George Rebane
Two intellectuals and students of the human condition – Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield and Yale’s Charles Hill – lend their considerable weight to the notion that we are beyond the tipping point to the promised “fundamental transformation” of America. By all accounts we have now failed the Grand Experiment envisioned by the Founders to answer the question of the ages – Can man govern himself? While the answer to that question is never final because the experiment is ever ongoing, they did provide us a magnificent tool to keep bringing back a ‘YES’ answer. It’s called the Constitution. Professor Mansfield tells us (‘The Crisis of American Self-Government’) that “the founders wanted people to live under the Constitution. But the progressives want the Constitution to live under the American people.”
Along this line Professor Hill talks about the American decline (‘World Order in the Age of Obama’) and says –
And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare. The enemies of world order translate the American election results into the lexicon of abdication, telling themselves that their time has come: there is a world to be gained. Only America’s return to world leadership can halt this deterioration. “Sequestration” will relegate the U.S. to a second rate power and must be reversed to enable American strength and diplomacy to be employed in tandem.
RR readers know that one of the more successful Rebane Rules, long argued here, is ‘The most reliable predictor of progressives’ policies is the their common aim of weakening America’s influence on the world stage by removing all vestiges of the country’s exceptionalism.’ The reliability of this rule is doubled when used to predict which turns Team Obama will take in navigating the ship of state (see also 'Obamunism' in Glossary).
The uses of America’s energy abundance. In the same vein, there is a growing corpus of belief that America’s newly found gas and shale oil energy reserves will not be used to launch a new era of growth and prosperity for the country. Instead the wealth from those resources will be commandeered by the federal government under new powers that it will discover and relegate to itself. The entire scenario starts with President Obama having emerged from a second term victory to steer the country into a (hard to imagine) deeper fiscal thicket, whether by a rapid tumble over the approaching fiscal cliff, an extended version thereof, or a more torturous way.
Along this line Professor Hill talks about the American decline (‘World Order in the Age of Obama’) and says –
And there now grows a deepening appetite for gain. America, perceived as eager to shed the burdens of world order in order to be “fundamentally transformed” through European-style social commitments, talks of engagement even when Iran’s “diplomacy” is a form of protracted warfare. The enemies of world order translate the American election results into the lexicon of abdication, telling themselves that their time has come: there is a world to be gained. Only America’s return to world leadership can halt this deterioration. “Sequestration” will relegate the U.S. to a second rate power and must be reversed to enable American strength and diplomacy to be employed in tandem.
RR readers know that one of the more successful Rebane Rules, long argued here, is ‘The most reliable predictor of progressives’ policies is the their common aim of weakening America’s influence on the world stage by removing all vestiges of the country’s exceptionalism.’ The reliability of this rule is doubled when used to predict which turns Team Obama will take in navigating the ship of state (see also 'Obamunism' in Glossary).
The uses of America’s energy abundance. In the same vein, there is a growing corpus of belief that America’s newly found gas and shale oil energy reserves will not be used to launch a new era of growth and prosperity for the country. Instead the wealth from those resources will be commandeered by the federal government under new powers that it will discover and relegate to itself. The entire scenario starts with President Obama having emerged from a second term victory to steer the country into a (hard to imagine) deeper fiscal thicket, whether by a rapid tumble over the approaching fiscal cliff, an extended version thereof, or a more torturous way.
The important thing to note here is that the country must be put into even more dire straits in order to marshal the sheeple into approving strong measures to save us from the follies that capitalism and its greedy rich have gotten us in. Obama will use executive orders and his stacked bureaucracy to milk enormous amounts of money from the energy companies made compliant by the realization that no one will drill for, transport, or process anything without a dearly earned White House imprimatur.
The bottom line is that Obama will seek a third term, and he will have a good chance of getting it because the growing ranks of the ignorant, unemployed, and discontented dependents on government transfer payments will scream to have the 22nd Amendment repealed. (Look for the revival of the most recent effort to do this that was introduced in Congress as HJ Res 5(111th) in 2009.) And California will again lead with its Democrat supermajorities that have now removed the last restraints on its rush and tumble into federalized socialism.
I am amused that among those who see the high likelihood of such a scenario (in its various forms) are some noted financial and investment gurus like Porter Stansbury and John Mauldin. These much-read prognosticators of the best places to put your money are telling their readers about how to take advantage of the new energy boom that will benefit a few select sectors beyond the federal government. In other words, there is still an opportunity to make a bundle as the country adjusts itself into a new form of a socially just autocracy.
All this is predicated on some as yet unknown strategy of being able to bail out with your bundle at the end. Because everyone knows that the haves will then be shorn of their filthy lucre if not simply marched to the wall. That part of the investment plan, even if known, is not widely published and for obvious reasons. Lifeboats have limited capacity, and there definitely is not room for all. (I described my own experience with two such ‘lifeboats’ during WW2 in ‘Last Train from Stettin’.)
An ongoing version of this is the predictable puzzle Britain’s progressive elites have recently encountered with its missing millionaires (here). That government’s solution was also to soak the rich, as all their entitlements (including nationalized healthcare) are now in their obvious slides to oblivion. Top tax rates were raised to 50%, causing the number of such millionaires to plunge from 16,000 to 6,000 in one percipitous year ending in 2011. The collectivist’s well-worn static analysis predicted the usual pro-rata increase of government revenues. Instead, the raising of tax rates razed government revenues from ₤13.4B to ₤6.5B, a loss of 51.5% from that pool. So again, there appears to be a way to skip out once the music stops (as Scandinavian countries have already discovered to their dismay).
All this is, of course, invisible to our progressive elites, as such information is never passed on by the country’s lamestream. In the meantime some other liberal economist – e.g. nobelist Krugman? – will once more excoriate those who are so foolish as to believe that increasing tax rates can negatively influence government revenues. And so we continue our march into the sunset.
[4dec12 update] On the road to fundamental transformation the Republicans' negotiating points with the much more sinister Obama administration may be summarized by the following American icon of perpetual perfidy.
The bottom line is that Obama will seek a third term, and he will have a good chance of getting it because the growing ranks of the ignorant, unemployed, and discontented dependents on government transfer payments will scream to have the 22nd Amendment repealed. (Look for the revival of the most recent effort to do this that was introduced in Congress as HJ Res 5(111th) in 2009.) And California will again lead with its Democrat supermajorities that have now removed the last restraints on its rush and tumble into federalized socialism.
I am amused that among those who see the high likelihood of such a scenario (in its various forms) are some noted financial and investment gurus like Porter Stansbury and John Mauldin. These much-read prognosticators of the best places to put your money are telling their readers about how to take advantage of the new energy boom that will benefit a few select sectors beyond the federal government. In other words, there is still an opportunity to make a bundle as the country adjusts itself into a new form of a socially just autocracy.
All this is predicated on some as yet unknown strategy of being able to bail out with your bundle at the end. Because everyone knows that the haves will then be shorn of their filthy lucre if not simply marched to the wall. That part of the investment plan, even if known, is not widely published and for obvious reasons. Lifeboats have limited capacity, and there definitely is not room for all. (I described my own experience with two such ‘lifeboats’ during WW2 in ‘Last Train from Stettin’.)
