does it make sense to take action based on our best estimate of the effect of CO2 now, or wait until that estimate is perfect, which may never happen?
I would say it calls for more study, focused on the "how much impact and when" side of the equation. In the meantime, we can continue our moderate green initiative we're currently pursuing (more efficient cars, etc). I see nothing calling for a economy-halting cash dump (especially given the eggshells the economy is currently walking on). Between the sovereign insolvency problems, the unemployment, and the sluggish GDP recovery, substantial spending for _anything_ has a far higher bar than in the past. And even assuming we recover and dig ourselves out of this debt hole, I'd definitely want more quantification on the issue before I'd want us digging _another_ debt hole.
In your opinion, when would we know well enough to declare climate change a problem and begin doing something about it?
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. But I can tell you one thing -- climate experts have been "crying wolf" for decades now. I think that by their previous dramatic predictions, the world should have imploded at least 3 or 4 times by now. So it is very hard to take the "sky is falling" alarmism at face value when we've been through this time and time again.
How would scientists' behavior and results differ from what we're seeing right now?
That's another very good question. They probably would be behaving exactly the same. Perhaps there's something to that crying wolf parable...
Are you ruling out climate change based on the predominance of the evidence or because you'd rather not believe in it?
Neither. It is because the evidence you speak of it only proves two things: CO2 is rising, and humans are part of the reason. The evidence quantifying not only the impact of that CO2 increase as well as quantifying man's input vs other sources is sadly very lacking atm.
When evidence doesn't fit the model, *fix* *the* *model*.
This doesn't make sense to me. If, when any contradictory data arises, you simply change the test conditions (the model), how is anyone ever to prove the hypothesis invalid? If you keep moving the goalpost by altering the model to better portray the conclusion you wish to see, how would an opponent find any contradiction? It seems to be the scientific equivalent of fudge factors. Couldn't someone who wants to see a different outcome just devise a new model with different fudge factors that portray an entirely different picture?
The only scientific question left is how much warming, where and when.
And you don't think these are very important questions? These are the exact questions that cause most of the AGW skepticism. Because you have a bunch of people calling for trillions+++ of dollars to be spent on a potential problem that may or may not be cataclysmic. The "how much/when" directly affects exactly what we should do (if anything). Until that is better determined (scientifically), skepticism has its place in this argument.
If you take sufficiently short period of time, you can find any temperature trend you want in climate data. If you want statistically significant temperature trend, you need at least 15 years worth of data, maybe more.
You don't see the contradiction in your own statement? We're talking about the climate history of a planet, stretching over _eons_ of time. And somehow you believe 15 years or even 100 years is a "significant" enough period of time to not "find any temperature trend you want". If you look at the long term charts (even on pro-AGW websites like skepticalscience.com), 100 years is statistical noise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm. The ~10k year temperature spikes are occurring like clockwork and we haven't spiked outside of this pattern. So how is it valid to use short-term observations (~100 years) to make statistically significant claims about Earth's climate.
Well then I guess it comes down to what you define as "aggressive" driving. Because I'll definitely accelerate faster towards a green light (and in some cases even a yellow if I know the area and the general timing of the light) to beat the red. In the same way, I'll slow down when approaching a red so that I can carry some speed through the light when it turns green. Both of these behaviors are typically viewed as aggressive driving, whereas personally I see it as simply driving "smart". Thinking ahead in the dynamic environment that is road traffic seems like a far better idea than going one static speed with the cruise control on.
many drivers treat the left lane (as well as the middle, if present) as the travel lanes and the right as acceleration/deceleration lanes.
I concur. Maryland especially is notoriously bad for this. I've never seen a state with such self-serving drivers in my life. I've actually found that I can cruise (and pass) far easier in the right-most lane than the left-most lane in most Maryland traffic. It's rather appalling
If you can find the right speed, you can often get where you're going without stopping at all, and get there in the same amount of time
And if you're going an even more right speed, you can get where you're going without stopping at all, and get there even sooner. Most people lack the intelligence to understand this. Moreover, if what you say is true, and you're capable of finding an "ideal" speed that gets you through all the lights perfectly, what happens when you run into a single jackass going 5-10 mph slower than your ideal speed, therefore throwing off all your careful calculations and causing you to hit almost every light? Can you still claim you can get there in the same amount of time as say someone who sees a green in the distance, accelerates to close the distance (predicting the yellow), and manages to safely cruise through the light vs the "single speed driver" who doesn't modify their behavior at all and ends up arriving at the light exactly in time for it to turn red?
