Al Gore said the debate was over and the rest of his movement followed suit.
Why do you think your faction has made a point of NOT debating the issue and instead simply demonizing anyone that questions you? That's what we've been subjected to throughout this whole process and frankly we're not going to forget or forgive that without some serious kowtowing. We deserve at the very least common courtesy and an apology from your whole movement.
THEN maybe we can start going through this again bit by bit in a non-partisan fashion. But I REEEEALY doubt they'll do such a thing. Rather, the instant anyone suggests a debate is even needed the insults will start again.
As to multiple scientists coming to the same conclusions... there are problems.
One, most of the studies are not independent and rely on information in other studies. In total, there have been about two independent studies on the matter that were large enough to actually have meaningful findings. Of those two only one has released its report and the other promised to have done so by the end of last year. That was the Berkeley earth study. But they're delaying that release now for some reason. We'll see what happens. Everything prior to the Berkely study was based on a single filtered/modified/etc data set that no one had methodology on how it was created.
Two, actually getting the raw data this is based upon is almost impossible. They're saying that the weatherstations and various sources they got it from won't release their little portions of it so all they have is some composite/modified list which they are allowed to publish. It's impossible to reverse engineer the modified data set without the original set.
Three, they have not released the source code for their models. They briefly let a japanese team that offered up the earth simulator super computer have the code. However, the super computer was unable to output meaningful results. Basically the planet kept cooking in two years or freezing. It is theorized that the forcing variables built into the models were so unstable that it caused the system to fail. They were only able to get the system to output reasonable results by using plug variables. Basically they told the machine what the right answer was at intervals and disallowed any answer that was in variance with that result. By doing that the spastic results the machine was giving evened out to results that APPEARED reasonable. But the findings were essentially pulled out of someone's ass. It was not what the computer calculated using the model.
Four, EVEN IF the whole global warming argument is entirely valid and you have to go through steps 1-3 at least to do that. The solution has to be affordable. We're not spending trillions of dollars a year to effect a 3 percent change in the rate of warming. Anyone that isn't a complete fool that sees the cost of Kyoto and then the proposed results would determine that on a cost/benefit basis it's a stupid plan. So possibly we could consider some geo-engineering or something that has a bigger impact with a lower cost.
Five, if the scientists want to be taken seriously they have to distance themselves from the politicians. They're being used by political operatives and it poisons their credibility. Scientists must be above politics... and by partnering with Al Gore they lost that. They must appear unbiased and outside our various factional rivalries. They inserted themselves directly into them and as a result the deference typically afforded scientists is void in their case. If they want to regain it, then they need to distance themselves again and they should start regaining some of their credibility over time.
I'm sure there's more but that's what strikes me now.
As to the moon landing... In so far as I can see it happened and have never had any reason to doubt it happened. Of course, no one is asking for trillions of dollars a year to fund a space war against aliens either. If you were asking for less in regards to climate change then I
No senator can do anything to your rights alone. However, the senate itself with the cooperation with the house can.
So a better comparison would be "who can control your individual rights more All the Big Corporations or The total might of the United States Government?
Here's a way to guess... who would win in a war between the major corporations and the US government?
The corps can't fight. The national guard could walk around through wallstreet and execute them all going door to door and they wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it.
As to my standard of protecting individual rights. I fear which ever is the greater power.
Are the corps more powerful then the US government? No. So I fear the government more.
Anyway, I'll leave you to barking at the moon if that's what you want. But the corps while powerful hold not a candle to that of the United States. The US unrestrained by it's own laws could crush them all flat. The only thing that could possibly stop it would be OTHER governments in other countries. All the corporations in the world combined couldn't stop the US government without the help and support of many of the other governments in the world. And with few exceptions practically every government on earth is more then a match for any collection of domestic or international corporations that operate within it's borders.
Governments are "the government" because they're in control. If the corps are stronger then they're the government... which is unlikely since they're no where near as powerful.
Really? How many millions of people have corporations killed in the last 100 years? Because governments have probably killed at least a billion people over the last 100 years.
There is no comparison. Saying corporations are the new government is ignorant.
It's not possible to make such a prediction. It's like coming up with a theory about what is inside this black box in my left hand. What is in it? You don't know. It could be a lemon, a small mouse, an acorn, bow tie, box of tic tacs, or nothing at all.
Claiming to have a theory that will predict with any accuracy what is in that box is stupid.
As to claiming intellectual superiority because you believe in peak oil, the industry thinks you're stupid. Most of geologists think you're stupid. And even if you were right and you're not... we'd still have to do the same thing anyway. Which makes your complaint stupid.
As to the rights of the accused, it limits how much time the government has to present its case.
Effectively it says " the government must be ready to try a case shortly after arrest"...
Thus it remains a restriction on government action. You can't arrest someone and then not try them for years. The government must be ready to go to trial within a specified time or the accused must be released.
Try to explain Obama's position in the terms I used. You'll find that it's hard for you to call anything a right that isn't effectively a restriction on government power. That's all rights are... they just tell the government what it can't do to people.
You hear it from other countries with some frequency. Though I suspect they'll change their tune if the internet... the only means they have to communicate unhindered left to them is taken over by the UN which will then cooperate with their repressive governments to ensure that any comment they make on the internet gets tracked back and their family killed.
The UN is a great idea as a place for governments to meet and discuss diplomacy. As an independent entity it has no business involving itself in anything. There is no UN. The UN is a collection of countries that may or may not agree with what the UN is doing at any given time.
I trust the UN to pick out appetizers for a diplomatic meeting and make sure there's plenty of wine. That's all they're good for... a catering service... provide some translators and a room. The nations themselves must work these things out. The UN is merely a place to do that.
Science is not a popularity contest or a democracy. It's about who's right and who's wrong.
