as Gore’s multiple mansions and private jet trips…and it should hurt his credibility as a spokesman on this issue at least as much.
“but that the impact from current emissions only manifests down the road, so the evidence is delayed [emphasis mine] and hits innocent future generations.”
Is this a faith-based statement?
Anyway, my usual quibbles with abc’s lack of self-editing skills aside, you see the attempt to hijack the thread by all the “yes, buts” he throws in here. The tedious boilerplate about the Koch brothers, the irrelevant discussions of the gold standard and Euro as though the debates over them are even remotely similar to AGW.
“He wants to remain silent on the science while mocking the effort to address the problem.”
This is outright fabrication. Mead is less than silent on what he thinks of the science. As to his mocking “the effort to address the problem,” who says that the effort makes any sense or could possibly be successful? When CO2 control advocates are pressed, they have no idea how much CO2 emissions they could stop under the most draconian controls. Mead is entirely right to mock Chicken Littles who scream, “The sky is falling!” then proceed to propose taxing everybody to build soaring pillars to catch its fall.
Al Gore is fat.
Book, Charles M…stop it! Stop it this instant!
First you attack Krugman, then you attack Obama, and now you attack Gore.
Have you no compassion? Are you trying to turn ABC into a Xanax addict.
BTW – Walter Russell Mead isn’t a conservative. He’s a Democrat academic.
Thanks for the clarification Danny. Maybe that’s why he reasons so well and has solid insights. I really thought he was a conservative. I guess my quest for the intelligent ones on the climate change debate continues…
The tedious boilerplate about the Koch brothers …
Consider it a Bush-break until further notice.
SADIE, it is kind of fun cataloguing the varieties of vomit that our room dogs return to again and again. (Not that Book helps by leaving out bloody chum she knows will attract varmints.)
abc, I agree with most of what you said, but it does make you wonder. If those who scream the loudest about global warming don’t act like they believe it, why should we?
DQ: “abc, I agree with most of what you said, but it does make you wonder. If those who scream the loudest about global warming don’t act like they believe it, why should we?”
Because the ones who are screaming are not the experts. The experts remain silent, unfortunately.
Sadie laments the mention of the Koch Brothers, but perhaps doesn’t know that they are a top-three donor to every Senator and Representative on their respective Energy Committees. Just because the problem is repeatedly highlighted doesn’t mean that it is no longer a problem. Special interests and wealthy donors’ disproporationate influence on our democracy makes that democracy function less well. Sorry you’re bored, but the problem still festers…
I know, it’s so unfair.
Conservative politicians and causes are supported by the wealthy Koch brothers. Liberal causes are supported by the ultra-rich, like Soros, Hollywood Execs, Foundations (Rockefeller, Hewlett, Packard, Pew, etc.), tax-supported NGOs and labor unions.
Conservatives make their voice heard through media outlets like talk radio, internet sites, Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Liberals control the mainstream media TV outlets, most of the cable news outlets, virtually all of the newspapers, and government-supported media (PBS, NPR).
So, so…unfair. We must get rid of the Koch Brothers and Fox News Channel. Otherwise the earth is doomed!
Danny, Soros isn’t a top three donor to everyone on the Finance Committees in Congress, so it isn’t analogous. Also, I am not calling for the elimination of Republican special interest money only. All of it should be limited, but mainly conservatives seem to resist that idea.
abc, I lament that you don’t stay on topic.
Special interests – here’s a list of them.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
If the concept of hypocrisy did not exist, the Statists would have to invent it. Or did they?
abc, the science is flawed. How about that?
Otherwise the advocates of AGW would not be so hesitant to release their data. I just recently had occasion to revisit the marvelous quote from Dr. Phil Jones, a scientific hero of the AGW crowd. In case you forgot: “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Then again there is the science clown at the University of Virginia, Dr. Michael Mann, who attempted to “protect” his data and research in the face of fraud charges. The Attorney General of Virginia recently cleaned his, and the University’s, clock in court.
How many instances do we have of the AGW crowd caught with their pants down, so to speak, fudging the data?
When they make the data public, when they open their methodology to scrutiny, when they quit manipulating the results, then we might be more inclined to accept their proclamations. Of course one more little issue. There is no human, and no computer, on this earth capable of modeling something as complex as climate. We don’t even know all of the variables, much less how to model them. I went to post-graduate school, computer systems, with a bunch of USN meteorologists. At the time the Navy was on the cutting edge of numerical analysis and computer assisted modeling for forecasting. They are still have problems forecasting weather and ocean conditions; much less climate. This coming hurricane system, pay attention to the prognostications as a storm approaches; you will note that there are 5 or 6 models, and a pretty broad track cone.
But, you and your heroes suggest that millions of people change their lifestyle because of a flawed model, hidden data and questionable methodology, presented by people with a political or financial interest in our actions.
Nope.
Off topic, but relevant:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/jun/epa-gives-millions-foreign-handouts
I’ve been wondering why ABC sounded so familiar, so I was rooting around and found these old video clips of ABC and I think I now understand why he is so hostile to religion and so faithful to “Science”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMiBCc3geQA&feature=related
ABC, I think, real name is Hector Jimenez, as he appeared in Nacho Libre.
>>Special interests and wealthy donors’ disproporationate influence on our democracy makes that democracy function less well. >>
If you want to get business out of government, get government out of business…
Danny, that video was funny as hell. Did you notice the mask on Nacho Libre’s manager? One thing I love about Mexican wrestling is that everybody wears a mask.
abc has mentioned that he used to be a churchgoer—maybe even a believer. Then he had his Come to ABC moment when he realized that his real gods were Science, Empiricsm, Keynes, Krugman, and Himself.
suek, how do you get government out of business? self-regulated oversight? private roads? unregulated monopoly power suppliers? I love your idealism, but let’s get real…
Charles M, I thought that it was a great movie! Tasteful humor.
