Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

David, this is quite an extremist, alarmist, and paranoid article you write. And gratuitously partisan as you never mention McCain’s name once whose position on this is similar to Obama’s.

Your sophistry by attributing to Obama the environmentalist extremist views is blatant. Such deception and contortions of reality and fact do not serve either your article’s goal, nor the reader’s need for reliable information.

Dispense with the Fox News trick of mentioning Obama’s name and then quoting extremists to imply the extremist’s views are Obama’s. If you have a case to make with Obama’s position, do your homework and quote Obama.

This article doesn’t even attempt to provide an informative and balanced reporting of facts and reliable information on where the candidate’s stand. This article belongs in a Fox Newspaper rag. I have come to expect quite a bit more from WB articles, personally.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 04:50 AM

Oh, love your innuendo. A nazi swastika and several mentions of Obama’s name. Another cute FOX News type trick of deception.

I CAN’T BELIEVE you didn’t include THE FACT that McCain is four score behind the Cap and Trade policy. That must make McCain a Nazi fascist too according to your article’s reasoning. What a sham of an article, pretending to provide useful information when it is nothing more than a partisan smear piece of the worst kind.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 04:56 AM

I agree 100% David Huntwork. I noticed that DRR didn’t dispute anything you said.

Posted by: BOHICA at June 23, 2008 05:42 AM

Let’s see. If you’re going to write an alarmist screed opposing a candidate for something you think he’s going to do, you have two essential logical requirements:

• Establish that the guy you don’t like is going to do something bad
• Establish that his opponent won’t

Congrats, Dave Huntwork! You went 0-2! Add in that you started the piece with an invocation of Godwin’s Law, and we can pretty much say that this article is exactly the type of dung that David Remer described: “extremist, alarmist, and paranoid”.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 23, 2008 08:42 AM

,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

It may be an 80 year cycle; one we’ve seen before?

As for the two presidential candidates, neither one of them have much to brag about. Especially with regard to border security and enforcing existing immigration laws (which is why the supporters of BOTH candidates avoid the issue like the plague).

The carbon tax is a bad idea.
We can’t tax our way out of every problem.
Fuel prices will become painful enough and soon enough without the federal government abuaing its power to tax to make it more painful.
Carbon Tax disadvantages:

• (01) It is yet another regressive tax. It also punishes certain industries and professions more than others.


• (02) It is price-based tax. While increased price may lower demand and emissions, no definite limits on emissions can be guaranteed. If demand is strong enough, emissions will still rise despite the tax.


• (03) In order to achieve significant carbon emission reductions to put a dent in climate change, carbon taxes would have to be extremely high, and voters ain’t likely to stand for it. Especially the middle class that is already being hammered from every angle. Especially if progress toward alternative solutions is non-existent; a high likelihood based on do-nothing Congress’ track-record.


• (04) Carbon taxes are bad for the economy. A carbon tax that may be effective in a boom economy would be grossly excessive in a recession.


• (05) It is pointless if there are no suitable alternatives on the horizon.


• (06) Carbon taxes will increase economic disadvantages for the middle-income and lower-income groups that are already being hammered by numerous deteriorating economic conditions: one-simple-idea.com/NeverWorse.htm


• (07) It would be difficult to tell what effect the tax is was having on emissions.


• (08) A quantity (versus price based) system will be difficult to measure, and ripe for abuse.


• (09) As tax-happy as most politicians are, they are not likely to commit career suicide by implementing carbon taxes large enough to put a dent in the current emission levels. We need altnernatives, and action to move toward those alternatives: One-Simple-Idea.com/BiofuelsAndEthanol.htm

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 08:53 AM

By the way, over-population is a serious part of the problem, with the world population growing by 211,000 per day!

Over-population exacerbates all other problems, and is one of the largest factors harming the environment.

Yet, what is the U.S. doing? Importing 5 million per year of the more impoverished, less educated, and less skilled. That makes a lot of sense, eh?
Why?
profits and votes, disguised as compassion.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 09:03 AM

David M,

“Americans are routinely vilified, called lazy, wasteful, gas guzzling ingrates. Americans are somehow almost solely blamed and held responsible for the thawing of permafrost and the cause of the nightmarish embodiment of all evil called global warming simply because hard working people have the sheer audacity to heat their homes, travel to work, grab a hamburger or turn on a fan if it gets hot.”

While I have no doubt that Americans are, for the most part, hard working “compassionate” people, but it is this sort of whining hyperbole that comes from someone that apparently believes America is the “greatest country God ever gave this planet”, without having been anywhere else to compare it to.

We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.

We do things because we can, not because it is necessarily the right thing to do, and we do it because we see it as our right to do so.

“I’ve got mine, and screw the poor sucker that can’t get his own.”

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 10:03 AM

Rocky wrote:We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.

It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.

Being able to recognize it and knowing how to deal with it appropriately (more Education, Transparency, and Accountability) is part of the solution.

• Responsibility = Power + Conscience + Education + Transparency + Accountability


• Corruption = Power - Conscience - Education - Transparency - Accountability

It’s a problem with fundamental root causes that cycles through all societies (to varying degrees).
Nations rise and fall.
Progress is slow: 2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward, and we’ve been going backwards for several decades.
The root causes are the same as they have been for millennia:

apathy, complacency, greed, ignorance, selfishness, misplaced loyalties, irrational fears and hatreds, and laziness

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.

Yet 40% to 50% of voters don’t vote.
Too many voters fuel and wallow in the partisan warfare (as exemplified by the spin from the extremes), because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, than admit THEIR own party is little (if any) better (a problem with roots in laziness and blind partisan loyalties).
Too many voters merely pull the party-lever, without even knowing the canidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
Too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election, despite giving Congress dismally record-low approval ratings.
Too many voters refuse to see themselves as culpable, when they are the largest group that is truly most culpable.

When will things get better (if ever) in the U.S.?
Probably, only when economic conditions have deteriorated so much that the painful consequences finally provide the much-needed motivation for enough voters to finally stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians for perpetuating the numerous abuses that have been hammering them for decades.
Sadly, too often, humans choose to get their education the hard and painful way.

This cycle has happened several times in the U.S., and countless times around the world, and it will most likely happen again. Unfortunately, the decline may take many decades to unfold, and many decades to recover from (if ever).

If we want to hasten the process (for improvements), those of us that recognize this fact of human nature can help energize others to become more educated about the issues, voting records, motivations, and human psychology. Only education can help compensate for lack of virtue and conscience, by providing the knowledge that things will get more painful if we stay on the current course.

Either way, the voters will get their education.
The only question is, will it be:

• the smart, peaceful, responsible way


• or the hard and painful way (again)

Based on the huge list of deteriorating economic conditions that will have long-lasting consequences for many years (or decades) to come, it’s most likely going to be the hard way, but the sooner the better, because it will only get more painful the longer we ignore the nation’s pressing problems, growing dangerously in number and severity.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 10:58 AM

Alarmist? Probably. True? Absolutely.

And I quote directly from Obama’s mouth on how he views such horrendous things as SUV’s and air conditioning and how that “is not going to happen” in an Obama administration.

The Paul Revere’s are never appreciated in their own time. Mark my words today, and remember what I said tomorrow. The Green state is coming.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 23, 2008 11:25 AM

Dan,

“It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.”

Baloney.

Most of the people of the rest of the world make do with what they have. When I was in the Orient people there didn’t waste so much as a piece of burnt toast.
They get by with bicycles and smaller cars, and mass transportation because they have to. These are things that were nearly unheard of in America until our present fuel crisis.
We so loathe spending any more time than we have to surrounded by our fellow humans that we only give up our “right to privacy” in our cars under duress. We have been taught to look down on, and be offended by people that smell differently.
Hell, Americans spend more time in the shower and washing their hands than the rest of the world combined. We have lawns in our front yards where the rest of the world makes do with parks.
Now I will agree that this is all very picayunish, but it’s the small things that eventually add up to the big problems.

It is our “too much is never enough” attitude that has placed us squarely where we are today, and until we figure it out, we will continue to have these problems.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 11:47 AM

David -

Ever see ‘Pinky and the Brain’? Well, you are apparently likening Obama to the Brain and those who are buying into what he says as Pinkies.