The majority has been wrong in science many times and even recently. This is why mixing politics with science is a bad idea. You don't understand what science means if you think majority rules or you must be right because certain authorities agree.
The argument is right if it's right. And that requires debate and evaluation.
The atomic weight of hydrogen for example is not settled science. Why? It's changing... or has been observed to change. If the atomic weight of hydrogen is not settled science then you really think the 'debate is over' in climate change?
Saying the debate was over was easily one of the stupidest and most self destructive things the warmist movement did. When that happened it meant it was no longer a scientific discussion. It was just politics.
That means facts don't matter anymore.
It means data doesn't matter anymore.
It means peer review doesn't matter anymore.
All that matters is votes.
THAT is what you did when you said the debate was over. You destroyed your own scientific position by surrendering any attempt to discuss it. Science is about that exploration and that continuous evaluation of what is and is not true.
If you want to have a HOPE IN HELL of getting anything done then you had better get really comfortable with debating the science and doing so over and over again in the LEAST political way possible.
The days when you could strong arm us without respecting our right to contest are over. Gone. You've wasted all your political capital on the stupid strategies of a FAILED presidential candidate.
And in all likelihood he's just been using you from the start. Do you know the energy usage in his home has gone up since he started all this?... The man has mansions all over... and we have his energy bills. They just go up and up and up. His home consumes many times the national average in power, heat, and water. He has enough money that he could run everything on solar and reuse gray water. Does he do any of that? Of course not. Because he probably doesn't even believe.
As to the economist, you should read it more often then. I used to subscribe.
They changed at some point and started advocating social programs and economic policies that are more in line with the socialist norm. I'm not interested in debating it since I doubt you read it much or would recognize the difference.
As to Obama moving to the right of bob dole? He's an advocate of social medicine. Are you saying bob dole would advocate a stronger government backed system?
And you call us insane? You're crazy.
As to not wanting to live in the US anymore, the world is full of socialist countries. Go join one. We have no where else to go. This is the last bastion of individual freedom in the world. If one of us is going to go then its you. Go to france and enjoy the suck.
As to the change the in the slope, it wasn't the shortfall in revenue that is killing you it's the expansion in spending. If we repealed all the bush tax cuts your deficits would be similar.
the problem is that you're growing the government faster then the economy is growing. That means you need to keep raising taxes to make up the difference which changes the slope so the economy grows even slower as you increase the taxes. And that leads to a faster rate of tax increases... and collapse.
You need to slow down the rate at which government is growing so it AT LEAST is no faster then the economy. Short of that, any change of tax policy is meaningless.
As to the laffer curve being theoretical... so is 1+1=2... neither are disputable. I've explained how the curve works repeatedly. If you were paying attention at all then you should be well aware that it exists. It CANNOT not exist. It must exist by definition. The economic principles are very simple. Denying it is a sign of economic fundementalism not unlike the creationists with their insistence that the world isn't more then 6000 years old.
Disagree? Try to get them to accept carbon dating. They'll show you all sorts of "scientific" reports about how it isn't accurate.
Your whole approuch on this is cargo cult science. You've given the impression of thinking about things and the impression of going through a process. But you don't actually understand what that process is supposed to do or why you are doing it.
Science to you is just a word meaning 'authority'.. the underlying skepticism, humility, and truth seeking is something you neither understand nor respect.
The laffer curve is a very very simple idea that is obvious once you grasp the basic concepts involved.
There are many similar theories that leftwing people believe all the time. And it's funny because within those theories IS THE LAFFER CURVE.
You know it's there. Your economists know it's there. Your politicians know it's there. You just don't want to admit that taxation has a PRICE. When the government takes money it CAME FROM SOMEWHERE. Because you took it something else didn't happen.
Maybe it was going to go into savings so you argue it's better that the government spend it? Well, maybe they were saving up for something that won't happen now or will happen much later because their rate of savings is lower? Maybe a business that was going to expand will delay by a year. And throughout the system there is a cost for that.
Now if you want to argue your spending is more important then the growth of the economy, then that's fine. You did make that argument in the last post. BUT that isn't my argument. I have no problem with you saying that. I do have a problem with you pretending that there is no consequence to the taxation and spending. Just understand that you caused unemployment to go up a little bit and slowed the growth of the economy a little bit. Maybe not a lot and you can argue that it was worth it. But know that was the price.
As to where the curve starts, it's very easy to test and it has to be tested on a market by market basis. There is no ONE place where the curve starts. And even if there is a national place where it can be said to sta
Science does tend to win but there are scientists on both sides so you can't claim too much confidence there.
As to the work by saint al, he's ruined your whole movement. Had you done this in a nonpartisan fashion you would have accomplished more. By trying to strong arm everyone and making everything very political you've wasted time and money.
Furthermore, Al has used you. You do know he was making money off of selling carbon credits before he started campaigning right? Do you even know what they were? You give him money and he invests in green companies. He doesn't plant trees or save the rain forest. He just buys STOCK in green companies. And if he makes money doing that... he keeps it.
In return, you get a little card that says "you've offset X tons of carbon"... and how does he know your investment in his company off set carbon? He doesn't. It's entirely arbitary.
You were played. He made an ass of you all. And as for me, I'm just not interested in joining you.
Any cooperative effort can't include al gore. He's at best a con artist.
As to scientists not being embarrassed by their bad models, we have the emails... they literally say they're embarrassed.
As to science proving the world isn't warming... it has at least over the last 10 years. The peak was around 1998. It's been below that since.
As to anti science people, we're not anti science. We're anti scam artist. If you want to get us on board then we need some of the research repeated to confirm it. We also need transparency in the models and methodology. And then we need to have an open forum on what it all means.
We need this because you're asking for trillions of dollars in investment. If you just wanted a few million and you'd leave us alone we'd give it to you. it would be cheaper to pay you off.
