Iowa and the road to the Whitehouse

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

Global warming and the global war on terrorism, our need to shift away from oil and our lack of a significant middle class all indicate to me that we are in more trouble, comprehensively, than we have been in a long, long time.

I recently heard that there has been no warming trend in the last several years--- since 2000.

[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

Thanks! Back at you!

My point is that President Clinton had little to nothing to do with those balanced budgets. They were the product of the Republican Congress brought into office as part of the backlash to Clinton's first two years in office.


But the restructuring of welfare WAS driven by conservative values: the Republicans' values. They're the ones who presented the budget that Clinton signed. I guess I'd consider the Republicans courageous, at least until they lost their way over the course of a decade in power. I disagree that Clinton was "courageous" regarding the budget, although I imagine that it took courage to tell his wife that he'd lied under oath regarding whether or not he'd had an affair with a girl young enough to be his daughter who worked for him.

Yes, and instead of stubbornly holding onto his party's perspective (as this president has done) he was willing to compromise, much to the chagrin of people in his own party. It would be like the democrats trying to propose democratically-acceptable social reforms with increased spending and Bush signing it into law. It would be both brave--because it would potentially hurt his popularity--and unlikely.

By what standard?

Clinton's first two budget years with a Democratic Congress (93-94) featured a 12.3% increase in discretionary domestic spending. The deficit averaged 3.4% of the Gross Domestic Product those two years. Bush's deficits the last two years available (2005-06)have averaged 2.3% of GDP.

With the Republican Congress, of course, everything changed from 1995-2000. After 9/11, things changed again...and the Congress was voted out in 2006, and the Democratic Congress has done nothing to correct the budget deficit.

If not for the enormous spending on the wrong war, and the fact that GDP is in NO WAY a representation of how that production is spread through the actual populace, I would agree with you.

GDP growth is going to profits, not workers.

The increased spending on Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid came as a bit of a surprise. The costs of those as a percentage of GDP went from 3.2% in 1992 to 4.3% in 2006...from $197.2 billion to $554.4 billion in just 14 years. That's driven by the surge in the cost of medical care, something that's rising much faster than the inflation rate. Nobody forecast such changes--they were expected to increase with the size of the cohorts reaching retirement and the general inflation rate. Decreasing elderly mortality and significant cost increases for elder care are significantly exceeding that estimate.

It went from growing at one rate (3.2) to another rate (4.3). It didn't go from not-increasing to increasing suddenly.

Platform policies? Little difference. All four Democratic candidates are following the DNC playbook--it's a personality/experience contest.

It belittles the needs of actual struggling Americans when you talk about it as a "playbook". It may seem like a playbook because there is consistency of message, but the needs are real. I see them every day.

Richardson's experience, though, dwarfs that of Obama, Edwards or Clinton.

So does Rumsfields and VP Dick. Experience as an isolated variable can be misleading.

I didn't say that I supported Huckabee. I wrote that others might see him as "progressive." "Progressive" is a dangerously imprecise word. Again, "left-wing" or "socialist" better describe Obama.

Here are two definitions of progressive that I found on my first search:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

There may be other definitions, but I will continue using it in this context as many other progressives do. Huckabee could be seen as progressive under this definition, as could Romney (because of his health care plan largely).

The devil is in the details of the plan. Medicare and Medicaid are hopelessly messed up...we need better if we're going to make it universal, and...

They are messed up, but not hopelessly so. They provide an infrastructure that we can build upon to improve the systems, perhaps eventually letting them go by the wayside in favor of something more efficient.

...I don't want to fund Federally-funded health care for illegal immigrants, but that 47 million figure, I believe, includes illegal immigrants.

Me neither. Without immigrants the number of uninsured is not 0%. I'm all for having a smart system that doesn't pay for those who aren't citizens. We should address immigration very quickly.

First, not necessarily: we don't know the long-term impact on society of allowing gay marriage. A very real danger is that lesbian marriages and child-raising would become so popular with women as to create an imbalance between the numbers of men and women who desire traditional marriage. Large numbers of men who want women but can't get them tend to harm societies.

That's funny.

Second, I'm just looking at current laws. If your point is that Barack Obama will expand gay rights, say so. If you write that he won't discriminate against gays, that's a different thing.

My point is that Obama won't limit their rights based on a faulty premise that marriage should be defined in the constitution as between a man and a woman. He won't discriminate against them.

My previously-written thoughts regarding gay marriage were secular.

And completely out of left field. You truly believe that the threat of gay marriage is that all the women will turn gay and the men will then start destroying society?