Most telling was your sentence: “The current cry about global warming and climate change is far less about actually dealing with the situation one way or another than it is about taking away the concept of the choice of the individual and the installment of unquestionable government regulatory over every aspect of the economy, business, consumption and by extension every aspect of your daily life.”

You’ve GOT to be kidding me - it’s NOT so much about saving the global climate for human habitation, but more about taking away FREEDOM?!?!?

According to you, then, there’s a vast cabal of left-wingers led by Obama the Brain who is saying, “Heh heh heh…see, Pinky, they THINK we’re trying to save the planet, but what they don’t know is we’re TRYING to take over the WORLD!”

Typical Neo-Con trick.

Here’s the FACTS David:

1 - Bush’s Executive Order 51 gives him the authority whenever he declares a ‘national emergency’ to take effectively dictatorial powers.

2 - Bush’s quote: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

I’ve seen this trick many times, David - do something bad, or even just plan to do something bad, then do one’s damnedest to try to accuse the other guy for trying to do the same thing - no matter how false the accusation may be.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 23, 2008 12:18 PM

Rocky wrote:

d.a.n wrote: “It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.”

Baloney.

Rocky, Your comment is ignoring thousands of examples and several millennia of historical records that show that nations rise and fall, and the real root causes are often very similar, and extremely difficult to deny that human flaws are at the root of our problems. It is most certainly going to be very a tough position to defend.

For example, you speak of excesses and wastefulness. Do you how many historic examples of that behavior exists? Do you know how many declines are preceeded by fiscal irresponsibity (the first signs of something wrong)? How many nations can you name that became essentially bankrupt, and shrinking to mere shadows of their former far-reaching expanse and glory?

Thus, to say it is “baloney” is not supported by several millennia of historical facts. Many societies have done the same thing. Many societies will repeat the same mistakes. That’s not to say there isn’t progress, but it is very slow.

But the rise and fall is all very much rooted in human nature (our strengths and our flaws).

In fact, there are other nations now repeating the mistakes made by the U.S. Prosperity has a way of bringing its own demise … giving credence to the theory of a cycle:

,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

The only way to mitigate the damages is via education. We can get it faster and smarter, or slower and more painfully. It’s our choice. In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.

On the bright side, the motivation to become more educated (if it doesn’t come too late) is almost inevitable. Most voters will finally become less apathetic, complacent, partisan, greed, selfishness, irrationally fearful, delusional, and lazy when enough of the voters are jobless, homeless, and hungry. Then they will most likely do as they did in year 1933, when most unhappy voters ousted 44% (206 members) of the incumbent politicians up for re-election in Congress.

Rocky wrote: It is our “too much is never enough” attitude that has placed us squarely where we are today, and until we figure it out, we will continue to have these problems.

True. And at the root of it is greed, selfishness, and laziness, partisan loyalties, apathy, complacency, irrational fears and hatreds, and delusion are a human flaws, which you call “baloney”.

Americans are not the only nation to have visited these problems, dysfunction, and decline.
Many nations have already been-there and done-that.
In that respect, Americans are no different than other peoples around the world … we’re all simply in different stages of the cycle.
The cycle isn’t always identical, but it always involves the rise and fall of nations.
The U.S. may survive this decline as it survived the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression.
But it won’t be without pain and misery that we brought upon ourselves due to our most fundamental human flaws.

At any rate, the voters are culpable too, and have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 12:47 PM

David,
Do you think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Fascism has many definitions, but what you are suggesting does not meet those definitions. For example, fascism is usually closely associated with corporatism, because of the close links which usually exist between a fascist state and corporations. Other characteristics of fascism usually include nationalism and militarism, neither of which fits with your use of the word. I think you are trying to suggest environmentalists are totalitarian.

There is also the peculiar assertion that confuses science with religion, and acknowledgment of Global Warming with religious faith.

So let’s return to the orginal question.

Do you think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 01:09 PM

The coming fascist state will rule with an iron fist in the name of the invironment.

In the back of my mind, I’m thinking that the democratic congress is so corrupt the radical left will not have their way….at least I hope so.

Posted by: StephenL at June 23, 2008 01:29 PM

d.a.n.,

“And at the root of it is greed, selfishness, and laziness, partisan loyalties, apathy, complacency, irrational fears and hatreds, and delusion are a human flaws, which you call “baloney”.
Americans are not the only nation to have visited these problems, dysfunction, and decline.
Many nations have already been-there and done-that.
In that respect, Americans are no different than other peoples around the world … we’re all simply in different stages of the cycle.
The cycle isn’t always identical, but it always involves the rise and fall of nations.
The U.S. may survive this decline as it survived the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression.
But it won’t be without pain and misery that we brought upon ourselves due to our most fundamental human flaws.”

You assume that we all as humans are flawed, but I don’t for a second believe that all of us, at this moment, even here in America, suffer from all of the same flaws that you would assign to all of us.
I will give you that in the ebb and flow of time, perhaps America is on the downside, and that we are on the downside because of the greed, etc that is displayed by some of our fellow country men.
I will not give you that it is beyond repair, nor will I give you that it is even displayed by all Americans.
I would not presume to paint all humans with the same broad brush of absolutism as you.

I see humans as basically good, you appear to see them as basically bad. That is the crux of the biscuit.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 01:50 PM

Thank you David for an excellent and thought-provoking piece.

The man-made global warming theory is indeed the launch pad so long sought by the liberal goons who would govern with an iron fist. And, you are correct, for many it has become the new religion. A God centered religion provides its believers a reward in heaven, the new green religion provides the “feel-good” reward combined with power here on planet earth.

MMGW is all about power and control over the lives and actions of all humanity with the practitioners believing that the ends do justify the means.

I am still waiting for a MMGW promoter to tell me what is the correct temperature for the planet. Yet, we must blindly believe that despite great global climate diversity in the past, we must at all cost prevent any climate diversity in the future. How silly, how arrogant, how perverse, that some would believe they have the wisdom to make that determination.

Soon, the MMGW’s will be advocating putting venetian blinds on the sun.

Posted by: Jim M at June 23, 2008 01:53 PM

If the government gets into the business of regulating and controlling carbon emissions it will be an unparalleled concentration of power far exceeding the New Deal under Roosevelt.

Is this not including the current administrations numerous subversions of our checks and balances system?

The government will be in complete control over what businesses and average citizens consume and produce.

The control would only be to the extent of say, the government regulating use of toxic material or where chemical plants can be located. And as far as I know, no one complains about those things even though they control what businesses and average citizens consume and produce.

I have often stated that if true fascism ever materializes it will come from the Left, not the Right. It will not spring from Bush’s meager attempts to listen to Al-Qaeda phone calls or build bases in Iraq but from those who so vigorously proclaim that they will do whatever it takes to save the planet from ourselves no matter what the cost.

To be fair, Bush has done far more restrictive and probably illegal activities than you have listed.

Raised a Muslim as a small boy, drifting aimlessly as a youth, and converting to black liberation theology Christianity as an adult, Obama had trouble finding the religion that worked for him.

Subscribing to a religion is a pretty important life-changing event wouldn’t you agree? You can hardly blame someone for not finding what is right for them in their youth. But more than that, Obama was not raised Muslim. Not that that matters. If it happened when he was a small boy he would not have had much say in the matter would he?

They are the ones who cheer soon to be $5.00 a gallon gas prices and tell us that we have been spoiled for far too long.

I hope you realize that gasoline at the pump is increasing in price because there is no longer an abundance enough of it. Whether or not anyone “cheers” the price of gas on is irrelevant to how expensive it is.

We would be far wiser to plan ahead as to what needs to be done with populations, cities and crop planting if the oceans are significantly rising and the climate is indeed shifting as is claimed.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. We can both plan for coming climate shifts and attempt to moderate them. At the very least, moderating pollution and ensuring an abundant, persistent energy source comes out neutral if you consider the costs.

One last thing: you consistently set up this straw-man throughout your article that suggests that Obama wants to just cut back on everything and destroy the current system. This is categorical nonsense. How exactly do you think Obama would go about controlling what you set your thermostat to anyways? How exactly do you think he would go about controlling how much you or your family eats?

I just cannot see what reasonable argument could exist that Obama is going to destroy our current system, let alone move us to a fascist one.

Posted by: Zeek at June 23, 2008 02:09 PM

Excuse me, when I said, “abundance enough of it” I meant “abundance of it.”