But you don't even want billions... you want trillions. And for trillions... we want a FULL audit of everything. We're not giving you trillions EVERY YEAR without it. And yes, that was what Kyoto would have cost.
If you think you can win this argument and get trillions without winning us over... you're dreaming. It will never happen. Saint Al will have to be content with taking your money. He's not getting ours.
That's the whole point of rights. All the rights in the bill of rights are negative rights. They don't tell people they can do stuff they say the government can't stop them doing it.
So for example, the freedom of speech doesn't say I can stand on a soap box and sing show tunes backwards. It says the government can't stop me from doing that.
It doesn't stay you can have a religion or beliefs. It says the government can't stop you from having them.
So on and so forth. They're more about restraining the government.
So... Is that what Obama has done here? Has he said the government can't do certain things? Because I rather doubt it. And if he hasn't then he's not offering anyone rights so much as putting additional regulations on ISPs. That isn't a right. If he wants to give me a right then he can agree the government will leave the internet alone.
1. He uses the term "deniers" on purpose which is intentionally trying to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. They've admitted this repeatedly so don't even bother.
2. He's not quoted... he's on video. And not just some out of context clip. Watch the whole thing. He associates himself and other warmists with the civil rights movement. He's basically making himself the Martin Luther King of the warmist movement. And who is opposing him? Bigots and racists of course.
Anyway, you're clearly about to call me a nazi demon from outer space... that's fine. Enjoy your religion of hate... if I'm a denier then you're a climate fundamentalist... which is to associate you with the Islamic fundamentalists that like to blow up children. Hey, you started it with the "denier" remark.
And because demonizing people is fun... I'll call the activists climate terrorists! Why not.
Careful with the bullshit you're spewing. We want a meaningful dialog here but Al Gore doesn't want one. He wants to play political games. And if that's all you've got then we'll just play them right back at you until you give up.
The last ten years were very embarrassing for the warmists... planet didn't warm. If that keeps up your whole sad argument will collapse before a laughing planet.
So... Want to try again... this time with without the crap? Enough with Al Gore. He's persona non grata. He's consistently made it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about anything in which he's involved.
There is no scarcity of cable. And the industry being what it is can strangle the FCC where it stands if it makes a point of interfering.
The FCC really should concern themselves to their actual jobs which indifferent to their roots remains partitioning the radio spectrum and managing its use. If they can't do that much then they have no business touching the internet.
Hey, you could be right unlike everyone else who has ever made the same or similar comments in the past.
Maybe the DOOOOOM is approaching chicken little... or was that the boy that cried wolf? One of the two... both... either...
Look even if you're right and if we sinners don't repent the lord will smite us... there is nothing we can do about it.
All we can do is adapt as best possible to circumstances as they arise and do our best to make your predictions not come true.
Do you WANT peak oil? because my experience with doomsayers is that they LIKE the idea of the apocalypse. They've got a big throbbing hard on for doom. I don't. I want us to get out of this and I think we can.
Do I acknowledge changes in the oil industry and that it's harder and harder to get oil? Yes. It's clearly a finite resource and even if the earth is producing the stuff we're burning it up at a much faster rate. So of course, we're going to run out eventually.
However, you can't predict where peak oil is or even predict exactly how much oil we have. The very notion that you would think this guy in the 50s would be able to predict that peak oil would be hit in the 70s is idiotic.
Furthermore, we're pumping a lot more oil IN THE WORLD then we were in the 70s so we passed peak oil ages ago. Now did US production cap out around the 70s? I don't know... that's possible. But there are so many political restrictions that it's hard to say that's because we can't pump more.
It is relevant that all off shore drilling in the US has been stopped besides some in the gulf. it is relevant that the majority of land used for oil production tends to be government land and the government has made a point of NOT letting oil and mining companies exploit resources.
It's not just oil. Look at the rare earth mining company in California. They were shut down effectively by the state of california for not meeting a new in a long series of environmental standards. Every one of the seemed to come in right after the other and didn't really stop until molycorp decided to close their operation.
You see the same thing with lumber as well. So we're dealing with a more complicated problem.
This country has a bad case of NIMBYism and it makes us irrational on these subjects.
Everyone wants oil... no one wants an oil refinery. Everyone wants electronics... no one wants a rare earth's mine. Everyone wants paper and wooden furniture... no one wants a lumber mill or logging operation.
So was there a high power of a lot of that stuff in the 70s? Probably... also when the environmental movement started getting their way.
Your data is polluted by that complexity. You can't make clear connections in that environment.
The housing bubble started before the derivative market got out of control. You've got your order backwards.
The housing market bubble caused the problem in the banking sector. Not before. The housing bubble started at least as far back as 1995. It was slow initially. But every new budget saw that segment given a larger kick of cash and the banks encouraged more to make subprime loans. Eventually it became hard for the banks to manage the risk so they brought in wallstreet to spread the loans around.
That is when it got completely out of control. But that wasn't wall street's fault. Wall street was under the impression that you wanted everyone to have a home and price was no object. Well... they did it. And the mistake made was that you wrote checks you couldn't cash.
If Freddie and Fannie were not securing those loans the banks wouldn't have issued them and they wouldn't have sold them to wallstreet.
if you hand someone an unlimited credit card and say "buy houses for everyone"... who's fault is it when the bill comes in at trillions of dollars?
Wallstreet made the feedback loop run faster. They were not responsible for the bubble itself.
In the future, if you want to back home loans for poor people... do it competently. Incompetent action is what we expect from government but then that only justifies clipping their wings. If you want to fly free with this stuff... do at least a C average job of it. We're tired of the F grade management.
You supported Al Gore's sentiment on the issue and he has made such remarks on a regular basis.