An ongoing version of this is the predictable puzzle Britain’s progressive elites have recently encountered with its missing millionaires (here). That government’s solution was also to soak the rich, as all their entitlements (including nationalized healthcare) are now in their obvious slides to oblivion. Top tax rates were raised to 50%, causing the number of such millionaires to plunge from 16,000 to 6,000 in one percipitous year ending in 2011. The collectivist’s well-worn static analysis predicted the usual pro-rata increase of government revenues. Instead, the raising of tax rates razed government revenues from ₤13.4B to ₤6.5B, a loss of 51.5% from that pool. So again, there appears to be a way to skip out once the music stops (as Scandinavian countries have already discovered to their dismay).
All this is, of course, invisible to our progressive elites, as such information is never passed on by the country’s lamestream. In the meantime some other liberal economist – e.g. nobelist Krugman? – will once more excoriate those who are so foolish as to believe that increasing tax rates can negatively influence government revenues. And so we continue our march into the sunset.
[4dec12 update] On the road to fundamental transformation the Republicans' negotiating points with the much more sinister Obama administration may be summarized by the following American icon of perpetual perfidy.
Obama doesn't need to seek a third term. Due to the ineptness and inevitable decline of the opposition party virtually any reasonably qualified candidate will easily win. It looks like Hillary unless the Repubs make an unlikely swing to the middle which would cause civil war among the righties.
The Pubbers have no one to blame but themselves for Obama's re-eection. Their failure was based on delusional chest thumping and ignorance of the nature of the electorate. It's all about marketing you know. You first must understand your market and sell them a product they want to own. If the attitudes expressed on this blog are at all typical of Republican strategies forget it in '16.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 December 2012 at 12:47 PM
PaulE's analysis is as flawed as ever. Look across America and you see the opposite of what he thinks in the form of State's governors and legislatures. Amazing ignorance.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 03 December 2012 at 12:53 PM
I was refering to Rebanes post not state elections. That is a different topic.
Obama wins in a walk, Dems expand Senate lead and gain in House.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 December 2012 at 01:11 PM
Sat around a table with other young (capitalist) parents this past weekend. We all agreed that bringing children into the world was a selfish decision given the less-than-gracious fall of the USA.
It was also pointed out that the baby-boomer generation should be ashamed of the debt they have shackled us (and our kids) with.
The best we can do is slow down the collapse and prepare to have some semblance of sanity on the other side.
Lastly, the class warfare (championed and cheerleaded by Obama) continues to divide our family.
Posted by: TheMikeyMcD | 03 December 2012 at 01:17 PM
PaulE 111pm - I'm a little surprised that you see the non-leftist commenters on RR as such a homogeneous lot politically. I think everyone here has made their own distinct colors known very clearly. And I don't see very many dyed-in-the-wool Repubs around either.
You misunderstand the notion about Obama's "need" to seek a 3rd term. It isn't to keep the nation going socialist that's at risk if he doesn't go for the 3rd, it's his own plans for global aggrandizement. Recall my statement back in 08 that Obama will be the first candidate who looked at the American presidency as a stepping stone to higher office. As yet, there is no organization that can claim to have a higher office, but you can be sure Obama is working on that.
Posted by: George Rebane | 03 December 2012 at 02:59 PM
George
Wanna take a poll amongst your regulars on who they voted for in the last election and what their general party preference is?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 December 2012 at 03:39 PM
PaulE 339pm - and what would that poll result tell us other than Obama is such abysmally bad news for the country that he unites all kinds of people of disparate, widely held and interpreted non-collectivist beliefs?
Posted by: George Rebane | 03 December 2012 at 05:17 PM
Assuming that's true on a national scale it wasn't enough to elect an alternative. Blame the Repubs for that one.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 03 December 2012 at 05:52 PM
PaulE 552pm - you nailed that one Paul.
Posted by: George Rebane | 03 December 2012 at 06:06 PM
George, once again this is some heady stuff. On my Burning Man art truck is an old bumper sticker I procured from some obscure website around 2006, "George W. Bush, America's Last President"
So I feel your pain. I think this is the universe's way of getting us to stop embracing hubris, our species' greatest failure (with no sign of it being evolved away any time soon).
It will work out, of that I am convinced. Let's just hope we can all get through the holidays in one piece, without being run over by a soccer mom on her way to the next clearance sale this X-Mas. Ever vigilant. Semper Fi.
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 03 December 2012 at 08:21 PM
As leaders in Washington obsess about the fiscal cliff, President Barack Obama is putting in place the building blocks for a climate treaty requiring the first fossil- fuel emissions cuts from both the U.S. and China
Details at the Next Grand Minimum
Posted by: Russ Steele | 03 December 2012 at 08:52 PM
174 tonight, the soccer mom strikes again!
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 03 December 2012 at 09:10 PM
You guys got pwned, there is just no way around it. Read all about it: http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Behind-Obama-campaign-s-quirky-e-mails-4085719.php
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 03 December 2012 at 09:39 PM
Ok, everybody calm down a bit. Dr. Rebane has sketched out a real set of possibilities here, but O's third term is a "bridge to far." For that to happen, a Constitutional amendment would be required, and that takes a 3/4 vote of the States. Not even close. Just because libs claim a majority of people, they don't have anything like 3/4 of them, much less States.
L
Posted by: L | 03 December 2012 at 11:09 PM
The new normal: Lie cheat, and steal!
http://vimeo.com/52331881
Big fat liers!!!
You can't win against that, nor should you play fair!
Posted by: D. King | 04 December 2012 at 12:46 AM
I don't worry too much about the country renewing their vows to Mr. O after his eight years are up. Ever heard of the seven year itch? It derailed Bill Clinton. The current Prez will be yesterday's lover by the time 2016 rolls around.
Posted by: earlcrabb | 04 December 2012 at 04:44 AM
I'm with Mr. Crabb. We're not gonna see Obama in a third term. If I recall, wasn't there a movement for a Reagan 3rd term? Or was that Clinton? Anyhow, the point is, there are always supporters who want a third helping from the Hometown buffet.
Now regarding the exodus of the wealthy from the UK, I'm reminded of the rock band U2 relatively recent departure from Ireland in order to escape their tax burden. At the same time you have their lead singer, Bono, demanding that *other* countries step up to pay for his third world relief efforts.
Or how about Costco's CEO and his campaigning for Obama, only to turn around and exploit the fiscal cliff issue for dividend payouts? People don't even try and hide their crony capitalism anymore; they flaunt it.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 04 December 2012 at 08:12 AM
Samuel L. Jackson: 'Michelle Is Superwoman ... She Can Be the President'
Third Term Option, an Obama tag team?
Posted by: Russ Steele | 04 December 2012 at 08:30 AM
D. King.
Just watched the video. I'm having trouble containing my outrage. Since when does the government get such privileges to keep supposed scientific "studies" private!?