ABC…it’s not an all or none proposition, nobody is saying that. We just want a lot less government involvement in business and daily life. Not NO government.
Walter Russell Mead: It must be as perplexing to his many admirers as it is frustrating to himself that a man of Vice President Gore’s many talents, great skills and strong beliefs is one of the most consistent losers in American politics.
Gore was elected as U.S. Representative, Senator, Vice President, and won a plurality for President. That’s hardly a loser.
Bookworm: I had heard about a two-part article Mead wrote examining why Gore is a poor leader for the environmental movement, but I only now read it.
Most people recognize Gore’s importance in raising public awareness of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, he won a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change. Nor would his poor leadership change the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change.
Nor does Gore’s use of jet aircraft undermine the argument. The response to climate change isn’t to abandon technology or to leave people living in poverty. The idea is to find methods of sustainable development, so that the people of the world can progress economically while preserving the environment for future generations.
>>We just want a lot less government involvement in business and daily life. Not NO government.>>
Exactly. The government’s job is to referee – not to handicap the players in order to influence the outcome.
When the government does its job, it keeps a level playing field, and businesses can compete on an level playing field. Government enforces its decisions. When government inserts itself into the game and favors one competitor over another, who referees the government? who has the power to limit its actions?
So Z believes Gore is a loser because he was elected. Is that what he means…
Mead never really gets to the real reason Gore is a failure. The real reason is that Gore is just plain um, not very smart. He had some real help when he was younger, that old segregationis father of his, Senator Gore of Tennessee got him into the US Senate, eventually, in spite of Gore having to drop out of divinity school three steps ahead of being thrown out. Now just because he’s not really very bright does not mean he isn’t sly, he got in front of the greens and made tens of millions of dollars relieving silly greens of their excess money in the form of “carbon offsets”. What a scam! Send money to Al Gore and keep emitting tons of CO2 and this is supposed to save the Earth. Heck, I wish I’d have thought of it. and, looking at my back yard I suspect I capture the CO2 of at least two Hollywood starlets and a B movie director. Quick! Send money! But no, Gore gets the money for his pretend greenery, my real carbon sucking greenery is just a neighborhood eyesore.
Zacheriel wrote: @21
“The response to climate change isn’t to abandon technology or to leave people living in poverty. The idea is to find methods of sustainable development, so that the people of the world can progress economically while preserving the environment for future generations.”
So, in other words, the progressives in the developed, Western, world will be the ones to decide how the people of the world and other countries are to “progress economically while preserving the environment for future generations,” since it could hardly be expected that these countries would make wise environmental decisions on their own.
Sounds a little like imperialism to me.
Peter, you put your finger on it. Gore would have been a very ordinary buffoon, had it not been for his father’s money and political power. He could afford to hire his “brains”.
Remember the story about the polluting zinc mine on his property? What ever happened to that?
Peter: The real reason is that Gore is just plain um, not very smart.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, he was on the forefront on recognizing the importance of the Internet and played a pivitol role in its development.
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
Gore is also on the forefront of the debate concerning what to do about anthropogenic climate change, an occurrence that is strongly supported by the relevant science.
Danny Lemieux: Remember the story about the polluting zinc mine on his property?
Closed in 2003.
Why does Gore refuse to debate climate change with any so-called denier?
Libby: Why does Gore refuse to debate climate change with any so-called denier?
The proper venue for a debate about science is the scientific community. Skeptics need to make their arguments to their scientific peers, those with access to the data and methodologies in the relevant field. If they can’t convince their peers, then they need to develop the evidence necessary to make their case.
In climate science, there are virtually no scientific studies that call into question the basic findings of anthropogenic climate change. Some skeptics do publish, but their results are usually only of tangential concern to the overall problem. As with the so-called Intelligent Design debate, it’s a cultural and political phenomenon, but there is no scientific debate of merit.
Gore relies upon science to inform his advocacy, but he is not himself a scientist.
>>The proper venue for a debate about science is the scientific community.
….
Gore relies upon science to inform his advocacy, but he is not himself a scientist.>>
If Gore – or Zach, for that matter – is not a scientist, how does he have the skills or knowledge to judge the validity of the statements made by scientists?
>>In climate science, there are virtually no scientific studies that call into question the basic findings of anthropogenic climate change. Some skeptics do publish, but their results are usually only of tangential concern to the overall problem. As with the so-called Intelligent Design debate, it’s a cultural and political phenomenon, but there is no scientific debate of merit.>>
Says the man who has no science background.
He would have believed in witchdoctors in a different era. Nobody debated their decisions either.
suek: If Gore – or Zach, for that matter – is not a scientist, how does he have the skills or knowledge to judge the validity of the statements made by scientists?
Do you really think most people check every scientific finding before accepting them? Have you measured the curvature of space lately? Or even the curvature of the Earth? Gee whiz.
The key is that scholarship is a large number of overlapping fields that act to support one another. So when someone says global warming violates the laws of thermodynamics, we can be pretty sure that physicists would have noticed that already. This is not the same thing as saying accepting a single expert’s opinion mindlessly, of course. But merely handwaving that you don’t like certain findings is not a valid argument.
-
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence. However, a reasonable layperson would be very cautious in lecturing a brain surgeon on the proper techniques in brain surgery.
Zach: “The proper venue for a debate about science is the scientific community.”
Would that be the same “scientific” community that destroys its data (East Anglia U.) or refuses to share it with other scientists (Mann)?
So, “Intelligent Design” versus “Random Creation” is a scientific question that has been resolved by…science?
As SADIE says, “say the people who have no science backgrounds”.
Zach, by your logic….Medical care could only be debated by doctors, the validity of a given war or war strategies could only be debated amongst member of the military, only women could discuss women’s reproductive care and rights, etc.