If you want to have a rational discussion on the issue it is best to not attach your movement to offensive people with no interest in rational discussion. He has done nothing in this whole campaign besides make crude attempts at brow beating people.
I'm open to a discussion... but only under equal terms. The instant you claim superiority and start dictating terms it ends.
That whole political movement needs to learn a little common courtesy.
Okay, then clearly you're a believer in supply side economics. Because it's a balance... think supply side people did nothing with demand? Come now.
In any event, the whole label is misleading and needlessly politically charged. Supply side or demand side is not a right or left issue unless you're ignorant.
Both republicans and democrats should be equally comfortable doing both. Now maybe the republicans should be less comfortable with subsidizing things in general but if you're going to subsidize then doing it on the demand and supply side is often important.
As to your hospital comment... that isn't a rational reply to my comment. Furthermore, the creationists make up a tiny minority of our numbers. There are as many radical environmentalists in your party that want to limit everyone to a 1 child per family rule or something. The creationists are our PETA crowd. How proud are you of peta? Same thing. The creationists embarrass us as well... nothing we can do about it.
The FCC is currently mismanaging radio spectrum sales and partitioning. That is their primary function. Do that and once you're doing your ACTUAL job then worry about the internet which you in fact have no authority over.
The FCC seems to be trying to fail up. TV viewership is dying so they're trying to expand themselves into the internet. I get it. But first maybe they should sell off that radio spectrum and do their actual jobs.
You are of course aware of the huge oil projects started recently on private land in the US right?... The higher the price goes on oil... the more these projects are going to explode... and not just in the US. Globally. There is a LOT more oil then we previously thought.
Kind of impossible to have a rational discussion with that attitude isn't it?
Anyway, you no longer have the power to strong arm anyone.
You now need to convince people like me to get anything done in this matter.:-)
Calling me a racist or a holocaust denier is not going to help your argument. If you make me mad and I stick my fingers in my ears... and sing... you lose. You people like me to agree or you'll get NOTHING done. We have successfully forced you back politically on this matter and can hold this line indefinitely.
I would also caution you against taking political advice from Al Gore. he's not actually a successful politician. He was HANDED the presidential election by Clinton. He should have won. But he sabotaged himself repeatedly. And look at what he's done to the environmental moment. Everyone he associates with suffers from taking his advice.
Be smarter... rethink your strategy. Even if you think I'm wrong. Think of a way to deal with that situation that wasn't thought up by saint Al... because that strategy is just going to fail.
I never defended supply side theory, pumpkin. I said BOTH were required.
If you only look at supply or demand you'll only see HALF the equation.
Pump money into supply and prices come DOWN a supply goes UP. that doesn't put goods in the hands of poor people. It just makes it easier for "anyone" to buy a good. Don't believe in that? We do it with corn... does the US have a lot of cheap corn? Yes we do... we subsidize it. That's supply side. Just as your free education and other little things are demand side.
Supply and demand. In either case we're talking about subsidization though. Really, in economic terms we probably shouldn't be doing EITHER. So supply and demand should be left to find their own balance.
But if you pump money into demand you're going to increase prices. That's simply how it works. So be careful giving away free stuff to the poor. Not saying you can't do it. Just be aware you're pumping money into DEMAND. At some point to stablize prices you're going to want to pump money into supply JUST to cancel the price inflation. That way you can keep giving away stuff to the poor without distorting the economy.
For example, all those people you're bringing into Ameican healthcare? Great... but did you build any new hospitals or train any new doctors? OOOPS! Same number of doctor and now more patients?! Well... price inflation now because you've got the same supply and more people want to use it.
Gotta build some more hospitals... probably increasing the total number by 30 percent would be a good start. That's a LOT of hospitals but then you're bringing a LOT more people into the system. And then you need to train about 30 percent more doctors... NOW. And nurses...
Supply and demand. Democrats also seem to get very exercised about "supply" like it's disloyal to their leftist agenda to consider WHERE everything actually comes from in the first place. Or they seem to think the concept only arrived during the Reagan administration. Supply side economics is THOUSANDS of years old just like demand side economics. And if you're going to use ONE of them then you're a fool to not use BOTH.
Same difference people have been claiming peak oil since 1920 and their predicted dates come and go while we laugh.
Malthus was wrong. Human population does not grow geometrically and resources do not arithmetically. They grow together and humans aren't lemmings. Our populations stabilize naturally.
As to peak oil we've had the biggest oil strike in the US in US history. By industry estimates we might have more oil using new technology in the US then has been pumped TOTAL since 1903 GLOBALLY.
The new technology is totally transforming our options.
The oil is going to keep flowing... making a fool of everyone that said otherwise decades ago.
Cognitive dissonance is funny sometimes. Oh well, I got about five of your allies to admit my point. If I can't convert one foaming fanatic then I suppose I just can't win them all. Still I got the rest of them. I'm actually pretty impressed with it. Of course that speaks more to the higher then internet average quality of people on slashdot. I love this place.
On the off chance that you're willing to continue the conversation you can answer my questions from before and tell me where you balked. the logic is pretty simple. I just need to figure out where you're slipping. I've decided it isn't worth it to go through the whole process since it would take hours and I'm guessing you're not open minded enough to really listen. But if I keep it simple enough I might be able to give that slippery bubble around your mind a spike it can't avoid. Who knows.
I'm game. Just let me know which questions I asked that you disagreed with and I'll work from there.
Slashdot Mirror
WRONG.
Al Gore said the debate was over and the rest of his movement followed suit.
Why do you think your faction has made a point of NOT debating the issue and instead simply demonizing anyone that questions you? That's what we've been subjected to throughout this whole process and frankly we're not going to forget or forgive that without some serious kowtowing. We deserve at the very least common courtesy and an apology from your whole movement.
