P.S. Seeing as how global warming has become one of those issues about which people increasingly have no sense of humor and are offended by innocent jokes, I offer the following should-be-obvious caveat: the existence of a snowstorm doesn’t actually disprove global warming. Wow, I feel dumber for having had to say that.
Brendan - how many different times do we need to experience such things before we consider, perhaps, that having as many such snowstorms as we have had, casts definite doubt on the validity of the “Sky-Is-Falling” version of global warming ?
The problem is Global Climate Change caused by Global Warming. As the Earth gets warmer, weather patterns change. If the polar ice fields and glaciers on the world’s tallest mountains begin growing again, then you might have something.
I, for one, would prefer that the experts be wrong. I would like nothing better than to not have to worry about what the planet will be like for my children and grandchildren. However, my wishful thinking doesn’t mean people with much more experience with climate than you, me or the President are wrong.
Alasdair: I mean this in the nicest way possible, but if you believe a single word of your comment at 7:55pm, then you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. No one — NO ONE — is claiming that we will stop having snowstorms. That has NEVER been part of the global-warming argument. Please look up the difference between “weather” and “climate” and get back to me.
I don’t know if Alasdair means it or not. His comments, though, are indicative of the problems with the radical right. Instead of debating the issue on the merits, they see a winter snow storm and say, “See. No global warming.”
I have yet to see any of these folks who claim global warming is a fraud counter the fact that 1. The world is getting warmer. 2. The warming coincides with record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which appears from the geological record to be a contributor to global warming and 3. Human activity is the major contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Instead they come up with this bullshit about how there are billions of dollars going into research to prove global warming (seriously, Green Peace and the Danish Government have more money to spend on this than Exxon Mobil does to counter it? Let’s get real).
Apparently you DID have to say it Brendan, the right wing nut jobs have their heads stuck so far in the sand that the cling to arguing based on one word of a two word term, rather than the actual merits of the phenomenon itself.
It really raises the interesting question, what exactly do right wingers have against trying to be less wasteful and polluting? Are they really that selfish and short sighted?
Oh and even if you are right about the natural and geological sources thing gahrie, um, we can’t do jack about those but we CAN control our emissions by making smarter choices. Just because the earth might warm some doesn’t mean its smart for us to make it worse.
“P.S. Seeing as how global warming has become one of those issues about which people increasingly have no sense of humor and are offended by innocent jokes”
Right Brendan, and maKe that a double for the Left - since it has become a religion with them.
My friends, it’s global cooling we need to fear, not global warming. If the ice had continued to pile up at the poles, the earth could eventually tilt creating a new axis, as happened millennia ago. (That would make a bang-up disaster movie.)
On the other hand, global warming has lengthened the growing season in areas distant from the equator, enabling us to feed the world’s hungry millions.
(Research climate debate in the 1970’s. But, watch out for historical revisionism)
Bye-the-bye;
So what if the sea level rises a few feet, you can’t grow anything in New York or San Francisco anyway.
I sold my property in Hilton Head last year – would you recommend Knoxville as a long-term climate related investment?
Understand there may be a good lawyer or two there soon
David K. In all honesty, as someone oft regarded as conservative, there’s a serious mental blockage handicapping potential acceptance of human-caused global warming methodology, and that is the lack of credibility conservatives attribute to liberal thought. That’s probably an unfair stereotype (and probably pot calling kettle) but, then again, we also see the villification of the scientists who take the contrary view, which impairs the credibility of the scientists who acclaim the theory.
Max -
“I have yet to see any of these folks who claim global warming is a fraud counter the fact that 1. The world is getting warmer. 2. The warming coincides with record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which appears from the geological record to be a contributor to global warming and 3. Human activity is the major contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Let me take a shot at the other side of the argument (and risk being called some kind of right wing looney)
1) Yes, the world is getting warmer, actually its been getting steadily warmer since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.
2) CO2 was actually at the highest during the last ice age - evidence which those submitting that CO2 is causing global warming have had difficulty explaining.
3) Actually strangely enough, its cows… should we kill all the cows? (I only wish this were a joke, its not http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html)
The problem with the science is that it remains inconclusive, thus leaving wiggle-room for the politicians. While correctly stated in several articles, there is general agreement that global temperatures are rising, but the degree to which humans are responsible remains contentious, even among the most highly cited scientists.
One example that is frequently cited by Global Warming opponents is the Medieval Warm Period (TMW). This was a time of unusually warm weather between 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Climatologists studying artic glaciers, historical plantings of temparate crops, coral reef development, rainfall patterns, etc. generally conclude that the Medieval times were considerably warmer than today. Granted, other scientists will dispute these claims.
The science remains so nebulous that predictions (i.e models) stating that the reduction of CO2 emissions by a certain level over a certain timeframe will alleviate the rising temperatures and dmages caused by changing weather patterns are difficult to validate, even for a green loving environmentalist such as myself.
If I were a political policy maker I’d tend to err on the side of caution and sign on to carbon reduction treaties. But if confronted with scarce resources and I had to chose between investing in carbon reductions at the expense of less funding to foreign develoment, fighting HIV/ADS and other preventable diseases, agricultural research, or investing in water and sanitation, I’d likely chose the latter options.
4-7, sorry but the science is there and it is being ignored by the right because its inconvenient for them to even CONSIDER it. They aren’t simply disagreeing with the arguments being made, they are refusing to accept those arguments in the first place. Rather than discuss the issue, its fingers-in-the-ears time. There IS climate change occuring, what needs to be discussed is how much we are contributing and what if anything we can do about it. Refusing to accept that scientist after scientist, scientists whose works have been peer reviewed and have the evidence to back them up are being called crazy by people who can’t seem to produce the same level of scientific data doesn’t do much to inspire my confidence in their refusal to accept things.
I’d also love to have it explained what in particular liberals have done to discredit themselves on non-political issues.
Who are we (and by “we” I mean the eco-wackos) to decide what the “right” temperature of Earth is? Maybe Earth is supposed to be getting warmer. How arrogant of us (and again by “us” I mean the left) to even think that we know what is right for Earth. Even if we could change the Earth’s climate, what would give us thr right to do so? How would the Left be reacting if the Right was conciously trying to raise the Earth’s temperature to increase the amount of arable land and precipitation? Surely we would be condemned for attempting to manipulate and mold nature.
“1) Yes, the world is getting warmer, actually its been getting steadily warmer since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.”
Many experts believe the CO2 emissions associated with the Industrial Revolution is what ended the Little Ice Age. In fact, the Earth has been warming at an accelerated rate in recent decades, as have CO2 levels.
“2) CO2 was actually at the highest during the last ice age - evidence which those submitting that CO2 is causing global warming have had difficulty explaining.”
It’s not difficult to explain at all. Melting of polar ice due to global warming shuts down the jet stream in the North Atlantic, causing glaciers to form. If you read the UK’s research on global warming, British scientists are expressing a concern that the UK could turn into Siberia.
“3) Actually strangely enough, its cows… should we kill all the cows? (I only wish this were a joke, its not”
Who raises the cattle? Who mass-farms the cattle as a food source? Humans.
Like or not, it is still man-made. I’m not saying get rid of cattle, but the CO2 emissions are due to human activity.
1) Combustion of hydrocarbons (and many other substances) typically releases water vapor in close to a 1:1 ratio with CO2.
2) Globabl warming doesn’t necessarily increase arable land. Land being arable usually has very little to do with the warmth of the climate. Just ask Alaskan farmers about their vegetable and grain crops. (You’ve never seen a cabbage that big.) The issue is that land closer to the equator — where the hungry millions live — could become *less* arable if temperatures increase to the point of crop danger. And that wouldn’t actually be hard to do.
This is all, of course, if the world is, in fact, warming. I’m still up in the air on that one.
From the people who brought you “The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators and shower us with rose petals”, “We know where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are”, “The Iraq War effort will cost no more than $200 billion”, and “I’ll never wire-tap any American without going through the proper measures first”… They now bring to us “Global Warming is a Crock.”
Unfortunately, Sandy, your points aren’t that good:
“The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators . . .”
A majority of them have, unless of course you only count the extreme minority setting off IEDs as “Iraqis.”
” . . . and shower us with rose petals”
Cute. Of course, no one ever said that.
“We know where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are”
If you think it was only Republicans who said that, then you’re comments on WMDs (or lack thereof) are not to be taken seriously.
“The Iraq War effort will cost no more than $200 billion”
Oh really? I won’t hold my breath for you to astonish us with where you heard such an unequivocal statement.
“I’ll never wire-tap any American without going through the proper measures first”
I’d love to hear your vastly finite wisdom regarding what “the proper measures” are for wire-tapping. Like so many other know-nothings, you probably think it’s self-evident that you need a warrant first.