Gore doesn’t just talk about the phenomenon of climate change, he strongly advocates for national and international policy that affects all of our lives in response to it. He refuses to debate the policies he advocates with people like Bjorn Lomborg and Senator James Inhofe.
Michael Crichton on consensus is science (i.e. adequate agreement among authorities in the field):
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
Danny,
As SADIE says, “say the people who have no science backgrounds”.
That was suek’s comment. Me, I am all zacked out
My apologies, Suek.
Danny Lemieux: Would that be the same “scientific” community that destroys its data (East Anglia U.) or refuses to share it with other scientists (Mann)?
The data was not destroyed, and is available from the original sources.
Danny Lemieux: So, “Intelligent Design” versus “Random Creation” is a scientific question that has been resolved by…science?
Never heard of “Random Creation” theory.
Libby: Medical care could only be debated by doctors, the validity of a given war or war strategies could only be debated amongst member of the military, only women could discuss women’s reproductive care and rights, etc.
Not at all. Rational people depend on doctors for medical advice, but then determine a course that makes sense for their situation based on a consideration of more than just the available medical technology, such as the pain of treatment compared to the quality of life. Rational people would consult with military experts to determine what is militarily feasible, but the determination of goals and costs is a policy question that entails far more than just military feasibility, such as whether the costs are worth the risks, the economic consequences, the broken families, and possible non-military solutions. Rational people will again seek advice from medical professionals to determine what are available medical options for reproductive care, but then balance this against the many other concerns that are not necessarly medical in nature, such as the desire to have a child, the effect on their health, and the chance for a happy outcome.
Libby: Gore doesn’t just talk about the phenomenon of climate change, he strongly advocates for national and international policy that affects all of our lives in response to it.
That’s right. It has profound economic, social and political implications. And that discussion is worth having, indeed, essential, based on the available science. The trick will be maintaining growth while pivoting to a new energy system. But ignoring the science, and pretending the problem doesn’t exist, will not lead to a happy outcome.
>>Gore doesn’t just talk about the phenomenon of climate change, he strongly advocates for national and international policy that affects all of our lives in response to it.>>
What’s more, he’s had time enough since he started advocating for climate change to learn the scientific basis for the underlying facts.
But he hasn’t.
He’s just out there spouting about stuff he’s too lazy or incompetent to learn. Why _isn’t_ he a scientist – or at least have a science degree of some sort, if this stuff is so important???
No apology needed. Indeed…it’s a compliment for my comment to be mistaken for a “Sadie” comment…
Crichton: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
That’s right. The work of science is based on evidence. However, a valid appeal to authority depends on the existence of a reasonable consensus. The evidence is always a valid argument against an appeal to authority. There is a consensus that the Earth moves, for instance. That doesn’t prove that the Earth moves, but hand waving doesn’t constitute an argument against the scientific consensus, or the reasonableness of accepting the scientific consensus absent contrary evidence.
suek: What’s more, he’s had time enough since he started advocating for climate change to learn the scientific basis for the underlying facts.
Of course he is aware of the evidence underlying the science of climate change. But there is no longer any scientific debate about whether humans are changing the climate. The science clearly indicates they are. But if evidence should develop to call into question this finding, then publish it. There’s just no such evidence.
>>Of course he is aware of the evidence underlying the science of climate change.>>
Doesn’t matter. He’s not a scientist. His opinion carries no more weight than my opinion – or yours.
>>But there is no longer any scientific debate about whether humans are changing the climate.>>
You keep saying that. No matter how often you say it, it doesn’t make it true.
suek: You keep saying that. No matter how often you say it, it doesn’t make it true.
No, it’s true, because it is true. However, feel free to point to the published study with the contradictory data.
However, feel free to make fun of Z for being incapable of understanding or making an argument utilizing reason and logic.
Suek, you got Zackped by the new Zapper that competes with Tazer Incorporated.
It doesn’t matter how smart someone’s brains are. What matters is how much effort they are willing to put into productive pursuits. Gore’s strong point is that he knows how to con people using green mutual funds and green carbon credits, so what effort he does put in, he puts it into conning people.
Do you really think most people check every scientific finding before accepting them?
We’re not most people. Most people on the Left are cannon fodder, ignorant saps and clowns to boot. What do you think that means for your side, Z?
>>However, feel free to point to the published study with the contradictory data.>>
Who, me? I’m not a climate scientist. I have a science degree…but I must admit I hesitate to brag about a BS degree. My degree isn’t in climatology, and to be honest, I don’t really care about the climate. We moved to an ideal climate – just as I think you should if you really want a climate change. I don’t think mankind is big enough or bad enough to change the climate more than the sun and our earth’s orbital changes around the sun do.
No proof. Just life’s experiences. And maybe a bit of history study. Nothing more.
You climate nuts are just blowing hot air. Come to think of it…maybe you _are_ responsible for climate warming…!
The Left creates problems and then tells you that they need your money to fix them.
Zachriel: But there is no longer any scientific debate about whether humans are changing the climate.
suek: You keep saying that. No matter how often you say it, it doesn’t make it true.
Zachriel: No, it’s true, because it is true. However, feel free to point to the published study with the contradictory data.
suek: Who, me?
Yes, you. You had suggested there was a debate in science about the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
suek: No proof.
Handwaving is not an argument.
suek: Just life’s experiences.
Most scientific discoveries require more than common life experiences. Aristotle’s life experience was that objects in motion tended to come to rest. And it’s doubtful you’ve seen a T. Rex, but they really did once roam the Earth.
See what I’m talking about. Z’s lack of science creates bad science, and then they say bad science and their global warming con needs your money to “fix” the planet, which they broke using bad science.
I have a science degree…but I must admit I hesitate to brag about a BS degree.
suek …Not to be confused with a b.s. artist – example below:
But there is no longer any scientific debate about whether humans are changing the climate.
Sadie, Z tells you to go to the scientific community to have a debate. When you get there, the scientific community tells you the debate is over and sends you back to Z to hear the political policies that will be implemented to make humans suffer for the greed and wealth of Climate Change believers.