THEN maybe we can start going through this again bit by bit in a non-partisan fashion. But I REEEEALY doubt they'll do such a thing. Rather, the instant anyone suggests a debate is even needed the insults will start again.
As to multiple scientists coming to the same conclusions... there are problems.
One, most of the studies are not independent and rely on information in other studies. In total, there have been about two independent studies on the matter that were large enough to actually have meaningful findings. Of those two only one has released its report and the other promised to have done so by the end of last year. That was the Berkeley earth study. But they're delaying that release now for some reason. We'll see what happens. Everything prior to the Berkely study was based on a single filtered/modified/etc data set that no one had methodology on how it was created.
Two, actually getting the raw data this is based upon is almost impossible. They're saying that the weatherstations and various sources they got it from won't release their little portions of it so all they have is some composite/modified list which they are allowed to publish. It's impossible to reverse engineer the modified data set without the original set.
Three, they have not released the source code for their models. They briefly let a japanese team that offered up the earth simulator super computer have the code. However, the super computer was unable to output meaningful results. Basically the planet kept cooking in two years or freezing. It is theorized that the forcing variables built into the models were so unstable that it caused the system to fail. They were only able to get the system to output reasonable results by using plug variables. Basically they told the machine what the right answer was at intervals and disallowed any answer that was in variance with that result. By doing that the spastic results the machine was giving evened out to results that APPEARED reasonable. But the findings were essentially pulled out of someone's ass. It was not what the computer calculated using the model.
Four, EVEN IF the whole global warming argument is entirely valid and you have to go through steps 1-3 at least to do that. The solution has to be affordable. We're not spending trillions of dollars a year to effect a 3 percent change in the rate of warming. Anyone that isn't a complete fool that sees the cost of Kyoto and then the proposed results would determine that on a cost/benefit basis it's a stupid plan. So possibly we could consider some geo-engineering or something that has a bigger impact with a lower cost.
Five, if the scientists want to be taken seriously they have to distance themselves from the politicians. They're being used by political operatives and it poisons their credibility. Scientists must be above politics... and by partnering with Al Gore they lost that. They must appear unbiased and outside our various factional rivalries. They inserted themselves directly into them and as a result the deference typically afforded scientists is void in their case. If they want to regain it, then they need to distance themselves again and they should start regaining some of their credibility over time.
I'm sure there's more but that's what strikes me now.
As to the moon landing... In so far as I can see it happened and have never had any reason to doubt it happened. Of course, no one is asking for trillions of dollars a year to fund a space war against aliens either. If you were asking for less in regards to climate change then I
Not a fair comparison.
No senator can do anything to your rights alone. However, the senate itself with the cooperation with the house can.
So a better comparison would be "who can control your individual rights more All the Big Corporations or The total might of the United States Government?
Here's a way to guess... who would win in a war between the major corporations and the US government?
The corps can't fight. The national guard could walk around through wallstreet and execute them all going door to door and they wouldn't be able to do anything to stop it.
As to my standard of protecting individual rights. I fear which ever is the greater power.
Are the corps more powerful then the US government? No. So I fear the government more.
Anyway, I'll leave you to barking at the moon if that's what you want. But the corps while powerful hold not a candle to that of the United States. The US unrestrained by it's own laws could crush them all flat. The only thing that could possibly stop it would be OTHER governments in other countries. All the corporations in the world combined couldn't stop the US government without the help and support of many of the other governments in the world. And with few exceptions practically every government on earth is more then a match for any collection of domestic or international corporations that operate within it's borders.
Governments are "the government" because they're in control. If the corps are stronger then they're the government... which is unlikely since they're no where near as powerful.
Really? How many millions of people have corporations killed in the last 100 years? Because governments have probably killed at least a billion people over the last 100 years.
There is no comparison. Saying corporations are the new government is ignorant.
It's not possible to make such a prediction. It's like coming up with a theory about what is inside this black box in my left hand. What is in it? You don't know. It could be a lemon, a small mouse, an acorn, bow tie, box of tic tacs, or nothing at all.
Claiming to have a theory that will predict with any accuracy what is in that box is stupid.
As to claiming intellectual superiority because you believe in peak oil, the industry thinks you're stupid. Most of geologists think you're stupid. And even if you were right and you're not... we'd still have to do the same thing anyway. Which makes your complaint stupid.
Try again.
As to the rights of the accused, it limits how much time the government has to present its case.
Effectively it says " the government must be ready to try a case shortly after arrest"...
Thus it remains a restriction on government action. You can't arrest someone and then not try them for years. The government must be ready to go to trial within a specified time or the accused must be released.
Try to explain Obama's position in the terms I used. You'll find that it's hard for you to call anything a right that isn't effectively a restriction on government power. That's all rights are... they just tell the government what it can't do to people.
You hear it from other countries with some frequency. Though I suspect they'll change their tune if the internet... the only means they have to communicate unhindered left to them is taken over by the UN which will then cooperate with their repressive governments to ensure that any comment they make on the internet gets tracked back and their family killed.
The UN is a great idea as a place for governments to meet and discuss diplomacy. As an independent entity it has no business involving itself in anything. There is no UN. The UN is a collection of countries that may or may not agree with what the UN is doing at any given time.
I trust the UN to pick out appetizers for a diplomatic meeting and make sure there's plenty of wine. That's all they're good for... a catering service... provide some translators and a room. The nations themselves must work these things out. The UN is merely a place to do that.
Science is not a popularity contest or a democracy. It's about who's right and who's wrong.
The majority has been wrong in science many times and even recently. This is why mixing politics with science is a bad idea. You don't understand what science means if you think majority rules or you must be right because certain authorities agree.
The argument is right if it's right. And that requires debate and evaluation.
The atomic weight of hydrogen for example is not settled science. Why? It's changing... or has been observed to change. If the atomic weight of hydrogen is not settled science then you really think the 'debate is over' in climate change?