We need to bring back the public stocks for assholes who do this kind of thing.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 04 December 2012 at 08:41 AM
My obsessive compulsiveness being put to good use. From the desk of Ken Salazar.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=332286 (PDF document)
According to the documentary (D. King above), the lease was to be extended indefinitely after every 40 years. According to the Obama Administration, it was not going to be renewed and the DBOC knew that in 2004 when they took over.
Either way, why did the government feel compelled to do a study if they knew the Oyster Company was going to be kicked out anyway? Even stranger, why attempt to hide the research data?
So something is very fishy here. Pardon the pun.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 04 December 2012 at 09:48 AM
Re the oyster company's trail of tears, does anyone connect the dots to Agenda21?
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 December 2012 at 09:51 AM
You can bet that if Oyster Inc was native American owned, they'd never have touched it. It was a fascinating driveby on the way out to the Point, many fond memories. At least the gov can't go after Rouge n Noir, nearby cheese place. or Skywalker Ranch, about 1/2 hour away. Lucas stuck it to his uppitty neighbors, when they blocked his expansion plans, by turning the property over to affordable housing.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 04 December 2012 at 11:56 AM
Right on George, this was just another Agenda 21 project by environmental wackos. It looks like they won. Now we will soon see the dairy farms go the way of the oyster farm. As dairy farms go, so will the cheese factories and the tourist that come to visit these small communities and soon they will close up shop and the people will leave and the land will be returned nature as planned in Agenda 21.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 04 December 2012 at 01:51 PM
You guys really crack me up. It's all a left wing conspiracy to soften us up for world government. I suppose the Pubbers incompetence in national elections is part of the plot. Sure makes sense to me. Sarah Palin as Veep to insure an Obama win followed up by Romney the "flipper" who had no natural constituency managed by a completely incompetent campaign. Yes indeed, eliminate all competent opposition to insure Obama's election as part of the Socialist takeover aided by the inept Republican party.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 December 2012 at 02:43 PM
And which Presidential Candidate did you vote for and win with? What a hoot. A total political loss for PaulE telling us all how much smarter than we is he. Amazing!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 04 December 2012 at 03:38 PM
PaulE 243pm - just when you were doing so well. You seem to be captured again by that leftwing shibboleth of the Right claiming to see conspiracies by the Left. No one on RR, most certainly not me, have claimed that any of these marches - certainly not Agenda21 - toward a socialist state are conspiracies (maybe looking up 'conspiracy' would help). These are all blatant initiatives that are being carried out in the full glare of daylight while the sheeple graze and look on.
Posted by: George Rebane | 04 December 2012 at 04:17 PM
Okay George. I'll concede that it's not a conspiracy but an outright plan. Other than that I stand by my view that the Republicans are part of the plan by exhibiting such glaring incompetence as to offer no resistance.
Todd
I voted Libertarian because I believe it's a movement that offers hope which is more than I can say about the Republicrats. It is indeed a work in progress and I don't support all aspects of it but it is the future when we witness the failure of government and have to revert back to our local governing roots. What's amazing to me is that you don't seem to realize that you're part of the same party that selected Obama. There is no other way it can be explained.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 December 2012 at 04:49 PM
So PaulE, you have no hope of ever electing anyone so you are powerless. I do not believe in all the R stuff but they best represent the bulk of my philosophy so I am one. You think being a Don Quixote is romantic so you vote for losers and complain about the winners (always R's, never d's). Why don't you organize your like minded people into a national party and get some of your BS accomplished? I have little respect for whiners and complainers who do nothing to progress and implement their philosophies. The world belongs to those who show up.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 04 December 2012 at 04:57 PM
Put me in the libertarian camp as well. I would rather be on the losing side than support either of the brain-dead parties that are equally responsible for bringing the nation to the brink of disaster. I can't help it if there aren't enough voters who agree with me any more than Todd can help the electoral defeat his chosen party suffered in November.
Posted by: earlcrabb | 04 December 2012 at 05:07 PM
I voter for a winner (Obama) last time and look what we got. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 December 2012 at 05:08 PM
Yeah the thing that makes this a 'conspiracy' is the fact that folks are saying it has anything to do with A21. It really is a simple issue--the Johnson Oyster Company was paid for the fee interest in the property in 1972, they sold the business sitting on the property to the Drakes Bay Oyster Company in 2004, the lease on the property expired after 40 years in November--end of story.
Nothing to do with a A21--it is a simply property rights issue--the government paid for and owns the property.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 04 December 2012 at 06:08 PM
By the way, I support the retention of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company on other grounds...that it is a compatible use of the Wilderness Area under the original legislation. Wilderness designation does not automatically mean no human uses. It only restricts incompatible uses. But nothing to do with A21. A21 did not even exist when the Wilderness Act was approved, nor did it exist when this area was designated.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 04 December 2012 at 06:27 PM
What's wrong with having an Oyster company in a bay that has good Oysters? The only one in the state, so don't tell us there is no agenda. If they were smart, they would have left at least one...NO????? And just like Global Warming / CARB they are willing to falsify and hide data. Stupid people!
Posted by: D. King | 04 December 2012 at 06:54 PM
Ryan Mount | 04 December 2012 at 08:41 AM
"I'm having trouble containing my outrage."
You and me both Ryan.
There is some good news though.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-government-may-have-to-pay-for-flooding/2012/12/04/515d5112-3e53-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html
Posted by: D. King | 04 December 2012 at 07:14 PM
It was the scientific charges and the failure to provide the supporting data that attracted my attention, along with the national letter wring campaign. This is consistent with those who are Agenda 21 supporters. If the science was factual then why hide it? If the science was factual why was a national letter writing campaign necessary to bully the Secretary? While the basic issue was a rotating lease, why was it necessary to produce faults scientific data to invalidate the renewal? Why the national letter writing campaign and who was behind that campaign? It was not the local residences, it was some nationally based organization. That campaign took some financing. Where did the money come from? Who provided the funds? Follow the money and we will get to the real villain in this case.
I saw on the news tonight that the Oyster company has filed suit in the Federal Courts for relief from the Secretaries actions. Again watch the money, which NGO are supporting the governments case and who are the major contributors to those NGOs.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 04 December 2012 at 07:44 PM
Wow - Paul and I agree on something. Well, one thing. I wish everyone would vote for the person they think would be the best choice for president. Beyond that, Paul hasn't got a clue.