Ymarsakar: Z tells you to go to the scientific community to have a debate.
You are somewhat confused. A debate in science isn’t people yelling at each other, like on FoxNews. It’s proposing and testing competing hypotheses. At this time, the only scientific models that come close to making sense of the climate data are those that include anthropogenic forcing.
Zach used to do his bad science bit over on an Intelligent Design site and got blown out of the water. When he was caught misusing or misinterpreting certain terms, he backtracked something furious and then pretended he wasn’t.
Since then he’s learned that when people catch him doing the same thing here all he has to do is go off-blog for a few hours until a thread is sufficiently long enough for him to slip back in.
Nice work if you can get it.
Ymarsakar
Look…z-group has taken on the mantle of the abc style of bait n’ switch.
Not like Fox News (oops strike that) make it the Mark Halperin (MSNBC quote of the day). Must step out for a few hours to sully the planet with my carbon foot prints. I am thinking of leaving the windows open while the air conditioning is running.
Zach: “At this time, the only scientific models that come close to making sense of the climate data are those that include anthropogenic forcing.”
Nonsense!
Zach: “At this time, the only scientific models that come close to making sense of the climate data are those that include anthropogenic forcing.”
Richard S. Lindzen, an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, disputes that here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Danny, no, not nonsense, Kool-Aid.
Lindzen has proposed a hypothesis called the infrared iris. This isn’t a model meant to explain the data, but to point to a possible problem in current models. However, satellite data has contradicted Lindzen’s hypothesis.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2002/02-005.html
More recently,
Murphy, Constraining climate sensitivity with linear fits to outgoing radiation, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.
Trenberth et al., Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.
Chung et al., Revisiting the determination of climate sensitivity from relationships between surface temperature and radiative fluxes, Geophysical Research Letters 2010.
Danny, I strongly suspect that Zach knows nothing about modeling, nor about climate. All he knows is what Al Gore says. After all Al Gore was elected to high public office, and he was awarded a Nobel prize; proving once again that influential parents and politically acceptable demagoguery are very effective career enhancers.
What do you call people who hide their data and methodology; people who fudge results to fit their preconceived notions? What is the term for people, who when called to account, fall to the floor and drum their heels (metaphorically speaking)? What do you call people who feed at the government trough and produce politically acceptable answers to puzzles they cannot even understand, much less solve? If you are the Zachs of the world you call them scientists.
OldFlyer, so I know a lot less about cardiac surgery than my doctor. If he tells me that I need surgery, should I ignore him? If my friend who plays a doctor on TV says the same thing that my doctor says, should I now ignore what my doctor said? According to your logic, the answers to those questions are: maybe and yes. Very strange logic.
Zach, sounds like there’s still some debate amongst scientists then, huh?
Libby, there is always debate amongst scientists. All scientific knowledge is contingent and dynamic. But that debate is happening at a level of detail that doesn’t impact the big picture need to take action.
Conservatives point to “controversy” around research concerning evolution, and they conclude that the entire theory is wrong because it isn’t settled. They ignore two things: 1) the debate is happening on esoteric details that only post-graduate students in the field need to understand, so the main pieces of the theory are settled enough that drug companies rely on principles of theory for drug design; and 2) the theory of gravity also isn’t settled, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t operating.
Conservatives play this same game with climate change. They don’t play it with other aspects of science that they like, from drug manufacturing to bomb-making. Selective and politicized use of science. Nothing new, but still very hypocritical.
Libby: sounds like there’s still some debate amongst scientists then, huh?
There are always outliers in any field, but in terms of climate science, the skeptics have no traction. Nor has Lindzen proposed an alternative model to explain the data. He is just hunting around the fringes, which is fine. But he just doesn’t have the evidence.
Libby, abc when he first landed on this site discussed the theory of evolution as though it were a single, unified, monolithic thing. He was caught off guard when it was pointed out to him that there are several theories of macro evolution, an ignorance he tried to wiggle out from under with some hurried Wikipedia research. “But of course I was aware of that!”
This goes hand-in-hand with his ignorance about what STEM meant when somebody asked him about his STEM background. When he finally figured out what it meant, his response was. . . “But of course I was aware of that!”
Just sayin’ to take everything he says with a macro grain of salt.
Zach, since you know so much about what climatologists are thinking, could you define “hunting around the fringes?” What are those fringes? Are they anything like the “inklings of life” description you attached to blastocysts?
I’m all for scientific debate and inquiry, I was just responding to Zach’s earlier statements that there is no longer any scientific debate about whether humans are changing the climate. As you’ve pointed out, scientific knowledge is contingent and dynamic, so claims that the science (any science, not just climate change) is settled are ridiculous.
ABC: “Conservatives point to “controversy” around research concerning evolution, and they conclude that the entire theory is wrong because it isn’t settled. ”
Huh? Are we back to these MSNBC caricatures of “conservatives”? I wonder, ABC…do you even know any conservatives, not to mention any of us low-sloping forehead denizens of flyover land?
ABC: They ignore two things: 1) the debate is happening on esoteric details that only post-graduate students in the field need to understand, so the main pieces of the theory are settled enough that drug companies rely on principles of theory for drug design.
What on earth is ABC on about?
ABC: the theory of gravity also isn’t settled, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t operating.
ABC is confused. The application of gravity was established when Ugh first dropped a rock on Thug’s head in ancient times. The “theory” of gravity has no impact on that whatsoever.
CM – Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering how evolution, drug manufacturing, and bombs got into this discussion.
Libby: I’m all for scientific debate and inquiry, I was just responding to Zach’s earlier statements that there is no longer any scientific debate about whether humans are changing the climate. As you’ve pointed out, scientific knowledge is contingent and dynamic, so claims that the science (any science, not just climate change) is settled are ridiculous.
