Rebane's Ruminations
December 2012
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

ObamaSocialismTwo 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.


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.

FiscalCliff02

Posted in , , ,

146 responses to “Beyond the Tipping Point – Obama’s Third Term? (updated 4dec12)”

  1. Ryan Mount Avatar

    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.

    Like

  2. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    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.

    Like

  3. Ryan Mount Avatar

    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.

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar

    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.

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1121am – don’t know what you are responding to (my 1034am about consensus science?), but what is your point?

    Like

  7. JesusBetterman Avatar

    “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.

    Like

  8. Ryan Mount Avatar

    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.

    Like

  9. Paul Emery Avatar

    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?

    Like

  10. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  11. JesusBetterman Avatar

    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?

    Like

  12. Paul Emery Avatar

    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.

    Like

  13. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  14. factchecker Avatar
    factchecker

    “Seems to me Obama spent less, won more.”
    http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

    Like

  15. Paul Emery Avatar

    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?

    Like

  16. Gregory Avatar

    “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

    Like

  17. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  18. Michael Anderson Avatar

    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

    Like

  19. L Avatar
    L

    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

    Like

  20. L Avatar
    L

    Correction: “epiphany” L

    Like

  21. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    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!

    Like

  22. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  23. L Avatar
    L

    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

    Like

  24. JesusBetterman Avatar

    ” 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.

    Like

  25. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    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.

    Like

  26. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  27. JesusBetterman Avatar

    “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.

    Like

  28. JesusBetterman Avatar

    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…

    Like

  29. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    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.”

    Like

  30. George Rebane Avatar

    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, … )

    Like

  31. Russ Steele Avatar

    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?

    Like

  32. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    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.

    Like

  33. Gregory Avatar

    “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?

    Like

  34. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    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.

    Like

  35. George Rebane Avatar

    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?

    Like

  36. L Avatar
    L

    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

    Like

  37. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    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.

    Like

  38. Russ Steele Avatar

    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.

    Like

  39. George Rebane Avatar

    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.

    Like

  40. JesusBetterman Avatar

    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

    Like

  41. Gregory Avatar

    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

    Like

  42. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    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?

    Like

  43. Russ Steele Avatar

    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.

    Like

  44. Gregory Avatar

    J Koyote, it might help if you’d state your science background and summarize your understanding of the climate debate.

    Like

  45. Gregory Avatar

    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.

    Like

  46. TheMikeyMcD Avatar

    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.

    Like

  47. Gregory Avatar

    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

    Like

  48. Joe Koyote Avatar
    Joe Koyote

    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?

    Like

  49. Gregory Avatar

    Nice pivot, but I didn’t provide a link to a think tank. I provided a link to a recent piece by climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr regarding Hurricane Sandy.
    ~69% of voters in November just knew Sandy was the result of climate change. Do you, Joe?

    Like

Leave a comment