He thinks that the Rs should nominate a Democrat to run as a R for president. You don't get it, Paul. If the Rs ran Obama as president the Dems and the LSM would rip him from one end to the other. Not that it would be difficult. The Dem Natl Com poured money into Fla to defeat Allen West and get their white boy elected. Can't have those uppity blacks in office, you know! Then Debbie Blabber-Mouth starts ranting about how the Rs are too white. It hasn't got anything to do with qualifications or competence - it's all about winning. Any narrative that fits each race will be used by the Dems. The Dems ran ads against Republican Bobby Jindal reminding the southerners how DARK he was and ran ads against a Rep candidate in Colorado showing how he was in the GAY PARADE! OMG – a queer-lover! The LSM goes along with all of it. The Rs did run a total moderate - the most decent moderate R that has ever come down the pike and the Dems trashed him. He was elected as a R governor of Mass. He didn't lose the election because he wasn't a moderate, he lost because he WAS a moderate. Just the kind of R the Dems say they wish the Rs would field against them. So Paul, are you going to vote for that kind of candidate? No. Will the Dems? No. Will solid conservative voters? No. That's why you and the Dems constantly harp on why the Rs should run a moderate. Because that moderate will lose every time. And that's what the Dems want. The funniest thing is Paul voting Libertarian. First, he votes for Obama. Apparently Paul liked Obama's claim that “I'm the anti-abortion candidate” or maybe it was Obama's stance AGAINST gay marriage. Maybe it was Obama's urinating lies every time he opened his mouth that enthralled Paul. Anyway, Paul votes for a candidate that will shove the Fed govt into every aspect of his life and then he votes Libertarian. And then he complains that Romney “flip flops”. Paul, you're a fish flopping around on the dock. What a joke.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 04 December 2012 at 07:50 PM
Yeah because we all know that all people who fudge data and engage in national letter writing campaigns are A21 supporters. I think there is a logical fallacy in play here somewhere, but this entire place is a logical fallacy so it is hard to sort out.
I kind of hope Drakes Bay Oyster Company wind their suit...I love their oysters. But it will have nothing to do with the Bogeyman.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 04 December 2012 at 08:14 PM
Frisch what are you doing here? We know what you said about those here on the crapola blog. You are too much. A man of many personalities. Oh, and no one here believes anything that comes out of your pie hole so you are talking to yourself.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 04 December 2012 at 08:39 PM
Todd, go home to your empty house.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 04 December 2012 at 10:10 PM
Actually the conspiracy start a long time ago when the Blue Oyster Cult wrote their hymn to to the fighter played by old droopy eyes Stallone, Oyster Rocky Feller.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 04 December 2012 at 10:52 PM
Scott
The Repubs ran Romney because they thought he could win because of his reputation as a moderate then inflicted him with a losing platform. Why didn't they chose a true conservative? Because they knew they would lose for sure. The ineptness of the Republican party is truly historic.
Are you trying to educate me that politics is a nasty business and that the Dems will do anything to win ? What a revelation. Thanks for the clarity and light.
Scott, what Conservative could the Republicans have offered that could have won the election? If you say Romney lost because he was a moderate you must have some idea who could have won.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 04 December 2012 at 11:55 PM
Ahaaaaa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YlXAbi7RSBU#!
Posted by: D. King | 05 December 2012 at 07:18 AM
Dave, that is why I have renamed these liberals the "morons". What a hoot!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 05 December 2012 at 07:39 AM
Todd-
I now understand how Ken Salazar can believe oyster poop from the 1950’s in Japan is killing eelgrass in California in 2012.
Posted by: D. King | 05 December 2012 at 07:53 AM
And why some single people think the taxpayers should pay for their condoms!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 05 December 2012 at 08:03 AM
And for Mr. King...a little support for my case that this is not an issue of the science, it is a simple land use question; wether or not an Oyster Farm is a compatible use with a Wilderness Area---my opinion would be properly managed, yes.....
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-real-reasons-for-ken-salazars-decision/Content?oid=3405939
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 05 December 2012 at 08:06 AM
Steve-
That would be easier to believe if they had not falsified the data and outright lied about the seal population reduction in the Oyster area. All of that would have been unnecessary...No?
Posted by: D. King | 05 December 2012 at 08:21 AM
Then every river raft kayak running company is about to be kicked out of business, according to the logic here. STEW-PED! Salazar.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 December 2012 at 08:34 AM
Conspiracy is not a theory; it's a crime.
D. King> That would be easier to believe if they had not falsified the data and outright lied about the seal population reduction in the Oyster area.
That's the point. Why bother even *doing* the "study" if the Federal Government knew they could just kick them out at the end of the 40 year lease?
I offer to rather straight forward answers that I'm happy to debate:
1) the lease is probably suspicious, and the tenants probably have more power than Salazar is letting on. Therefore, we'll need a [very] negative fishery and seal population story. The end has to justify the means, so make sure the data not only is bad, but the methodology (like using 2nd and 3rd source research from Japanese oysters) is bogus.
2) Follow the [grant] money. As more and more NGOs get in bed with the government, following the lead of government agencies, there is going to be increasing competition for "causes" and "problems" that need to be solved. Just because one is an NGO, doesn't mean that they're not subject to the laws of supply and demand. Ergo, they need to drum-up business to keep the grant writers active. This is a perfect example of creating a [worse] problem than already existed. Particularly environmental NGOs have become more and more a nuisance in the past decade or so. You've got the Sierra Club, for example, spending its time making up controversies so they can apply for grants to "fix" then, at the same time taking millions from the natural gas industry.*
Crony Capitalism is not limited to big business and bankers. It's an equal opportunity funder.
*Don't trust me. Look it up. It's about $26 million dollars.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 05 December 2012 at 09:09 AM
" The Sierra Club used the Chesapeake Energy money, donated mainly by the company’s chief executive from 2007 to 2010, for its Beyond Coal campaign to block new coal-fired power plants and shutter old ones. Carl Pope, then the club’s executive director, promoted natural gas as a cleaner “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon future.
Immediately after the Time report surfaced on Feb. 2, the Sierra Club’s executive director, Michael Brune, acknowledged the donations and said he had decided to cut them off after he took over in 2010. In a blog post, he wrote that the group no longer viewed natural gas as a “kinder, gentler” energy source because of the environmental risks posed by hydraulic fracturing, a controversial gas-drilling process. "
nytimes
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 December 2012 at 09:26 AM
Doug, exactly. The point isn't the money, nor their renouncement.
The point is the unintended consequences of letting third parties control public policy based on shotty, or worse, deliberately erroneous, ephemeral and frankly whimsical belief systems. Specifically, organizations who are driven by fund raising.
The Sierra Club, as an example, is not a conservation organization anymore. It's a useful parasitic tool of the Central Government apparatus that feeds off the treasury or anyone it can whore itself out to. That's the point.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 05 December 2012 at 09:32 AM
Maybe the NGOs can do a study of how carbon sequestration may be accomplished by its storage in the calcium "CORBON"nate of Oyster shells.
Posted by: D. King | 05 December 2012 at 09:37 AM
> Maybe the NGOs can do a study of how carbon sequestration may be accomplished by its storage in the calcium "CORBON"nate of Oyster shells.
Now that's novel. And I'm sure there's a government grant out there for that. Or an iPhone App. Suddenly, oysters are good again. And low and behold, the fish populations are indeed up, as are the seal counts. Sorry about the errors in the earlier study, Drake's Bay Oyster Company. You understand, I hope. The ends justifies the means. And that end is our grant-funded livelihoods.