The single-lane roundabouts I'm familiar with in north-east Maryland are perfectly navigable with minimal stress and danger if you simply understand the meaning of a yield sign.
As someone also very familiar with navigating roundabouts in Maryland, I'm shocked you believe the drivers in this state are capable of navigating roundabouts successfully. With the very few roundabouts we have already, I already find myself having to change the way I behave in a roundabout for fear of getting sideswiped by a guy exiting from the left lane of a 2 lane roundabout, or slamming on the brakes to "yield" to a car that is still 3 car lengths from a different entrance to the roundabout. This is most insidious at the double roundabout near Anne Arundel mall where people simply have _no_ clue what they're doing (the right lane of the roundabout typically goes entirely unused and people just treat the entire circle as if it's a single lane)
I don't see why it would be any longer than a four-way stop.
For the individual case:
Because a 4-way stop at least guarantees that you eventually get a turn to go. At a particularly busy rotary, it is not at all unreasonable to have a near-unending stream of traffic such that you never have an opening to get in.
For the aggregate case: Here in the US, people slow down _considerably_ when entering a rotary, even with no traffic anywhere in site. I've also seen people full stop yield to cars who are approaching another entrance to the rotary but aren't even there yet. In essence, they practically _treat_ it like a 4-way stop. When compared to a green light where at least _some_ of the time you cruise through at full speed, I could easily see many cases where the aggregate time is slower.
(It is somewhat interesting that the "climate skeptic" crowd doesn't actual seem to make testable predictions of their own. We should conclude that, whether they're right or wrong, they aren't scientists. In fact, they seem to have little understanding of how science actually works.;-)
What an incredibly unfair statement. The vast majority of arguments from "climate skeptics" hinge on the fact that the complexity and scale of the question is the source of their opposition. Namely, scientists are using models based on years (maybe decades) of trending to defacto "prove" climate trends for a planet that has eons of history. How are skeptics to test/predict something even they claim is very hard or impossible to test/predict? The entire point of the argument is that the data/models aren't available to prove one way or the other! It's like asking an atheist to prove god doesn't exist and then mocking them for not having "testable predictions" on the issue.
We handled this by having a staff solely for the purpose of QC'ing new items or areas. Builders would be given a mini tutorial on how to maintain consistency and keep things balanced and then all changes would still have to pass through QC. It actually worked pretty well. The biggest problems occurred when builders would just skirt QC and release a bunch of overpowered crap. They didn't stay builders for long.
I think what you meant to say is that Obama is too Republican to sign it.
Ah yes, you're entirely correct -- Obama is a warmongerer and is Christian -- clearly that means he's 100% Republican. It's been so long since we've had a Democrat in office. Clinton slept with an intern and perjured himself, so clearly has the lying capacity and morals of a Republican. Corporate-loving Republican Jimmy Carter bailed out Chrysler in the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 -- and he moved to deregulate the airline industry! And then there's the Republican warmonger Lyndon B Johnson who substantially entrenched the US in the Vietnam War. And let's not forget Republican JFK and his covert attempt to institute a regime change in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Wow, we haven't had a Democrat president in decades! Centuries even!
Social programs is not the same thing as a centrally led plan economy.
In the United States, it is. Every existing social program we have (as well as every proposed new program) is at the federal level, centralized, and with little recourse for the states. It's disingenuous to claim that "social programs in the US" are anything but centrally led. I know quite a few people that have far less opposition to state-led efforts than federal ones.
Maybe atheists would be less vocal if the people around them were more open to rational argument and critical thinking
No they wouldn't. Atheists have a chip on their shoulder. They claim to be "open to rational argument and critical thinking", yet they "groupthink" like the rest of society...how much critical thinking was put into the decision of putting the man screaming "Yes we Can" into office? (every atheist I know voted for him...) How is blindly accepting the claims of change from an exploitative person any different than another person blindly accepting some other belief. People (and I mean _everyone_) need to do more introspection before they go pointing fingers. The elitist attitudes most atheists carry is typically far from deserved -- they pride themselves on being able to be "smarter/more skeptical" than a religious believer, but never carry them same degree of skepticism to any other facet of their life. In conclusion, atheists don't have a monopoly on rational thought, and as much as they're in your face about how STOOPID "you" are, I'm continually disappointed by what they claim is a "fair and reasonable" line of thought.
