[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

Considering that politicians like this from all political parties get elected, those particular stats probably don't matter much. Voters who always vote one way (no matter what way) probably depend more on emotion than reason regardless of education.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

What bothers me most is that voters here are so poorly educated that politicians who do this kind of thing can be elected.

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 03:29 PM, said:

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Considering that politicians like this from all political parties get elected, those particular stats probably don't matter much. Voters who always vote one way (no matter what way) probably depend more on emotion than reason regardless of education.

ok, but it seemed that your original point only referred to certain voters of a certain party (those "who do this kind of thing")... in any case, going by your "Voters who always vote one way ... " criterion, it should be relatively easy to see what groups of voters in what percentages vote a certain way - and thus are voting more on emotion than reason... agree?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

that's an interesting point... i wonder if there are any stats on the educational level of those who support one party over another

The two most power predictors of voting behaviour in the US are

1. Religious intensity (Positively correlated with voting Republican)
2. Population density (Positively correlated with voting Democrat)

Education is a tricky one.

Income level is correlated with voting Republican.
Income is also highly correlated with education level.

As I recall, if you adjust for income level, education is correlated with voting Democrat. Moreover, this trend has intensified in recent elections (The Republicans are hemorrhaging members of the professional classes)

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 04:43 PM, said:

ok, but it seemed that your original point only referred to certain voters of a certain party (those "who do this kind of thing")... in any case, going by your "Voters who always vote one way ... " criterion, it should be relatively easy to see what groups of voters in what percentages vote a certain way - and thus are voting more on emotion than reason... agree?

You forgot to include the part of my post that noted that not just right-wingers ignore reality to gain political points.

PassedOut, on Jun 30 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

Yes, this type of thing is not only found among right-wingers, and I've certainly seen it elsewhere too. But in the US these days it seems that the republicans are hell-bent on forcing anyone capable of reason out of the party.

What bothers me most is that voters here are so poorly educated that politicians who do this kind of thing can be elected.

There certainly are significant groups of voters who always support democrats or always support republicans because of social ties, or of tradition, or of a sense of belonging, and so forth (or say they do, anyway). Things will never be perfect on that score. The voters who swing elections are those of us who can get beyond that stuff and decide based on reason.

At one time there were many principled republicans willing to adopt positions based on reason, reality, and common sense. In fact, on the local and state levels, there still are quite a few, in my experience.

But on the federal level, it seems to me that the republican party is forcing out everyone who puts reason ahead of rigid ideology, or who puts the common good ahead of the current version of republican party.

Eight republicans supported the Waxman-Markey bill rather than kowtow to the (ridiculous) positions espoused by republicans during the debate. Now the nutjobs in their own party have unsheathed the knives and are trying to force them out.

Forty-four democrats voted against the bill, some because it was too weak and some because democrats, too, can be delusional. Is there a strong effort to push them out? No.

Just saw these articles:

Conservative Ire Rains on 8 Republicans Who Voted for House Climate Bill

Quote

In the wake of last week's landmark passage of the House climate bill, conservatives have focused their fury on the handful of Republicans who voted in favor of the sweeping legislation.

Inslee, Reichert play key roles in energy bill

Quote

Only eight Republican congressmen voted for the bill. One of them was Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

"Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to leading on these issues at a global level," he said in a statement. "Teddy Roosevelt was the true example of a Republican engaged in conserving resources for our children and grandchildren, but he also had the foresight to seek a brighter future for them."

So the republicans want to keep the dope who called global warming a "hoax" and the idiots who applauded, but want to get rid of the representatives who recognize the (no longer deniable) need for action now.

That's what I'm talking about.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2009-June-30, 17:11

[mike777]

I understand the bill is 1300 pages long and I have not read it.


One thing I just heard that would concern me if true is that in the cap and trade bill many if not all of the permits are being given away in some bizarro procedure rather than being auctioned off which guts the whole bill.

Again I have no idea if this is a good bill or a real stinker.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Again I have no idea if this is a good bill or a real stinker.

During the "debate" I did not observe the republicans saying that this is serious problem and we have a great plan to solve it. Instead they played political games and tried to kick the can down the road. That won't fly.

I'm sure this bill is far from perfect. So was the stimulus bill. And so will be the health care bill.

An important point is that the US government is no longer abdicating responsibility for solving problems that belong in the government's realm.