Anyhow, I've also grown frustrated with the Climate Change "debate." I am certainly not qualified to understand the science*, but I am more than qualified to study the sociology of this phenomena. For me, the rhetoric of the environmental movement mimics that of say fundamentalist religion to some degree. Just trust us. Just trust them. Trust Al Gore. Trust dicks (H/T to Blazing Saddles). Trust the majority of scientists. Fine. Frankly I'd rather trust my doctor than my pastor.
But then we have equally smart people who question the methodologies and the data. And when they question things like sample size** and then get labels "deniers" or "quacks" or some other convenient ad hominem, my dog ears perk up. And then I start wondering why the pro AGW crowd is so quick to utilize such base rhetorical techniques. Maybe it's bad marketing? Maybe its funding? Maybe people are dumb? Maybe this line of thinking threatens free trips to AGW conferences in the Swiss Alps? Who knows? What I do know, is that my spidey sense goes off when the personal attacks starts to fly.
*I can't even fertilize my lawn properly.
**Super Freakonomics, the second book in the series, has a good primer on this. As well as some interesting Climate Change solutions that can be solve the problem with 100 million or so dollars. That's the point, I'm thinking. No one wants a 100 million dollar solution. Where's the money in that?
***There is no footnote reference associated with this.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 05 December 2012 at 10:04 AM
Re climate change - consensus science has a terrible history in human affairs that reach beyond the bounds of science (expanding the body of human knowledge through reasoned theories that are Occam-compact and falsifiable by better reason and/or experiment).
But when public policies are fashioned according to the politically orchestrated bleatings of an innumerate populace, then the stage is set for the inevitable tragedies to follow. Today our masses understand less of what can be understood than at any time in recorded history, and the distance between what is and what is believed grows daily.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 December 2012 at 10:34 AM
Sure George. Let's go with the smart side that proposed Sarah Palin for veep, rejected by the innumerate populace. Now those are mental giants for sure.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 December 2012 at 11:21 AM
PaulE 1121am - don't know what you are responding to (my 1034am about consensus science?), but what is your point?
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 December 2012 at 11:27 AM
"Today our masses understand less of what can be understood than at any time in recorded history, and the distance between what is and what is believed grows daily."
That's obvious. More people have been studying and learning about more different an intricate kinds of stuff in the last 100 years than at any point you can name in history. Probably true in the last 25 years too. if you look at the "majors" or "areas of concentration" at Cal and elsewhere,they have multiplied like oysters.
Since money is a driver, see Ryan 10:04, then we can see where it also affects the denier side of the fence, with so many companies liable to lose much larger fortunes than the Sierra Club has ever controlled in toto, it sets of my spidey sense as well. Grace, Gold, and Glory for the final scientific winner of this contest. What a hoot if it contains elements of the CO2 and the cosmic ray group at the same time. Could be just a bunch of teenaged aliens pulling a prank on the inhabitants of this planet.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 December 2012 at 11:54 AM
Doug-
I agree with you that the respective agendas is whacking our government Good Fellas style. I tried to make that point above. But it's a difficult argument to sustain. One will get skewered by their respective supporters when one attacks both big business and NGOs and accusing both of them suckling at the Treasury's teet when neither have the Republic's best interest in mind.
At least the bankers call us chumps to our faces.
Posted by: Ryan Mount | 05 December 2012 at 12:15 PM
I guess what I am saying George is that was the selection of Sarah Palin as veep candidate an attempt to appeal to the "innumerate populace" in the hope of drawing a majority or was it a way of throwing the fight?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 December 2012 at 02:35 PM
PaulE 235pm - Hard to tell when you're dealing with the innumerate populace. The Dems strategy of selecting Obama in 2008, a candidate who had vastly inferior credentials than Palin, seems to have worked well, and even more so after the man had proven himself incapable in office. As Bryan Caplan ('Myth of the Rational Voter') showed us, elections have become money-driven crap shoots.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 December 2012 at 02:57 PM
Who spent more this go round, including all superpacs? And who won? Seems to me Obama spent less, won more. How did that happen? After all, the Republicans promised JOBS! 12 million of them. Surely they would have been more appealing than welfare handouts, iffy at best?
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 December 2012 at 03:44 PM
Saying Obama had vastly inferior credentials is a bit of an exaggeration. Obama was midway through a Senate term and Palin was in the second year as Gov of a small state a term she bailed on to go for the bucks as a media blabber. What the selectors of Obama did was recognize was that he was a marketable candidate to the majority and could win the election and they were right. Palin was a cookie for the Right to get them excited about the election. That pandering to the wingers is what brought Romney down as well. That's all changing. They even dusted off Georgie B today to talk about a kinder approach to immigration reform.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 December 2012 at 05:12 PM
PaulE 512pm - with all due respect, I maintain that any reasonable comparison of executive experience between the two, Palin comes out ahead. Being a sleazebag senator who voted 'present' a lot, and didn't even introduce any noticeable legislation just underlines Caplan's thesis. Obama was all sizzle and no steak (for the country and its people) as his first term has amply demonstrated.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 December 2012 at 06:20 PM
"Seems to me Obama spent less, won more."
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Posted by: factchecker | 05 December 2012 at 07:09 PM
George
Gallop polls asked the following questions is a poll earlier this year
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
This was the summary conclusion
Respondents were categorized as believing in theistic evolution (option 1), evolution (option 2) and creationism (option 3) depending on their answer choice.
Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention.
Does belief in creationism (46%) in your view serve as an example of a "innumerate populace" Is creationism in your view a repudiation of scientific observation and scholarship like what you cite as lacking in those who believe in human caused global warming?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 05 December 2012 at 09:21 PM
"But then we have equally smart people who question the methodologies and the data. And when they question things like sample size** and then get labels "deniers" or "quacks" or some other convenient ad hominem, my dog ears perk up. And then I start wondering why the pro AGW crowd is so quick to utilize such base rhetorical techniques. Maybe it's bad marketing? Maybe its funding? Maybe people are dumb?" -Ryan
From the beginning, AGW support has relied on a bandwagon approach; there's no time to prove it, the sky is falling. The manufactured consensus, with one famous poll started with 10,000 earth scientists being asked a series of questions, but only the results of 77 anonymous respondents were published... 75 of them, like me, thought there had both been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and some of it was caused by man. That got misrepresented as 97 or 98% of all scientists agree CO2 will be causing dangerous warming.
"any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected"
That's from a love note a colleague of physicist Nir Shaviv got in their rejection from a journal they had submitted their research to for publication. If you've not browsed Shaviv's blog, it's worthwhile:
http://www.sciencebits.com/node/211
Posted by: Gregory | 05 December 2012 at 09:30 PM
Since 2011 alone indicates those amounts, I suspect far more came in during 2012: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-17-people-funded-the-republican-super-pac-world--in-one-chart/2012/07/17/gJQAKc6hrW_blog.html
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 05 December 2012 at 09:31 PM
PaulE 921pm - I don't know the correlation between believers in creationism and innumeracy. But given the 90+% innumeracy rate of the country, it's probably very high. I would say that, in the broad population, both creationists and AGW believers probably use the same kind of critical thinking skills to arrive at their conclusions.
