Tuesday, July 21, 2009
PALIN - HELPING OBAMA TEACH SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS
I hadn't intended to do another Palin article so soon but she did this article in the Washington Post (which is pretty deep in the enemy heartland) which I want to do some fisking of because I think it says something about her policies & her tactics.
----------------------------
...America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented. Now that is a degree of realism that no party & very few backbench politicians in Britain would dare say - i suspect the same in the US
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be: This is a major problem in both Britain & America's media & entire political life. The entire fight between Brown & Bliar was about personality - there was barely a paper between them on policy, while in the US Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton & Obama all deliberately downplayed policies compared to personality. Considering that Palin is such a visible & to many people, attractive personality to focus on issues is quite remarkable - it will not win her media friends
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. This is perceptive indeed having read it I realise I had missed this, particularly the 19thC discovery of oil in America in my article in factors causing the US economy to overtake Great Britain's Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy. Completely incompatible with cutting CO2 & the War on Fire - perhaps Vaclav Klaus calling Gore "insane" might be a heavier challenge but not much
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs. This must make her one of the few politicians to know, in detail, what the bill says, including those who passed it
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics. This strikes me as her long term tactical plan - explain the facts of economics; explain how it could be done & let Obama starkly prove that big state regulation & pork barreling doesn't work - if there isn't a majority now for free enterprise there will be in 3 years; calling the Obamites "liberal" sets my teeth on edge since it accepts the Newspeak definition of "liberal" - in fact, like the US Constitution itself, Palin is, by the original & proper definition, a liberal but I can see why she & most other people, let this by
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Our politicians are saying the same it is just that there is nobody, at least nobody the media will report, here saying that we can have falling energy prices if we stop stupid windmillery - the lack of a publicly reported alternative is very damaging to our society; I like the "eloquently"
Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity." This is a beautifully crafted line - it juxtaposes the poor with the ultra rich making Obama look like a front man for the money men & remember that compared to Buffett everybody is poor. I think it is slightly unfair to Buffett - the main people for whom Obama is fronting are Pelosi & Democratic Congresscritters, government bureaucrats & lawyers but tactically it is brilliant
We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today. "ripe for economic growth" - once again she demonstrates she understands the importance of this - US growth at about 4% has been much closer to the world average of 5% than our 2.5% yet you hardly see any UK politician saying we can increase it; the "God created oil for the American people" also sets my teeth on edge but (a) that's just atheistic me, (b) if you believe in him he actually did (though he must have a wicked sense of humour promising the Israelis the bit of the Middle East with no oil) & (c) this is the sort of reference to God, apple pie & the electhood of their own voters all politicians have to do
...Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy. yet again she mentions nuclear - less brave politicians, even those who support it - avoid the subject
We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter. the fact that she lists the countries in that order, which is the reverse of their combustibles contribution, shows that she is thinking not just about energy but the US's long term economic capacity & competitiveness.
------------------------------
That she is writing this, in this paper, even before leaving office, shows she is most definitely not quitting. There are very few politicians who actually break the mould in a worthwhile way (Lee Kuan Yew, Deng, Putin, perhaps Klaus & Haughey) but I think Palin could be one. She is certainly the most interesting western politician active today.
Here is an article on how the media treated her. It is not a hagiography, severely criticising her over her preparedness for interviews & speaking kindly of Obama & even Biden & stopping short of saying the election result would have been different if the media had been honest. Nonetheless it is a devastating critique of the media & says, of the fact that they didn't mention that Biden lied & lied & lied & lied & lied & lied & lied & lied again in his debate with Palin; "Facts matter, the man said. But they didn't in 2008, not when it came to Joe Biden (our guy) against Sarah Palin (odd outsider). The ladies and gentlemen of the press were more interested in her hair, her glasses, her wardrobe, he accent, her sex life, her kids' sex lives, and her hunting habits than in whether her opponent knew anything about foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States, or the job he was running for. They still are. The relentlessly negative coverage of Palin goes on unabated -- she's the subject of a much-ballyhooed hatchet job in Vanity Fair this month"
And speaking of Vanity Fair here is something one of Jerry Pournelle's readers spotted which makes me think Obama may be smarter than previously thought because he recognises that Palin is smarter than him:
The exact quote is buried in the recent Vanity Fair hit piece: "At least one savvy politician-Barack Obama-believed Palin would never have time to get up to speed. He told his aides that it had taken him four months to learn how to be a national candidate, and added, "I don't care how talented she is, this is really a leap." "
Which can explain why she quit the Alaska Governorship & suggests that what faults she has shown (the unfriendly interviews, foreign policy) will be a breeze in 2012.
Labels: International politics, Media
Comments:
<< Home
The energy and power sector creates and sustains millions of jobs. One of America’s biggest challenges today is finding efficient and affordable solutions to energy and power. A diverse solution is fundamental to our security as a nation and the expansion of economic opportunity. Advocate for the construction and operation of renewable energy projects and sign a petition with the Friends of the US Chamber http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=41 .
# posted by 
: July 21, 2009
: July 21, 2009
though he must have a wicked sense of humour promising the Israelis the bit of the Middle East with no oil
Intelligence is the greatest asset in the modern world, not resources. Most of the gulf monarchies will be in abject poverty when the oil runs out, whereas Israel will still have its greatest resource, brains.
Intel as a few plants there, and I think they are building more there, whereas Intel has only one here despite AZ having slightly more people.