Social security had to be fixed before and needs to be fixed again. Same with Medicare. These new initiatives will need to be fixed too, but they won't go away. That's important.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

do you?... it's pretty much always been your way to attack the person rather than to engage in "honest discourse"... btw, what crap are you speaking of?

I will readily admit that there are certain individuals that I attack and you are most certainly on said list.

I have very little tolerance for idiots; much less ones who knowingly post false information trying to pollute threads. Feel free to claim that your "just providing a skeptical view". Your actions speak for themselves. You constantly parrot right wing talking points.

Different people respond in different ways. A number of individuals on these forums simple choose to ignore your postings because they think your incapable of engaging in real conversation.

I'm a bit more rude (and I think that its a mistake to ignore your ilk)

[mike777]

I note earlier threads which seem to agree that a carbon tax that was revenue neutral was a good first step forward. Perhaps with some version of a nuclear component?

From fragmented and perhaps biased reports so far this bill seems far from that and a step back.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 1 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

I note earlier threads which seem to agree that a carbon tax that was revenue neutral was a good first step forward. Perhaps with some version of a nuclear component?

From fragmented and perhaps biased reports so far this bill seems far from that and a step back.

For what its worth. Andrew Sullivan's blog has had some pretty good coverage of the debate over the climate bill.

[Mbodell]

mike777, on Jun 30 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

I understand the bill is 1300 pages long and I have not read it.


One thing I just heard that would concern me if true is that in the cap and trade bill many if not all of the permits are being given away in some bizarro procedure rather than being auctioned off which guts the whole bill.

Again I have no idea if this is a good bill or a real stinker.

That is the key point of the Waxman-Markey as opposed to some of the other more "liberal" bills that were for the more pure auction.

From an economic standpoint as long as they are transferable in a prefect market then it doesn't matter who gets them at the start (in terms of pricing carbon and getting the people for whom it is easiest to switch to switch). Of course it does matter who gets them in that those people get a win fall. If they are all auctioned off with the win fall going to the tax payer then that is a big win for gov't and arguably a big loss for business. In theory, one could imagine a world where we give permits in proportion to current pollution levels so that we keep the pain on business more equal. I doubt very much the W-M bill does this right.

I also question how businesses who have been getting away with pollution in the past don't deserve to get hit with greater pain. Because really we are just pricing in the economic externalities. So I think a purer auction with the gov't keeping the revenue would be a much better idea.

However, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. So it is difficult to know if a "better" bill could make it. And really any bill is an improvement over the past administration who basically wanted to deny and ignore global climate change.

[mike777]

"And really any bill is an improvement over the past administration who basically wanted to deny and ignore global climate change"


Yes this often seems to be the bottom line, any bill is better than no bill but what if the bill does harm?

1) see end of world pollution
2) see jobs bill
3) seehealthcare

I think people forget, governments default on debt, governments/countries disappear.


Many of these posts seem to assume without saying so...anything is better than nothing......governments do not fail.....

This bill may be a good first step forward but all I hear is the speaker saying, jobs, jobs,jobs, jobs....

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jun 30 2009, 07:11 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 30 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

do you?... it's pretty much always been your way to attack the person rather than to engage in "honest discourse"... btw, what crap are you speaking of?

I will readily admit that there are certain individuals that I attack and you are most certainly on said list.

I have very little tolerance for idiots; much less ones who knowingly post false information trying to pollute threads. Feel free to claim that your "just providing a skeptical view". Your actions speak for themselves. You constantly parrot right wing talking points.

Different people respond in different ways. A number of individuals on these forums simple choose to ignore your postings because they think your incapable of engaging in real conversation.

I'm a bit more rude (and I think that its a mistake to ignore your ilk)

i sense fear in you... you fear it will be shown that co2 has little or no impact on climate change, which you already know in your heart... as yoda might say, fear produces anger and anger hate... fear leads to the dark side, darth dick

outside of that, my statement stands - you prefer to attack the person rather than the points... i notice you didn't reference the "false information" i "knowingly" posted, or the "right-wing talking points"

[PassedOut]

Mbodell, on Jun 30 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

However, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. So it is difficult to know if a "better" bill could make it. And really any bill is an improvement over the past administration who basically wanted to deny and ignore global climate change.

Agreed. Here is Thomas Friedman's take: Just Do It

Quote

There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.

Now let’s get it passed in the Senate and make it law.

Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.

This bill acknowledges that the US government must be responsible for mitigating the damage done to the climate by our people and businesses. Once that precedent has been set, we'll no doubt have to make sure that the government clamps down harder in the future. But you have to start somewhere.