Brendan - interesting that you latched onto the concept of the value of a “single word” … what I said was “that having as many such snowstorms as we have had, casts definite doubt on the validity of the “Sky-Is-Falling†version of global warming ?” {emphasis mine} …
It’s not the snowstorm that is the problem … it is tha juxtaposition of a lecture of seminar or press conference or other public assertion of the perils of Global Warming with a decades-record-breaking snowstorm/cold spell/blizzard/wind chill etc … again … and again … and again …
On the turn of such a word {grin}, cases will be won and lost …
Steven - “The problem with the science is that it remains inconclusive, thus leaving wiggle-room for the politicians. “ - actually, this is a Good Thing - it’s how Science is *supposed* to be … the Global Warming Ultra-Orthodoxy is *NOT* good science …
A good scientist admits the possibility that his interpretations may be incorrect, and seeks to break his hypothesis (while also seeking corroborative evidence) … the consensus scientists of Global Warming might as well be a cult, for all the good science they do, unfortunately …
I would be a lot more convinced by Global-Warming-as-an-impending-disaster if someone could point me at a predictive study, that started out by saying “We predict *these* results, for *this* set of reasons; and these values will contradict our predictions, and these other values will confirm them” - and then goes on to revisit the preditions a year or two later, and compares predictions with actual outcomes … *that* is Good Science …
My lack of respect for the Global Warming cult is based in similar reasons to my lack of respect for those whose phrases are too-liberally sprinkled with “never”, “always”, “obviously”, and so on … from a matheematical background, when an offered hypothesis is trivially easy to to disprove by objective means, the entire offered hypothesis is thrown out … a closely-related (and better-prepared one) may well stand, but the trivially disproven one is history …
Thus, for example, the classic “hockey-stick” curve (purportedly covering from 1000 AD to 2000 AD)is often used as the semi-seminal source of inspiration for the Global Warming cultists, whereby “temperatures gradually rose, slowly and steadily until Man (the Beast, the Destroyer) did his thing recently, and now the planet is soon to be uninhabitable unless we stop producing CO2″ …
The problem with the “hockey-stick” curve is that, to obtain/create it, the GW cultists had to throw out the temperature values for the Medieval Warming period … a minor yet significant detail of more than a century’s worth of temperature values … and it ignored the Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval Warming period, too …
Perhaps it is time to refer to the “hockey-stick” curve as part of the Protocols of the Elders of Global Warmings Scientists” …
British Ministry of defense concluded, “65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks [on Coalition soldiers] and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.”
The US Secreteray of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said that “we” know where the WMD are”. That’s not just anybody, and it was a statement to gain support for going to war with Iraq. And most importantly it was a not true.
As for the astonishing budget for the Iraq war. It was from the director of the office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels in early 2003.
“Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s former chief economic adviser, were too high.”
Too High in deed. The visionaries of the Bush Administration. Hmmmmmmm.
FISA requires the government get a warrant for any wiretapping of Americans. It’s the law. Can’t get much more black and white than that. Bush stated that he would never wiretap without going through the legal and proper measures, turns out he has been authorizing it for years.
That loud sound you just heard was the imaginary bubble you’ve been living in bursting.
Sandy Underpants - you exceed even your own prior nadir …
You quote an article which quotes statistics without giving access to the details of how the poll was conducted, the demographics used, the questions asked, etc … “The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces.” … and, at that, you even misleadingly selectively quoted one part about the 65% …
Do try to get at least *one* part verifiably correct, next time, please !
Joe Mama said that the majority of Iraqis have greeted the US with open arms. That may have been true, I wasn’t there when the bomb and missile smoke cleared and the bodies were buried, but I don’t remember the parades and lovefest. I do know that today
“82 percent of Iraqi’s said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.”
I don’t know all the poll details, but I haven’t seen widespread Iraqi support for the US troops being there today, and when the people we are supposedly there for, don’t want us… You send more troops. Makes sense.
That’s the kind of mindset that makes me want to simply trust the “Global Warming is a Crock” agenda, because it’s the same folks behind it.
Ok, Alasdair (in response to your comment @ 4:36), let me get this straight. You’re saying that when the timing of snowstorms happens to coincide with the scheduling of lectures, seminars, press conferences or other public assertions… that this coincidence of timing, when it happens “over and over” again, “casts definite doubt on the validity of the ‘Sky-Is-Falling’ version of global warming”?
Okay, yeah, that makes so much more sense than my interpretation of your comments. Riiiight.
You can “grin,” engage in inane wordplay, and accuse me of improperly focusing on “one word” all you want, but the fact remains: your whole argument is ridiculous.
There’s really no way of convincing you of global warming, just like Galileo was unable to convince the Catholic Church that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. You go on believing that global warming isn’t happening, the rest of us will live in a world based on facts.
Brendan - let us start with the fact that I pointed out that you had, for whatever reason, ignored what was probably the central word of the comment … I did not suggest that you had “improperly” focused on any one word … so - that particular straw man don’t fly …
Try this equivalent analogy … when a city’s politicians hold multiple press conferences about the sharp and continuing decrease in gang murders, and, during a perceptible number of the press conferences, 1 or 2 bystanders are killed nearby in gang-related drive-by shootings, after a while, would you believe the politicians at the press conferences ?
The juxtaposition of the two things weakens the assertion by the politicians …
That *you* see fit to disagree with the argument I raise is not sufficient to make the argument ridiculous … just as, for example, the fact that I disagree with your counter-argument to my initial argument does not necessarily make your counter-argument ridiculous …
(The “grin” part, I’ll stipulate … the “inane wordplay” I will respectfully submit is not up to your usual reasonably high standard of response … (had you given an example, your premise might have better foundation)) …
Oh … why not …
Your “inane wordplay” verbal grenade was less the expected high Loy standard, and more a predictably-lower loyer standard … (OK, it’s spelled “lawyer”, but that’s how it’s pronounced, is it not ? (contented grin))
What a beautiful analogy, as it completely proves my point. If gang murders are, in fact, decreasing, then they are decreasing, period. Kind of like how, if the climate is, in fact, warming, then it is warming, period. These things are, if true, statistical facts. Individual, random, coincidentally timed occurrences do not change statistical facts. You are correct that an odd coincidence of gang-related drive-by shootings coinciding with press conferences about a decreasing gang murder rate might cause people to become cynical, and to wrongly disbelieve the politicians’ assertions, but the key word is “wrongly.” The juxtaposition of the two things categorically does not — it cannot — “weaken the assertion,” because the assertion is one of statistical fact. Either it’s true, or it isn’t, on its own merits. Likewise, either global warming is real, or it’s not, entirely irrespective of whether some random snowstorms coincidentally happened at the same time as some random press conferences. Duh.
In addition, you’re proceeding on a false (or at least, not necessarily true) premise: that global warming would decrease the number of snowstorms. It might very well increase them, due to increased weather instability caused by increased warmth. I don’t know for sure, but neither do you. Certainly, it doesn’t obviously or self-evidently follow, as you seem to believe, that global warming = less snowstorms. People may believe this, but just because they believe it, doesn’t mean it “weakens the assertions” of global-warming believers. It only weakens those assertions if it’s true.
In any event, I would again invite you to explore the difference between the words “weather” and “climate” before continuing to pretend that you can comment intelligently on this point. Because, as opposed to merely being something that I disagree with, your commentary on this thread is actually unintelligent, and that’s unfortunate. I don’t relish seeing you make yourself look foolish.
I apologize if I offended you with my response. I got huffy because I was offended by your over-the-top obtuseness on this issue. I’m not asking you to stop being a global warming skeptic; I’m just asking you to drop the self-evidently absurd charade that either a single snowstorm, or a (supposed) series of coincidentally timed snowstorms, has ANYTHING to do with disproving it.
Clarification: when I say “your commentary on this thread,” I’m referring specifically to your commentary on this specific point. I haven’t read all the other comments.
Brendan - I’m British ! Climate is what we *should* have, and Weather is what we *do* have !
(grin) Or, put another way, California has Climate, but not Weather, cutomarily … Britain has Weather, but not Climate, customarily …
At no time did I say that “gang murders are, in fact, decreasing” … what I did say was that “when a city’s politicians hold multiple press conferences about the sharp and continuing decrease in gang murders” - which, due to the inclusion of “politician”, removes it from convincing fact to something more like ‘may be true by coincidence’ …
More importantly, Global Warming is still hypothetical whereas global warming happens from time to time, locally (meaning locally in time (as in, over some months or years) as well as locally in terms of position on the planet) …
At the risk of being Brendanesque, I will also suggest that you look up the difference between “disprove” (the Brendan word) and “casts definite doubt on the validity of ” (my words) … I did, indeed, say the latter - whereas the former is part of yet another straw manatee, if I may coin a phrase ?
I will also point out that the biggest reason I’m a Global Warming sceptic is because I consider the provenance of the prominent supporters of the Global Warming cult … and the next biggest is because those same supporters are unscientifically unwilling to countenance potential opposing explanations and/or positions on the subject …
I will also point out that I wasn’t offended by your response, just surprised at the huffiness which seemingly managed to occlude your customary ability to be insightful …
Alasdair, the issue here isn’t the difference between “disprove” and “cast doubt upon.” Nor is it the credibility of politicians. Nor is it my huffiness. Nor is it your Britishness. None of those things are remotely relevant to the issue at hand. The only things that matter are the truth of your assertions, namely none, and the logic of your argument, namely none. The fact remains — and it is, and will always remain, a fact, no matter how many times you stubbornly and ridiculously deny it — that the existence of a snowstorm, or a bunch of snowstorms, simply DOES NOT CAST ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER on the existence of global warming. There is no correlation whatsoever between the two things. It is wholly illogical and absurd to contend otherwise. There would still be snowstorms even if global warming occurred. And obviously the fact that snowstorms coincidentally occur at the same time as press conferences doesn’t cast any doubt on anything. So, again, if you want to be a global warming skeptic, go right ahead. But you do yourself, and the skeptics movement generally, no credit when you rely on nonsensical arguments that rely in any way, shape, or form on the existence of a snowstorm to either disprove, partially disprove, cast doubt upon, or poke holes in the theory of global warming. Your argument is just complete and utter nonsense. Period, end of discussion, game over, you lose.