Posted by: Zeek at June 23, 2008 02:11 PM

Jim M,
Like David, you confuse several issues.

First, no one disputes climate change occurs naturally over long periods of time. Second, the point scientists have been making is that it is highly likely- that is, the likelihood of being correct is BETTER than 90%- that human activities are causing the current episode climate change.

I believe you and I have discussed the question about perfect temperature before, & I believe Stephen D also participated. I’m sorry you didn’t like the answer. But please don’t pretend you’re posing a question which leaves the opposition gobsmacked. The problem is not that a perfect temperature should be maintained, or that there is such a thing as a perfect temperature, but that rapid climate change can be devastating to humans and all life on the planet, and once begun, difficult to stop. It is not about maitaining a temperature. It is about preventing rapid, devastating change.

Third, the issue of whether anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring is separate from the issue of what, if anything, we should do about it. I don’t know of anyone who thinks it can be stopped at this point. The amounts of eneries are vast and the momentum behind the change is huge, and the only question is by how much, if at all, we will stop making the problem worse.

So! What you and David seem to be saying is that you do not like a problem which is worldwide in nature, because it requires international cooperation, therefore you will deny the problem, and then, just for good measure, condemn international cooperation as some sort of totalitarian plot.

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 03:38 PM

Rocky wrote: You assume that we all as humans are flawed,

Yes, to varying degrees, that is easy to prove. No one is perfect. Surely you aren’t going to try to defend that too?

Rocky wrote: … but I don’t for a second believe that all of us, at this moment, even here in America, suffer from all of the same flaws that you would assign to all of us.

Where did I ever say “all of us” suffer “all of the same flaws”?

We all have different flaws to varying degrees. That’s a fact. Otherwise, please show me the perfect person(s) who are perfect.

Rocky wrote: I will give you that in the ebb and flow of time, perhaps America is on the downside, and that we are on the downside because of the greed, etc

Yes, the U.S. is in decline, and has been for years, and that is not hard to see or prove, with so many pressing problems growing dangerously in number and severity.

It’s not only an issue of greed alone.
It is also an issue of other human flaws.
For example, there are the complacent and apathetic that tolerate and permit the greedy to get away with it.
That’s a lack of accountability.
Without accountability, there is increasing lawlessness, irresponsibility, and corruption.
Also, there are blind partisan loyalties which are rooted in laziness.
It’s easier to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit THEIR party is little (if any) better.

Rocky wrote: I will give you that in the ebb and flow of time, perhaps America is on the downside, and that we are on the downside because of the greed, etc that is displayed by some of our fellow country men.

True. By “some” are greedy. Some are complacent. Some are apathetic. Some are ignorant. Some are lazily partisan and misplace their loyalties. Some are delusional. Some are irrationally prejudiced and fearful. Some are lazy. Some are near perfect.

If you’re read my many posts, I often use the terms “too many voters”. Rarely do I say “everyone”, “always”, or “never”. After all, no one is perfect, but some (probably few) are near perfect.
But greed is not the only problem.
While most people are law abiding, too many are too apathetic, complacent, and lazy, which permit greed to spread.
Thus, the apathetic, complacent, and lazy are complicit.
Still, we are all culpable to varying degrees.
Even the most perfect among us have a duty to help energize and educate the electorate.

Rocky wrote: I will not give you that it is beyond repair, …

I did not write that it was beyond repair.

However, it is very unlikely that reforms will be painless or quick (i.e. 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward).
That’s why I often say “the sooner the better”.
It’s not a black-and-white, yes-or-no, on-or-off, painless-or-painful only situation.
There are degrees of most things.
We’ve been on the wrong course for a while, and repairing the situation will not be painless.
And the longer we wait, the more painful it will become.

Rocky wrote: …, nor will I give you that it is even displayed by all Americans.

Again, none of us are perfect.

But I’ve rarely spoken in such absolutes as “all”, “beyond repair”, “always”, or “never”, etc.

However, we are all culpable to varying degrees.
Even the most perfect among us have a duty to energize and educate others.

Rocky wrote: I would not presume to paint all humans with the same broad brush of absolutism as you.

Nonsense. I’ve done nothing of the sort.

Rocky wrote: I see humans as basically good, you appear to see them as basically bad. That is the crux of the biscuit.

Nonsense. I’ve done nothing of the sort. Things vary over time, including corruption, courage, responsibility, etc. That is clearly exmplified by the following which I posted above and elsewhere:

,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism,
| (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
| (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
| (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility
| (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
` - - return to step (1)

I have also stated many times that most people are law abiding.

Thus, your comments and conclusions that I see people “as basically bad” is not substantiated any facts, and actually refuted by many of my statements in this alone and numerous other threads.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 03:41 PM

d.a.n.,

Your posts are so long, and so filled with recycled material, I took your suggestion and I don’t read them all the way through any more.

Look, you may think you are doing all of us a favor by repeating the same information over and over, but for me at least, I find it difficult to sort through the detritus to get to the hard facts.

So, from where I stand your opinion is absolute, and nothing seems to change that. Therefore it has become increasingly impossible for me to have even the most basic discussion with you.

I mean no offence, I am sure that some folks appreciate the reams of statistics that you seem to produce without end.
You are who you are, and I am OK with that.

At any rate, I’m done.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 04:29 PM

How typical … make a personal issue of it, rather than debate the issues or back up conclusions with facts.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 04:40 PM

David M. Huntwork wrote: Fueling this anger, and the attempts to tax, regulate, strangle, impoverish, inconvenience and generally control the average American citizen is to me an inexplicable anger towards Americans for achieving a lifestyle and standard of living that is the envy of the world, the pinnacle of Western Civilization and the marvel of history.

The U.S. has been the “envy” of the world.

But for how much longer, with $53.2 Trillion of nation-wide debt?
Especially when 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% of all wealth (a trend that started worsening in 1976)?
And the tax system is regressive. Before we add new taxes, we should first make the tax system more fair.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 05:11 PM

d.a.n.,

Believe what you want, it ain’t personal, nor is a criticism of you personally.

Regardless of how many “facts” I back up my conclusions with, you will always win, because you will always deluge me with so many words I won’t be able to keep up.

So what’s the point?

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 05:28 PM

phx8, a minor correction. You said: “Second, the point scientists have been making is that it is highly likely- that is, the likelihood of being correct is BETTER than 90%- that human activities are causing the current episode climate change.”

My reading of consensus scientific opinion is that mankind is ‘Contributing To’ and ‘Exacerbating’ the climate changes being measured. There is no consensus that I am aware for saying mankind triggered the changes we are measuring, only making them worse and faster.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 05:56 PM

Rocky wrote: d.a.n., Believe what you want, it ain’t personal, nor is a criticism of you personally.

Think so? It certainly sounds like focus on me instead of the issue of debate (which was the human traits at the root of many of our problems, and your incorrect and unsustainable conclusion that I think people are “basically bad”.

Rocky wrote: Regardless of how many “facts” I back up my conclusions with, you will always win, because you will always deluge me with so many words I won’t be able to keep up.

Cop-out. If there was proof, you’d quote it. Your conclusion that I think people are “basically bad” is unsubstantiated.

Making excuses now that I “will always win”. The truth of the matter is you can’t prove that that I “think people are “basically bad”.
In fact, my comments in this very thread before you wrote that are dispell your conclusion.
After all, no one would speak of courage and responsibility, or progress (though slow; e.g. 2.00 steps forward, 1.99 steps backward) if they believed people were “basically bad”.

Rocky wrote: So what’s the point?

That’s completely up to you. Above you said you were done …

Rocky wrote: At any rate, I’m done.

… but apparently not.

Do you want to provide facts and logic to back up your “baloney” comments, or your false assertions that I “think people are basically bad”, or continue to make a personal issue of it.
That’s all.

What’s silly about this is that you were the one criticizing Americans by saying …

Rocky wrote:
Baloney. Most of the people of the rest of the world make do with what they have.

… in which I responded that it’s not only an American problem, and that there are cycles of (1)corruption; (2)courage and responsibility; (3)liberty and growth; (3)selfishness and fiscal irresponsibility; (5)and apathy and fiscal & moral bankruptcy; return to step (1); i.e. a cycle, of sorts, that has occurred in many societies many). How do you reconcile my opinion of people with courage and responsibility with your assertions that I ““think people are basically bad”?