Which is why we can say there is still a scientific debate about whether the Earth moves. And yet it moves.
The scientific debate within climatology is no longer whether human activity is changing the climate, but how fast, and the effect of various policies on the long-term climate. Of course, all science is tentative, but there just isn’t any data that contradicts anthropogenic climate change that has held up to scrutiny.
I’d like to squelch this silly analogy that AGW proponents are like a surgeon. There are surgeons, and then there are. . .surgeons.
Surgeon: “We think the reason you have a growing tumor in your head is that you are eating too much food. In fact, we see a correlation between your ingestion of nutrition and the tumor.”
Patient: “Well, why didn’t the tumor appear when I first started eating?”
Surgeon: “We believe it’s because food is a cumulative thing. When your system finally became overloaded with food, the food became sustenance for the tumor.”
Patient: “What do you propose then?”
Surgeon: “We would like to sew your mouth shut to starve the tumor.”
Patient: “What?!”
Surgeon: “Oh, OK, we’ll leave room for a small straw. Are you much of a Croatian gruel fan?”
Patient: “Do you have any proof for this theory?”
Surgeon: “Oh, oodles, but you can’t see it.”
Patient: “Huh? Why?”
Surgeon: “Well, some of my peers fudged the data a teensy bit, and people have been making fun of us. We don’t like that. Trust me, science is complicated and you should not worry your silly little head about it. That’s what post-graduate students are for!”
“…there just isn’t any data that contradicts anthropogenic climate change.”
Where’s the data that proves anthropogenic climate change?
ABC: OldFlyer, so I know a lot less about cardiac surgery than my doctor. If he tells me that I need surgery, should I ignore him? If my friend who plays a doctor on TV says the same thing that my doctor says, should I now ignore what my doctor said? According to your logic, the answers to those questions are: maybe and yes. Very strange logic.
In this and other comments, ABC keeps coming back to his well-worn but “well, I trust my doctor on the basis of his or her credentials, so why shouldn’t I trust my neighborhood climate scientist”.
Well, if I go to a cardiac surgeon for an operation, I go because they are doing an operation with a well documented track record of success. It isn’t theory, it’s proven practice with documented positive outcomes. None of this applies to the theoretical modeling of climate, none of which theories have ever been able to successful predict an outcome, either looking backwards into the past or forward into the future. I also would not in any circumstances go visit a cardiac specialist that was found to be corrupting data in medical research or putting patients under the knife against their will.
What works in Medicine today is the result of hundreds of years of trial and error and comparatively simpler models that were developed and rigorously tested before putting into practice. Those medical practitioners that sold their patients on untried remedies came to be known by other monikers, such as “quacks”.
Zach: “Which is why we can say there is still a scientific debate about whether the Earth moves”
I believe that we are getting a glimpse into the strange social circles that define Zach’s universe.
Libby: Where’s the data that proves anthropogenic climate change?
Science doesn’t prove, but supports with evidence through a process of hypothesis-testing. The IPCC has summarized the evidence, but for a closer look, you might try to the International Journal of Climatology, Geophysical Research, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, or any number of other peer-reviewed journals. Most of them are technical, but that’s the nature of science.
Danny Lemieux: Well, if I go to a cardiac surgeon for an operation, I go because they are doing an operation with a well documented track record of success. It isn’t theory, it’s proven practice with documented positive outcomes.
Medical doctors are (usually) not scientists, but engineers of the human body, and they reply upon the scientific work that has gone before them.
Danny Lemieux: None of this applies to the theoretical modeling of climate, none of which theories have ever been able to successful predict an outcome, either looking backwards into the past or forward into the future.
That is incorrect. For instance, natural global warming, such as due to changes in solar radiance, would warm the stratosphere as well as the troposphere. Anthropogenic global warming predicts that the stratosphere will cool, which is what we observe.
Well said, Danny. As someone who’s had to select cardiac surgeons for my beloved son (he’s had three major surgeries & three heart caths), it takes more than credentials to identify whether or not he/she’s qualified. And I owe a great debt to the many surgeons who pioneered and perfected the surgeries my son has received – two of the procedures would not have been available had he been born 20 years earlier (cardiologists back then would have told us it was a lost cause).
If you missed this article today, be sure to check it out. It’s off-topic, but relevant, imo.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/american_leftism_an_infantile_disorder.html
>>At this time, the only scientific models that come close to making sense of the climate data are those that include anthropogenic forcing.>>
In your opinion.
Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland….
(I could go on…)
suek, you left out Greenland.
>>1) the debate is happening on esoteric details that only post-graduate students in the field need to understand
…
What on earth is ABC on about? >>
Danny…abc is simply expressing the old adage that “Children should be seen but not heard”.
You (we) have been dismissed.
“. . . brandishing his brand new radicalism vividly remembers these telltale signs of overweening immaturity: the know-it-all arrogance, the boundless self-referential conceit, the grandiosity of pronouncements. . . ”
That description doesn’t remind me of anybody in this room. Not a bit. Nosirree, not even a little. Nein.
suek, what Charles said.
and the Emerald City, too!
>>Which is why we can say there is still a scientific debate about whether the Earth moves. And yet it moves.>>
Theories about gravity and whether the earth moves are still up for debate.
But debates about the possibility of climate change being due to causes other than human activity…that’s settled. Of course, it’s only been a topic of debate for about 20 years – but it’s settled. Those other things have been debated for some centuries…but they’re still open to debate.
Just not AGW.
Danny:
“None of this applies to the theoretical modeling of climate, none of which theories have ever been able to successful predict an outcome, either looking backwards into the past or forward into the future.”
That is absolutely false, and I (along with Z) have posted the predictions of the models repeatedly. You cannot model climate on a go-forward basis accurately without using human emissions as a key driving variable. Z and I have repeated this point, but you willfully ignore it. Why? I know you prefer your lie to an accurate statement, but shouldn’t you be forced to confront facts at some point???