Saying the debate was over was easily one of the stupidest and most self destructive things the warmist movement did. When that happened it meant it was no longer a scientific discussion. It was just politics.
That means facts don't matter anymore.
It means data doesn't matter anymore.
It means peer review doesn't matter anymore.
All that matters is votes.
THAT is what you did when you said the debate was over. You destroyed your own scientific position by surrendering any attempt to discuss it. Science is about that exploration and that continuous evaluation of what is and is not true.
If you want to have a HOPE IN HELL of getting anything done then you had better get really comfortable with debating the science and doing so over and over again in the LEAST political way possible.
The days when you could strong arm us without respecting our right to contest are over. Gone. You've wasted all your political capital on the stupid strategies of a FAILED presidential candidate.
And in all likelihood he's just been using you from the start. Do you know the energy usage in his home has gone up since he started all this?... The man has mansions all over... and we have his energy bills. They just go up and up and up. His home consumes many times the national average in power, heat, and water. He has enough money that he could run everything on solar and reuse gray water. Does he do any of that? Of course not. Because he probably doesn't even believe.
You've been scammed.
As to the economist, you should read it more often then. I used to subscribe.
They changed at some point and started advocating social programs and economic policies that are more in line with the socialist norm. I'm not interested in debating it since I doubt you read it much or would recognize the difference.
As to Obama moving to the right of bob dole? He's an advocate of social medicine. Are you saying bob dole would advocate a stronger government backed system?
And you call us insane? You're crazy.
As to not wanting to live in the US anymore, the world is full of socialist countries. Go join one. We have no where else to go. This is the last bastion of individual freedom in the world. If one of us is going to go then its you. Go to france and enjoy the suck.
As to the change the in the slope, it wasn't the shortfall in revenue that is killing you it's the expansion in spending. If we repealed all the bush tax cuts your deficits would be similar.
the problem is that you're growing the government faster then the economy is growing. That means you need to keep raising taxes to make up the difference which changes the slope so the economy grows even slower as you increase the taxes. And that leads to a faster rate of tax increases... and collapse.
You need to slow down the rate at which government is growing so it AT LEAST is no faster then the economy. Short of that, any change of tax policy is meaningless.
As to the laffer curve being theoretical... so is 1+1=2... neither are disputable. I've explained how the curve works repeatedly. If you were paying attention at all then you should be well aware that it exists. It CANNOT not exist. It must exist by definition. The economic principles are very simple. Denying it is a sign of economic fundementalism not unlike the creationists with their insistence that the world isn't more then 6000 years old.
Disagree? Try to get them to accept carbon dating. They'll show you all sorts of "scientific" reports about how it isn't accurate.
Your whole approuch on this is cargo cult science. You've given the impression of thinking about things and the impression of going through a process. But you don't actually understand what that process is supposed to do or why you are doing it.
Science to you is just a word meaning 'authority'.. the underlying skepticism, humility, and truth seeking is something you neither understand nor respect.
The laffer curve is a very very simple idea that is obvious once you grasp the basic concepts involved.
There are many similar theories that leftwing people believe all the time. And it's funny because within those theories IS THE LAFFER CURVE.
You know it's there. Your economists know it's there. Your politicians know it's there. You just don't want to admit that taxation has a PRICE. When the government takes money it CAME FROM SOMEWHERE. Because you took it something else didn't happen.
Maybe it was going to go into savings so you argue it's better that the government spend it? Well, maybe they were saving up for something that won't happen now or will happen much later because their rate of savings is lower? Maybe a business that was going to expand will delay by a year. And throughout the system there is a cost for that.
Now if you want to argue your spending is more important then the growth of the economy, then that's fine. You did make that argument in the last post. BUT that isn't my argument. I have no problem with you saying that. I do have a problem with you pretending that there is no consequence to the taxation and spending. Just understand that you caused unemployment to go up a little bit and slowed the growth of the economy a little bit. Maybe not a lot and you can argue that it was worth it. But know that was the price.
As to where the curve starts, it's very easy to test and it has to be tested on a market by market basis. There is no ONE place where the curve starts. And even if there is a national place where it can be said to sta
Science does tend to win but there are scientists on both sides so you can't claim too much confidence there.
As to the work by saint al, he's ruined your whole movement. Had you done this in a nonpartisan fashion you would have accomplished more. By trying to strong arm everyone and making everything very political you've wasted time and money.
Furthermore, Al has used you. You do know he was making money off of selling carbon credits before he started campaigning right? Do you even know what they were? You give him money and he invests in green companies. He doesn't plant trees or save the rain forest. He just buys STOCK in green companies. And if he makes money doing that... he keeps it.
In return, you get a little card that says "you've offset X tons of carbon"... and how does he know your investment in his company off set carbon? He doesn't. It's entirely arbitary.
You were played. He made an ass of you all. And as for me, I'm just not interested in joining you.
Any cooperative effort can't include al gore. He's at best a con artist.
As to scientists not being embarrassed by their bad models, we have the emails... they literally say they're embarrassed.
As to science proving the world isn't warming... it has at least over the last 10 years. The peak was around 1998. It's been below that since.
As to anti science people, we're not anti science. We're anti scam artist. If you want to get us on board then we need some of the research repeated to confirm it. We also need transparency in the models and methodology. And then we need to have an open forum on what it all means.
We need this because you're asking for trillions of dollars in investment. If you just wanted a few million and you'd leave us alone we'd give it to you. it would be cheaper to pay you off.
But you don't even want billions... you want trillions. And for trillions... we want a FULL audit of everything. We're not giving you trillions EVERY YEAR without it. And yes, that was what Kyoto would have cost.
If you think you can win this argument and get trillions without winning us over... you're dreaming. It will never happen. Saint Al will have to be content with taking your money. He's not getting ours.