P.S. Please recall, I am equally scornful of global warming advocates who suggest that the existence of a particular hurricane, or group of hurricanes, proves anything about global warming. For example: “Look! Katrina destroyed New Orleans! That means global warming is happening!” That argument is just as nonsensical as yours. (And, conversely, your argument is just as nonsensical as that one.)
Now, when people point to a long-term (or at least longish-term) pattern of stronger/more hurricanes, and claim that global warming is the culprit, their argument is at least plausible on its face. Whether it’s correct is a separate question, but it’s at least facially plausible, and I wouldn’t call it “complete and utter nonsense.” Likewise, if you could point to a meaningful pattern of snowstorms or cold weather (e.g., there have been more blizzards than usual in the past 10 years, there have been more cold snaps than usual in the past 10 years, etc.), that would be a plausible argument against global warming. It might not be correct, but it would be facially plausible, and I wouldn’t be mocking you for it.
But you haven’t done that. You haven’t pointed to a pattern. You’ve simply pointed at a random snowstorm, or a random handful of snowstorms, and said that they somehow “cast doubt upon” the existence of global warming. That’s just not true, any more than it’s true that a random handful of hurricanes “cast doubt upon” the non-existence of global warming.
And therein lies the fundamental difference between weather and climate. The basic unit of weather is individual weather events. The basic unit of climate is patterns of individual weather events. If you can’t point to a pattern — if you’re simply pointing to undifferentiated individual event(s) — you aren’t talking about climate at all, you’re talking about weather.
The only “pattern” you’ve pointed to is an alleged coincidence of timing between snowstorms and global warming seminars and press conferences, which obviously is not a scientifically valid or relevant pattern. You haven’t said anything suggesting that there have been more snowstorms generally, or colder weather generally, over a period of years. Your comments have been strictly in the realm of weather, not the realm of climate.
Bottom line, you’re spewing irrelevant nonsense, and making yourself look extremely foolish.
In my imagination, I was just envisioning the Irish Trojan as it might possibly have existed 12 summers ago, assuming the same group of regulars haunted it then as do now.
Specifically, 12 summers ago the big story would have been the breaking up of the Bojinka plot, the plan to hijack 10 planes over the Pacific and blow them up.
In the aftermath of that story, on this blog, you could easily imagine that someone would respond with something along the lines of:
“This shit is scary! 10 planes blown up over the Pacific? I advocate the following: until Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are brought to justice, the American aviation industry ought to be as paranoid as Israel’s El Al, maybe more”.
We know now that reacting that way to Yousef and KSM’s continuing at large status likely would have done a world of good, quite possibly even preventing 9/11.
In the aftermath of 9/11, it has been taken as near-gospel that the right wing is the right wing to protect us from the scourge of terrorism. Indeed, on so many occasions, here and elsewhere, liberals have felt an exaggerated need to defend their national security bona fides, to fight the perception, perpetuated by conservatives, that all this 9/11 shit can be traced to stupidity on the part of liberals, beginning of course with Clinton.
But this thread, and ones like it, kind of gives one pause, doesn’t it?
We can imagine that, had the Irish Trojan existed in the summer of 95, and someone had suggested those restrictive, but ultimately mass-death-avoiding measures on the airlines -
- that perhaps Joe Mama would have doubted that the plot ever existed?
- that Gahrie or Andrew would point to studies or op.eds showing that Ramzi Yousef lacked the maturity or wherewithal to coordinate such an attack?
- and surely Alasdair would have made fun of David for believing that KSM was a dangerous, bad man, yes?
We know now, as we didn’t certainly know then, that the 1995 failed Bojinka plot pointed to the organizers of the successful 9/11/2001 atacks.
Is it possible that the current state of global warming is such that a mass catastrophe, from man-influenced, but otherwise natural causes, is less than a decade away?
It would seem that is certianly a possibility. Almost certainly not a probability, but a possibility.
Who’s the party of paranoia in the service of public safety, again?
Republicans would have favored strict airline safety measures in the wake of Bojinka?
Except we did learn from earlier hi-jackings, and developed a response to them based on what we thought we learned. And on 9/11, everyone (except the passengers of United 91) reacted to the hi-jackings on 9/11 according to the lessons we thought we had learned.
The problem was, we were wrong. The hi-jackers on 9/11 behaved differently than we knew they would. And so our response, cooperation, was exactly the wrong strategy.
The hi-jackers on 9/11 behaved differently than we knew they would.
In my note above, I was imagining that some (moonbat) would call for highly restrictive, paranoid airline security measures in light of the threats implied, specifically, by Bojinka.
As you surely know, at least 2 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were flagged by airport security as suspected terrorists, but were nevertheless permitted to board their planes once their bags made it on the plane.
This of course reflected the belief that no hijacker would commit suicide on an airline.
But Bojinka, if nothing else, was clearly, clearly a suicide plot.
To flesh this out some more, in ‘95, David, or Angrier, or one of their ilk, might have said -
“Ramp up security! Let no one on the airplanes that represents any threat at all! Restrict movement in the cabins!” et al.
These would have been the naturally “paranoid, err on the side of safety reactions”.
Of course, nothing at all like that occured.
And if global warming is any indication, you would have made fun of the Davids and Angriers for so suggesting, back in ‘95.
And second, far be it from me to dispute your characterization of what my hypothetical reaction would be to an equally hypothetical scenario, but I wouldn’t have doubted that such a plot ever existed without good reason simply because . . . what, Clinton was President? Please. Nor would I be chastising those that favored ramping up security in light of such a plot as paranoid, at least not under the hypothetical circumstances you describe. Threats are threats, no matter who is in charge. As much as I detested Bill Clinton as a scumbag, I certainly wouldn’t be throwing him under the bus to score some cheap political points. I simply don’t hate him that much or favor Republicans that much to engage in such silliness. You’ll have to ask David if he would be as consistent in his positions. Given how is every word drips with contempt for Bush, I somehow doubt it.
Now, if what you’re getting at is whether people would take the threat of terrorism seriously after a foiled plot as opposed to one that succeeded so spectacularly on 9/11, there you may have a point. After all, it’s only human nature. I’m pretty sure that had Bush found out about 9/11 beforehand and pre-emptively went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, he would’ve been written off by many as a kook.
To be sure, my argument doesn’t require a hatred of Republicans or Democrats, Presidents, Congresspeople or otherwise.
I trust that you, and every other patriotic American, would act appropriately in the face of a “known” threat to our nation, irrespective of political machinations. I don’t doubt that, not for a second.
The issue I am raising here is how we define “known”.
After Bojinka, we definitively KNEW that there was a man named Ramzi Yousef, with an uncle named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who were together interested in perpetrating a spectacular suicide airline attack. That “knowing” triggered no response on our parts. In this case, it wasn’t Republicans, or Democrats, or Independents who ignored the Yousef/Mohammed threat - EVERYONE did.
My point is, to you and everyone else:
What if someone had done the “correct” thing in 1995, the in-hindsight-obvious thing, and said
“At least until Yousef and his uncle KSM are caught, we need to institute draconian measures to make air travel safe”.
It is ultimately a moot point how you would have reacted to such a proposal. How would we ever know?
But your position on global warming, which surely shares many characteristics with the cost/benefit implications of a 1995 hypothetical proposal for heightened airline security, is certainly curious.
My position on global warming is this: It’s real, but the extent to which humans cause it or can rectify it is uncertain at best. It is indisputable that the average temperature of the earth is increasing, because there is ample data to support this. But whether it’s increasing due to human activity or, say, the cyclical nature of heating and cooling periods over the course of thousands of years is as yet undetermined. I accept as fact that human activity contributes to global warming, but again, the extent to which it contributes to global warming is undetermined. One would have to determine whether and to what extent the average temperature of the earth at this point in time would be increasing absent such human activity, which so far as I know has not been determined conclusively.
All that said, I fully support measures such as conservation, development of alternative fuels (I worked for a fuel cell company during law school), and limiting greenhouse gas emissions because of the principle of the thing, because it’s better to be safe than sorry, and because it’s worth it in the long run to deal with the issue now rather than waiting for it to become a (bigger) problem later.
Come to think of it, those reasons apply to my support for the war in Iraq as well.
Jazz - given how you cast me in your scenario, you have misunderstood me, too … while I would be making fun of David (on principle), if he had come up with a cogent comment, I would support it …
“1) Man’s contribution is undetermined, but
2) It is better safe than sorry”
That’s a reasonable summary of my position on global warming … I take issue, however, with the ‘Global Warming’ cult, which permits no doubt, which tolerates no alternative thinking, which wants to ban Weather Forecasters who don’t support the cult’s line verbatim …
Currently, on this blog, the D-list are the folk who, with respect to Iraq :-
Doubt that the plot ever existed - so we should not have gone into Iraq
Point to studies and op.eds showing that Iraq and al Qaeda had no interaction at all
Deride Andrew, Joe Mama, myself, gahrie, etc for believing that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was and is a Good Thing
I would like to see us do things which would potentially counter our current practices which release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - and I have been suggesting that since back before the ‘Global Warming’ cult replaced the ‘Impending Ice Age’ cult (which is how the ‘consensus scientists’ in the 1970s chose to spend their expert time and efforts) …
When you read what I write, carefully, you realise that I don’t find global warming to have been disproven - I just do not find that it has been proven to be a problem … it’s still a newborn kid, not yet able to move by itself, not yet able to communicate coherently - who knows how it will turn out ?