As for Palin's unpreparedness for interviews, the press hates her anyway preparing isn't going to make a difference.
Intelligence is the greatest asset in the modern world, not resources. Most of the gulf monarchies will be in abject poverty when the oil runs out, whereas Israel will still have its greatest resource, brains.
Intel as a few plants there, and I think they are building more there, whereas Intel has only one here despite AZ having slightly more people.
As for Palin's unpreparedness for interviews, the press hates her anyway preparing isn't going to make a difference.
# posted by : July 22, 2009
: July 22, 2009
Sorry, Neil, if this is just me being thick, but your last comment makes it sound like you think Sarah Palin would be a good candidate for the presidency in 2012... Is that what you think or am I misreading it?
# posted by : July 22, 2009
: July 22, 2009 
So you think that a woman who advocates "teaching the controversy" creationism, opposes abortion even in the case of rape and/or incest, opposes stem-cell research, opposes sex education in schools, opposes gay rights and same-sex marriages, is in favour of the death penalty, supports free-market healthcare, denies global warming and opposes protection of species such as the beluga whale and the polar bear would make a good president?
Wow.
Wow.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
On most of those you have been lied to - see the link "Facts mattter ..." here or indeed a post on my previous Palin article where somebody put up a slew of quite obviously faked "quotes" as "verified".
I support the death penalty, wouldn't want free market health care to be made illegal & deny that we are currently suffering from catastrophic warning so I think it reasonable I would support a politician who does.
I support the death penalty, wouldn't want free market health care to be made illegal & deny that we are currently suffering from catastrophic warning so I think it reasonable I would support a politician who does.
Oh dear...
Creationism: During a televised debate on KAKM Channel 7, she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Abortion: In the 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire she said "I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued."
Stem-cell research: In an Anchorage Daily News interview, she opposed stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, and state health benefits for same-sex partners.
In the Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire I've mentioned, she also said "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.".
Conservation: She wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times about opposing the endangered listing of the polar bear and declared her intention to file suit against the listing of the beluga whale.
These things aren't hard to find Neil. It's just that they don't jibe with your idea that Sarah Palin is a good candidate for the presidency...
Creationism: During a televised debate on KAKM Channel 7, she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Abortion: In the 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire she said "I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued."
Stem-cell research: In an Anchorage Daily News interview, she opposed stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, and state health benefits for same-sex partners.
In the Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire I've mentioned, she also said "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.".
Conservation: She wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times about opposing the endangered listing of the polar bear and declared her intention to file suit against the listing of the beluga whale.
These things aren't hard to find Neil. It's just that they don't jibe with your idea that Sarah Palin is a good candidate for the presidency...
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
"Don't be afraid of information" is something many on Branes could learn from & does not mean she is wanting creationism purely or indeed primarily. For the others you provide no support, not even claiming they are "verified".
On listing polar bears as endangered I have read the article & she is absolutely right. The number of polar bears has gone up six fold & it is clearly not endangered. What is going on is an attempt to support the warming scam by claiming that the movement's cuddly (from a considerable distance) icon is endangered by warming when it clearly isn't. Had you read the article you would know this.
On listing polar bears as endangered I have read the article & she is absolutely right. The number of polar bears has gone up six fold & it is clearly not endangered. What is going on is an attempt to support the warming scam by claiming that the movement's cuddly (from a considerable distance) icon is endangered by warming when it clearly isn't. Had you read the article you would know this.
"Don't be afraid of information" is something many on Branes could learn from & does not mean she is wanting creationism purely or indeed primarily. These are indeed weasel words. To teach Creationism on an equal basis to Evolution debases science by giving it the same status as mumbo jumbo. The whole point of science is its lack of subservience to faith or ideology. The destruction of this independent scientific authority is a primary aim of the Redneck Right in America to which Palin panders.
Does this not concern you? Or, Jesus H Christ, do you actually believe in Creationism?
Does this not concern you? Or, Jesus H Christ, do you actually believe in Creationism?
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
What? So your counter-argument is that you agree with her on one thing?
You singularly fail to address anything except the polar bears issue, and then relate it to global-warming.
In fact, you're still wrong. At the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen, 2009, data was presented showing that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. This is an increase from five declining populations in 2005.
Stop basing your opinions on what you want to hear, and try researching things with disinterest.
You singularly fail to address anything except the polar bears issue, and then relate it to global-warming.
In fact, you're still wrong. At the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen, 2009, data was presented showing that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. This is an increase from five declining populations in 2005.
Stop basing your opinions on what you want to hear, and try researching things with disinterest.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
I believe it is silly science is not about censorship or it ceases to be science.
Creationism is clearly not a millionth as destructive as the global warming scam & it gets an awful lot more than equal time in schools. I consider such propagandising as a form of child abuse.
Creationism is clearly not a millionth as destructive as the global warming scam & it gets an awful lot more than equal time in schools. I consider such propagandising as a form of child abuse.
Ben perhaps you could name the politician with whom you agree on all points? And you are absolutely wrong about polar bears being endangered as you would know if you had checked.
So you're ignoring that whole thing about the panel of experts in polar bear conservation disagreeing with you?
Creationism is a lot more destructive than "the global warming scam". The earth is heating up (undeniably) and a good explanation is that it is partially caused by man. Until a better theory comes along, this is scientific. That's how science works. Even if you don't believe in MMGW, do you think it's a good idea to lower pollution? Because I do.