There is an incentive for healthcare, to no fix the problem, but prolong it.
I just don't believe that. Can you honestly tell me that if a company invented and patented an exclusive miracle cure for say cancer or AIDs that they wouldn't become rich beyond the dreams of avarice? It might be _easier_ to develop maintenance drugs than cures, but to say there isn't any incentive to develop a cure is just foolhardy. It's just incredibly risky -- you have to put a ton of research into a longshot that may or may not pay off.
Well I think the Tesla's luxury crap should count for something
Only if it is adding something the other luxury cars don't also offer on their base/standard package. The G37 is a luxury car as well. And since the Model S base package hasn't yet been established according to Tesla's site, it's a bit hard to compare.
And $15-$20k extra for an electric version of a car is pretty reasonable anyways, considering that's about what the battery costs.
That's a different argument. What you said that it was "competitively priced". A 15k/20k bump just for "electric" is not "competitive" to other cars in the same class. It's a premium, and in my opinion a hefty one. That's the point that people in this thread are trying to make: The Model S is _not_ competitively priced with similar class cars, it is priced at an "electric premium". Whether you believe that premium is worth having an electric car is a separate debate.
Ummm, no. The M3 does 0-60 in about 4 seconds, maybe 4.3 being conservative. The Model S is looking at a mid 5 (~5.5) 0-60. The cars aren't in the same class. A closer comparison would be something like an Infiniti G37, which can be had for like 15-20k less. This is the discrepancy people are pointing out time and time again in this thread, yet somehow keeps getting glossed over.
Unfortunately it's easy to be much better than Republicans and still not be all that effective. Stop with the bullshit false equivalencies and start actually having an adult conversation.
The juxtaposition of those two sentences is priceless.
Is this how you continue to prop up your deluded view of the world? The minute one of your supposed heroes turns out to be not as you thought, instead of acknowledging faults in your own party, you just say "well clearly he was in the other camp the whole time"? I can tell you right now he is no moderate republican. We (the moderate republicans) don't support any of the crap he's done in his term, including (but not limited to) massive bailouts, minimum wage hikes, HAMP, healthcare reform that cares more about "giving shitty healthcare to everyone" than actually "making it affordable", etc, etc. Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala he's not one of us." But go fuck yourself, Obama is a spend-loving Democrat, who just happens to be militaristic and anti-liberty as well, the worst of all worlds as far as I'm concerned.
anyone who thinks this type of welfare is okay, should have no problems with the less fortunate getting some government money.
Whereas I'm not trying to defend military spending, you provide a false comparison. When taxes go into the military complex, they _must_ be spent -- that means more wars, more bombs, more soldiers, more contractors, what-have-you. When taxes go to the less fortunate, they can do whatever they damn well please with the money: put it in the bank, convert it to dollars and shove it under their mattress, what-have-you. So strictly by the book, the military spending is _guaranteed_ to generate spending/jobs whereas giving money to the poor MAY generate spending/jobs.
I have to ask. Why is it that all the models out there use data from a ~100-year timeframe and completely ignore all the ancient data preceding it? There has been similar CO2 spikes in ancient history that appear to occur like clockwork over a large span of time, yet we assume the recent one is entirely manmade and not the result of natural processes. Additionally, when anything appears that cast doubt on the relatively short collection of 100-yr data (i.e. aerosols or divergent tree ring data) , why it is hand-waved away? Or say the Soares analysis, which is panned for focusing on "short-term trends" -- when the entire global warming argument _is_ a short term trend (when compared to the history of climate on this planet). Hell, even the observed CO2 doesn't match what scientists claim that humans have outputted. So they fudge that with a hand-wave of "well obviously it isn't going to match perfectly, the rest is in the ocean somewhere". Why are scientists allow to hand-wave discrepancies such as these?