Posted by: George Rebane | 05 December 2012 at 10:13 PM
I see we're back to a non-capcha universe. Spam monkeys got ya down, George? I don't blame you, the Internets are presently an infestation of gross criminal opportunity, while also wallowing in the realm of indulgent shallowness and banality.
I think it was great when Syria turned off their Internets and I hope more failed nation states follow suit. No more riff-raff on the Internets, shall we?
Speaking of riff-raff, what a mess in the US Senate this week. Turning down the disabled treaty, what sadness and delusion! The good news is that the FEMA camps are almost ready now, and they will soon be open and available for new recruits to begin their crucial re-education process.
It's all about the healing. Welcome home...
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-FEMA_Camps_Executive_Orders
Posted by: Michael Anderson | 05 December 2012 at 10:40 PM
Paul E @ 21:21 and George @ 22:13;
Both of you go back and read Genesis I. There are two creation stories there. The first concerns God's creation of physical reality in six "days" of unspecified length; the second concerns God's creation of "man" as we know him. Both are true. What the second Genesis creation "myth" is about is mankind discovering self-consicousness, about 6,000 years ago. Before that epiphinany, we were merely animals, since then we have been able to hold these conversations. The longer you think about it, the more likely that both evolution and God are facts. L
Posted by: L | 05 December 2012 at 11:13 PM
Correction: "epiphany" L
Posted by: L | 05 December 2012 at 11:30 PM
Obama stenographers have failed to give him credit for the Sandy debacle as they did GWB. What the heck? The treaty to allow a Bangladeshi paraplegic to come to America and then sue our small businesses for "non-compliance" grab bars in the johnny was stopped. Thank you Republicans in the US Senate!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 06 December 2012 at 07:34 AM
L 1113pm - To see my expanded understanding of these matters, please search RR with 'intelligent design'.
Administrivia - Thank you L for tagging your comment with the addressees' names and comment times. I would recommend reconsidering your use of the 24-hour convention with the unnecessary prelimiter @ and delimiter :. The transitions between, say, a space and a number are already sufficient delimiters, as are the transitions between a numeric and an alphabetic. The conversion of 24 to 12 hour formats confuses some people. Nevertheless, thanks for including the tags, because commenters who start their responding comment as if only they and their intended addressee are in the comment stream are a pain because the comment stream usually consists of various topic threads between other discussants.
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 December 2012 at 09:11 AM
Geo 09:ll While we're at it, we can also scrap the redundant am/pm tag- that's one of the main reasons for using a 24-hour clock. L
Posted by: L | 06 December 2012 at 09:21 AM
" What the second Genesis creation "myth" is about is mankind discovering self-consicousness, about 6,000 years ago. Before that epiphinany, we were merely animals, since then we have been able to hold these conversations."
~ L | 05 December 2012 at 11:13 PM~
Well L, you seem to be missing quite a bit of prehistory, well before 6,000 B.C. , in which we find burials with obvious ceremonials, artworks in caves, etc. Christ is a Johnny Come Lately in the religious symbols department. Modern man's brain size has been around for 200,000 years. Animals do not make and wear clothes...and non functional jewelry. Decorated pottery started 15,000 years ago, and the melting and forging of metals soon followed, derived from glazes. We were obviously talking long before 6000 B.C.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 06 December 2012 at 09:37 AM
If Hill and Mansfield are the primary progenitors of your ideas, your readers may want some perspective on these people if they don’t already know it. Hill is a former diplomat who is a lecturer (part-time instructor) at Yale and was a senior adviser to George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, and Ronald Reagan. He also served as Chief Foreign Policy Advisor to Rudy Giuliani during his presidential run. Hill is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signatory. Mansfield, also a research fellow at Hoover, is a government professor at Harvard who has received numerous fellowships and honors.
The Hoover Institution is known for its high profile conservatives like Edwin Meese, Condoleza Rice, and George Shultz. Most of Hoover’s funding comes from big corporation trust including the Archer Daniels Midland Foundation, ARCO Foundation, Boeing-McDonnell Foundation,Chrysler Corporation Fund,
Dean Witter Foundation, Exxon Educational Foundation, Ford Motor Company Fund, General Motors Foundation, J.P. Morgan Charitable Trust, Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation, Procter & Gamble Fund, Rockwell International Corporation Trust, and Transamerica to name a few.
The Project for the New American Century is a neo-conservative think tank that boasts a membership that includes such luminaries as founder William Kristol, the Bush family, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, and Paul Wolfowitz. Many members have close ties to the oil industry and many were key players in the GW Bush administration. The PNAC played key role in the push to invade Iraq and called for regime change during the Clinton administration.
Given their backgrounds, an astute reader must factor in an extreme conservative bias into anything Hill and Mansfield have to say. They are shills for the billionaires whose rise to prominence was predicated on saying and writing ideas and policies that appealed to Wall Street and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 06 December 2012 at 09:53 AM
L 921am - True enough. My tradeoff is that '1027pm' is more easily decipherable for most than '2227', and it's closer to TypePad's tag of '10:27 PM' for pattern matching in a scrolled list of comments.
JesusB 937am - the whole notion of consciousness is complex and confusing with different thinkers - philosophers, psychologists, computer scientists, physicists, ... - inserting their own perspectives and flavors. Examine the revealing work done by Julian Jaynes,
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/09/singularity-signposts-consciousness-and-coprocessors-and.html ,and compare it to the muddle that Ray Kurzweil tries to sort through in his otherwise brilliant 'How to Create a Mind'.
JoeK 953am - Indeed these two professors are of a conservative bent, and that is why they are more than less in harmony with my own conservetarian worldview. That should come to no surprise to RR readers. But your immediate casting of them as "shills for the billionaires", of course, declares your own leaning, and explains away the reason for dismissing their ideas due to their unfortunate stereotype in your mind instead of the merit of their content. Thanks for your illuminating comment.
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 December 2012 at 10:29 AM
"Of course, this brave new world can quickly be taken into the cocoon format that we saw in the Matrix movies. Why have a physical house with a physical refrigerator and swimming pool? Can’t we virtualize all that? With a few more neural connections into various places on our spine, and voila! we can all exist in a future ‘Second Life’ environment and really shrink our carbon footprint. Just imagine racks of cocoons, some maintenance robots flitting about and tending them to flush out the dead bodies and hook up the new ones, along with huge arrays of solar, wind, and water powered server farms that take care of creating the ‘what’s happenin’ now’ part of our perceived worlds.
And to think that so much of this technology is already on the drawing boards and in the labs. With implants, can we all be instant geniuses and not worry about all that education and unemployment? I may have gotten carried away a bit – then again … .
Posted at 10:57 AM in Science, Singularity Signposts | Permalink "
Well that is quite a mouthful, but before you write off everyone before 1600 B.C., you might consider the incredible leaps in medicine in the last 100 years. I could see a future George Rebane discounting everything that occurred pre-MRI, as just a bunch of lucky monkey guesses. I suspect the Iceman of the AustrianItaly border, with his arrows and clothes and food sacks, would probably have done quite well in today's world. Michelangelo would have had no problems with flying machines. The pope of that era, maybe not so much.