Whether I agree with a politician on all points is irrelevant. I can however, choose to vote for someone who is not a religious nut, who cares about the environment, who believes that a raped woman should be allowed an abortion and doesn't think that living near Russia is a good indicator of diplomatic skill.
Creationism is a lot more destructive than "the global warming scam". The earth is heating up (undeniably) and a good explanation is that it is partially caused by man. Until a better theory comes along, this is scientific. That's how science works. Even if you don't believe in MMGW, do you think it's a good idea to lower pollution? Because I do.
Whether I agree with a politician on all points is irrelevant. I can however, choose to vote for someone who is not a religious nut, who cares about the environment, who believes that a raped woman should be allowed an abortion and doesn't think that living near Russia is a good indicator of diplomatic skill.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
The world is full of people claiming expertise to purely to push their own agenda. As a brane you must know that.
It is not "undeniable" that there is catastrophic warming even though Obama says it. Since Kyoto alone costs $800 million a day I would be interested in knowing how a few schools giving it some time is a "lot more" expensive than that - textbooks must cost more than I thought?
It is not "undeniable" that there is catastrophic warming even though Obama says it. Since Kyoto alone costs $800 million a day I would be interested in knowing how a few schools giving it some time is a "lot more" expensive than that - textbooks must cost more than I thought?
Ben said...
The earth is heating up (undeniably) and a good explanation is that it is partially caused by man.
Actually the amount of energy put out by the Sun varies over time, as proven by the last Ice Age. In fact, the Earth warmed out of the last Ice Age without any carbon emitted by industry.
Ben again...
At the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen, 2009, data was presented showing that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. This is an increase from five declining populations in 2005.
Who gives a shit if the polar bears are declining? Man comes first, nature comes second. If the polar bears were to disappear tomorrow the world would go on, and the rest of nature would be okay.
The earth is heating up (undeniably) and a good explanation is that it is partially caused by man.
Actually the amount of energy put out by the Sun varies over time, as proven by the last Ice Age. In fact, the Earth warmed out of the last Ice Age without any carbon emitted by industry.
Ben again...
At the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen, 2009, data was presented showing that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. This is an increase from five declining populations in 2005.
Who gives a shit if the polar bears are declining? Man comes first, nature comes second. If the polar bears were to disappear tomorrow the world would go on, and the rest of nature would be okay.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
Even more Ben...
So you think that a woman who advocates "teaching the controversy" creationism, opposes abortion even in the case of rape and/or incest, opposes stem-cell research, opposes sex education in schools, opposes gay rights and same-sex marriages, is in favour of the death penalty, supports free-market healthcare, denies global warming and opposes protection of species such as the beluga whale and the polar bear would make a good president?
Yes, I do think she would make a good president, which is why I voted for her and McCain. But let
me go over your points.
1. I would support creationism in schools, but even better yet, I would support having k-12 education turned over to the private sector so that me and you could each have our children taught what we want them to learn, not what the government wants.
2. I also oppose abortion, even in the cases you cited. Why should the child have to be killed because of the sins of one or both of the parents.
3. My opposition to fetal stem cell research is part of my opposition to abortion, since embryos have to be destroyed to obtain that kind of stem cell. Other types of stem cells can be obtained from adults, and I have no problem with the use of adult stem cells.
4. All of the sexual deviations you mentioned spread disease. In fact, because of evolution AIDS would not exist if it were not for the massive promiscuity of homosexuals. Second, the various deviations you champion are often gateways to child sexual abuse.
5. Like Palin, I support capital punishment too. During the 1980's the US had 25k homicides a year, now we have about 8k, with a larger population. The reduction in murders can be attributed to the government's crackdown on crime including executing criminals. Besides, if you think the state killing a murderer is barbaric, what about the crimes these monsters are often convicted of?
6. I have private health insurance, I don't see the problem with it. State healthcare in this country for veterans, Indians and the poor is often substandard, and I would not want to be required to use it.
Second the results of your system are inferior. The number of average Brits I have seen with horrible teeth is shocking. Over here where dentistry is semi-private dental care is much better. I know a lot of middle class kids who have straight teeth because their parents paid for braces, and for good dental care.
7. Environmentalism is a religion, and that includes protecting "precious" species.
So you think that a woman who advocates "teaching the controversy" creationism, opposes abortion even in the case of rape and/or incest, opposes stem-cell research, opposes sex education in schools, opposes gay rights and same-sex marriages, is in favour of the death penalty, supports free-market healthcare, denies global warming and opposes protection of species such as the beluga whale and the polar bear would make a good president?
Yes, I do think she would make a good president, which is why I voted for her and McCain. But let
me go over your points.
1. I would support creationism in schools, but even better yet, I would support having k-12 education turned over to the private sector so that me and you could each have our children taught what we want them to learn, not what the government wants.
2. I also oppose abortion, even in the cases you cited. Why should the child have to be killed because of the sins of one or both of the parents.
3. My opposition to fetal stem cell research is part of my opposition to abortion, since embryos have to be destroyed to obtain that kind of stem cell. Other types of stem cells can be obtained from adults, and I have no problem with the use of adult stem cells.
4. All of the sexual deviations you mentioned spread disease. In fact, because of evolution AIDS would not exist if it were not for the massive promiscuity of homosexuals. Second, the various deviations you champion are often gateways to child sexual abuse.