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 06:20 PM

phx8 thanks for adding a new word to my vocabulary…”gobsmacked”. I love it, does that mean you have smacked me with a gob of something? I wonder what I’ve been smacked with, certainly not truth, honesty or wisdom.

phx8 says, “rapid climate change can be devastating to humans and all life on the planet, and once begun, difficult to stop. It is not about maintaining a temperature. It is about preventing rapid, devastating change.”

phx8 uses the faulty computer models fed distorted information by humans to arrive at his hysterical conclusion. Science can’t “prevent” the common cold yet he would have us believe that the puny efforts of man can “prevent” what he believes is rapid devastating global climate change.

We all have read the lies and gross manipulation used by AlGore to instill fear in the masses, especially the uninformed and easily led liberal “feel-gooders” around the world. Politicians of both parties, those paradigms of truth and wisdom, are climbing on this horse as it promises votes and unlimited money and power.

As usual, the fearful are being led around by the nose and don’t even realize how their unfounded fears are being used to manipulate them. When they find their food supply dwindling, more jobs disappearing, and their electricity turned off perhaps they will wake up…or not.

In response to my question, “What is the planets perfect temperature?” phx8 said, “The problem is not that a perfect temperature should be maintained, or that there is such a thing as a perfect temperature…”

That was not an answer phx8, that was a cop-out and the answer is, there isn’t a perfect global temperature, it will be whatever it is, with or without man’s activities. But your response (not answer) revealed much. There is no defined common goal which at some point the alarmists could be satisfied as having achieved, but rather just an unending series of boondoggles and imagined fixes to continue to fleece the people of the world from their money and to destroy their freedom.

Since no one can define a goal, the goal will never be reached and that suits this conspiracy quite well.

Just as many liberal goons believe we can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis, but rather can tax our way out, they believe the same about MMGW. If we tax the people of the world enough we will achieve perfect harmony with our global climate.

The answer for these hysterical and freedom-hating folks is always the same, more taxes and less freedom. First they create a perceived problem and then proceed to tax the hell out of us to fix it and take away more of our freedom in the process.

Posted by: Jim M at June 23, 2008 06:21 PM

David M

Well I think you have made it quite clear how you feel about Obama. I hope you aren’t losing any sleep seething over the man you would prefer to present as a Muslim in liberal clothing.

The premise of this entire rant is absurd at best. The man addresses legitimate ecological concerns and you label him a fascist. I think your analogy could be ranked right up there as ultra extremist. And no, not realistically true.

Do you really believe that Obama is attempting to force you to regulate your life or suffer the consequences? All he was saying is that times are changing. The cost of energy and lack of immediately ready alternatives to offset those costs will whether we like it or not change the way many of us live. At this very moment people all over this country and the world are conserving energy. Many people are driving less, turning their thermostats down, using fans instead of air conditioners, shutting off lights, moving or considering moving closer to their work places, etc, etc, etc. They are not doing it because someone said they must. They are doing it because inflated energy costs have made conservation a must for all but those for who cost is of no concern. We are regulating ourselves out of a practical need to do so.

I am somewhat anxious to see if Jack responds to the implication that he supports fascism. He has presented several articles recently with deep support of a “fascist?” carbon tax in addition to further drilling. Personally I do not support a carbon tax or off shore and ANWR drilling and I am indeed a liberal.

Posted by: RickIL at June 23, 2008 06:36 PM

d.a.n.,

“in which I responded that it’s not only an American problem, and that there are cycles of (1)corruption; (2)courage and responsibility; (3)liberty and growth; (3)selfishness and fiscal irresponsibility; (5)and apathy and fiscal & moral bankruptcy; return to step (1); i.e. a cycle, of sorts, that has occurred in many societies many). How do you reconcile my opinion of people with courage and responsibility with your assertions that I ““think people are basically bad”?”

This discussion is entirely subjective, we are voicing our own opinions.

Yes, the civilizations throughout the history of the world are cyclical, they ebb, and they flow, that is fact.
Your assertion that humans are flawed is an opinion that I can only partly agree with.

What are we comparing these “flawed” humans to?

What is perfection?

The answer to both questions is entirely subjective.
I have never seen what I would call perfection in a human, so I have nothing to base a response.
I highly doubt you have ever seen perfection in a human either, so on what do you base your opinion?

There are no facts to base your answer on, and anything I can write as a retort is merely opinion on my part as well.

My reference to the Orient and it’s people is simply anecdotal. It was my experience when I was there. My reference to Americans is also anecdotal, through 56 years of observation of Americans.

There you go.
Dispute my observations, if you will, but remember that your opinion in this matter, just like mine, is totally subjective.

Posted by: Rocky at June 23, 2008 06:46 PM

Quoting CS Lewis, David wrote:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.”

I could not agree more completely. This is exactly how I view the moralizing conservatives on so many social issues. They want to dictate to the rest of us what to believe and how to live our lives.

Posted by: Steve K at June 23, 2008 06:48 PM

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

David, on one hand, I don’t think the IPCC report ever states what started the warming of the last half century, so you’re right. On the other hand, I don’t see what else could explain it. A lot of people have looked at a lot of possibilities and come up empty. Even the most likely possible causes, such as solar irradiation, have been ruled out as significant contributors to the warming of the last half century.

Natural causes do cause climate changes. But no natural cause can be found for the current warming.

Scientists have suspected Global Warming for a long time. In 1939, a fellow named Callendar did a presentation for the Royal Meteorological Society in London and used weather statistics to demonstrate Global Warming, and he even identified human industy’s burning of CO2 as the cause.

It has been suspected for a long time, and there is a long list of contributors to knowledge. But it wasn’t until fairly recently that the evidence became compelling…

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 06:57 PM

d.a.n.

Shakespeare once wrote: “…brevity is the soul of wit.”

I’m guilty of making long, winding posts too…but I know that the longer the post, the less it is read, and the more often it’s dismissed out-of-hand regardless of how important it is.

Just a little something to benefit both you and me….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 23, 2008 07:08 PM

Much of the third world would love to have the opportunity to sift through our junk yards and landfills.

Posted by: jlw at June 23, 2008 07:29 PM

phx8, the change we are experience may be a natural extension of the end of the last mini-ice age. Whatever factors ended the last mini-ice age, may still be at work. There is no longer any credible debate however, that we are exacerbating the natural trend, if in fact, there is a natural trend occurring.

But, there’s the logical nub of the issue. If mankind did not exist, there would still be a natural trend in play. So regardless of man’s influence, one must accept the precondition that there is a natural climate change trend at play underlying our contributions to the change.

Determining what that natural trend would be without the existence of mankind and its contributions to climate ecology, is like an individual trying to measure the inner workings of their own brain, objectively. It simply cannot be done. One can estimate, but, one can never be sure one’s observations aren’t tainted by the observer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 07:31 PM

What is kind of weird about the whole idea that international cooperation = socialism = loss of freedom is that it is often put forth by the same people who favor war in Iraq. They support killing people in far off lands for oil, they support surrending constitutional rights in order to defend the US against those people from far off lands, who oddly enough do not like the US at all, they support making companies like Exxon the most profitable corporations in the history of business, despite the multitude of reasons to move away from oil, and towards alternative energies…

And yet, environmentalists = green swastikas

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 07:48 PM

Rocky wrote: d.a.n., This discussion is entirely subjective, we are voicing our own opinions.

That’s not the issue, despite the lame attempt to obfuscate and divert attention from the issue.

The issue was the following “Baloney” response …

Rocky wrote: Baloney. We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.

… to my reply …

d.a.n wrote: It’s a fundamental human flaw; not only an American problem.

… in response to your statement that …

d.a.n wrote: We Americans do less with more than any other country on the planet, and assume that the 10% we put in the Sunday collection plate absolves us of any, and all guilt.
We do things because we can, not because it is necessarily the right thing to do, and we do it because we see it as our right to do so.

And you say I’m seeing people as “basically bad” (see below)?

After all, it was you that said …

Rocky wrote: It is our [i.e. Americans] “too much is never enough attitude” that has placed us squarely where we are today, and until we figure it out, we will continue to have these problems.

Then you said …

Rocky wrote: … you appear to see them [people] as basically bad.

When it is your comment that criticized Americans as having a “too much is never enough attitude”?