“I also would not in any circumstances go visit a cardiac specialist that was found to be corrupting data in medical research or putting patients under the knife against their will.”
Like the ones that were paid off by Medronic. It was news at the end of last week… Yet even though that news, which was proven, is much more damning than the fake controversy around the East Anglia University climate researchers, you believe doctors more than climate scientists. Even though the 97% of publishing experts in the field have concluded that global warming is caused by man and is significant, while it is hard to find 97% of surgeons that agree upon procedures for a very large variety of procedures, you refer to climate scientists as a guy in your neighborhood. Why do you believe the doctor more than the climate scientists, again??
“What works in Medicine today is the result of hundreds of years of trial and error and comparatively simpler models that were developed and rigorously tested before putting into practice. Those medical practitioners that sold their patients on untried remedies came to be known by other monikers, such as “quacks”.”
Right. There are absolutely no new procedures being undertaken in medicine. You are obviously not a physician. Funny, at Johns Hopkins Medical School, during their white coat ceremony, they tell the class that 50% of what they have learned at that well-respected school is wrong…the problem is that they don’t know which half. Why would they say that if it was all so certain, as you claim? And compared to the remarkably accurate modeling that has been tracking climate change for the last decade or so, much of medicine is far less reliable. But you don’t even make accurate statements about the basics of climate research, so why bother showing the standard deviations of temperature prediction models versus outcomes for a particular type of surgery or chemotherapy. It’d be ignored by you anyway.
It is impossible to use facts and logic to disabuse someone of a view that they didn’t use facts and logic to arrive at. Said differently, your irrational denial cannot be rationally displaced. Maybe I ought to stop pounding my head against the wall, since the 49th try will be no more successful than the first…
suek, your framing of the issue reveals that you do not think like a scientist. A scientist views all knowledge probabilistically. The likelihood of a major change in our understanding of gravity that would be meaningful to the lay person is quite low, but not zero. Similarly, the likelihood of a major change in our understanding of climate change that would meaningfully change the policy discussion is also quite low. So it makes sense to take action. Those that think in black and white terms view the lack of certainty, which holds for BOTH gravity and AGW, as a reason to dismiss the science are making a mistake. Their way of looking at the world is fundamentally flawed. It is a fantasy that doesn’t line up with reality. Yet they are allowed to make decisions using that flawed world view. This is a big problem.
“Said differently, your irrational denial cannot be rationally displaced. Maybe I ought to stop pounding my head against the wall, since the 49th try will be no more successful than the first…”
Puhleeeze, Sky Fairy, make it so!
The more nuanced style of shutting down a conversation…
That, Carney said, was “not a conversation worth having.”
The White House effectively turned down an invitation by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell for President Barack Obama to visit his members on Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss raising the debt limit.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, while not directly saying the invitation had been rejected, said Obama did not need to hear Republicans tell him what they would not support.
All but a tiny minority of GOP’ers in Congress will go along with tax increases, having signed the Grover Norqvist pledge, so there is no point negotiating with a side that has nothing to negotiate with. You cannot cut spending without raising taxes in order to close the deficit, so what is the point?
Tactically, Obama must see that the two sides are far apart or he wouldn’t alienate the Republicans as he has. While folks here take the view that Obama is a moron and everything he does is totally wrong, the mainstream folks looking at this have concluded that the closed door sessions have failed, so now Obama will use the bully pulpit to pressure Republicans into taking a more conciliatory tone that allows for a real compromise–and that requires tax hikes.
Lost in all of this is the side story of Rep. Cantor throwing Speaker Boehner under the bus by bailing on the closed door negotiations once the subject shifted from spending cuts (there are now $2-3Tn on the chopping block) to tax hikes, which he cannot be associated with, lest he lose his Tea Party base. Boehner, who was never a favorite of the Tea Party, might be able to bite the bullet. But I think he’ll be roadkill in 2-4 years if he agrees to tax hikes. Still waiting for responsible Republicans to show up…
Still waiting for responsible Republicans to show up…
Lost in all of this ….
The country waited for responsible Democrats to actually put forth a budget in 2010. You remember … when those responsible Democrats held power in all three houses.
Barbara Streisand breaks in here and sings: Memories … of the way we were. What’s so painful to remember lalala lala.
“Elections have consequences and I won”
POTUS and the TOTUS’ sing the do-wops on this version.
This all reminds me of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbSABWJiJc
ABC: That is absolutely false, and I (along with Z) have posted the predictions of the models repeatedly. You cannot model climate on a go-forward basis accurately without using human emissions as a key driving variable. Z and I have repeated this point, but you willfully ignore it. Why?
Because you and the sources you cite are factually wrong.
Danny L: “I also would not in any circumstances go visit a cardiac specialist that was found to be corrupting data in medical research or putting patients under the knife against their will.”
ABC response: Like the ones that were paid off by Medronic.
Danny L: Are we dealing with Attention Deficit Disorder, here?
ABC: “Right. There are absolutely no new procedures being undertaken in medicine. You are obviously not a physician. Funny, at Johns Hopkins Medical School, during their white coat ceremony, they tell the class that 50% of what they have learned at that well-respected school is wrong…the problem is that they don’t know which half. Why would they say that if it was all so certain, as you claim?”
Danny L: Mind you, folks, this quote come from the same ABC who uses the reliability and predictable modeling of the medical field as argument for why we should rely upon scientists promoting AGW.
Danny, you may well have provided the 50th occasion for abc to hit his head against the wall.
Time for me to haul out the popcorn?
[Martel impatiently slaps his massive sword against his beefy thigh, the same weapon he used to behead the Muslim scumbags who tried to invade mainland Europe.]
“How come Zach hasn’t responded to my challenge to define Lindzen’s ‘hunting around the fringes?’” Martel asks in his deep, rumbling voice—the voice that caused Muslim armies to begin wearing brown pants into battle. “Am I correct in assuming that Zach has been caught with his linguistic pants down yet again?”