5. Like Palin, I support capital punishment too. During the 1980's the US had 25k homicides a year, now we have about 8k, with a larger population. The reduction in murders can be attributed to the government's crackdown on crime including executing criminals. Besides, if you think the state killing a murderer is barbaric, what about the crimes these monsters are often convicted of?
6. I have private health insurance, I don't see the problem with it. State healthcare in this country for veterans, Indians and the poor is often substandard, and I would not want to be required to use it.
Second the results of your system are inferior. The number of average Brits I have seen with horrible teeth is shocking. Over here where dentistry is semi-private dental care is much better. I know a lot of middle class kids who have straight teeth because their parents paid for braces, and for good dental care.
7. Environmentalism is a religion, and that includes protecting "precious" species.
# posted by : July 23, 2009
: July 23, 2009
Neil
I notice that whenever anyone mentions global warming or MMCC you always retort by referring to catastrophic warming. You also use your ludicrous war on fire polemic.
Your comments would be marginally more plausible if you took some of the heat out of them and stopped trying to caricature everyone who disagrees with you as a believing in catastrophic warming (whatever that is supposed to mean).
This is ultimately a science issue. Science is about evidence, not polemics.
I notice that whenever anyone mentions global warming or MMCC you always retort by referring to catastrophic warming. You also use your ludicrous war on fire polemic.
Your comments would be marginally more plausible if you took some of the heat out of them and stopped trying to caricature everyone who disagrees with you as a believing in catastrophic warming (whatever that is supposed to mean).
This is ultimately a science issue. Science is about evidence, not polemics.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
If polar bears were declining to the extent that they were at risk of extinction I would be concerned, though obviously not a thousandth as much as about the 1.5 million humans who die annually of malaria because the eco-fascists demand it. The fact is that polar bear numbers have increased 6 fold & that this is yet another eco-lie.
I believe it is silly science
The point, which you have clearly missed, is that Creationism is not science at all. It can be taught in religious education classes if a significant number of parents insist but teaching it as science in a science classroom is a very dangerous precedent.
The point, which you have clearly missed, is that Creationism is not science at all. It can be taught in religious education classes if a significant number of parents insist but teaching it as science in a science classroom is a very dangerous precedent.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
Mous it is indeed a matter of evidence & the issue is indeed catastrophic warming. One can always claim normal warming, or cooling depending on time frame, it has, for example warmed since Christmas as it has cooled since 1998. If it isn't catastrophic, or at the very least well outside historical experience it is only long term weather & certainly not worth destroying the world economy for (inded if it is just LTW then it is highly unlikely destroying the world economy woyuld affect it.
If you have evidence of catastrophic warming please produce it (I note nobody on Branes even tried to) because it is inded a scientific question dependent on evidence.
If you have evidence of catastrophic warming please produce it (I note nobody on Branes even tried to) because it is inded a scientific question dependent on evidence.
Science is free investigation. Once you start saying something cannot be discussed because those in power say "the science is settled" then you aren't doing science. That is, as you know, happening increasingly & those claiming to defend science in that way are far worse opponents than any creationist.
Wow. And here I was thinking that Neil was a terrible person. Ronduck, you take things to a new low.
"Who gives a shit if the polar bears are declining?" Seriously? Do you really think this, or are you some sort of elaborate troll?
"I would support creationism in schools". You're an idiot, then. What possible reason is there to teach creationism in schools? It's not science, it has no relevance to the education of children and, without exception, everyone who believes in it is a crackpot lunatic weirdo.
"because of evolution AIDS would not exist if it were not for the massive promiscuity of homosexuals" Creationist - evolution... Which is it Ron? I'm guessing by your startling lack of knowledge of evolution (demonstrated by this quote), you have never read or studied any science.
That you support capital punishment doesn't surpise me. You seem like that sort of "Christian".
"The number of average Brits I have seen with horrible teeth is shocking". Now, now, Ron, resorting to cliche is neither big nor clever.
"Who gives a shit if the polar bears are declining?" Seriously? Do you really think this, or are you some sort of elaborate troll?
"I would support creationism in schools". You're an idiot, then. What possible reason is there to teach creationism in schools? It's not science, it has no relevance to the education of children and, without exception, everyone who believes in it is a crackpot lunatic weirdo.
"because of evolution AIDS would not exist if it were not for the massive promiscuity of homosexuals" Creationist - evolution... Which is it Ron? I'm guessing by your startling lack of knowledge of evolution (demonstrated by this quote), you have never read or studied any science.
That you support capital punishment doesn't surpise me. You seem like that sort of "Christian".
"The number of average Brits I have seen with horrible teeth is shocking". Now, now, Ron, resorting to cliche is neither big nor clever.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
Science is done by scientists who are appropriately qualified, have a sufficient grounding in their subject, and meet the standards set by their scientific peers.
Science isn’t done by blog “professors” who think their ill-informed polemics have the same value as peer-reviewed scientific work. Amateurs like yourself are welcome to learn about science, but don’t delude yourself that you are a scientist.
Science is never settled, but there is sufficient evidence for us to be sufficiently concerned to take action.
As for you repeatedly cherry-picking 1998 air temperature records as evidence that AGW has stopped (the only bit of evidence you ever cite). Do you know what El Nino is? Was 1998 a strong El Nino year?
Science isn’t done by blog “professors” who think their ill-informed polemics have the same value as peer-reviewed scientific work. Amateurs like yourself are welcome to learn about science, but don’t delude yourself that you are a scientist.