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 06 December 2012 at 11:32 AM
BTW, are you aware of how tiny a cable the spinal cord is? Heck of a job to attempt to splice anything into that CAT 5 cable that makes us go. A CAT 5 cable is just about the same size as the spinal cord, plus or minus 5 -8 mms. http://www.ajnr.org/content/11/2/369.abstract There are far more than 8 conductors in there...
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 06 December 2012 at 11:41 AM
George 10:29 We live in the golden age of propaganda characterized by the privately funded think tanks like Hoover, PNAC, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise, and so on that specialize in producing policy ideas and "research" that reinforces their benefactors' point of view. We are not talking about truth here.. we are talking about highly biased information that is put to a basically uninformed public as fact. The issue of climate change is a good example. How is it that a certain small portion of the global population which is almost exclusively conservative in political ideology completely disagree with practically the entire body of scientists world wide? Because information leaders like yourself can find "studies" funded by Heritage and others that are contrary to majority but agree with your own point of view, which are then passed on as truth. A study by the Center for Media and Democracy found that "many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their corporate sponsors." The Heritage Foundation is the second most often used source in media today. A study at Marquette University had this to say about Heritage, "among beltway think tanks, Heritage associates have the weakest scholarly credentials. The biggest names at this think tank are not thinkers but former Republican officials. There is little question as to why it is more accomplished at lobbying than research."
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 06 December 2012 at 01:09 PM
JoeK 109pm - Indeed we do live in such an age. I notice that you also are comfortable in citing only one side of such offending organizations, and use a "study" from the virulently leftwing Center for Media and Democracy as the citation for pillorying Heritage. Well enough. But there is something to say for the ideas having legs of their own, no matter who funds the organization. And there is only one side of this grand debate that is actively trying to silence the other side - why is that? (BTW, I'm one of the so accused who funds Heritage, Cato, Pacific Justice Institute, Heartland, Center for Competitive Politics, Mercatus, ... )
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 December 2012 at 02:07 PM
Joe Koyote@01:09PM
You wrote: “How is it that a certain small portion of the global population which is almost exclusively conservative in political ideology completely disagree with practically the entire body of scientists world wide?”
Could you please put some numbers to your claims. How small is “a certain small portion” that “disagree” with global warming? How large is the “entire body of scientist” that agree with global warming. What qualifications are required to be included in the "entire body of scientists" or in "a certain small portion"?
I think that all scientist agree that earth warms and cool in cycles, the real question is how much of that warming is the result of human generated CO2? The data indicates that warming has been flat for 16 years, while CO2 is increasing. This is not a study it was a measurement, by multiple scientific bodies. More details here: http://youvotedforitblog.wordpress.com/climate-change/ [see the bottom two graphics] How do explain this disparity?
The climate modeling community said that if the real world data was not consistent with the models for 15 years, the models must be wrong. Now they have moved the goal post to 20 years. In your mind how many years must the models not agree with the real world data before you can no longer to accept the AGM Cult claims for human generated CO2 warming?
Posted by: Russ Steele | 06 December 2012 at 02:09 PM
Todd Juvinall | 06 December 2012 at 07:34 AM
"The treaty to allow a Bangladeshi paraplegic to come to America and then sue our small businesses for "non-compliance" grab bars in the johnny was stopped. Thank you Republicans in the US Senate!"
Todd, non citizens have standing to sue in civil matters in US courts. Always did.
Posted by: Steve Frisch | 06 December 2012 at 07:42 PM
“How is it that a certain small portion of the global population which is almost exclusively conservative in political ideology completely disagree with practically the entire body of scientists world wide?”
How is it that anyone could divine this without there ever having been a survey of the entire body of scientists worldwide? Or notice that, in the opposite direction, the scientists and politicians driving the scare are, without any exception I'm aware of, firmly on the left?
Posted by: Gregory | 06 December 2012 at 08:07 PM
I tried to post this before but I'm not sure if it got through so bare with me if it is a duplicate.. I am new at this stuff.
Russ: Any website that has "Progressives must take responsibility for California's economic disaster" in its masthead smells like partisan tuna to me. Research can be skewed and reverse engineered to get any result. There will always be contrarians but societal decisions in a democracy are based on majority rule. We should ask ourselves what do the majority of people who have expertise in a given area have to say. Personally, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and plan for the worse case scenario and hope I'm wrong rather than be wrong from a case of contrarianism and have done nothing. I will try and get some numbers for you if they are available, but you are being picky. We all know that a large majority of climatologists agree, therefore those who disagree are a "small portion." George: have you read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock? Brock is a former Heritage fellow who wrote the book discrediting Anita Hill (he later claimed she was telling the truth) clearing the way for Clarence Thomas to be confirmed. He also broke the "Trooper-gate" story and was a key figure in the early Whitewater hysteria about which Brock states that he was hired by Heritage and funded by Richard Mellon Sciafe to go on a "witch hunt" to try and distract and discredit Clinton to stifle any progress in social change. Brock further states that most of the "research" published by Heritage in his books and writings were based on unsubstantiated and uncorroborated interviews and fell far below the normal journalistic standards for such things, but was published anyway. $49 million in taxpayer money was spent on the Republican initiated special investigation whose official conclusion was that the Clinton's made a poor $30.000 investment and all the associated conspiracies were bunk, except Monica Lewinski. Contrast this with the $800,000 the Republican dominated 911 commission spent investigating one of the most heinous crimes in American history. I smell a rat or a blatant attempt to cover up ineptitude. This is all about politics, not truth. (BTW Another study by an Ivy League School whose name escapes me at the moment, characterized the research and journalism at Heritage as "sophomoric" just so you know who you are giving your money too) In mass communication theory there is a concept called "selective exposure" which means that we all seek out information that reinforces our pre-existing beliefs and values. We are all products of the information we consume and our world view is shaped by that information. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, so who is right and who is wrong? It is all a matter of the indoctrination machine we call culture. Those who control the information control the people. What we need is truth so we can make rational thoughtful decisions about the issues of our times not ideological engineering by partisan think tanks be they left, right, or center, or as the father of the Public Relations industry Edward Bernays liked to call it, the manufacture of consent.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 06 December 2012 at 09:37 PM
JoeK 937pm - Have you not traveled in a circle? The truth we need "so we can make rational thoughtful decisions" is not available through our institutions, even if exists independently of cultural frameworks. If decisions based on such truth had universal utility, then there would arise institutions to discover and report it, perhaps for a fee to cover their cost and risks. No such institutions have arisen in the course of human history. What does that tell us about the existence of the truth you seek? It's there but we have yet to find it, or we never will and must proceed with 'truths' that satisfy local utilities?