[helene_t]

It sounds pretty pathetic. Of course I have no basis of saying this as all I know about the bill is what has been posted/quoted here.

If I had been in the US congress (and suppose that I knew as little about the issue as I do now), my first inclination would probably have been to abstain, then the rhetorics of the opponents would make me so sick that I would end up voting yes anyway.

Btw, how does this scheme compare to the transferable emission rights for sulphur?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 1 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

i sense fear in you... you fear it will be shown that co2 has little or no impact on climate change, which you already know in your heart... as yoda might say, fear produces anger and anger hate... fear leads to the dark side, dick

Jimmy's gone back to the penis references....
In times of stress, he always seems to go and grasp for the penis.
A Freudian would have a field day with this one.

Regardless, I think the most telling comment about the page that you posted is that it is (almost) completely isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. None of the main pages discussing climate change link to this list because no one cares that much about the opinion of isolated individuals. Search hard enough and you can find folks who will say anything. Its simply not that relevant.

I was able to find the list linked on the following which provides an exhaustive list of organizations that different with your wonderous list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

The link immediately follows the following this quote:

Quote

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Jimmy's gone back to the penis references....

Hands up everyone who would be pleased if Richard would more often apply his knowledge and analytical skills to more interesting issues.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 1 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

i sense fear in you... you fear it will be shown that co2 has little or no impact on climate change, which you already know in your heart... as yoda might say, fear produces anger and anger hate... fear leads to the dark side, dick

Jimmy's gone back to the penis references....
In times of stress, he always seems to go and grasp for the penis.
A Freudian would have a field day with this one.

Regardless, I think the most telling comment about the page that you posted is that it is (almost) completely isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. None of the main pages discussing climate change link to this list because no one cares that much about the opinion of isolated individuals. Search hard enough and you can find folks who will say anything. Its simply not that relevant.

I was able to find the list linked on the following which provides an exhaustive list of organizations that different with your wonderous list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

The link immediately follows the following this quote:

Quote

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

so that's the "false information" i "knowingly" posted, or the "right-wing talking points" i spouted?

i don't know why you're so angry (well that isn't true, i do know - i pointed it out above)... passedout stated, and i suppose you agree, that opponents are either delusional or have some sort of profit motive, neither of which can possibly be true of supporters

you really don't make a lot of sense... why is the placement of the page the most telling comment and not the ... comments themselves? and fwiw i didn't search hard at all, it's one of the first pages to come up on any search

assume for a moment that the earth is cooling and not warming... in your opinion, could man do anything about this?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 1 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

assume for a moment that the earth is cooling and not warming... in your opinion, could man do anything about this?

Comment 1: I'm not sure that I agree with the way the question is phrased. If the world were experiencing global cooling there are any number of things that mankind could do. Scientists have provided a number of ways that geo engineering could be used to combat global warming (for example, pumping large amounts of particulate matter into the atmosphere, erecting large mirrors in space, trying to bioengineer carbon eating trees, etc.). I'm quite sure that there are equally creative ways to combat global cooling. This doesn't mean that these are necessarily a good idea. It's hard to predict what will happen when you mess with a complex system. I don't think anyone has a real good idea what the long term effects of a deliberate attempt to replicate the Krakatoa eruption would be.

Comment 2: The discussions about global cooling pointed at a number of (potential) causes. Many of these involved man made actions (soot and other particulate matter being a popular explanation). Some discussions involved naturally occuring patterns (eccentricities in the earth's orbit, etc). At the 10,000 foot level, I would tend to differentiate between a man made event and a naturally occuring cycle. Its a lot easier to address the former than the latter...

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 1 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

Scientists have provided a number of ways that geo engineering could be used to combat global warming (for example, pumping large amounts of particulate matter into the atmosphere, erecting large mirrors in space, trying to bioengineer carbon eating trees, etc.).

Really? Never heard about it.

Oh yes, carbon eating trees I have heard about, there is one just outside my kitchen window.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 1 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

so that's the "false information" i "knowingly" posted, or the "right-wing talking points" i spouted?

The list of quotes that you posting contains a large amount of factually incorrect information.

Claims about solar forcing
Claims about that global cooking was scientific consensus during the 1970s
Claims that there is no warming
...

I don't buy for a minute that you were trying to shed light on the motivations of the various scientists; nor do I think that you were trying to show the wide variety of different reasons that said individuals claim for their skeptics.

You were trying to promote/popularize their ideas.