Yet …

Rocky wrote: The answer to both questions is entirely subjective.

The issue isn’t about perfection.

Rocky wrote: There are no facts to base your answer on, and anything I can write as a retort is merely opinion on my part as well.

Again, the subjectiveness of perfection is not the issue, but merely a diversion.

I never asserted that anyone was perfect, so that’s a red-herring.

Rocky wrote: There you go. Dispute my observations, if you will, but remember that your opinion in this matter, just like mine, is totally subjective.

Opinions don’t mean much without facts to substantiate the opinions.

I’m not disputing your opinion, I’m disputing your facts.
All you have to do is provide something to back up your assertions above that:
(1) I think people are “basically bad”.
(2) many of “our” [i.e. Americans] problems are rooted in human flaws is (as you called it): “Baloney”.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 07:54 PM

Steve K, Lewis chose the word “moral” very deliberately. It does not equate with appropriate or propriety.

All societies will and must, by definition of human nature, establish rules for appropriate behavior.

Moral judgments and rules are not ‘necessarily’ proscribed by, nor linked to appropriate behavior. The Aztecs had a religion that required vast human sacrifices to insure the societies viability and prosperity. Human sacrifice for them was a moral action dictated by their belief systems of how the natural world is governed, i.e. appeasement of the gods.

Empirically testable reality however, demonstrates that human sacrifice had no effect whatsoever on rains for the crops, or victories over their adversaries.

In the measurable world there are empirically demonstrable options that are more and less appropriate to the outcomes sought. In the world of morality, empirical demonstrations are at best, relegated to correlational statistical measurements which can never establish causation, and therefore can never establish that a moral act is in fact moral, causing a ‘good’ or desired outcome.

That is why I fundamentally, have little respect for those arguments that seek to break down the separation wall between government and religion. Government is about quantitative actions seeking a measurable outcome. Religion seeks actions for their own moral definition regardless of the consequences of those actions.

I have to laugh at these Republicans in the media and blogs who seek to portray Obama as some kind of religious figure with a throng of faithful bending and attending to his every word. Last I checked, folks seeking a change from adverse conditions was not EVER defined as a religious experience. An epiphany perhaps, but, not an act of faith. Changing causal conditions will change observable outcomes. No faith required.

The faith of Obama supporters is limited to the trust that changing from Bush to Obama will produce a net positive outcome for them greater than the choice of McCain replacing Bush. Which is precisely why the policy plans for, and assessment of causality of, our current state is so relevant in comparing these two candidates.

Those on the right and left who seek to make this election about ANYTHING other than the candidate’s policy plans and assessment of causality of our current state, subvert the purposes and intentions of democracy, and for a host of reasons having nothing to do with estimating what is best for the nation and her people, present and future. It is appropriate to regard such people and their ideological arguments as counterproductive distractions from the job at hand.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 07:59 PM

phx8

And yet, environmentalists = green swastikas

Sorry to butt in on your thoughts phx8 but I was just having a similar wonderment at the nuances of labels. I was wondering how it is that the desire to be environmentally conservative can be labeled as a liberal trait. Are not the words liberal and conservative in direct opposition to one another. What does it mean when so called conservatives fail to support conservation? Does that make them irresponsible conservatives or perhaps hypocrites? Or worse yet somewhat liberal in that they are bucking what is largely seen and understood as factual but not entirely precise science by many so called conservatives and liberals alike. Sorry for the short rant, but I am sooo confused. ;)

Posted by: RickIL at June 23, 2008 08:32 PM

RickIL, it really boils down to Liberal Envy when the Liberals champion conservation in word and deed and Republicans can only pay idle and empty lip service to the fundamental tenet of their now Grotesque Old Party.

Anyone who thinks McCain will choose saving the environment for posterity, when given the choice between somewhat lower profits for corporations or less autonomy, and saving the environment for posterity is gullible at the very least.

I use the word Grotesque to describe what they have accomplished these last dozen or so years, in undermining the Constitution, embroiling the nation in unnecessary war and death and destruction, and creating such a monumental wealth gap as to force American corporations more and more seek customers overseas who can afford what they have to pedal. Also what they have accomplished in obstructing solutions since 2006. It seemed a most appropriate word choice to describe the reality of their Party, manifest in governance.

Though few Republicans could force themselves to utter the truth that they are envious of the Democrats political position in this election year, such Liberal Envy is nonetheless seething just below the surface of their best facade.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2008 09:35 PM

The differences and resemblances of socialism, fascism, and good old fashioned totalitarianism are definitely debatable. They are in many ways an exercise in sematics, the Nazi’s were in fact National Socialists and did differ some from the type of fascism practiced by Mussolini’s Italy. It’s how you define it I guess. When a government seeks to highly regulate and basically control both private and public enterprise and nearly every aspect of an individual’s life that can be defined as “fascist”. It is interesting to compare the various comments from watchblog as well as from my own blog and also FreeRepublic where this column also appeared.

I particularly enjoyed this comment from PGWarner:

“Excellent post David! Your use of the term fascism here is of course completely accurate despite any claims to the contrary.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

If one would dare to edify themselves instead of wallowing look here… Why Do We Call Them ‘Democrats’? By Lance Fairchok”

Whether you want to call the womb to the tomb environmentalist nanny state fascist, socialist or totalitarianism makes no difference to me. Any way you look at it, it is a gross violation of the concepts this nation was founded and will only result in a serious trampling on the freedoms and liberties you take for granted today.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 23, 2008 10:21 PM

We have been so brainwashed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity and that somehow carbon taxes, economic socialism, monitoring lawn mower emissions, criticizing cow flatulence and flailing away at the faceless evil that is “oil” will somehow make a difference in climate changes we are only barely beginning to understand, let alone significantly influence one way or another.

You make your argument, like it or not, from ignorance. “barely beginning to understand”. In other words, you in considered judgment think we’re short of the proof.

While it’s true that we have much to learn about the climate, we’ve learned much and greatly increased our knowledge and simulation capability. And as we’ve done so, the picture on global warming has only grown more conclusive.

The effects of CO2 have long been well known. It’s basic quantum physics: CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infra-red at long known frequencies. Even in 1800’s they knew it absorbed heat. The notion of Global Climate change due to carbon emissions is not new.

However, those who spoke of it earlier in the centurty believed it would take millenia for it to occur, and thought it would be beneficial.

They were wrong. The evidence proved them wrong. They looked at climate proxies like glacial ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, and found that instead of gentle changes brought on over long periods, climate changes tended to be strong and violent. The world warmed nine degrees, for example, in the space of a decade at the conclusions of one ice age.

Small stimuli make a big effect. The celebrated Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were triggered by relatively small differences in solar radiation and other influences and forcings. They can be small because the responses of the environment to these small changes create additional effects on top of the small temperature change.

The question over the past years is not whether CO2 can warm and atmosphere and warm it more the more you put in it. Venus demonstrates that to a “T”. It’s also not whether CO2’s increasing in the atmosphere. It is, and that’s been definitively measured.

The question is one of feedbacks, of whether the consequences of the warming CO2 undoes that warming. This is where the complexity of climate becomes important. The climate of a region can be changed by, say, the shift of a current. The shift of a current can be caused by a shift in the winds. El Nino, for example, results when winds blowing warm waters in the Pacific one way shift in the other direction. This process is delightfully entangled in the fact that winds take their cue from the temperature of the ocean water!

They found that such regional shifts there lead to others elsewhere, a change in the North Atlantic circulation and a failure in Indian Ocean Monsoons. Natural systems interlock with each other, not randomly, but with complexity so high that on the surface it seems random.

It’s not, though. We classify these systems as chaotic, but again, that’s not random. It’s a system that’s so sensitive to how you start it that a small, immeasurable difference in measurements can knock your predictions off course in the long term. Thus, the famed butterfly effect. However, weather, and climate by extention are still determinant systems. It’s just impossible to know enough and calculate precisely enough to get an answer that coincides with reality in a precise way.

The way we get around it with climate comes from the definition of climate itself: the pattern of the weather over the long term. That allows you to avoid having to be too specific to predict things, to model their future behavior.

It means, though, there is some inherent unpredictability in the system. We can say what’s likely to occur, though, within a range.

Part of what complicates predicting these things where we’re involved is… Well, that we’re involved. We have to model not merely for the status quo, but for what happens if we go in one direction or another with our greenhouse gas emissions. We can change this system.