And, in 30 years, I would not be at all surprised to find the ‘Impending Ice Age’ cult to be all the rage again …
I’m not sure how many, but there must be several of us out there who believe
a) getting rid of Saddam was categorically good b) the Administration’s approach to the next chapter in Iraq has been categorically bad.
Count me as one of those, with the proviso the next chapter in Iraq, whether you call it “nation-building” (when Democrats are for it) or “war-mongering imperialism” (when Republicans are for it), is an exercise in learn-by-doing.
Jazz - unfortunately, I’m not entirely surprised, given how the US State Department which is a major source of supposed wisdom for US things all around the planet is, at the career civil servant level, the same US State Department that basically told Saddam Hussein that the Kuwait border “was not of interest” shortly before he decided to try to annex Kuwait …
I tend to give folk credit for doing their best, especially when no-one else can offer any better ideas … and, yes, I do *not* consider “Well, don’t do that” to be a better idea ! It needs to at least be something as good as or better than “Do this, instead !” …
The three things I listed are the equivalent of the scenario you posited, updated for somewhat more reality-based thinking … I have yet to see you earn a permanent seat on the D-list …
Deride Andrew, Joe Mama, myself, gahrie, etc for believing that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was and is a Good Thing
I have said repeatedly that I thought Sadaam was a terrible horrible dictator. I have said that if the war had been sold to me as a “we need to save these people from this asshol” that I would have supported it. There is no defense for the type of horrible things that man did. But the idea that getting rid of a bad person justifies ANYTHING that comes after? Sorry but that is just stupid. As Jazz said the problem isn’t that we got rid of Sadaam, its that once we did there wasn’t an adequate plan in place to deal with it.
But no, you are too blinded by your Bush-can-do-no-wrong worldview to be able to differentiate anything anyone says other than into these two catagories:
1) Bush hero!
2) Bush evil!
Sorry, no dice. Oh and believing that Al Qaeda is bad and was directly responsible for 9/11 and that Sadaam was bad, but not responsible for 9/11 doesn’t mean you don’t still think both are bad. There was plenty to judge him as a bad person without manufacturing conspiracies of him and bin Ladin.
I have yet to see you earn a permanent seat on the D-list …
But I do flirt with them from time to time, Alasdair, this I can’t deny…
Back to “Iraq, the Model”, specifically this idea that
Bush was good (having the cojones to dump the expansionist dictator) and
Bush was bad (for being hopelessly clueless about what came after) -
- this idea doesn’t have much play, Joe Mama’s (and others’) comments notwithstanding.
That strikes me as odd. Things must be more partisan in the US than I realized.
Finally, WRT to membership on the D-list - my beautiful wife is 6 months pregnant with our first child. I think about the baby’s life quite a bit, and I think of all the hopes I have for the world that baby will inhabit.
If a leader, be s/he political, religious, business or otherwise, moves things in the direction of making the world a better place for my kid -
- than you can attribute my support for that person to membership on the D-list or the Z-list or the “loser” list or any old list you wish.
[T]he question of WMD really boils down to how one chooses to manage the consequences of a false negative versus the downside potential of a false positive.
Other than the fact that the evidence to support the existence of global warming is not nearly as questionable as the WMD in Iraq evidence was? Sure, why not.
Of course, I’m not touching the other two-thirds of the argumentation of the Iraq War, despite the fact that those who have argued most loudly about Bush’s Manichean worldview and lack of nuance seem to be remarkably simplistic on causation here
By the other two-thirds, of course he means the “non-WMD” rationale, though he might be a bit generous to give WMD even 1/3 of this stage.
Strikes me that, 20 or so years hence, when we’re past the sturm und drang of the first years of the GWOT, historians will see the WMD possibility as essentially a sales pitch for a Baywatch-loving public.
It is fascinating how many people rail against Bush for his simplicity then discuss the pros and cons of the merits of a pre-emptive war against a world citizen who MIGHT facilitate a random act of mass casualty.
To them I say:
You should meet some of my neighbors. Perhaps we should call in the Marines.
Other than the fact that the evidence to support the existence of global warming is not nearly as questionable as the WMD in Iraq evidence was? Sure, why not.
Oh please. David, where were you prior to 2003? I’ve won every game I’ve Monday morning-quarterbacked as well.
By the other two-thirds, of course he means the “non-WMD†rationale, though he might be a bit generous to give WMD even 1/3 of this stage.
Considering that when the Senate voted to authorize force to be used against Iraq and they listed 23 different reasons why that was a good thing, including everything from a potential assassination attempt on a President, violations of the 1991 armistice, UN violations, and genocide (and when Colin Powell went to the UN he mentioned three or four other criteria for war besides WMD), I think “the other two thirds” characterization isn’t at all unreasonable.
Well, if we’re going to be sticklers here, then it should be pointed out that WMDs actually related to more than one of the 23 reasons listed in the Senate’s AUMF. For example, most of Iraq’s material breaches of UN Security Council resolutions involved (non)compliance with inspections, regardless of whether there were any WMDs actually there to inspect.
If you want to compare it to another story of the day, it’s like Scooter Libby being put on trial for perjury even though the there’s no evidence of the underlying crime of disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Um, Joe Mama, we know now that the Bush administration ignored significant doubts and questions about the supposedly rock solid WMD evidence BACK THEN. Its not monday morning quarterbacking to recognize that we were lied to and seriously misled through either incompetence or active negligence.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:40:02 pm
P.S. Seeing as how global warming has become one of those issues about which people increasingly have no sense of humor and are offended by innocent jokes, I offer the following should-be-obvious caveat: the existence of a snowstorm doesn’t actually disprove global warming. Wow, I feel dumber for having had to say that.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:47:25 pm
“the existence of a snowstorm doesn’t actually disprove global warming. Wow, I feel dumber for having had to say that.”
Unfortunately people like Fred Barnes and Bill O’Reilly are dumb enough that you HAVE to say it to them.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:55:56 pm
Brendan - how many different times do we need to experience such things before we consider, perhaps, that having as many such snowstorms as we have had, casts definite doubt on the validity of the “Sky-Is-Falling” version of global warming ?
February 13th, 2007 at 7:56:35 pm
Mad Max - you may well be smarter than Bill O’Reilly, but you sure-as-something hide it remarkably well if you are …
February 13th, 2007 at 8:04:54 pm
Alasdair-
The problem is Global Climate Change caused by Global Warming. As the Earth gets warmer, weather patterns change. If the polar ice fields and glaciers on the world’s tallest mountains begin growing again, then you might have something.
I, for one, would prefer that the experts be wrong. I would like nothing better than to not have to worry about what the planet will be like for my children and grandchildren. However, my wishful thinking doesn’t mean people with much more experience with climate than you, me or the President are wrong.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:07:50 pm
Two of John Edwards’ bloggers fired for some…um…less than kind words about the Catholic church.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IcRSsNYr5LU
February 13th, 2007 at 8:09:22 pm
Alasdair: I mean this in the nicest way possible, but if you believe a single word of your comment at 7:55pm, then you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. No one — NO ONE — is claiming that we will stop having snowstorms. That has NEVER been part of the global-warming argument. Please look up the difference between “weather” and “climate” and get back to me.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:11:55 pm
P.S. Just to be clear:
Even if … even if… the global warming “alarmists” were completely wrong, and the global warming “skeptics” were completely right —
— your comment would STILL be utter nonsense.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:14:41 pm
[…] (Hat tip: Brendan Loy - Irishtrojan.com his Title: “I think Matt Drudge just died of happiness“) […]
February 13th, 2007 at 8:21:10 pm
Brendan-
I don’t know if Alasdair means it or not. His comments, though, are indicative of the problems with the radical right. Instead of debating the issue on the merits, they see a winter snow storm and say, “See. No global warming.”
I have yet to see any of these folks who claim global warming is a fraud counter the fact that 1. The world is getting warmer. 2. The warming coincides with record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which appears from the geological record to be a contributor to global warming and 3. Human activity is the major contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Instead they come up with this bullshit about how there are billions of dollars going into research to prove global warming (seriously, Green Peace and the Danish Government have more money to spend on this than Exxon Mobil does to counter it? Let’s get real).
Where are your arguments, Alasdair?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:30:19 pm
(insert proper segue and context)
Brendan, any advice on job hunting in New York City as a recent college grad?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:48:59 pm
3. Human activity is the major contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This couldn’t be more false. Compared to natural and geological sources of CO2, manis contribution is miniscule.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
By the way…why are Earth, Mars and Jupiter all warming at exactly the same time?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:12:48 pm
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
February 13th, 2007 at 9:33:40 pm
You have to love it.
When it’s hot out - Global Warming.
When it’s cold out - Global Warming.
When it’s raining out - Global Warming.
When it’s drought - Global Warming.
I have to give it to the whole Global Warming crowd. They pretty much covered all their bases.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:26:38 pm
Seems to me Drudge is not anti-global-warming. He puts up a lot of favorable stuff too.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:48:10 pm
Apparently you DID have to say it Brendan, the right wing nut jobs have their heads stuck so far in the sand that the cling to arguing based on one word of a two word term, rather than the actual merits of the phenomenon itself.