Science is never settled, but there is sufficient evidence for us to be sufficiently concerned to take action.
As for you repeatedly cherry-picking 1998 air temperature records as evidence that AGW has stopped (the only bit of evidence you ever cite). Do you know what El Nino is? Was 1998 a strong El Nino year?
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
Ben I have let it stand this time but your post is a personal attack on Ronduck more than an attempt to discuss facts. In future please try to debate fact, particularly with other commenters. Were I so minded I could suggest that you being less interested in the unnecesary killing of millions of humans than in the non-killing of polar bears makes you non-admirable.
The reason why cliches become cliches is because they are generally recognised as largely true.
The reason why cliches become cliches is because they are generally recognised as largely true.
I quote it because it is particularly obvious. If you are actually interesed in the evidence it is available in detail here. Check items marked global warming for global warming items. http://neilsindex.blogspot.com/
Being qualified yourself to tell me I am wrong you will, of course, immediately be able to put up lots of, or even some, actual evidence?
Being qualified yourself to tell me I am wrong you will, of course, immediately be able to put up lots of, or even some, actual evidence?
No ta! No desire to spend hours wading through the cold porridge that is your blog. I'd sooner look at an educational website. This one for example:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805
BTW, you didn't answer by question about El Nino. No obligation of course, but people might wonder why you keep citing 1998 but duck the issue of El Nino.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805
BTW, you didn't answer by question about El Nino. No obligation of course, but people might wonder why you keep citing 1998 but duck the issue of El Nino.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
I have answered your questions & your reply is to say you don't intend to read it. Your choice.
I note you have been unable to name a single piece of actual scientific evidence for the theory. Don't worry about that - neither has anybody else.
Anybody (not you obviously Mous) who wishes to know how the scam is worked can see this http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
I note you have been unable to name a single piece of actual scientific evidence for the theory. Don't worry about that - neither has anybody else.
Anybody (not you obviously Mous) who wishes to know how the scam is worked can see this http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
That paper is just the standard denialist conspiracy theory.
Was the science it contains peer reviewed? No.
Is it published in a reputable scientific journal? No.
What are the author's qualifications? I can't find any reference to these.
Here's a blog you could read:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
We could go on like this for ages. Pretty pointless isn’t it?
Please read my earlier comment about science being done by scientists who are appropriately qualified, have a sufficient grounding in their subject, and meet the standards set by their scientific peers.
The Internet is stuffed full of crap, your blog included. Ultimately, the only reliable source of scientific information is in the form of peer reviewed scientific work. Educational stuff like the Open University site I pointed you towards are good for background and if you want to educate yourself. Just to remind of that link:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805
Was the science it contains peer reviewed? No.
Is it published in a reputable scientific journal? No.
What are the author's qualifications? I can't find any reference to these.
Here's a blog you could read:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
We could go on like this for ages. Pretty pointless isn’t it?
Please read my earlier comment about science being done by scientists who are appropriately qualified, have a sufficient grounding in their subject, and meet the standards set by their scientific peers.
The Internet is stuffed full of crap, your blog included. Ultimately, the only reliable source of scientific information is in the form of peer reviewed scientific work. Educational stuff like the Open University site I pointed you towards are good for background and if you want to educate yourself. Just to remind of that link:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
You don't understand what science is. The only reliable source of scientific information is observation & experiment.
Had Galileo relied on peer review we would still be taught the Sun orbits the Earth.
Had Galileo relied on peer review we would still be taught the Sun orbits the Earth.
I wouldn't compare your denialist guff to Galileo if I were you.
Experiment - John Tyndall carried out an experiment in 1859 that proved that CO2 and other gases were opaque to radiant heat, whilst O2 and N2 were transparent to radiant heat. His results can be easily replicated in a modern lab.
Observation - John Keeling began measuring levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1950s and proved that CO2 levels were rising. The analysis of isotopes of carbon showed the source of that increase in CO2 to be human activities such as burning fossil fuels.
More CO2 in the atmosphere should mean that more solar heat is retained. It is all there in the educational sources such as this one:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805
Experiment - John Tyndall carried out an experiment in 1859 that proved that CO2 and other gases were opaque to radiant heat, whilst O2 and N2 were transparent to radiant heat. His results can be easily replicated in a modern lab.
Observation - John Keeling began measuring levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1950s and proved that CO2 levels were rising. The analysis of isotopes of carbon showed the source of that increase in CO2 to be human activities such as burning fossil fuels.
More CO2 in the atmosphere should mean that more solar heat is retained. It is all there in the educational sources such as this one:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
Neither of which proves it is a significant cause. I might equally say it has been proven that cigarettes release both CO2 & heat therefore they must be a significant cause of global warming.
Science is free investigation. Once you start saying something cannot be discussed because those in power say "the science is settled" then you aren't doing science.
You missed my point entirely. There is no Science in creationism.
Had Galileo relied on peer review we would still be taught the Sun orbits the Earth.
Sheer ignorance. Gallileo had the support of his peers. It was the Catholic Church who persecuted him. Exactly why we need to keep science and religion apart.
You missed my point entirely. There is no Science in creationism.
Had Galileo relied on peer review we would still be taught the Sun orbits the Earth.
Sheer ignorance. Gallileo had the support of his peers. It was the Catholic Church who persecuted him. Exactly why we need to keep science and religion apart.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
You ignored my point - it is not up to anybody, let alone you, to define what science may not discuss. When that happens there is no science.