For me, it ultimately boils down to the old axiom of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, especially when considering the extreme measures the climate scientists want to take to address the problem. And it seems like 100 years of data is a mere blip when measured against a planet's climate cycle, especially when even data within that 100 year span is suspect.
It's funny you mention that..I'm also in #3. However,I think that #2 and #3 have far more in common than #4. For instance, they work day-to-day jobs, have bills to pay, families to support. They aren't retired and/or spend the majority of their time vacationing in Aruba. Until you get enough money that you can effectively leave the "working class", I believe it's perfectly reasonable to be called "middle class". When I think "rich", I think "chilling on a yacht whilst my minions work for me".
I also believe most people consider #3+#4 to be "rich" and #2 alone to be middle class. If this weren't true, politicians who claim to be helping the "middle class" would put the cutoff bar far higher than they normally do. Like take for instance the student loan interest write-off deduction which begins phasing out at 55k AGI. That will clearly impact group #3 in your equation. Similar is true of practically every credit or deduction out there. When people call for higher taxes, #3 group takes it in the ass (typically #1 and #2 see a kickback, #4 dodges the tax through squirrly offshore shadiness, and #3 is left holding the bill)
Am I the only one who noticed that the Tea Party was co-opted and neutralized by the Republican party?
That's because you're ignorant and apparently blind to front page news. The Tea Party has made far more effort to stay true to its philosophy than say "hope and change" Obama has. It just so happens that they're a bit outnumbered at the moment, having to fight not only Democrats, but also their own party.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say it calls for more study, focused on the "how much impact and when" side of the equation. In the meantime, we can continue our moderate green initiative we're currently pursuing (more efficient cars, etc). I see nothing calling for a economy-halting cash dump (especially given the eggshells the economy is currently walking on). Between the sovereign insolvency problems, the unemployment, and the sluggish GDP recovery, substantial spending for _anything_ has a far higher bar than in the past. And even assuming we recover and dig ourselves out of this debt hole, I'd definitely want more quantification on the issue before I'd want us digging _another_ debt hole.
I honestly don't know the answer to that question. But I can tell you one thing -- climate experts have been "crying wolf" for decades now. I think that by their previous dramatic predictions, the world should have imploded at least 3 or 4 times by now. So it is very hard to take the "sky is falling" alarmism at face value when we've been through this time and time again.
That's another very good question. They probably would be behaving exactly the same. Perhaps there's something to that crying wolf parable...
Neither. It is because the evidence you speak of it only proves two things: CO2 is rising, and humans are part of the reason. The evidence quantifying not only the impact of that CO2 increase as well as quantifying man's input vs other sources is sadly very lacking atm.
This doesn't make sense to me. If, when any contradictory data arises, you simply change the test conditions (the model), how is anyone ever to prove the hypothesis invalid? If you keep moving the goalpost by altering the model to better portray the conclusion you wish to see, how would an opponent find any contradiction? It seems to be the scientific equivalent of fudge factors. Couldn't someone who wants to see a different outcome just devise a new model with different fudge factors that portray an entirely different picture?
And you don't think these are very important questions? These are the exact questions that cause most of the AGW skepticism. Because you have a bunch of people calling for trillions+++ of dollars to be spent on a potential problem that may or may not be cataclysmic. The "how much/when" directly affects exactly what we should do (if anything). Until that is better determined (scientifically), skepticism has its place in this argument.
You don't see the contradiction in your own statement? We're talking about the climate history of a planet, stretching over _eons_ of time. And somehow you believe 15 years or even 100 years is a "significant" enough period of time to not "find any temperature trend you want". If you look at the long term charts (even on pro-AGW websites like skepticalscience.com), 100 years is statistical noise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm. The ~10k year temperature spikes are occurring like clockwork and we haven't spiked outside of this pattern. So how is it valid to use short-term observations (~100 years) to make statistically significant claims about Earth's climate.
Well then I guess it comes down to what you define as "aggressive" driving. Because I'll definitely accelerate faster towards a green light (and in some cases even a yellow if I know the area and the general timing of the light) to beat the red. In the same way, I'll slow down when approaching a red so that I can carry some speed through the light when it turns green. Both of these behaviors are typically viewed as aggressive driving, whereas personally I see it as simply driving "smart". Thinking ahead in the dynamic environment that is road traffic seems like a far better idea than going one static speed with the cruise control on.