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 December 2012 at 09:54 PM
Wily Koyote (5 Dec) 921am,
I well aware that human activities date to before 6000BC; personally I think the 2nd Genisis story probably dates much closer to the beginning of the Holocene, perhaps 10,000 years ago and was carried down via oral tradition to about 6000 ya. before it was finally written down and modern human history begins with the ability to transmit information beyond clan and tribe. As a great fan of the late Stephen Jay Gould and his protege Jared Diamond, I hardly need you to tell me about anthropology; come to think of it, most of what you related was taught in Anthro 1 fifty years ago.
The basic point, and perhaps a place where the creationists can begin to get a true sense of the immensity of geologic time, is is to concede that there was a time when God decided the apprenticeship as animals was over and His selected creatures could begin making real decisions for themselves. L
Posted by: L | 06 December 2012 at 10:00 PM
George-- true, the information is hard to find at best and the infusion of ideology creates mistrust. Divide and conquer. Because of that I don't believe you and you don't believe me. Argumentation is often defined not as debate to determine a winner and a loser, but a give and take between beliefs and ideas in an effort to find some semblance of truth. I think there are such institutions and people that seek truth but they are discredited by the political forces that seek to gain from discounting the truth. Money is a poor motivator when it comes to truth. How many lies have been told and truths hidden from the public in the name of national security or profit, as they both seem to be one and the same anymore.
For those of you who wanted proof that climate change deniers are a tiny infinitesimal portion of the global body of scientists here it is. http://www.nationofchange.org/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart-1354370613
In review of 13,950 peer reviewed studies related to climate and climate change between January 1, 1991 and November 12, 2012, ONLY 24 MADE THE CLAIM THAT CLIMATE CHANGE WAS NOT HUMAN CAUSED. I hope that clarifies and defines my admittedly general statements on an earlier post. We must remember here that the key words are “peer reviewed”. No research is valid until subjected to the scrutiny of peers. That is the methodology of modern science. I don’t know how many corporate funded studies on climate change from think tanks like Heritage have been peer reviewed but I would guess few to none. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 06 December 2012 at 10:11 PM
Joe you wrote: “We all know that a large majority of climatologists agree, therefore those who disagree are a "small portion."”
No! We do not all know, 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, that states:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effect upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
More details on the Global Warming Petition Project here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here is another example:
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
A new Climate Depot special report, "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims," features the skeptical voices of many current and former U.N. IPCC scientists who have now turned against the U.N. IPCC.
This maybe your source for the consensus which has no scientific basis. Here are some details from an article by Laurence Solomon, The National Post:
The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout - “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
I hope this helps you understand that there is no scientific consensus. Consensus is not a scientific term, it is political term.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 06 December 2012 at 10:33 PM
Re JoeK's 1011pm - Outfits like Heritage don't claim to 'study' climate change, but report/comment on the controversies about climate change that rage in political and scientific arenas.
And the peer review process of scientific research does not guarantee a uniform, universal, let alone correct assessment. Throughout history unto the present day there continue to be contending schools with their distinct and very opinionated cohorts of supportive peers. An historical embarrassment is the number of occurrences when valid science and epochal breakthroughs were rejected by the then numerical majority of established consensus. This has not changed. In any event, those who know least about science and its workings argue loudest for the acceptance of such peer reviewed consensus.
Posted by: George Rebane | 06 December 2012 at 10:43 PM
Well L.W. "L" just where in their writings do you find the statement that human self-consciousness started 6000 BC? This I gotta see!
based on L | 06 December 2012 at 10:00 PM
Posted by: JesusBetterman | 07 December 2012 at 12:01 AM
Koyote,
Your blogger doesn't count as a peer reviewed paper; like Oreske's flawed investigation, he didn't find what he didn't want to find. It's amazing what you won't find when you don't want to find anything.
Koyote style may want to browse the papers listed here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
This count is up to over 1100 papers supporting skeptical analysis, some of them more scoffing than others. I heartily recommend reading all papers including these authors (all Ph.D.'s in physical sciences):
Eilgil Friis-Christensen
Henrik Svensmark
Nir Shaviv
Jan Veizer
Richard Lindzen
Jasper Kirkby
Posted by: Gregory | 07 December 2012 at 12:23 PM
I have a question for all you folks. Is the point you are trying to make that climate change is not happening? or climate change is not human caused?
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 07 December 2012 at 02:49 PM
Koyote@02:49PM
Climate change has been happening since the earth was created, and will continue to as long as the sun is shining. The issue is human caused climate change from CO2 emissions. Human emission are dwarfed by natural emissions from forest fires, surface volcanos, undersea volcanos, etc. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI&feature=player_embedded#!
On the other hand, humans have changed the earth with their farming practices for centuries and may have influenced the climate. For example the Central Valley is warmer than the Sierra, due to the plowing and irrigation. The valley absorbs more of the sun's energy due to the darker soil and more moisture in the air. Now if you apply that to all irrigated farming around the globe, humans maybe having an influence. Some scientist think that million of years of farming many be delaying the next ice age. If you find that an interesting idea to explore I can provide you a reading list.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 07 December 2012 at 04:02 PM
J Koyote, it might help if you'd state your science background and summarize your understanding of the climate debate.
Posted by: Gregory | 07 December 2012 at 04:10 PM
Russ, there hasn't been "millions of years of farming". More like about 15,000 years, and it isn't coincidence that some wolves and small cats deciding hanging around these well fed primates that mostly stay in one place was a pretty cool idea at about the same time.
Posted by: Gregory | 07 December 2012 at 04:54 PM
For Joe 06 December 2012 at 10:11 PM
sorry to everyone else...
http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/
"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D.
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
Footnotes
Swanson, K.L., and A. A. Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022.
Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature.
Pielke, R. A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481.
Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
Posted by: TheMikeyMcD | 07 December 2012 at 05:29 PM
Mikey, then there's the recent editorial by climatologist Roger Pielke, Jr regarding the false belief of 69% (by exit polling) of voters in the last election, that Hurricane Sandy was evidence of 'climate change':
"[To] call Sandy a harbinger of a "new normal," in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong...While it's hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane "drought." The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578089413659452702.html
Posted by: Gregory | 07 December 2012 at 06:40 PM
Everybody on both sides of this issue can display web pages and studies to support their point of view. That is the purpose of the privately funded think tanks.. to generate information that supports their point. It all comes down to who you believe or don't believe.. and that is the political/cultural side of all issues. Moving on..
There is no doubt that climate is always changing and that humanity has some role in it. If a bear takes a dump in the woods it has some role in it. The question is what effect has humanity had on current and future climate events. My question is who cares and why? So what if these events are naturally occurring or humanity caused? What's the difference? The military has contingency plans on virtually any war scenario you can think of and some you can't even think of. Why is it Americans are fighting over who's right or wrong rather than creating contingencies just in case there really is a problem with climate change? The first tenet of public relations damage control is to try and put off any decisions as long as possible. In the courtroom you try and create reasonable doubt to get a guilty party off the hook. This whole argument seems to be a big smokescreen to me. Someone is hiding something. Another question is who and why?
Posted by: Joe Koyote | 07 December 2012 at 06:43 PM