You are ignorant about Galileo - there were plenty of experts willing to take the Pope's shilling - just as there are over 2,000 who let the politicians of the IPCC rewrite their reports. Exactly why we need to keep sciende & politics apart.
You are ignorant about Galileo - there were plenty of experts willing to take the Pope's shilling - just as there are over 2,000 who let the politicians of the IPCC rewrite their reports. Exactly why we need to keep sciende & politics apart.
“Neither of which proves it is a significant cause.”
You’ve done the maths have you?
"cigarettes release both CO2 & heat"
Tobacco is a plant. Plants have to grow. They absorb carbon from their surroundings as they grow, including the atmosphere. It is called photosynthesis. Burning tobacco releases carbon back into the atmosphere, the same carbon that was previously absorbed. It is pretty much a carbon neutral activity provided farmers plant new crops that will absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow. It is part of the Carbon Cycle. Here is an educational resource that explains it:
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_4_2_15t.htm
It would, of course, be different if we burnt lots of vegetation all at once, for example setting light to the Amazonian Rain Forest. That would release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and that would have an impact on climate, just as burning fossil carbon that has being lying underground for millions of years, and doing so in a short time span, will have an impact on climate. The problem is the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere by human activities. The natural absorption of carbon by vegetation and oceans is being swamped by human emissions, hence CO2 levels are rising.
Frankly, I am beginning to doubt whether you have any grasp on the science of MMCC at all.
You still haven’t responded to my question on the 1998 El Nino event.
You’ve done the maths have you?
"cigarettes release both CO2 & heat"
Tobacco is a plant. Plants have to grow. They absorb carbon from their surroundings as they grow, including the atmosphere. It is called photosynthesis. Burning tobacco releases carbon back into the atmosphere, the same carbon that was previously absorbed. It is pretty much a carbon neutral activity provided farmers plant new crops that will absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow. It is part of the Carbon Cycle. Here is an educational resource that explains it:
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_4_2_15t.htm
It would, of course, be different if we burnt lots of vegetation all at once, for example setting light to the Amazonian Rain Forest. That would release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere and that would have an impact on climate, just as burning fossil carbon that has being lying underground for millions of years, and doing so in a short time span, will have an impact on climate. The problem is the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere by human activities. The natural absorption of carbon by vegetation and oceans is being swamped by human emissions, hence CO2 levels are rising.
Frankly, I am beginning to doubt whether you have any grasp on the science of MMCC at all.
You still haven’t responded to my question on the 1998 El Nino event.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
You're an idiot, then. What possible reason is there to teach creationism in schools? It's not science, it has no relevance to the education of children and, without exception, everyone who believes in it is a crackpot lunatic weirdo.
Men like yourself probably support having schoolchildren across the country taught your version of sexual morality in school under the banner of "sex education". However, I would prefer my morality to be taught to my children, and would consider putting any future children in private school to make sure they learn what I want them to.
Since the elimination of morals education, including religion from the public schools the number of children born out of wedlock has gone from 2% here in America to about one-third. If the numbers on illegitimacy are broken down by race they are even more shocking. The White illegitimacy rate has gone from less than 1% to 25% and the Black rate has gone from 25% to 75% in the last half century. In some urban areas the Black rate is close to 90%! I've seen your world without Christian morality and I don't want to be part of it. Besides, in your world of Atheist morality plants, trees and animals all deserve the protection of the law, but it should be legal to destroy unborn children, what's next infanticide?
Men like yourself probably support having schoolchildren across the country taught your version of sexual morality in school under the banner of "sex education". However, I would prefer my morality to be taught to my children, and would consider putting any future children in private school to make sure they learn what I want them to.
Since the elimination of morals education, including religion from the public schools the number of children born out of wedlock has gone from 2% here in America to about one-third. If the numbers on illegitimacy are broken down by race they are even more shocking. The White illegitimacy rate has gone from less than 1% to 25% and the Black rate has gone from 25% to 75% in the last half century. In some urban areas the Black rate is close to 90%! I've seen your world without Christian morality and I don't want to be part of it. Besides, in your world of Atheist morality plants, trees and animals all deserve the protection of the law, but it should be legal to destroy unborn children, what's next infanticide?
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
Naughty me. I set that tobacco causes global warming remark up to see if you would walk into it.
The Blessed Al Gore, owner of seafront property with a big carbon footprint, purveyor of carbon credit certificates to the masses & Lord high guru of the warming movement said it.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/10/cigarette-smoking-significant-cause-of.html
Just the sort of thing Branes would publish if they weren't PC Beeboids eh?
Frankly I agree with you - he doesn't know what he is talking about.
The Blessed Al Gore, owner of seafront property with a big carbon footprint, purveyor of carbon credit certificates to the masses & Lord high guru of the warming movement said it.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/10/cigarette-smoking-significant-cause-of.html
Just the sort of thing Branes would publish if they weren't PC Beeboids eh?
Frankly I agree with you - he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Sorry, Neil, I shan't indulge in ad hominems again. It was very bad of me, but when you disagree with someone so vehemently, it's difficult not to fall into the trap of insulting them.
Back to what you said:
"being less interested in the unnecesary killing of millions of humans than in the non-killing of polar bears makes you non-admirable".
Yes, I agree. Because it's totally impossible to care about two things at the same time. The human brain can't take such a large amount of compassion!