Your objection probably works off of the notion that we can’t control this the way we could control, say, a smokestack. That’s true. We may be past such a point already, but for the time being, let’s stick to what we know will happen.

We know that there’s some global warming in the pipe, regardless of what we do. There’s heat and CO2 already absorbed in the ocean that’s going to get released. There’s melting in the ice caps, which makes our planet less able to reflect light and heat from the surface, and that’s going to happen to some degree. There’s decay in newly thawed tundra, and that’s going to add to the CO2, and that’s going to cause some havoc.

We don’t, however, have good evidence that we’re screwed at this point. We likely still have some influence on things, and it’s best that we take it now, rather than wait on it, wait for certainty that might never come, wait for the truth to slap us in the face. Sometimes you have to work off of an educated guess. Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of acting with all the information. That is certainly the case here.

All that said, the climate change deniers are working on even less information on that, using theories that are somtimes, not even validated yet with some kind of modeled mechanism. Global Climate change has been scrutinized and demonstrated to a much greater degree than that.

Some will play politics, poison the well by claiming some kind of conspiracy is afoot to force them to agree that an ecological disaster’s on the way. Ultimately, though, scientific methods and standards require us to do better than make arguments from ignorance. The point of science is not to push a conclusion, prove a conclusion, but to test its veracity so you know whether you’ve got a good explanation on your hands, or just a vain flight of fancy.

The superficial guise of science, in climate contrarianism, is being used to push points that have either been tested and found false, or which have not been fully tested and properly understood to begin with.

So at the end of the day, is all this political mumbo-jumbo, this fevered push of an ideological position a proper substitute for the judgment of the scientists? No. Politicians can spout any claim, any speculation they want. Rhetoric can distract people from poor science, even absent science. However, you can’t change nature with an argument. Science prevents us from putting ourselves in that awkward position by forcing us to face that reality head-on.

A hypothesis, a claim that’s never had to stand up to that, or which hasn’t stood up to that is not worth our trouble making policy over.

We’ve done the science again and again on Global Climate Change, and the results haven’t changed much. It’s time to admit that the theory is more right than it’s not, and that we need to act with that in mind to face our current situation, rather than ignore the possibility and hope it goes away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2008 10:27 PM

Climate History (scroll down).

It’s hard to see how pumping 24 Billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can have no affect on world climate.

Pollution and world over-population (increasing by 211,000 per day) should be a concern too.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 23, 2008 10:54 PM

“I wonder what I’ve been smacked with, certainly not truth, honesty or wisdom.”

Such an honest question for you to ask Jim M. Would you recognize truth honesty and/or wisdom if it smacked you because from what you have written here it doesnt appear that you would, but that’s just my humble opinion.

“We all have read the lies and gross manipulation used by AlGore to instill fear in the masses, especially the uninformed and easily led liberal “feel-gooders” around the world.

Jim M I havent read the lies and gross manipulations you write of, but Ive read the lies and gross manipulations you write. Your false hypothisis that liberal “feel-gooders” are uninformed and easily led is in fact one of the lies and gross manipulations I speak of. You simply do not have a clue when you spout this type of propaganda.

“Politicians of both parties, those paradigms of truth and wisdom, are climbing on this horse as it promises votes and unlimited money and power.”

Speaking of paradigms of truth and virtue, wasnt it Exxon that handed out millions to those that would give out false and mis-leading ingnormation reagarding climate change. Yet you make no mention of this but instead blame votes money and power. You take Exxons view of this issue and then talk about votes money and power, who are you kidding? Have you ever stopped to think that those on the right side of the aisle, yes those conservatives that have saw the possibility that man may be contributing to climate change, are doing so because they are man enough to admit when they were mistaken and can change their position on the issue as more and more evidence comes along?

“As usual, the fearful are being led around by the nose and don’t even realize how their unfounded fears are being used to manipulate them. When they find their food supply dwindling, more jobs disappearing, and their electricity turned off perhaps they will wake up…or not. “

Very true Jim M maybe they will wake up, but so far most of the idelogical driven conservatives are acting true to form and are in denial. Seems that a lot of younger evangelicals have slept off the conservative kool aid and have decided to be part of the solution though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1491-2005Feb5.html

“Just as many liberal goons believe we can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis, but rather can tax our way out, they believe the same about MMGW. If we tax the people of the world enough we will achieve perfect harmony with our global climate.”

Taxing people wont solve the MMGW problem Jim M., just as drilling for more oil wont solve the energy cris short term or long term. The short sightedness of your “solutions” may be espoused by goons but they aren’t liberal goons my friend.

“The answer for these hysterical and freedom-hating folks is always the same, more taxes and less freedom. First they create a perceived problem and then proceed to tax the hell out of us to fix it and take away more of our freedom in the process.”

Jim M hysterical and freedom hating sounds just like the conservative movement are you sure your not confusing the two?

Conservatives use to say the same thing about CFC’s yet it was proven that CFC’c damaged the Ozone layer. Laws were put into place to replace CFC’s and other than your perceived right to put holes in the Ozone layer what other rights did you lose?

BTW Where did the CFC’s come from? Humans. Yet for some reason you cannot fathom that enough of us polluting for a long enough period of time can cause damage to the earth? Keep away from the kool aid Jim M.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 23, 2008 11:38 PM

David,
All we have are words to work with here. Words have meanings. Some words carry a lot of baggage. You chose to compare environmentalists and their concerns to Nazis, using a green swastika, and you chose to prominently use the word ‘fascist.’

You write: “When a government seeks to highly regulate and basically control both private and public enterprise and nearly every aspect of an individual’s life that can be defined as “fascist”.

No. Both the Nazis and the Fascists incorporated militarism and nationalism into their political philosophies. This is a salient point of fascism. Even granting your basic premise, that liberals seek to use environmentalism as an excuse to impose government control over every aspect of life, (and I obviously do not agree with that premise), even granting that, your premise does not even pretend that liberals are relying upon nationalism or militarism. Therefore, references to fascism and nazism are inconsistent with your premise, inappropriate, inaccurate and inflammatory. They are invoked to prevent debate and obscure the argument, not advance it, because references to fascism and green swastikas elicit an emotional and unreasoning response, not a carefully considered persuasive effort.

It is, unfortunately, characteristic of a contemporary portion of the political spectrum which stokes negative emotions to achieve its unspoken aims. The intent is not to persuade or convert or unite, but just the opposite; the intent is to essentially shout down the opposition and deny the validity of their concerns through the use of pejorative terms and negatively charged symbols.

To me, it looks like you claim to support freedom and liberties, yet you reject a government representing “we the people” in favor of a capitalist philosophy which favors laissez faire capitalism and unregulated, privatized Big Business, thereby allowing sectors like Big Oil to run amok and actually act contrary to the interests of “we the people.”

Don’t you just love that socialist phrase? “We the people.”

And in the name of laissez faire capitalism, deregulation, and privitazation, large corporations ruthlessly exploit the interests of “we the people,” both in the US and abroad, and their exploitation requires the violent suppression abroad through the use of the US military. We’re talking about corporatism, and militarism, and heightened nationalism, with an outside ethnic/religious group serving as the focus for hatred.

If you have spent a little time looking into the definition of the word ‘fascism’…

Posted by: phx8 at June 23, 2008 11:48 PM

While I may agree that facism is coming to America, it certainly isn’t just the Greens bringing it.

In an overpopulated land, conformity is necessary. Criminal law enforcement is a growing business.

Birth control is the issue of moralist who think there is something wrong with using condoms and abortions. Perhaps we could blame them?

If you want frontier rules where little government is offered and government can control little, please proceed to the nearest frontier, if you can find it, and survive it.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 24, 2008 12:02 AM

j2t2,
The 1987 Montreal Protocol is a remarkably successful international agreement for the control of pollutants which were destroying the ozone layer. Today, almost every nation on earth participates. 191 countries! Yet no one has suffered any loss of freedom or liberty.