It really raises the interesting question, what exactly do right wingers have against trying to be less wasteful and polluting? Are they really that selfish and short sighted?
Oh and even if you are right about the natural and geological sources thing gahrie, um, we can’t do jack about those but we CAN control our emissions by making smarter choices. Just because the earth might warm some doesn’t mean its smart for us to make it worse.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:00:55 pm
“P.S. Seeing as how global warming has become one of those issues about which people increasingly have no sense of humor and are offended by innocent jokes”
Right Brendan, and maKe that a double for the Left - since it has become a religion with them.
My friends, it’s global cooling we need to fear, not global warming. If the ice had continued to pile up at the poles, the earth could eventually tilt creating a new axis, as happened millennia ago. (That would make a bang-up disaster movie.)
On the other hand, global warming has lengthened the growing season in areas distant from the equator, enabling us to feed the world’s hungry millions.
(Research climate debate in the 1970’s. But, watch out for historical revisionism)
Bye-the-bye;
So what if the sea level rises a few feet, you can’t grow anything in New York or San Francisco anyway.
I sold my property in Hilton Head last year – would you recommend Knoxville as a long-term climate related investment?
Understand there may be a good lawyer or two there soon
February 13th, 2007 at 11:20:40 pm
David K. In all honesty, as someone oft regarded as conservative, there’s a serious mental blockage handicapping potential acceptance of human-caused global warming methodology, and that is the lack of credibility conservatives attribute to liberal thought. That’s probably an unfair stereotype (and probably pot calling kettle) but, then again, we also see the villification of the scientists who take the contrary view, which impairs the credibility of the scientists who acclaim the theory.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:36:27 pm
Max -
“I have yet to see any of these folks who claim global warming is a fraud counter the fact that 1. The world is getting warmer. 2. The warming coincides with record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which appears from the geological record to be a contributor to global warming and 3. Human activity is the major contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Let me take a shot at the other side of the argument (and risk being called some kind of right wing looney)
1) Yes, the world is getting warmer, actually its been getting steadily warmer since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.
2) CO2 was actually at the highest during the last ice age - evidence which those submitting that CO2 is causing global warming have had difficulty explaining.
3) Actually strangely enough, its cows… should we kill all the cows? (I only wish this were a joke, its not http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html)
I would also encourage you reading Richard Lindzens article here, he’s the MIT Alfred P.Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciencehttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
February 13th, 2007 at 11:39:51 pm
The question isn’t whether or not Conservatives believe the Earth is warming. The questions are:
1) Is the Earth truly warming, or are we seeing a statistical blip in our extremely limited data on Earth’s temperature?
2) Is a warmer Earth dangerous or undesirable?
3) How permanent is any warming?
4) Is any warming part of a natural and historical cycle?
3) Can we effect the Earth’s temperature even if we wanted to?
4) Why do almost all studies of global warming and greenhouse gases ignore the effects of water vapor?
5) Does the left, and especially the eco-wackos, have an agenda, and a reason to over-emphasize man’s role in the Earth’s temperature cycle?
6) Has there been a pattern of doomsday predictions from the Left in the past, all with the goal of controlling industry and modern civilization?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:51:25 pm
The problem with the science is that it remains inconclusive, thus leaving wiggle-room for the politicians. While correctly stated in several articles, there is general agreement that global temperatures are rising, but the degree to which humans are responsible remains contentious, even among the most highly cited scientists.
One example that is frequently cited by Global Warming opponents is the Medieval Warm Period (TMW). This was a time of unusually warm weather between 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Climatologists studying artic glaciers, historical plantings of temparate crops, coral reef development, rainfall patterns, etc. generally conclude that the Medieval times were considerably warmer than today. Granted, other scientists will dispute these claims.
The science remains so nebulous that predictions (i.e models) stating that the reduction of CO2 emissions by a certain level over a certain timeframe will alleviate the rising temperatures and dmages caused by changing weather patterns are difficult to validate, even for a green loving environmentalist such as myself.
If I were a political policy maker I’d tend to err on the side of caution and sign on to carbon reduction treaties. But if confronted with scarce resources and I had to chose between investing in carbon reductions at the expense of less funding to foreign develoment, fighting HIV/ADS and other preventable diseases, agricultural research, or investing in water and sanitation, I’d likely chose the latter options.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:09:05 am
4-7, sorry but the science is there and it is being ignored by the right because its inconvenient for them to even CONSIDER it. They aren’t simply disagreeing with the arguments being made, they are refusing to accept those arguments in the first place. Rather than discuss the issue, its fingers-in-the-ears time. There IS climate change occuring, what needs to be discussed is how much we are contributing and what if anything we can do about it. Refusing to accept that scientist after scientist, scientists whose works have been peer reviewed and have the evidence to back them up are being called crazy by people who can’t seem to produce the same level of scientific data doesn’t do much to inspire my confidence in their refusal to accept things.
I’d also love to have it explained what in particular liberals have done to discredit themselves on non-political issues.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:28:24 am
David, did you read anything above your last post, or are you just purposely ignorant of what the other side is really saying?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:30:44 am
By the way,
Who are we (and by “we” I mean the eco-wackos) to decide what the “right” temperature of Earth is? Maybe Earth is supposed to be getting warmer. How arrogant of us (and again by “us” I mean the left) to even think that we know what is right for Earth. Even if we could change the Earth’s climate, what would give us thr right to do so? How would the Left be reacting if the Right was conciously trying to raise the Earth’s temperature to increase the amount of arable land and precipitation? Surely we would be condemned for attempting to manipulate and mold nature.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:03:40 am
purposefully ignorant? no Andrew, i’m afraid i’m not a neo-con
February 14th, 2007 at 6:53:50 am
Notice David still has not addressed any of the perfectly valid arguements we have put forth….
February 14th, 2007 at 8:53:51 am
David just does a global replace of “Iraq” with “climate change” and lets ‘er rip ;-)
February 14th, 2007 at 9:56:22 am
“1) Yes, the world is getting warmer, actually its been getting steadily warmer since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present.”
Many experts believe the CO2 emissions associated with the Industrial Revolution is what ended the Little Ice Age. In fact, the Earth has been warming at an accelerated rate in recent decades, as have CO2 levels.
“2) CO2 was actually at the highest during the last ice age - evidence which those submitting that CO2 is causing global warming have had difficulty explaining.”
It’s not difficult to explain at all. Melting of polar ice due to global warming shuts down the jet stream in the North Atlantic, causing glaciers to form. If you read the UK’s research on global warming, British scientists are expressing a concern that the UK could turn into Siberia.
“3) Actually strangely enough, its cows… should we kill all the cows? (I only wish this were a joke, its not”
Who raises the cattle? Who mass-farms the cattle as a food source? Humans.
Like or not, it is still man-made. I’m not saying get rid of cattle, but the CO2 emissions are due to human activity.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:00:04 am
“2) Is a warmer Earth dangerous or undesirable?”
Only if you live on the coast, which most of the world’s population does, or if you like to eat.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:54:35 am
Just two little things:
1) Combustion of hydrocarbons (and many other substances) typically releases water vapor in close to a 1:1 ratio with CO2.
2) Globabl warming doesn’t necessarily increase arable land. Land being arable usually has very little to do with the warmth of the climate. Just ask Alaskan farmers about their vegetable and grain crops. (You’ve never seen a cabbage that big.) The issue is that land closer to the equator — where the hungry millions live — could become *less* arable if temperatures increase to the point of crop danger. And that wouldn’t actually be hard to do.
This is all, of course, if the world is, in fact, warming. I’m still up in the air on that one.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:32:06 pm
Good Point Joe Mama.
From the people who brought you “The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators and shower us with rose petals”, “We know where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are”, “The Iraq War effort will cost no more than $200 billion”, and “I’ll never wire-tap any American without going through the proper measures first”… They now bring to us “Global Warming is a Crock.”
Now playing on Talk Radio around the country.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:21:46 pm
Unfortunately, Sandy, your points aren’t that good:
“The Iraqi people will greet us as liberators . . .”
A majority of them have, unless of course you only count the extreme minority setting off IEDs as “Iraqis.”
” . . . and shower us with rose petals”
Cute. Of course, no one ever said that.
“We know where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are”
If you think it was only Republicans who said that, then you’re comments on WMDs (or lack thereof) are not to be taken seriously.
“The Iraq War effort will cost no more than $200 billion”
Oh really? I won’t hold my breath for you to astonish us with where you heard such an unequivocal statement.
“I’ll never wire-tap any American without going through the proper measures first”
I’d love to hear your vastly finite wisdom regarding what “the proper measures” are for wire-tapping. Like so many other know-nothings, you probably think it’s self-evident that you need a warrant first.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:02:14 pm
Notice David still has not addressed any of the perfectly valid arguements we have put forth….
Such as?
February 14th, 2007 at 4:19:07 pm
Don’t worry about Joe Mama, David. He only believes in experts who are wrong 100% of the time - like those experts on Iraq.