"The reason why cliches become cliches is because they are generally recognised as largely true"
So you think all British people have bad teeth? My teeth are very good, I'll have you know, and I'm British.
Back to what you said:
"being less interested in the unnecesary killing of millions of humans than in the non-killing of polar bears makes you non-admirable".
Yes, I agree. Because it's totally impossible to care about two things at the same time. The human brain can't take such a large amount of compassion!
"The reason why cliches become cliches is because they are generally recognised as largely true"
So you think all British people have bad teeth? My teeth are very good, I'll have you know, and I'm British.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
The philosophical error here is known as "undistributed middle" - to assume that unless every single Brit has good teeth every single one must have bad ones.
The philosophical error here is known at not being able to tell the difference between a flippant remark and ernest comment. Do you really think that I believe that because I have good teeth, I think all British people do?
Come on, I'm not 12.
Nice that you addressed the issues in the post, though.
Come on, I'm not 12.
Nice that you addressed the issues in the post, though.
# posted by : July 24, 2009
: July 24, 2009
So you are actually saying that Creationism is valid science? A one word yes or no answer will suffice please.
# posted by : July 25, 2009
: July 25, 2009
Q: So you are actually saying that Creationism is valid science? NF
A: Is alchemy in all cases not valid science? NC
Neil, you have a dreadful habit of answering questions with questions, or for picking out a single detail in a reasoned argument and running off at a tangent with it. You scitter about hither and yon, refusing to stay on topic, scattering non sequiturs and childish retorts in your wake.
There are rules to debate. As you bloody well know. And while SYBers may break the rule about abuse for a laugh, your complete lack of adherence to debating conventions is, to say the least, frustrating.
You make sweeping statements and utterly ignore any direct challenge to them, congratulating yourself at how unmatched you are at mental fencing. You are 'unmatched' at mental fencing becuase you won't f***ing stand still! Now pull yourself together and engage people on the weak areas of your arguments.
Because nearly everything you had offered so far is simply playground level dodgeball.
A: Is alchemy in all cases not valid science? NC
Neil, you have a dreadful habit of answering questions with questions, or for picking out a single detail in a reasoned argument and running off at a tangent with it. You scitter about hither and yon, refusing to stay on topic, scattering non sequiturs and childish retorts in your wake.
There are rules to debate. As you bloody well know. And while SYBers may break the rule about abuse for a laugh, your complete lack of adherence to debating conventions is, to say the least, frustrating.
You make sweeping statements and utterly ignore any direct challenge to them, congratulating yourself at how unmatched you are at mental fencing. You are 'unmatched' at mental fencing becuase you won't f***ing stand still! Now pull yourself together and engage people on the weak areas of your arguments.
Because nearly everything you had offered so far is simply playground level dodgeball.
# posted by : July 25, 2009
: July 25, 2009
Ben said...
Yes, I agree. Because it's totally impossible to care about two things at the same time. The human brain can't take such a large amount of compassion!
Ben, Enviros don't give equal treatment to animals and people, they care for animals more. A typical liberal/environmentalist will support the abortion of little unborn human children as necessary, but will condemn any private act that he feels will endanger one of his precious endangered species.
Yes, I agree. Because it's totally impossible to care about two things at the same time. The human brain can't take such a large amount of compassion!
Ben, Enviros don't give equal treatment to animals and people, they care for animals more. A typical liberal/environmentalist will support the abortion of little unborn human children as necessary, but will condemn any private act that he feels will endanger one of his precious endangered species.
# posted by : July 25, 2009
: July 25, 2009
Is alchemy in all cases not valid science?
I did not ask you about alchemy. Try again to answer the question put.
I did not ask you about alchemy. Try again to answer the question put.
# posted by : July 25, 2009
: July 25, 2009
Mous you will note that both you & Norman are guilty of the very refusal you accuse me of. This is, indeed, as you tacitly admit, normal behaviouir among all the branes & indeed almost everybody disagreeing with me. In fact I have answered questions ad nauseam merely to see them not acknowledged & more "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions asked. The refusal to debate is certainly not on my side.
As Norman's refusal to answer shows he knows the idea that anything can be put into a particular box & ignored is not science. Some, questions & all philosophical questions do not have a useful yes/no answer.
As Norman's refusal to answer shows he knows the idea that anything can be put into a particular box & ignored is not science. Some, questions & all philosophical questions do not have a useful yes/no answer.
Neil, the comment below has not appeared after 18 hours. I'm sure it just an oversight and not one of your more erratic attempts at censorship.
As Norman's refusal to answer shows he knows the idea that anything can be put into a particular box & ignored is not science. Some, questions & all philosophical questions do not have a useful yes/no answer.
I don't understand this comment. I think it's a badly drafted, pompous evasion.
On the other hand, my position is clear. Alchemy and Creationism are not science so we don't teach them in science classes. Anyone who supports their inclusion in a science curriculum is a scoundrel.
As Norman's refusal to answer shows he knows the idea that anything can be put into a particular box & ignored is not science. Some, questions & all philosophical questions do not have a useful yes/no answer.
I don't understand this comment. I think it's a badly drafted, pompous evasion.
On the other hand, my position is clear. Alchemy and Creationism are not science so we don't teach them in science classes. Anyone who supports their inclusion in a science curriculum is a scoundrel.