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2008 01:22 AM

“j2t2 Said where did CFC’S come from.” A chemist named Thomas midgley he also invented Leaded gas. I posted several articles here a few years ago that crap cfc’s are still being used in older buildings and other areas and was still being used and made in third world countries also when you burn chlorofluoromethanes or cfc’s you get a very poison gas called PHOSGENE. ask the DuPont family they made billions on cfc’s.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 24, 2008 01:39 AM

Mr. D. Remer, you may not like what I’ve written but I’ve merely expressed what many, many (if not most) conservatives think about the political agenda and enforcement plans of the environmentalist movement. Obama has made several alarming statements, one of which I quoted in the article, about his thoughts on governmental control over private citizens as well as private enterprise in his effort “to slow the rising of the oceans” if I may take the liberty of quoting him again.

As a conservative/Republican writing in the conservative/Republican column I share many of the conservative/Republican viewpoints on various issues with Watchblog readers. This column has been well received by many of my conservative collegues and fellow writers and bloggers and is little more than me be willing to say what many others are hesitant to articulate.

Besides a couple of typos, I wouldn’t change a thing. This just scratches the surface of the extremist, intrusive and totalitarian minded agenda that will begin to be foisted on the American people with an Obama presidency.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 02:02 AM

A Nazi Swastika, maybe you should learn your Ideologies before you accuse others of getting a ideology.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 24, 2008 04:22 AM

I suggest you read the book “Varieits of Fascism” by Eugen Weber before you attempt to lecture me on somehow not understanding ideologies, especially those with a fascist bent or those that include elements of historical fascist doctrine, tactics and concepts of the role of the state. I’d also suggest you do some reading up on what fascist states look and feel like. WWII Japan is now condidered to have been a quasi-fascist state and many writers now describe modern day China as the worlds most successful fascist state. Once again, arguing over semantics is the typical Leftist way of not actually addressing the issue and the premise of my article.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 11:05 AM

That should read “Varieties of Fascism”.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 11:07 AM

“Yet no one has suffered any loss of freedom or liberty.”

Well phx8 have you considered these freedom’s and how they have been abused by banning CFC’s:
oh wait other than my perceived right to damage the Ozone layer and …but wait what about… oh jeez come on there has to be some liberties lost, some rights violated , the conservatives keep telling me thats what will happen if we have environmantal laws. Gosh you dont suppose they are just making this up so their corporate overlords can continue to prosper at the expense of everyone else you. How selfish of the corporist and how foolish of the conservatives to fall for that old line.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2008 11:13 AM

Do CFC’s really put a hole in the atmosphere?

Seems like we could use a few more holes to let all the green house gas escape….more CFC’s less global warming? hehehehehehe

Gump
“Sometimes, I guess there’s just not enough rocks.”

Posted by: Forrest Gump at June 24, 2008 11:34 AM

“We likely still have some influence on things, and it’s best that we take it now, rather than wait on it, wait for certainty that might never come, wait for the truth to slap us in the face. Sometimes you have to work off of an educated guess. Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of acting with all the information. That is certainly the case here.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2008 10:27 PM

Stephen, I find your comment interesting and suggest you apply it to the reason we are in Iraq. It would also be an appropriate explanation of legal wiretapping and other actions taken by our government to protect us from global terrorism. I find the reality of GT much more threatening than imagined MMGW.

Just a side note on Obama’s new shield of candidacy modeled after the great seal of the President of the U.S. This great thinker, this man of wisdom, this man of the people, this humble man had the arrogance and impertinence to self-aggrandize himself by proudly standing behind a podium from which hung his crude imitation of the real thing.

Giving evidence to his fearful and pandering nature, his great shield was removed after one showing, bowing to howls of derisive laughter from the media and considerable outrage from everyman.

This would-be leader of our nation crumbled in hours from negative remarks. I believe this is a demonstration of his lack of even the most basic sense of humility in seeking office and of how quickly he will succumb to the actions and demands of our adversaries.

Obama reminds me of Barney Fife in the old Andy Griffith TV series. Barney is the bumbling deputy who believes he is really important and capable while unknowingly being nurtured and led by a force he can not comtemplate. He is allowed by sheriff Andy McCain, the wise and productive man who tolerates such behavior, to have only one bullet for fear he may harm himself.

Barney Obama so lusts for the presidency that he has begun fashioning crude accoutrement’s of the office in hopes that it will lend him some credence.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 12:32 PM

Will this be part of our fascist “health care for all” plan?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnn

So fat people would never get jobs?

Forrest Gump
“Hello. My name’s Forrest, Forrest Gump. You want a chocolate? “

Posted by: Forrest Gump at June 24, 2008 12:56 PM

Sooo…David -

Do you REALLY believe that the global warming crisis is more about taking control of everyone’s lives than about saving the planet?

Or is the global warming controversy (in the conservatives’ view) more about insisting that science must fit the political policy?

Here’s what the Neo-Con mindset did at NASA:

“…during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public. The report said most evidence supported contentions that politics was “inextricably interwoven” into operations at the public affairs office in that period and that the pattern was inconsistent with the statutory responsibility to communicate findings widely, “especially on a topic that has worldwide scientific interest.””

And here is where 73 percent of [U.S. government climate scientists] perceived inappropriate interference with climate science research in the past five years. The same article points out that two in five respondents (43 percent) perceived or personally experienced changes or edits to documents during review processes that changed the meaning of scientific findings.

In other words, David, your Neo-Con government WON’T LET YOU HEAR THE TRUTH…and you’re buying their lies.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 24, 2008 01:38 PM

Forrest Gump: Did you notice that the Japanese government ignored the real culprit, choosing to go after the corporations, which in turn took it out on the workers. If the Japanese government had really wanted to solve the problem, they would have run the American fast food corporations out of the country.

Tell the truth, you didn’t really give Bubba’s mom his share did you?

Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2008 01:46 PM

Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s talk about how GOOD the conservatives have been for the economy: when Clinton took office, the Dow Jones was less that 4,000 - and when he left, it was over 10,000. That’s at least a 250% rise.

The high point of the Dow during Clinton’s term was in January 2000, when the Dow hit over 11720. Right now, it’s less than 200 above that point…or less than a TWO percent rise over the seven years he’s had office.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 24, 2008 02:03 PM

Forrest-
In the stratosphere, you have this concentration of Ozone that takes the bullet on dangerous high energy UV rays. This naturally reduces the ozone, which is then replaced by other reactions elsewhere.

What CFC’s do is get split up by that high energy radiation (at sea level they’re otherwise stable), which releases highly reactive compounds that take out multiple ozone molecules before they exit stage right. The natural reduction is compounded by this chemical reduction, and that thins our Ozone protection.

But worse than that, it turns out that many CFCs are excellent greenhouse gases, too. Too bad, so sad.

David Huntwork-
The last thing Republicans need to be doing right now is glorying in their own mutual appreciation. What good is that for you, if you can’t preach to anybody but the choir?

Republicans have built their power on a hatred of liberalims, and in the process made their party a mass of contradictions and contradictory impulses. You may talk about what fascists the Democrats and Liberals are, but you do that having the Republican president who shredded the constitution in the name of national security, with warrantless wiretaps, refusals of habeas corpus, and breach of our standards for treatment of prisoners.

You might talk of these things as being necessities, while decrying any curtailment of behavior in the market, any move to require environmental standards, any attempt to mandate the observance of civil rights as fascism.

This is just buzzword bingo, to be quite frank about it. You’ve been taught pile together the worst political slanders about any party together, and believe that this all applies to us. You’ve been taught to see us as the enemies of freedom, the betrayers of liberty, and so on and so forth.

But at the end of the day, we’re nowhere near that, whether in our intentions, or in our actions. The time has come for your people to quit making everything a political deathmatch, a battle for civilization, and start actually cooperating with the rest of us to improve America’s lot in the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2008 02:07 PM

Forrest,
CFC’s not only put a hole in the atmosphere by breaking down ozone, they are also potent greenhouse gases. You’re attempt to inject humor might work better if you had some idea of what you are talking about. Instead, as Ralph Wiggum would say, “I’m ben-barrased for you!”

David,
“Once again, arguing over semantics is the typical Leftist way of not actually addressing the issue and the premise of my article.”

I’m sorry if your feelings are hurt. If you want to flame environmentalists and liberals by throwing around pejorative terms like ‘fascism’ and by showing green swastikas, that’s fine. Distasteful, especially the swastika, but if you want to metaphorically spray paint swastikas, well, go for it. But please don’t pretend criticisms, comments, and replies failed to address the issue, as if the only problem with the flaming was ‘semantics.’