That's the whole point of rights. All the rights in the bill of rights are negative rights. They don't tell people they can do stuff they say the government can't stop them doing it.
So for example, the freedom of speech doesn't say I can stand on a soap box and sing show tunes backwards. It says the government can't stop me from doing that.
It doesn't stay you can have a religion or beliefs. It says the government can't stop you from having them.
So on and so forth. They're more about restraining the government.
So... Is that what Obama has done here? Has he said the government can't do certain things? Because I rather doubt it. And if he hasn't then he's not offering anyone rights so much as putting additional regulations on ISPs. That isn't a right. If he wants to give me a right then he can agree the government will leave the internet alone.
*laughs* No it wasn't.
1. He uses the term "deniers" on purpose which is intentionally trying to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. They've admitted this repeatedly so don't even bother.
2. He's not quoted... he's on video. And not just some out of context clip. Watch the whole thing. He associates himself and other warmists with the civil rights movement. He's basically making himself the Martin Luther King of the warmist movement. And who is opposing him? Bigots and racists of course.
Anyway, you're clearly about to call me a nazi demon from outer space... that's fine. Enjoy your religion of hate... if I'm a denier then you're a climate fundamentalist... which is to associate you with the Islamic fundamentalists that like to blow up children. Hey, you started it with the "denier" remark.
And because demonizing people is fun... I'll call the activists climate terrorists! Why not.
Careful with the bullshit you're spewing. We want a meaningful dialog here but Al Gore doesn't want one. He wants to play political games. And if that's all you've got then we'll just play them right back at you until you give up.
The last ten years were very embarrassing for the warmists... planet didn't warm. If that keeps up your whole sad argument will collapse before a laughing planet.
So... Want to try again... this time with without the crap? Enough with Al Gore. He's persona non grata. He's consistently made it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about anything in which he's involved.
There is no scarcity of cable. And the industry being what it is can strangle the FCC where it stands if it makes a point of interfering.
The FCC really should concern themselves to their actual jobs which indifferent to their roots remains partitioning the radio spectrum and managing its use. If they can't do that much then they have no business touching the internet.
We won't put up with it.
No they don't. You're claiming Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are claiming to be creationists?
The only one that MIGHT be a creationist is Santorum and I rather doubt he is either. So it's more likely none of them are.
Try again.
Hey, you could be right unlike everyone else who has ever made the same or similar comments in the past.
Maybe the DOOOOOM is approaching chicken little... or was that the boy that cried wolf? One of the two... both... either...
Look even if you're right and if we sinners don't repent the lord will smite us... there is nothing we can do about it.
All we can do is adapt as best possible to circumstances as they arise and do our best to make your predictions not come true.
Do you WANT peak oil? because my experience with doomsayers is that they LIKE the idea of the apocalypse. They've got a big throbbing hard on for doom. I don't. I want us to get out of this and I think we can.
Do I acknowledge changes in the oil industry and that it's harder and harder to get oil? Yes. It's clearly a finite resource and even if the earth is producing the stuff we're burning it up at a much faster rate. So of course, we're going to run out eventually.
However, you can't predict where peak oil is or even predict exactly how much oil we have. The very notion that you would think this guy in the 50s would be able to predict that peak oil would be hit in the 70s is idiotic.
Furthermore, we're pumping a lot more oil IN THE WORLD then we were in the 70s so we passed peak oil ages ago. Now did US production cap out around the 70s? I don't know... that's possible. But there are so many political restrictions that it's hard to say that's because we can't pump more.
It is relevant that all off shore drilling in the US has been stopped besides some in the gulf. it is relevant that the majority of land used for oil production tends to be government land and the government has made a point of NOT letting oil and mining companies exploit resources.
It's not just oil. Look at the rare earth mining company in California. They were shut down effectively by the state of california for not meeting a new in a long series of environmental standards. Every one of the seemed to come in right after the other and didn't really stop until molycorp decided to close their operation.
You see the same thing with lumber as well. So we're dealing with a more complicated problem.
This country has a bad case of NIMBYism and it makes us irrational on these subjects.
Everyone wants oil... no one wants an oil refinery. Everyone wants electronics... no one wants a rare earth's mine. Everyone wants paper and wooden furniture... no one wants a lumber mill or logging operation.
So was there a high power of a lot of that stuff in the 70s? Probably... also when the environmental movement started getting their way.
Your data is polluted by that complexity. You can't make clear connections in that environment.
The housing bubble started before the derivative market got out of control. You've got your order backwards.
The housing market bubble caused the problem in the banking sector. Not before. The housing bubble started at least as far back as 1995. It was slow initially. But every new budget saw that segment given a larger kick of cash and the banks encouraged more to make subprime loans. Eventually it became hard for the banks to manage the risk so they brought in wallstreet to spread the loans around.
That is when it got completely out of control. But that wasn't wall street's fault. Wall street was under the impression that you wanted everyone to have a home and price was no object. Well... they did it. And the mistake made was that you wrote checks you couldn't cash.
If Freddie and Fannie were not securing those loans the banks wouldn't have issued them and they wouldn't have sold them to wallstreet.
if you hand someone an unlimited credit card and say "buy houses for everyone"... who's fault is it when the bill comes in at trillions of dollars?
Wallstreet made the feedback loop run faster. They were not responsible for the bubble itself.
In the future, if you want to back home loans for poor people... do it competently. Incompetent action is what we expect from government but then that only justifies clipping their wings. If you want to fly free with this stuff... do at least a C average job of it. We're tired of the F grade management.
You supported Al Gore's sentiment on the issue and he has made such remarks on a regular basis.
If you want to have a rational discussion on the issue it is best to not attach your movement to offensive people with no interest in rational discussion. He has done nothing in this whole campaign besides make crude attempts at brow beating people.