I concur. Maryland especially is notoriously bad for this. I've never seen a state with such self-serving drivers in my life. I've actually found that I can cruise (and pass) far easier in the right-most lane than the left-most lane in most Maryland traffic. It's rather appalling
And if you're going an even more right speed, you can get where you're going without stopping at all, and get there even sooner. Most people lack the intelligence to understand this. Moreover, if what you say is true, and you're capable of finding an "ideal" speed that gets you through all the lights perfectly, what happens when you run into a single jackass going 5-10 mph slower than your ideal speed, therefore throwing off all your careful calculations and causing you to hit almost every light? Can you still claim you can get there in the same amount of time as say someone who sees a green in the distance, accelerates to close the distance (predicting the yellow), and manages to safely cruise through the light vs the "single speed driver" who doesn't modify their behavior at all and ends up arriving at the light exactly in time for it to turn red?
As someone also very familiar with navigating roundabouts in Maryland, I'm shocked you believe the drivers in this state are capable of navigating roundabouts successfully. With the very few roundabouts we have already, I already find myself having to change the way I behave in a roundabout for fear of getting sideswiped by a guy exiting from the left lane of a 2 lane roundabout, or slamming on the brakes to "yield" to a car that is still 3 car lengths from a different entrance to the roundabout. This is most insidious at the double roundabout near Anne Arundel mall where people simply have _no_ clue what they're doing (the right lane of the roundabout typically goes entirely unused and people just treat the entire circle as if it's a single lane)
For the individual case: Because a 4-way stop at least guarantees that you eventually get a turn to go. At a particularly busy rotary, it is not at all unreasonable to have a near-unending stream of traffic such that you never have an opening to get in.
For the aggregate case: Here in the US, people slow down _considerably_ when entering a rotary, even with no traffic anywhere in site. I've also seen people full stop yield to cars who are approaching another entrance to the rotary but aren't even there yet. In essence, they practically _treat_ it like a 4-way stop. When compared to a green light where at least _some_ of the time you cruise through at full speed, I could easily see many cases where the aggregate time is slower.
What an incredibly unfair statement. The vast majority of arguments from "climate skeptics" hinge on the fact that the complexity and scale of the question is the source of their opposition. Namely, scientists are using models based on years (maybe decades) of trending to defacto "prove" climate trends for a planet that has eons of history. How are skeptics to test/predict something even they claim is very hard or impossible to test/predict? The entire point of the argument is that the data/models aren't available to prove one way or the other! It's like asking an atheist to prove god doesn't exist and then mocking them for not having "testable predictions" on the issue.
We handled this by having a staff solely for the purpose of QC'ing new items or areas. Builders would be given a mini tutorial on how to maintain consistency and keep things balanced and then all changes would still have to pass through QC. It actually worked pretty well. The biggest problems occurred when builders would just skirt QC and release a bunch of overpowered crap. They didn't stay builders for long.
Ah yes, you're entirely correct -- Obama is a warmongerer and is Christian -- clearly that means he's 100% Republican. It's been so long since we've had a Democrat in office. Clinton slept with an intern and perjured himself, so clearly has the lying capacity and morals of a Republican. Corporate-loving Republican Jimmy Carter bailed out Chrysler in the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 -- and he moved to deregulate the airline industry! And then there's the Republican warmonger Lyndon B Johnson who substantially entrenched the US in the Vietnam War. And let's not forget Republican JFK and his covert attempt to institute a regime change in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Wow, we haven't had a Democrat president in decades! Centuries even!
Jackass.
In the United States, it is. Every existing social program we have (as well as every proposed new program) is at the federal level, centralized, and with little recourse for the states. It's disingenuous to claim that "social programs in the US" are anything but centrally led. I know quite a few people that have far less opposition to state-led efforts than federal ones.