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2008 02:15 PM

Jim M-
Applying it to Iraq is foolish, because we had all the information we needed to conclude that Iraq was a boondoggle waiting to happen. What happened, essentially, was that some people ignored and surpressed information that did not fit their agenda, and so skewed the conclusion. Iraq wasn’t about ignorance going in, it was about arrogance blinding people to the inappropriateness of the policy.

The seal was a bold thing to try out, but I don’t think removing it constituted crumbling. It’s called judgment. When something doesn’t work like that, you drop it. No sense in compounding a negative, the way this administration does, trying to force people to like or get use to things they hate.

Now please don’t kid me about McCain. To be politically incorrect about it, McCain graduated near the bottom of his class, and Obama graduated magna-cum-laude. Maybe McCain just got bad grades because of his rowdiness, but just how debauched do you have to be, if you’re so wise and capable, to finish within a few digits of the bottom? McCain has hitched his wagon to the bottom fifth of a historically low Right Track/Wrong Track set of policies. That doesn’t seem smart or wise to me.

He’s let lobbyists become leaders in his campaign, and that doesn’t seem smart or wise to me.

He’s played games in the primaries with public financing, most likely breaking the very law that bears his name in the process. Then he starts beating up on the guy who’s outdone him on running a small-donor campagin without PAC money or lobbyist money. That’s neither smart nor wise to me.

You want McCain to school Obama on these things, but the greater likelihood is that the reverse will occur.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2008 02:23 PM

David M. Huntwork,

Please don’t mistake my railing against the content of your article, as anything other than railing against the content of your article.

I also recognize and thank you for your reflecting the perspectives of many in the Republican Party and other conservatives. There is no greater defense against wrong headed views and perspectives than to have them fully exposed in public forums and well lit for scrutiny’s sake.

My critique was not against you as a WatchBlog writer, I love the WatchBlog format and learn more from it in terms of how people of different political stripes evaluate and think on the issues, than anywhere else.

I have come to expect at least the appearance of balanced exposure of two sides of any issue in WB articles. But, your article as it stands, also serves a valuable purpose: highlighting how extremist one sided perspectives are.

In other words, I will condemn the content of articles like this one, but, will support and defend your role as a WatchBlog writer exposing such views for all to see.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 02:49 PM

It looks like there are two basic philosophies.

One philosophy says: one for all and all for one.

One philosophy says: greedy self-interest trumps everything but war.

Posted by: jlw at June 24, 2008 02:53 PM

Stephen says, “The seal was a bold thing to try out, but I don’t think removing it constituted crumbling. It’s called judgment.”

Oh really Stephen, where is this so-called judgment with regard to corn ethanol? The only two adult people left in America who can’t see the error of this boondoggle are Mr. and Mrs. Obama. The Iowa corn farmers are laughing at him all the way to the bank. What a dangerous dunce! Starve a few million people around the world to gain a few political points. Just outrageous.

And, please tell me what is “bold” about attempting to aggrandize ones self with the unearned accoutrement’s of office? I would replace the word “bold” with stupid and arrogant. Next we’ll see the great one speaking from an Unholywood fake oval office signing autographs for donations.

Death, destruction and despair, people crying everywhere. I can fix it let’s be “Fair”. Elect Obama get your share.
Fix the planet, man’s to blame. Cap and trade, that’s my game. Do without and I won’t care. Elect Obama get your share.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 03:15 PM

I can’t believe TPTB would let this article stand with a swastika on top of it. It says more about the person making the argument than the argument itself. For the historically ignorant, the bad people in Europe in the 1930s got many of their worst ideas from some bad people here in the good old U S of A, part of our historical tradition going back to Albert Pike and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Conservatives, as NIMBYs, do support conservation, and the strictest environmental regulations, on the local level, where it most directly affects them. They just don’t want the same benefits for others, in whose backyards they would like to locate a garbage dump, or an oil well.

This nation was founded with a vast array of resources, and a very small population. We now have a very large population, and need resources from elsewhere to be able to continue to live our lifestyles.

I like baloney, sometimes called flat dogs. It’s one of my favorite foods.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 04:27 PM

Jim M, your comment’s lack of informed facts continues, I see. Obama supports, as McCain does, America’s becoming energy independent. Ethanol replaces oil imported from OPEC nations. Obama wants America and farmers to move to switchgrass for ethanol production just as soon as that technology functions properly.

It is comments like yours which seem OFTEN to avoid researching the object of their criticism, that don’t seem to get it, reality that is, based on real facts and data.

McCain on the other hand wants more drilling to continue our dependence upon oil even though it is impossible for our drilling at home to ever meet our consumption demands. Which of course, means continuing dependence on OPEC oil.

Oh, yeah. McCain wants to replace the horrible waste products of fossil fuels with that other horrible waste product called radioactive waste, by championing a dozen more nuclear power plants, which never fueled a semi-truck or locomotive or automobile, yet.

If you want independence from OPEC oil, you have to back Obama. If you want energy dependence and grow another environmental waste problem for our children, vote for McCain. You will get what you vote for, and then some.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2008 06:10 PM

OK David, I’ll vote for more nuclear power as it lights many of our cities, powers our factories and will recharge the battery operated autos that are coming on line. And, it powers the nuclear subs that patrol our oceans, protects America and helps us all be safer from those would do us harm.

You will vote to turn more food crop land into ethanol producing land and turn your compassionate heart from the starving masses. You will vote for more job losses, higher taxes and higher energy costs. People living in the northern climes will thank you for your vote as they struggle to heat their homes. You will vote for school and factory closings due to the high cost and scarcity of oil. Brownouts and blackouts will be common in many cities thanks to your vote David.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 06:51 PM

Jim M.
I differ with him on Ethanol. One disagreement will not mean that his judgment is poor in my opinion.

And please don’t play this climate contrarian crap with me. The real problem here is that we have influence over the environment, but not control. Which is to say, we can roll the boulder up the hill, but we can’t exactly stop it once it starts tumbling down.

You folks are finding every excuse to follow what is essentially an industry line reinforced through political propaganda rather than scientific evidence. The evidence tells us that the folks sounding the alarm are right. The people saying otherwise are essentially giving out the “research” and “facts” funded by those with a vested interest in keeping a certain energy economy going, folks who could see their industry go into steep decline if we got what we needed cone.

You folks think you’re doing good for the economy. What you’re really doing is procrastinating, and making the the eventual reckoning more painful.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2008 07:09 PM

FYI to all -

Obama is NOT categorically against nuclear power - he’s stated that he’s open to it - and while we would have to ignore the NIMBY’s and choose one location, say, Yucca Mountain, to be radioactive for millenia to come, that’s FAR less than the ongoing worldwide catastrophe that is the coal power-plant industry.

As much as I support wind/solar/geothermal power, NONE of those can supply as great a portion of our energy needs as nuclear power can.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at June 24, 2008 07:41 PM

BHO was in fact the most pro-nuclear of all the Democratic candidates, and has always been supported by Exelon. In fact, Illinois is more reliant on nuclear power than any other state. In FL, the nuclear power plants belonging to Florida Power and the OUC provide very popular spots for fishing in the nuclear warmed water.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 24, 2008 08:08 PM

Us folks are procrastinating according to Stephen. Perhaps, sure wish Us Folks could have procrastinated a little more when Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and a host of other liberal boondoggles were being voted on.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old and we’re being told by the MMGW crowd that we now need human intervention to prevent any more cyclical changes.

As usual liberals are all bloated with their own importance believing that we don’t exist in the world, rather…the world exists in them. These same brain trusts would have us believe a catastrophe will occur if we drill in Anwar, a drilling footprint about the size of a postage stamp on a football field.

They run hither and thither wailing gloom and doom if their current favorite blend of pseudo-science isn’t met with massive worldwide dislocations of scarce resources. Yesterday it was “slient spring” and MM global cooling, today it’s MMGW and tomorrow it will be a comet hurtling toward impact with earth in just…1.2 million years. I can hear it now, we must change the orbit of the earth immediately or we’re all doomed. Or their favorite, we must “do it for the children.”

I heard Jay Leno crack that Obama was inviting Algore to his rallies to provide shade for him. (For some reason I find that mental image hugely amusing). Finally, someone has found a good use for big al since no one believes his b.s. any more.

Posted by: Jim M at June 24, 2008 08:10 PM