Oh, goody … we’re nearing the 100 mark.
And now a few words from the local anchor, Ron Burgundy.
http://youtu.be/YoKAcVL_phI
>>You cannot cut spending without raising taxes in order to close the deficit>>
Would you please explain this statement? As it stands, it simply doesn’t make sense.
Of course you can cut spending without raising taxes. Whether you can close the deficit while doing so is a different issue, but certainly cutting spending is a start.
By the way…
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=188993
If I understand this correctly, a reduction in government spending will result in a reduction of GDP, but in this case, that’s not a bad thing.
Zach…he has a pretty graph, too. Not as pretty as yours, but nice.
This is pretty hot news – it’ll be interesting to see if it goes anywhere:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=189148
Zachriel: natural global warming, such as due to changes in solar radiance, would warm the stratosphere as well as the troposphere. Anthropogenic global warming predicts that the stratosphere will cool, which is what we observe.
Danny Lemieux: Because you and the sources you cite are factually wrong.
On the one hand, we have data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. On the other hand, we have Danny Lemieux waving his hands.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Suek, some things are better left unknown and unexplained…
Since A’s personal judgment is flawed, he really should ignore that doctor and find 100 other doctors just to verify if what he is being told is anywhere near accurate or medically correct.
Zachriel: natural global warming, such as due to changes in solar radiance, would warm the stratosphere as well as the troposphere. Anthropogenic global warming predicts that the stratosphere will cool, which is what we observe.
Danny Lemieux: Because you and the sources you cite are factually wrong.
On the one hand, we have data from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. On the other hand, we have Danny Lemieux waving his hands.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Wow, Zach trots out the NOAA link for the elebenty billionth time, and Danny and the rest of us are supposed to fall back in disarray.
Shut up, Danny. Zach has linked!
suek@#95
Taylor Bean. link
Here is another take on Taylor Bean
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/06/30/bean-counters/ Taylor Bean
No cooling in the last 10 years, Zach.
Oops! I meant no warming in the last 10 years. There has been cooling, though. Just as predicted by solar cycle activity.
Danny, Zach has authorized me to make this reponse on his behalf:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Ha!
Danny Lemieux: I meant no warming in the last 10 years.
2010 tied with 2005 for warmest year on record. 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record with ten of the eleven warmest years (the other being 1998).
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
Climate changes are swamped on a short term basis by natural cycles, such as the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation. However, if you look at the graphs, it’s quite clear that the lower troposphere has been warming. This doesn’t show that the warming is caused by human activity, though. However, cooling of the stratosphere is a signature of the Greenhouse Effect.
Zach, you and ABC keep referring back to the NOAA as if it is a font of integrity. NASA and other science-based government organizations have become corrupted political organizations (James Hansen being the most visible and egregious example of this).
Here’s a take-down of NOAA’s surface temperature data:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-bias-of-the-noaas-national-climate-data-center-ncdc-under-the-leadership-of-tom-karl-and-tom-peterson/
Similar takedowns have been been done on their other data.
Don’t be so gullible. You believe the NOAA’s pronouncements because you want them to be true. Learn to think for yourself.
>>Learn to think for yourself.>>
Danny. That’s _so_ unscientific.
Don’t you know you have to be a _scientist_ before you are qualified to think for yourself??
Good point, suek. Good thing I am a scientist.
Ok…so you – Danny – may be allowed to think for yourself. However, your statement was an imperative directed at Zach. Zach is _not_ a scientist. Therefore, Zach should _not_ be allowed to think for himself.
Or is that a scientific conclusion? Don’t want to get in trouble here. Not that’s it’s a danger – abc has assured me that I don’t think scientifically, so I guess it’s ok…
Danny, Z hasn’t been authorized by the government to think for himself. A hasn’t been authorized by Krug to do that either.
I was going to say I hate to say this, but I really don’t at all: Zach has run out of ammunition. He just keeps repeating himself, much like abc has been doing the past few days. The old cliche about instanity (actually, I think it’s just simple neuroticism) “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” certainly holds true here.
No matter how erudite or academic their assertions, real life is showing what a fool’s errand their fanatical devotion to Lord Keynes has turned out to be. They’re now in the position of the doctors who killed George Washington:” Let’s drain just a leetle more blood and he’ll be cured!” Or in this case, “Let’s take money our grandkids will have to pay back and spend it on paying off all the Democrats in Congress. That’ll kick-start the economy!
Danny Lemieux: Here’s a take-down of NOAA’s surface temperature data:
Pielke Sr. is upset because his papers, while being published, are being ignored. His skepticism about surface measurements have been substantially answered in Menne et al 2010, and satellite measurements have confirmed the overall warming pattern. Yes, he thinks he’s right. That’s the nature of the scientific enterprise, and why there are always outliers. But even assuming the claim that NOAA has been corrupted, along with NASA apparently, that doesn’t explain why such disparate scientific groups, from Brazil to China, have reached the same conclusion.
The problem, in this case, is the corruption of the data collection sites, which has more-than adequately been documented. As they say in analysis – garbage in, garbage out!
Danny Lemieux: The problem, in this case, is the corruption of the data collection sites, which has more-than adequately been documented.
Satellite data confirms that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling.
Danny, I norice that Zach won’t touch James Hansen. Get’s in the way of the narrative, I guess.
Danny likes to take issue with my statements, but he provides no counter-evidence. No wonder he only likes to post comments on conservative site where he doesn’t need to. Everyone believes without evidence what he does, so no citation required.
i don’t roll that way. If my sources and facts are wrong, like those regarding the surgeons that falsified data to claim safety on Medtronic devices that wasn’t there, then tell me why it is wrong and provide an authoritative source to back it up. If you cannot, then YOU ARE PRESUMPTIVELY WRONG. And even if the fellow conservatives here living in the same little fantasy bubble believe your claim without evidence versus mine with, you are still wrong. Just in the company of other wrong people. Got it? Otherwise, there is no point discussing stuff if you have a reality that is impervious to facts. It’s like talking to a brick wall. Very boring and not at all productive.