# posted by : July 28, 2009
: July 28, 2009
I assume Norman saw the idiot from Branes who boasted he had put a post here dishonestly claiming his previous post hadn't been put & lightbulb came on above his head.
Modern chemistry was derived from alchemy & a number of processes were started by alchemists. I think that proves my point that real science doesn't refuse to consider anything.
Modern chemistry was derived from alchemy & a number of processes were started by alchemists. I think that proves my point that real science doesn't refuse to consider anything.
Modern chemistry was derived from alchemy & a number of processes were started by alchemists. I think that proves my point that real science doesn't refuse to consider anything.
Your answer shows precisely why I asked you to clarify your position. That some by-products of Alchemy proved to be useful does not make Alchemy a science. Also, at no time did I advocate that anything should be off-limits to science. That is a straw man argument of your making.
Creationism depends on a Creator to explain its doctrines. It is essentially a religious argument
from authority where the facts are chosen to fit the theory, exactly the opposite to science. No field of science depends on supernatural explanation.
A scientific theory can be used to explain and predict events outside the original field of enquiry, thus Darwin's theory of Evolution is still useful in microbiology today. Creationism explains nothing outside its own terms of reference and has no predictive use whatever.
You are betraying science by seeking to make it subservient to your economic and political ideology. You are guilty of the error you impute to others.
Your answer shows precisely why I asked you to clarify your position. That some by-products of Alchemy proved to be useful does not make Alchemy a science. Also, at no time did I advocate that anything should be off-limits to science. That is a straw man argument of your making.
Creationism depends on a Creator to explain its doctrines. It is essentially a religious argument
from authority where the facts are chosen to fit the theory, exactly the opposite to science. No field of science depends on supernatural explanation.
A scientific theory can be used to explain and predict events outside the original field of enquiry, thus Darwin's theory of Evolution is still useful in microbiology today. Creationism explains nothing outside its own terms of reference and has no predictive use whatever.
You are betraying science by seeking to make it subservient to your economic and political ideology. You are guilty of the error you impute to others.
# posted by : July 30, 2009
: July 30, 2009
Norman says "At no time did I advocate tha anything should be off limits to science".
Earlier Norman said that anybody who advocated scientists even mentioning the history of alchemy, which he now acknowledges had been useful, is a "scoundrel".
Norman clearly considers himself, like Han Solo, to be a scoundrel. There are differences.
Earlier Norman said that anybody who advocated scientists even mentioning the history of alchemy, which he now acknowledges had been useful, is a "scoundrel".
Norman clearly considers himself, like Han Solo, to be a scoundrel. There are differences.
You have written above Earlier Norman said that anybody who advocated scientists even mentioning the history of alchemy, which he now acknowledges had been useful, is a "scoundrel".
What I actually wrote was Alchemy and Creationism are not science so we don't teach them in science classes. Anyone who supports their inclusion in a science curriculum is a scoundrel.
If you cannot understand the difference between these two arguments it would go a long way to explain why you're defending Creationism. You would have to be stupid.
The sole purpose of Creationism is to undermine science. At the moment your stated position,insofar as it can be devined from all your equivocation and unfunny jokes, is that Creationism is vaild science and should be taught in schools. This would make you a scoundrel.
What I actually wrote was Alchemy and Creationism are not science so we don't teach them in science classes. Anyone who supports their inclusion in a science curriculum is a scoundrel.
If you cannot understand the difference between these two arguments it would go a long way to explain why you're defending Creationism. You would have to be stupid.
The sole purpose of Creationism is to undermine science. At the moment your stated position,insofar as it can be devined from all your equivocation and unfunny jokes, is that Creationism is vaild science and should be taught in schools. This would make you a scoundrel.
# posted by : July 30, 2009
: July 30, 2009
The claim that I have defended creationism as factual is, of course, merely the very highest standar of honesty to which you aspire - ie another lie.
What I have defended is the right of free inquiry which must at all times be defended from charlatains & illiberal fascists such as yourself.
What I have defended is the right of free inquiry which must at all times be defended from charlatains & illiberal fascists such as yourself.
Yes.
Of course you have to know that the founders of liberalism did not believe in state control of everything, Ludditism, genocide& censorship of ideas - unlike today's "Liberal Democrats".
Of course you have to know that the founders of liberalism did not believe in state control of everything, Ludditism, genocide& censorship of ideas - unlike today's "Liberal Democrats".
Ben you said "the Earth is warming up ..undeniably"
Since Prof Jones the high priest of alrmis has said it hasn't done so for the last 15 years perhaps you would like to:
A) aoplogise for making the claim or
B) explain why it is impoosible for anybody tom have said what your gutu said or
C) acknowledge that supporters of the climate scam & eco-fascism will, generally, tell & maintain absolutely any lie whatsoever no matter how easily proven to be a lie & that thus they should never under any circumstances be automatically trusted on anything & that any eco-fascist posing as a decent human owes an aoplogy to all decent humans. No offence.
Post a Comment
Since Prof Jones the high priest of alrmis has said it hasn't done so for the last 15 years perhaps you would like to:
A) aoplogise for making the claim or
B) explain why it is impoosible for anybody tom have said what your gutu said or
C) acknowledge that supporters of the climate scam & eco-fascism will, generally, tell & maintain absolutely any lie whatsoever no matter how easily proven to be a lie & that thus they should never under any circumstances be automatically trusted on anything & that any eco-fascist posing as a decent human owes an aoplogy to all decent humans. No offence.
<< Home