February 14th, 2007 at 4:36:30 pm
Brendan - interesting that you latched onto the concept of the value of a “single word” … what I said was “that having as many such snowstorms as we have had, casts definite doubt on the validity of the “Sky-Is-Falling†version of global warming ?” {emphasis mine} …
It’s not the snowstorm that is the problem … it is tha juxtaposition of a lecture of seminar or press conference or other public assertion of the perils of Global Warming with a decades-record-breaking snowstorm/cold spell/blizzard/wind chill etc … again … and again … and again …
On the turn of such a word {grin}, cases will be won and lost …
February 14th, 2007 at 5:01:43 pm
Steven - “The problem with the science is that it remains inconclusive, thus leaving wiggle-room for the politicians. “ - actually, this is a Good Thing - it’s how Science is *supposed* to be … the Global Warming Ultra-Orthodoxy is *NOT* good science …
A good scientist admits the possibility that his interpretations may be incorrect, and seeks to break his hypothesis (while also seeking corroborative evidence) … the consensus scientists of Global Warming might as well be a cult, for all the good science they do, unfortunately …
I would be a lot more convinced by Global-Warming-as-an-impending-disaster if someone could point me at a predictive study, that started out by saying “We predict *these* results, for *this* set of reasons; and these values will contradict our predictions, and these other values will confirm them” - and then goes on to revisit the preditions a year or two later, and compares predictions with actual outcomes … *that* is Good Science …
My lack of respect for the Global Warming cult is based in similar reasons to my lack of respect for those whose phrases are too-liberally sprinkled with “never”, “always”, “obviously”, and so on … from a matheematical background, when an offered hypothesis is trivially easy to to disprove by objective means, the entire offered hypothesis is thrown out … a closely-related (and better-prepared one) may well stand, but the trivially disproven one is history …
Thus, for example, the classic “hockey-stick” curve (purportedly covering from 1000 AD to 2000 AD)is often used as the semi-seminal source of inspiration for the Global Warming cultists, whereby “temperatures gradually rose, slowly and steadily until Man (the Beast, the Destroyer) did his thing recently, and now the planet is soon to be uninhabitable unless we stop producing CO2″ …
The problem with the “hockey-stick” curve is that, to obtain/create it, the GW cultists had to throw out the temperature values for the Medieval Warming period … a minor yet significant detail of more than a century’s worth of temperature values … and it ignored the Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval Warming period, too …
Perhaps it is time to refer to the “hockey-stick” curve as part of the Protocols of the Elders of Global Warmings Scientists” …
February 14th, 2007 at 5:03:16 pm
Joe Mama,
British Ministry of defense concluded, “65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks [on Coalition soldiers] and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
The US Secreteray of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said that “we” know where the WMD are”. That’s not just anybody, and it was a statement to gain support for going to war with Iraq. And most importantly it was a not true.
As for the astonishing budget for the Iraq war. It was from the director of the office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels in early 2003.
“Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s former chief economic adviser, were too high.”
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/2_whitehouse.html
Too High in deed. The visionaries of the Bush Administration. Hmmmmmmm.
FISA requires the government get a warrant for any wiretapping of Americans. It’s the law. Can’t get much more black and white than that. Bush stated that he would never wiretap without going through the legal and proper measures, turns out he has been authorizing it for years.
That loud sound you just heard was the imaginary bubble you’ve been living in bursting.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:20:20 pm
Sandy Underpants - you exceed even your own prior nadir …
You quote an article which quotes statistics without giving access to the details of how the poll was conducted, the demographics used, the questions asked, etc … “The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces.” … and, at that, you even misleadingly selectively quoted one part about the 65% …
Do try to get at least *one* part verifiably correct, next time, please !
February 14th, 2007 at 7:00:09 pm
Alice,
Joe Mama said that the majority of Iraqis have greeted the US with open arms. That may have been true, I wasn’t there when the bomb and missile smoke cleared and the bodies were buried, but I don’t remember the parades and lovefest. I do know that today
“82 percent of Iraqi’s said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html
“91.7% of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition troops in the country, up from 74.4% in 2004.”
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060817/17iraq.htm
I don’t know all the poll details, but I haven’t seen widespread Iraqi support for the US troops being there today, and when the people we are supposedly there for, don’t want us… You send more troops. Makes sense.
That’s the kind of mindset that makes me want to simply trust the “Global Warming is a Crock” agenda, because it’s the same folks behind it.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:29:28 pm
Ok, Alasdair (in response to your comment @ 4:36), let me get this straight. You’re saying that when the timing of snowstorms happens to coincide with the scheduling of lectures, seminars, press conferences or other public assertions… that this coincidence of timing, when it happens “over and over” again, “casts definite doubt on the validity of the ‘Sky-Is-Falling’ version of global warming”?
Okay, yeah, that makes so much more sense than my interpretation of your comments. Riiiight.
You can “grin,” engage in inane wordplay, and accuse me of improperly focusing on “one word” all you want, but the fact remains: your whole argument is ridiculous.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:49:18 pm
Alasdair-
There’s really no way of convincing you of global warming, just like Galileo was unable to convince the Catholic Church that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. You go on believing that global warming isn’t happening, the rest of us will live in a world based on facts.
February 14th, 2007 at 7:59:35 pm
Brendan - let us start with the fact that I pointed out that you had, for whatever reason, ignored what was probably the central word of the comment … I did not suggest that you had “improperly” focused on any one word … so - that particular straw man don’t fly …
Try this equivalent analogy … when a city’s politicians hold multiple press conferences about the sharp and continuing decrease in gang murders, and, during a perceptible number of the press conferences, 1 or 2 bystanders are killed nearby in gang-related drive-by shootings, after a while, would you believe the politicians at the press conferences ?
The juxtaposition of the two things weakens the assertion by the politicians …
That *you* see fit to disagree with the argument I raise is not sufficient to make the argument ridiculous … just as, for example, the fact that I disagree with your counter-argument to my initial argument does not necessarily make your counter-argument ridiculous …
(The “grin” part, I’ll stipulate … the “inane wordplay” I will respectfully submit is not up to your usual reasonably high standard of response … (had you given an example, your premise might have better foundation)) …
Oh … why not …
Your “inane wordplay” verbal grenade was less the expected high Loy standard, and more a predictably-lower loyer standard … (OK, it’s spelled “lawyer”, but that’s how it’s pronounced, is it not ? (contented grin))
February 14th, 2007 at 8:13:25 pm
What a beautiful analogy, as it completely proves my point. If gang murders are, in fact, decreasing, then they are decreasing, period. Kind of like how, if the climate is, in fact, warming, then it is warming, period. These things are, if true, statistical facts. Individual, random, coincidentally timed occurrences do not change statistical facts. You are correct that an odd coincidence of gang-related drive-by shootings coinciding with press conferences about a decreasing gang murder rate might cause people to become cynical, and to wrongly disbelieve the politicians’ assertions, but the key word is “wrongly.” The juxtaposition of the two things categorically does not — it cannot — “weaken the assertion,” because the assertion is one of statistical fact. Either it’s true, or it isn’t, on its own merits. Likewise, either global warming is real, or it’s not, entirely irrespective of whether some random snowstorms coincidentally happened at the same time as some random press conferences. Duh.
In addition, you’re proceeding on a false (or at least, not necessarily true) premise: that global warming would decrease the number of snowstorms. It might very well increase them, due to increased weather instability caused by increased warmth. I don’t know for sure, but neither do you. Certainly, it doesn’t obviously or self-evidently follow, as you seem to believe, that global warming = less snowstorms. People may believe this, but just because they believe it, doesn’t mean it “weakens the assertions” of global-warming believers. It only weakens those assertions if it’s true.
In any event, I would again invite you to explore the difference between the words “weather” and “climate” before continuing to pretend that you can comment intelligently on this point. Because, as opposed to merely being something that I disagree with, your commentary on this thread is actually unintelligent, and that’s unfortunate. I don’t relish seeing you make yourself look foolish.
I apologize if I offended you with my response. I got huffy because I was offended by your over-the-top obtuseness on this issue. I’m not asking you to stop being a global warming skeptic; I’m just asking you to drop the self-evidently absurd charade that either a single snowstorm, or a (supposed) series of coincidentally timed snowstorms, has ANYTHING to do with disproving it.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:28:44 pm
I wasn’t there when the bomb and missile smoke cleared and the bodies were buried, but I don’t remember the parades and lovefest.
Fortunately, Christopher Hitchens was, and does.
February 14th, 2007 at 8:34:37 pm
Clarification: when I say “your commentary on this thread,” I’m referring specifically to your commentary on this specific point. I haven’t read all the other comments.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:02:36 pm
Brendan - I’m British ! Climate is what we *should* have, and Weather is what we *do* have !
(grin) Or, put another way, California has Climate, but not Weather, cutomarily … Britain has Weather, but not Climate, customarily …
At no time did I say that “gang murders are, in fact, decreasing” … what I did say was that “when a city’s politicians hold multiple press conferences about the sharp and continuing decrease in gang murders” - which, due to the inclusion of “politician”, removes it from convincing fact to something more like ‘may be true by coincidence’ …
More importantly, Global Warming is still hypothetical whereas global warming happens from time to time, locally (meaning locally in time (as in, over some months or years) as well as locally in terms of position on the planet) …
At the risk of being Brendanesque, I will also suggest that you look up the difference between “disprove” (the Brendan word) and “casts definite doubt on the validity of ” (my words) … I did, indeed, say the latter - whereas the former is part of yet another straw manatee, if I may coin a phrase ?