Suek wants an explanation on the budget. The reason why you cannot cut spending only and balance the budget is because almost no Americans want only 40% of the government that they are now receiving. Politically, it is a non-starter. And proof of this is that no conservative has actually presented a budget that seeks to balance the budget with just spending cuts. Even Paul Ryan didn’t do this, and he was criticized for this (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/169d6ec6-653e-11e0-b150-00144feab49a.html#axzz1QtyTvkHQ). Actually, the very harsh Ryan Plan, which still cannot balance the budget, but which is politically unpalatable for americans, highlights that tax rates will need to rise, as Wolf points out in that very insightful FT piece.
It’s like talking to a brick wall. Very boring and not at all productive.
So…why do you bother?
>>Suek wants an explanation on the budget.>>
No, I asked you for an explanation of your statement.
>>You cannot cut spending without raising taxes in order to close the deficit>>
To put it another way, if you find yourself in debt, you can certainly reduce your expenses even if you don’t have a pay increase. It would be nice for everyone to be able to simply expect that as they buy more “stuff”, and bigger houses that they could tell the boss and the boss would just increase their paycheck. Trouble is, it doesn’t happen that way.
My statement was that you can cut spending, whether the deficit is being closed or not. You might have to raise taxes to close the deficit, but cutting spending is entirely independent of that action.
SADIE, I thought the same thing to myself. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
If it is boring, A, you can just go away. It’s not like we’d miss you.
You keep coming back, though. Why is that, exactly, A?
Suek, people like Z were told that if taxes were cut, the Left would implode due to lack of funds to pay off the bribed factions. That would result in societal and economic chaos. So Z has no choice but to tax more as he spends more.
The fact that A here doesn’t know any Americans that want a 40 or 90% reduced government… really says a lot about what kind of social circle A here is part of.
Why bother?
My best guess is that the alphabet fellas are narcissists or possibly crave the attention they do not get in their personal or professional lives. What I cannot abide by is the ‘holier than thou’ snide remarks that permeate abc’s comments. Note the escalation in tone below:
“And even if the fellow conservatives here living in the same little fantasy bubble believe your claim without evidence versus mine with, you are still wrong”
z- group is always polite, controlled and much more robotic.
“Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.” – Oscar Wilde
Sadie, nice Wilde quote. I assume that applies to me. Here’s another quote: ignorance is bliss. No wonder you’re happier when I am not highlighting the conservative misinformation.
Suek writes:
“My statement was that you can cut spending, whether the deficit is being closed or not. You might have to raise taxes to close the deficit, but cutting spending is entirely independent of that action.”
What is the point of cutting spending or raising taxes if not to close the deficit? We have a huge budget problem, and you are pretending as though cutting spending or raising taxes has nothing to do with it. This is a strange argument. Most people look at the problem and conclude that one needs to cut spending AND raise taxes. Obama’s administration is reported to be targetting one-third tax hikes and two-thirds spending cuts. But the GOP wants only spending cuts, but this will require cutting programs that the vast majority of the country wants and would take tax hikes to support. So politically, it is non-starter to pursue what the GOP is pushing for. Given that you are making these strange arguments, it’s now clear why they can do this. When voters are this clueless it is easy to continue to big lie–that we can spend like Europe and tax like developing Asia. Thanks for doing your part. Grover Norqvist is elated.
Here’s another quote: ignorance is bliss.
Here’s mine: You must be the most blissful person on your block.
Can Martel call ‘em, or what? As I noted earlier today, abc is, like clockwork, in one of his Sneer States. These usually last two days.
I used to take Midol when I had PMS. Of course, in the stone age when I had PMS there were no computers. My sneering had an limited audience.
Sadie, I find A more amusing than Z, simply because Z is all too predictable. A actually has real emotions, which flare up based upon his personal profile. There’s something to be said for human melodrama as an observation-sport.
What is the point of cutting spending or raising taxes if not to close the deficit?
Democrat and Leftist power base will be eroded and destroyed if too many cuts are made in the federal budget. For it is the federal budget the Left uses to pay the bribes required to sustain Leftist operations on a national scale. You won’t be told about this secret in the onion layer, A, until you’ve been promoted at least 5 more ranks in the LEftist hierarchy. So don’t feel bad about being in the dark for now.
Z’s emotions are also predictable. But I find they are tedious even when I observe their presence. Z’s emotions sound more like religious dogma. There’s fervent belief… somewhere around there, but their eyes don’t see the same reality that I see.
SADIE, speaking of sneers. . .
abc’s fixed facial expression, the sneer, reminded me of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson. Years ago I came across a photograph of him, surrounded by his students and followers. He was faintly smiling and his face glowed. The men around him were portraits of exhiliration. His radiance had enfolded them and they were immersed in that warm moment.
It was such a wonderful photo to stumble upon. And remembering it now is a reminder of God’s gift to me that, even in the middle of unpleasantness, such as dealing with the abcs of the world, I know there is consoling beauty and grace.
ABC pouts, “Danny likes to take issue with my statements, but he provides no counter-evidence. No wonder he only likes to post comments on conservative site where he doesn’t need to. Everyone believes without evidence what he does, so no citation required.”
ABC does not realize that Danny Lemieux’s response to statements equivalent to “water is dry”, “water runs up-hill” or “AGW is correct because Paul Krugman says so” is not to waste time looking for citations in rebuttal but rather to note simply the error of ABC’s false premises and wild leaps of logic (e.g., “nonsense!”), comfortable that the large majority of people who visit this blog (97%, in fact…a consensus!) get it.