I'm open to a discussion... but only under equal terms. The instant you claim superiority and start dictating terms it ends.
That whole political movement needs to learn a little common courtesy.
Okay, then clearly you're a believer in supply side economics. Because it's a balance... think supply side people did nothing with demand? Come now.
In any event, the whole label is misleading and needlessly politically charged. Supply side or demand side is not a right or left issue unless you're ignorant.
Both republicans and democrats should be equally comfortable doing both. Now maybe the republicans should be less comfortable with subsidizing things in general but if you're going to subsidize then doing it on the demand and supply side is often important.
As to your hospital comment... that isn't a rational reply to my comment. Furthermore, the creationists make up a tiny minority of our numbers. There are as many radical environmentalists in your party that want to limit everyone to a 1 child per family rule or something. The creationists are our PETA crowd. How proud are you of peta? Same thing. The creationists embarrass us as well... nothing we can do about it.
The FCC is currently mismanaging radio spectrum sales and partitioning. That is their primary function. Do that and once you're doing your ACTUAL job then worry about the internet which you in fact have no authority over.
The FCC seems to be trying to fail up. TV viewership is dying so they're trying to expand themselves into the internet. I get it. But first maybe they should sell off that radio spectrum and do their actual jobs.
You doubtless find this of no comfort, but the oil industry doesn't think much of your prophet:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/What-is-Peak-Oil-Theory-A-Thorough-Look-at-This-heavily-Debated-Topic.html
Also, I'm sure you'll find this of no comfort either but I found it interesting... call it what you will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vOImnCrKPZ8#
You are of course aware of the huge oil projects started recently on private land in the US right?... The higher the price goes on oil... the more these projects are going to explode... and not just in the US. Globally. There is a LOT more oil then we previously thought.
Kind of impossible to have a rational discussion with that attitude isn't it?
Anyway, you no longer have the power to strong arm anyone.
You now need to convince people like me to get anything done in this matter. :-)
Calling me a racist or a holocaust denier is not going to help your argument. If you make me mad and I stick my fingers in my ears... and sing... you lose. You people like me to agree or you'll get NOTHING done. We have successfully forced you back politically on this matter and can hold this line indefinitely.
I would also caution you against taking political advice from Al Gore. he's not actually a successful politician. He was HANDED the presidential election by Clinton. He should have won. But he sabotaged himself repeatedly. And look at what he's done to the environmental moment. Everyone he associates with suffers from taking his advice.
Be smarter... rethink your strategy. Even if you think I'm wrong. Think of a way to deal with that situation that wasn't thought up by saint Al... because that strategy is just going to fail.
I never defended supply side theory, pumpkin. I said BOTH were required.
If you only look at supply or demand you'll only see HALF the equation.
Pump money into supply and prices come DOWN a supply goes UP. that doesn't put goods in the hands of poor people. It just makes it easier for "anyone" to buy a good. Don't believe in that? We do it with corn... does the US have a lot of cheap corn? Yes we do... we subsidize it. That's supply side. Just as your free education and other little things are demand side.
Supply and demand. In either case we're talking about subsidization though. Really, in economic terms we probably shouldn't be doing EITHER. So supply and demand should be left to find their own balance.
But if you pump money into demand you're going to increase prices. That's simply how it works. So be careful giving away free stuff to the poor. Not saying you can't do it. Just be aware you're pumping money into DEMAND. At some point to stablize prices you're going to want to pump money into supply JUST to cancel the price inflation. That way you can keep giving away stuff to the poor without distorting the economy.
For example, all those people you're bringing into Ameican healthcare? Great... but did you build any new hospitals or train any new doctors? OOOPS! Same number of doctor and now more patients?! Well... price inflation now because you've got the same supply and more people want to use it.
Gotta build some more hospitals... probably increasing the total number by 30 percent would be a good start. That's a LOT of hospitals but then you're bringing a LOT more people into the system. And then you need to train about 30 percent more doctors... NOW. And nurses...
Supply and demand. Democrats also seem to get very exercised about "supply" like it's disloyal to their leftist agenda to consider WHERE everything actually comes from in the first place. Or they seem to think the concept only arrived during the Reagan administration. Supply side economics is THOUSANDS of years old just like demand side economics. And if you're going to use ONE of them then you're a fool to not use BOTH.
Just saying.
I'm probably religious about 1+1=2 as well... what a dogmatic ahole I am, eh?!
oh well... Better luck next time to both of us. :-)
Say what you will about google or MS... but the ads themselves were hilarious.
Same difference people have been claiming peak oil since 1920 and their predicted dates come and go while we laugh.
Malthus was wrong. Human population does not grow geometrically and resources do not arithmetically. They grow together and humans aren't lemmings. Our populations stabilize naturally.
As to peak oil we've had the biggest oil strike in the US in US history. By industry estimates we might have more oil using new technology in the US then has been pumped TOTAL since 1903 GLOBALLY.
The new technology is totally transforming our options.
The oil is going to keep flowing... making a fool of everyone that said otherwise decades ago.
Cognitive dissonance is funny sometimes. Oh well, I got about five of your allies to admit my point. If I can't convert one foaming fanatic then I suppose I just can't win them all. Still I got the rest of them. I'm actually pretty impressed with it. Of course that speaks more to the higher then internet average quality of people on slashdot. I love this place.
On the off chance that you're willing to continue the conversation you can answer my questions from before and tell me where you balked. the logic is pretty simple. I just need to figure out where you're slipping. I've decided it isn't worth it to go through the whole process since it would take hours and I'm guessing you're not open minded enough to really listen. But if I keep it simple enough I might be able to give that slippery bubble around your mind a spike it can't avoid. Who knows.
I'm game. Just let me know which questions I asked that you disagreed with and I'll work from there.