I will also point out that the biggest reason I’m a Global Warming sceptic is because I consider the provenance of the prominent supporters of the Global Warming cult … and the next biggest is because those same supporters are unscientifically unwilling to countenance potential opposing explanations and/or positions on the subject …
I will also point out that I wasn’t offended by your response, just surprised at the huffiness which seemingly managed to occlude your customary ability to be insightful …
February 14th, 2007 at 10:11:33 pm
Alasdair, the issue here isn’t the difference between “disprove” and “cast doubt upon.” Nor is it the credibility of politicians. Nor is it my huffiness. Nor is it your Britishness. None of those things are remotely relevant to the issue at hand. The only things that matter are the truth of your assertions, namely none, and the logic of your argument, namely none. The fact remains — and it is, and will always remain, a fact, no matter how many times you stubbornly and ridiculously deny it — that the existence of a snowstorm, or a bunch of snowstorms, simply DOES NOT CAST ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER on the existence of global warming. There is no correlation whatsoever between the two things. It is wholly illogical and absurd to contend otherwise. There would still be snowstorms even if global warming occurred. And obviously the fact that snowstorms coincidentally occur at the same time as press conferences doesn’t cast any doubt on anything. So, again, if you want to be a global warming skeptic, go right ahead. But you do yourself, and the skeptics movement generally, no credit when you rely on nonsensical arguments that rely in any way, shape, or form on the existence of a snowstorm to either disprove, partially disprove, cast doubt upon, or poke holes in the theory of global warming. Your argument is just complete and utter nonsense. Period, end of discussion, game over, you lose.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:18:06 pm
P.S. Please recall, I am equally scornful of global warming advocates who suggest that the existence of a particular hurricane, or group of hurricanes, proves anything about global warming. For example: “Look! Katrina destroyed New Orleans! That means global warming is happening!” That argument is just as nonsensical as yours. (And, conversely, your argument is just as nonsensical as that one.)
Now, when people point to a long-term (or at least longish-term) pattern of stronger/more hurricanes, and claim that global warming is the culprit, their argument is at least plausible on its face. Whether it’s correct is a separate question, but it’s at least facially plausible, and I wouldn’t call it “complete and utter nonsense.” Likewise, if you could point to a meaningful pattern of snowstorms or cold weather (e.g., there have been more blizzards than usual in the past 10 years, there have been more cold snaps than usual in the past 10 years, etc.), that would be a plausible argument against global warming. It might not be correct, but it would be facially plausible, and I wouldn’t be mocking you for it.
But you haven’t done that. You haven’t pointed to a pattern. You’ve simply pointed at a random snowstorm, or a random handful of snowstorms, and said that they somehow “cast doubt upon” the existence of global warming. That’s just not true, any more than it’s true that a random handful of hurricanes “cast doubt upon” the non-existence of global warming.
And therein lies the fundamental difference between weather and climate. The basic unit of weather is individual weather events. The basic unit of climate is patterns of individual weather events. If you can’t point to a pattern — if you’re simply pointing to undifferentiated individual event(s) — you aren’t talking about climate at all, you’re talking about weather.
The only “pattern” you’ve pointed to is an alleged coincidence of timing between snowstorms and global warming seminars and press conferences, which obviously is not a scientifically valid or relevant pattern. You haven’t said anything suggesting that there have been more snowstorms generally, or colder weather generally, over a period of years. Your comments have been strictly in the realm of weather, not the realm of climate.
Bottom line, you’re spewing irrelevant nonsense, and making yourself look extremely foolish.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:24:48 pm
P.P.S. The problem here isn’t that I’m not being “insightful,” it’s that you’re being utterly obtuse.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:10:42 am
In my imagination, I was just envisioning the Irish Trojan as it might possibly have existed 12 summers ago, assuming the same group of regulars haunted it then as do now.
Specifically, 12 summers ago the big story would have been the breaking up of the Bojinka plot, the plan to hijack 10 planes over the Pacific and blow them up.
In the aftermath of that story, on this blog, you could easily imagine that someone would respond with something along the lines of:
“This shit is scary! 10 planes blown up over the Pacific? I advocate the following: until Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are brought to justice, the American aviation industry ought to be as paranoid as Israel’s El Al, maybe more”.
We know now that reacting that way to Yousef and KSM’s continuing at large status likely would have done a world of good, quite possibly even preventing 9/11.
In the aftermath of 9/11, it has been taken as near-gospel that the right wing is the right wing to protect us from the scourge of terrorism. Indeed, on so many occasions, here and elsewhere, liberals have felt an exaggerated need to defend their national security bona fides, to fight the perception, perpetuated by conservatives, that all this 9/11 shit can be traced to stupidity on the part of liberals, beginning of course with Clinton.
But this thread, and ones like it, kind of gives one pause, doesn’t it?
We can imagine that, had the Irish Trojan existed in the summer of 95, and someone had suggested those restrictive, but ultimately mass-death-avoiding measures on the airlines -
- that perhaps Joe Mama would have doubted that the plot ever existed?
- that Gahrie or Andrew would point to studies or op.eds showing that Ramzi Yousef lacked the maturity or wherewithal to coordinate such an attack?
- and surely Alasdair would have made fun of David for believing that KSM was a dangerous, bad man, yes?
We know now, as we didn’t certainly know then, that the 1995 failed Bojinka plot pointed to the organizers of the successful 9/11/2001 atacks.
Is it possible that the current state of global warming is such that a mass catastrophe, from man-influenced, but otherwise natural causes, is less than a decade away?
It would seem that is certianly a possibility. Almost certainly not a probability, but a possibility.
Who’s the party of paranoia in the service of public safety, again?
Republicans would have favored strict airline safety measures in the wake of Bojinka?
Interesting.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:05:51 am
Except we did learn from earlier hi-jackings, and developed a response to them based on what we thought we learned. And on 9/11, everyone (except the passengers of United 91) reacted to the hi-jackings on 9/11 according to the lessons we thought we had learned.
The problem was, we were wrong. The hi-jackers on 9/11 behaved differently than we knew they would. And so our response, cooperation, was exactly the wrong strategy.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:46:56 am
Gahrie,
You said,
The hi-jackers on 9/11 behaved differently than we knew they would.
In my note above, I was imagining that some (moonbat) would call for highly restrictive, paranoid airline security measures in light of the threats implied, specifically, by Bojinka.
As you surely know, at least 2 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were flagged by airport security as suspected terrorists, but were nevertheless permitted to board their planes once their bags made it on the plane.
This of course reflected the belief that no hijacker would commit suicide on an airline.
But Bojinka, if nothing else, was clearly, clearly a suicide plot.
To flesh this out some more, in ‘95, David, or Angrier, or one of their ilk, might have said -
“Ramp up security! Let no one on the airplanes that represents any threat at all! Restrict movement in the cabins!” et al.
These would have been the naturally “paranoid, err on the side of safety reactions”.
Of course, nothing at all like that occured.
And if global warming is any indication, you would have made fun of the Davids and Angriers for so suggesting, back in ‘95.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:58:03 am
Kind of a reach, Jazz.
First of all, liberals certainly don’t need the help of conservatives to impugn their nat’l security bona fides.
And second, far be it from me to dispute your characterization of what my hypothetical reaction would be to an equally hypothetical scenario, but I wouldn’t have doubted that such a plot ever existed without good reason simply because . . . what, Clinton was President? Please. Nor would I be chastising those that favored ramping up security in light of such a plot as paranoid, at least not under the hypothetical circumstances you describe. Threats are threats, no matter who is in charge. As much as I detested Bill Clinton as a scumbag, I certainly wouldn’t be throwing him under the bus to score some cheap political points. I simply don’t hate him that much or favor Republicans that much to engage in such silliness. You’ll have to ask David if he would be as consistent in his positions. Given how is every word drips with contempt for Bush, I somehow doubt it.
Now, if what you’re getting at is whether people would take the threat of terrorism seriously after a foiled plot as opposed to one that succeeded so spectacularly on 9/11, there you may have a point. After all, it’s only human nature. I’m pretty sure that had Bush found out about 9/11 beforehand and pre-emptively went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, he would’ve been written off by many as a kook.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:23:43 am
And just in case there is any doubt about whether some Democrats want us to lose in Iraq:
http://victorycaucus.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1
(hat tip: Instapundit)
February 15th, 2007 at 10:27:57 am
Joe Mama,
To be sure, my argument doesn’t require a hatred of Republicans or Democrats, Presidents, Congresspeople or otherwise.
I trust that you, and every other patriotic American, would act appropriately in the face of a “known” threat to our nation, irrespective of political machinations. I don’t doubt that, not for a second.
The issue I am raising here is how we define “known”.
After Bojinka, we definitively KNEW that there was a man named Ramzi Yousef, with an uncle named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who were together interested in perpetrating a spectacular suicide airline attack. That “knowing” triggered no response on our parts. In this case, it wasn’t Republicans, or Democrats, or Independents who ignored the Yousef/Mohammed threat - EVERYONE did.
My point is, to you and everyone else:
What if someone had done the “correct” thing in 1995, the in-hindsight-obvious thing, and said
“At least until Yousef and his uncle KSM are caught, we need to institute draconian measures to make air travel safe”.
It is ultimately a moot point how you would have reacted to such a proposal. How would we ever know?
But your position on global warming, which surely shares many characteristics with the cost/benefit implications of a 1995 hypothetical proposal for heightened airline security, is certainly curious.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:21:21 am
Jazz,
My position on global warming is this: It’s real, but the extent to which humans cause it or can rectify it is uncertain at best. It is indisputable that the average temperature of the earth is increasing, because there is ample data to support this. But whether it’s increasing due to human activity or, say, the cyclical nature of heating and cooling periods over the course of thousands of years is as yet undetermined. I accept as fact that human activity contributes to global warming, but again, the extent to which it contributes to global warming is undetermined. One would have to determine whether and to what extent the average temperature of the earth at this point in time would be increasing absent such human activity, which so far as I know has not been determined conclusively.