No they wouldn't. Atheists have a chip on their shoulder. They claim to be "open to rational argument and critical thinking", yet they "groupthink" like the rest of society...how much critical thinking was put into the decision of putting the man screaming "Yes we Can" into office? (every atheist I know voted for him...) How is blindly accepting the claims of change from an exploitative person any different than another person blindly accepting some other belief. People (and I mean _everyone_) need to do more introspection before they go pointing fingers. The elitist attitudes most atheists carry is typically far from deserved -- they pride themselves on being able to be "smarter/more skeptical" than a religious believer, but never carry them same degree of skepticism to any other facet of their life. In conclusion, atheists don't have a monopoly on rational thought, and as much as they're in your face about how STOOPID "you" are, I'm continually disappointed by what they claim is a "fair and reasonable" line of thought.
I just don't believe that. Can you honestly tell me that if a company invented and patented an exclusive miracle cure for say cancer or AIDs that they wouldn't become rich beyond the dreams of avarice? It might be _easier_ to develop maintenance drugs than cures, but to say there isn't any incentive to develop a cure is just foolhardy. It's just incredibly risky -- you have to put a ton of research into a longshot that may or may not pay off.
Only if it is adding something the other luxury cars don't also offer on their base/standard package. The G37 is a luxury car as well. And since the Model S base package hasn't yet been established according to Tesla's site, it's a bit hard to compare.
That's a different argument. What you said that it was "competitively priced". A 15k/20k bump just for "electric" is not "competitive" to other cars in the same class. It's a premium, and in my opinion a hefty one. That's the point that people in this thread are trying to make: The Model S is _not_ competitively priced with similar class cars, it is priced at an "electric premium". Whether you believe that premium is worth having an electric car is a separate debate.
Ummm, no. The M3 does 0-60 in about 4 seconds, maybe 4.3 being conservative. The Model S is looking at a mid 5 (~5.5) 0-60. The cars aren't in the same class. A closer comparison would be something like an Infiniti G37, which can be had for like 15-20k less. This is the discrepancy people are pointing out time and time again in this thread, yet somehow keeps getting glossed over.
The juxtaposition of those two sentences is priceless.
Is this how you continue to prop up your deluded view of the world? The minute one of your supposed heroes turns out to be not as you thought, instead of acknowledging faults in your own party, you just say "well clearly he was in the other camp the whole time"? I can tell you right now he is no moderate republican. We (the moderate republicans) don't support any of the crap he's done in his term, including (but not limited to) massive bailouts, minimum wage hikes, HAMP, healthcare reform that cares more about "giving shitty healthcare to everyone" than actually "making it affordable", etc, etc. Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala he's not one of us." But go fuck yourself, Obama is a spend-loving Democrat, who just happens to be militaristic and anti-liberty as well, the worst of all worlds as far as I'm concerned.
Whereas I'm not trying to defend military spending, you provide a false comparison. When taxes go into the military complex, they _must_ be spent -- that means more wars, more bombs, more soldiers, more contractors, what-have-you. When taxes go to the less fortunate, they can do whatever they damn well please with the money: put it in the bank, convert it to dollars and shove it under their mattress, what-have-you. So strictly by the book, the military spending is _guaranteed_ to generate spending/jobs whereas giving money to the poor MAY generate spending/jobs.
For me, it ultimately boils down to the old axiom of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, especially when considering the extreme measures the climate scientists want to take to address the problem. And it seems like 100 years of data is a mere blip when measured against a planet's climate cycle, especially when even data within that 100 year span is suspect.
I also believe most people consider #3+#4 to be "rich" and #2 alone to be middle class. If this weren't true, politicians who claim to be helping the "middle class" would put the cutoff bar far higher than they normally do. Like take for instance the student loan interest write-off deduction which begins phasing out at 55k AGI. That will clearly impact group #3 in your equation. Similar is true of practically every credit or deduction out there. When people call for higher taxes, #3 group takes it in the ass (typically #1 and #2 see a kickback, #4 dodges the tax through squirrly offshore shadiness, and #3 is left holding the bill)
It's called the Tea Party. Sadly, it's small and decried by both sides. Though Rand Paul is doing his best to uphold small govt principles.
Umm, you do realize he filibustered the hell out of this thing, tried to amend it, AND voted against it? You're calling that a different platform?
That's because you're ignorant and apparently blind to front page news. The Tea Party has made far more effort to stay true to its philosophy than say "hope and change" Obama has. It just so happens that they're a bit outnumbered at the moment, having to fight not only Democrats, but also their own party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/patriot-act-extension-passes-senate_n_867736.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110516/ts_csm/382261_1