All that said, I fully support measures such as conservation, development of alternative fuels (I worked for a fuel cell company during law school), and limiting greenhouse gas emissions because of the principle of the thing, because it’s better to be safe than sorry, and because it’s worth it in the long run to deal with the issue now rather than waiting for it to become a (bigger) problem later.
Come to think of it, those reasons apply to my support for the war in Iraq as well.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:24:57 pm
Joe Mama,
Noted. I misinterpreted your earlier arguments about global warming with David et.al.
WRT the two issues you raise:
1) Man’s contribution is undetermined, but
2) It is better safe than sorry,
I agree completely.
February 15th, 2007 at 1:23:19 pm
Instapundit linked to this Freudian approach to climate change from the Economist. Interesting.
February 15th, 2007 at 2:40:28 pm
Jazz - given how you cast me in your scenario, you have misunderstood me, too … while I would be making fun of David (on principle), if he had come up with a cogent comment, I would support it …
“1) Man’s contribution is undetermined, but
2) It is better safe than sorry”
That’s a reasonable summary of my position on global warming … I take issue, however, with the ‘Global Warming’ cult, which permits no doubt, which tolerates no alternative thinking, which wants to ban Weather Forecasters who don’t support the cult’s line verbatim …
Currently, on this blog, the D-list are the folk who, with respect to Iraq :-
Doubt that the plot ever existed - so we should not have gone into Iraq
Point to studies and op.eds showing that Iraq and al Qaeda had no interaction at all
Deride Andrew, Joe Mama, myself, gahrie, etc for believing that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was and is a Good Thing
I would like to see us do things which would potentially counter our current practices which release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - and I have been suggesting that since back before the ‘Global Warming’ cult replaced the ‘Impending Ice Age’ cult (which is how the ‘consensus scientists’ in the 1970s chose to spend their expert time and efforts) …
When you read what I write, carefully, you realise that I don’t find global warming to have been disproven - I just do not find that it has been proven to be a problem … it’s still a newborn kid, not yet able to move by itself, not yet able to communicate coherently - who knows how it will turn out ?
And, in 30 years, I would not be at all surprised to find the ‘Impending Ice Age’ cult to be all the rage again …
February 15th, 2007 at 3:57:43 pm
Alasdair, as with Joe Mama’s comments, I have no quibble whatsoever with your more defined global warming position.
On a tangential note, you say
Deride Andrew, Joe Mama, myself, gahrie, etc for believing that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was and is a Good Thing
I would NEVER EVER EVER do that since I fundamentally agree with the comment in the italics above.
Nevertheless, I am a vicious critic of the Bush Administration’s bungling of everything that happened since the “Mission was Accomplished”.
I’m not sure how many, but there must be several of us out there who believe
a) getting rid of Saddam was categorically good
b) the Administration’s approach to the next chapter in Iraq has been categorically bad.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:04:24 pm
I’m not sure how many, but there must be several of us out there who believe
a) getting rid of Saddam was categorically good
b) the Administration’s approach to the next chapter in Iraq has been categorically bad.
Count me as one of those, with the proviso the next chapter in Iraq, whether you call it “nation-building” (when Democrats are for it) or “war-mongering imperialism” (when Republicans are for it), is an exercise in learn-by-doing.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:50:01 pm
Jazz - unfortunately, I’m not entirely surprised, given how the US State Department which is a major source of supposed wisdom for US things all around the planet is, at the career civil servant level, the same US State Department that basically told Saddam Hussein that the Kuwait border “was not of interest” shortly before he decided to try to annex Kuwait …
I tend to give folk credit for doing their best, especially when no-one else can offer any better ideas … and, yes, I do *not* consider “Well, don’t do that” to be a better idea ! It needs to at least be something as good as or better than “Do this, instead !” …
The three things I listed are the equivalent of the scenario you posited, updated for somewhat more reality-based thinking … I have yet to see you earn a permanent seat on the D-list …
February 15th, 2007 at 7:00:03 pm
Deride Andrew, Joe Mama, myself, gahrie, etc for believing that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was and is a Good Thing
I have said repeatedly that I thought Sadaam was a terrible horrible dictator. I have said that if the war had been sold to me as a “we need to save these people from this asshol” that I would have supported it. There is no defense for the type of horrible things that man did. But the idea that getting rid of a bad person justifies ANYTHING that comes after? Sorry but that is just stupid. As Jazz said the problem isn’t that we got rid of Sadaam, its that once we did there wasn’t an adequate plan in place to deal with it.
But no, you are too blinded by your Bush-can-do-no-wrong worldview to be able to differentiate anything anyone says other than into these two catagories:
1) Bush hero!
2) Bush evil!
Sorry, no dice. Oh and believing that Al Qaeda is bad and was directly responsible for 9/11 and that Sadaam was bad, but not responsible for 9/11 doesn’t mean you don’t still think both are bad. There was plenty to judge him as a bad person without manufacturing conspiracies of him and bin Ladin.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:33:39 pm
I have yet to see you earn a permanent seat on the D-list …
But I do flirt with them from time to time, Alasdair, this I can’t deny…
Back to “Iraq, the Model”, specifically this idea that
Bush was good (having the cojones to dump the expansionist dictator) and
Bush was bad (for being hopelessly clueless about what came after) -
- this idea doesn’t have much play, Joe Mama’s (and others’) comments notwithstanding.
That strikes me as odd. Things must be more partisan in the US than I realized.
Finally, WRT to membership on the D-list - my beautiful wife is 6 months pregnant with our first child. I think about the baby’s life quite a bit, and I think of all the hopes I have for the world that baby will inhabit.
If a leader, be s/he political, religious, business or otherwise, moves things in the direction of making the world a better place for my kid -
- than you can attribute my support for that person to membership on the D-list or the Z-list or the “loser” list or any old list you wish.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:25:35 pm
Jazz,
It appears we’re not the only ones to see a connection between Iraq and global warming.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:32:53 pm
$ quote:
[T]he question of WMD really boils down to how one chooses to manage the consequences of a false negative versus the downside potential of a false positive.
Kind of like the Global Warming debate.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:03:52 am
Other than the fact that the evidence to support the existence of global warming is not nearly as questionable as the WMD in Iraq evidence was? Sure, why not.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:44:01 am
I enjoyed this one:
Of course, I’m not touching the other two-thirds of the argumentation of the Iraq War, despite the fact that those who have argued most loudly about Bush’s Manichean worldview and lack of nuance seem to be remarkably simplistic on causation here
By the other two-thirds, of course he means the “non-WMD” rationale, though he might be a bit generous to give WMD even 1/3 of this stage.
Strikes me that, 20 or so years hence, when we’re past the sturm und drang of the first years of the GWOT, historians will see the WMD possibility as essentially a sales pitch for a Baywatch-loving public.
It is fascinating how many people rail against Bush for his simplicity then discuss the pros and cons of the merits of a pre-emptive war against a world citizen who MIGHT facilitate a random act of mass casualty.
To them I say:
You should meet some of my neighbors. Perhaps we should call in the Marines.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:59:19 am
Other than the fact that the evidence to support the existence of global warming is not nearly as questionable as the WMD in Iraq evidence was? Sure, why not.
Oh please. David, where were you prior to 2003? I’ve won every game I’ve Monday morning-quarterbacked as well.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:08:52 am
David must think the 10,000+ Iraqis gassed in Halabja all just coincidentally got sick at the same time.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:21:57 am
By the other two-thirds, of course he means the “non-WMD†rationale, though he might be a bit generous to give WMD even 1/3 of this stage.
Considering that when the Senate voted to authorize force to be used against Iraq and they listed 23 different reasons why that was a good thing, including everything from a potential assassination attempt on a President, violations of the 1991 armistice, UN violations, and genocide (and when Colin Powell went to the UN he mentioned three or four other criteria for war besides WMD), I think “the other two thirds” characterization isn’t at all unreasonable.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:50:12 am
Actually, Joe Mama, though I defer to David for the mathematical specifics, if WMD was one out of 23 reasons, than the author might have referred to
“the other 22/23″
as opposed to
“the other 2/3″,
22/23 being a much larger fraction than 2/3, implying that the WMD justification was actually smaller than the 1/3 cited.
(The author, surely, was being conservative :).
February 16th, 2007 at 11:10:38 am
Well, if we’re going to be sticklers here, then it should be pointed out that WMDs actually related to more than one of the 23 reasons listed in the Senate’s AUMF. For example, most of Iraq’s material breaches of UN Security Council resolutions involved (non)compliance with inspections, regardless of whether there were any WMDs actually there to inspect.
If you want to compare it to another story of the day, it’s like Scooter Libby being put on trial for perjury even though the there’s no evidence of the underlying crime of disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:51:09 pm
Other than the fact that the evidence to support the existence of global warming is not nearly as questionable as the WMD in Iraq evidence was?
Sure it isn’t, David.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:59:55 pm
Um, Joe Mama, we know now that the Bush administration ignored significant doubts and questions about the supposedly rock solid WMD evidence BACK THEN. Its not monday morning quarterbacking to recognize that we were lied to and seriously misled through either incompetence or active negligence.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:19:14 pm
Except that we don’t, and it is. Other than that, you’re right on.