I support environmental concerns, too, but I strongly disagree that global warming is an important or, particularly, a viable field for investment. I'd look first at global standards for atmospheric and water pollution approaching those of the US, and, more critically, look at global management of forest and topsoil resources.

Read your link: it shows a minor increase in temperature and a minor increase in greenhouse gasses, but it can't prove causality:

"In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts)."

Also,

"Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

- Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
- Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
- Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
- Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change."

Bold added.

This was a document produced by the Bush administration. They have widely questioned whether global warming was real for years, and now they are admitting it is real. Where does your cynicism go when it comes to this?

We can agree to disagree about whether or not global warming is a significant problem. We can also agree to disagree whether it is better for us to make necessary changes whether or not China does. Lord knows we wouldn't want to develop products and technologies that we could sell to other countries when/if this turns out to be the problem that so many are predicting it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. It's the old Prisoner's Dilemma: without some means to ensure cooperation, each player is compelled to work on the suboptimal but self-protecting solution. (If anybody needs the lengthy discussion of Game Theory involved here, let me know.)

The only solution is involvement of ALL major players, including, particularly, China, but also India, Indonesia, Russia and Brazil, as well as the Western Democracies. That can be accomplished, perhaps, by diplomacy...it could be accomplished, perhaps, by force.

This is freighteningly simplistic. It really depends on what our goal is: if our goal is to STOP global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gasses, then you're right. If the goal is to buy as much time as possible under the current state of affairs then you're completely wrong. It's not like the US has been leading the world on this issue and they are unwilling to discuss it. We have been shirking from this responsibility by denying that the situation even exists.

What cost in dollars and human life do you see as justified to enforce effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?

That's not my calculation to make, but I want to elect someone who is at least willing to look at it realistically. Look man, our current president wouldn't even stand up there and say that evolution is a real phenomenon. I'm asking that we have a president who believes in the potential of science without having to mitigate it at every turn with a religious conviction. Al Gore won a nobel prize for his work on climate change, and even conservative estimates about how global warming will impact our world scare me. As you would say, YMMV.

You don't remember 1974-76 though. Trust me, that was worse: in the Cold War we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust, our nation's economy was fractured (gasoline rationing and historical inflation rates), and our faith in the government was at least as low as it is today.

I understand that the American Revolution, the Civil War and World War Two were kinda bad, too.

If we disagree about the potential ramifications of global warming then we disagree about the above. You don't see it as possibly being a more pressing issue than previous lapses in confidence in the country. You were right before: it is a GLOBAL issue. The question is whether Americans will look at it because it is global.

False dilemma. It's not either a war on poverty and global warming or a multi-billion dollar mission to Mars. One might, instead, unite our nation on a premise of maximizing our current median (not mean, median) quality of life while planning for a successful future.

Bush's big scientific foray was a trip to Mars. I am all for science in all forms, butmy point is that one problem (global warming) actually requires wide-spread American participation to make headway. The other problem (Mars) does not require everyday americans to do anything at all. BUsh present one (Mars) with lots of flair to the american public, and swept the other (Global warming) under the rug.

You wrote,

"If Republicans are able to articulate themselves well enough to have enough Senators to block legislation, then they are entitled to stand up as much as they want. That's part of the process."

Almost certainly Republicans will hold 41+ seats in the Senate while the Democrats hold the Executive Branch and majority in both Houses of Congress in 2009. Cloture is going to be used to restrict change. You wrote here that you agree with the use of cloture...remember that you wrote this come 2009.

I really have no problem with this. BTW, since I'm the only person articulating my argument here this will probably be less of a topic of conversation in the future. It is no fun being harassed by jerks like CrespoBlows (telling me to not vote because of my views) simply because I try to explain something to you.

Which Americans? What changes?

All americans. Many changes.

Those are philosophical pragmatists. As many, including the quoted Wikipedia, say, "In philosophy, the term pragmatism has a number of technical meanings that are only incidentally related to its ordinary usage." Accordingly, I'm glad that I don't match their approaches: I don't see making one's living by thinking, writing and talking about the freaking definition of pragmatism as being, well, pragmatic.

Having read those philosophers I have to admit that their works go far beyond the particular discussions they had. Neo-Pragmatists looked at the implication on pragmatism for society. yada yada.

PS. Do you mean "Peirce?"

Of course I meant Peirce, smartass. It was a typo. His name is pronounced like "purse" instead of Paul Pierce.

How strong do you think the bridges are between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the middle of the Republican Party?

Very weak, which is why I am skeptical of her ability to win a general election.

Either Richardson (whom I'd've ranked right after Paul were he still running) or Obama might be able to work with the other party.

Agreed. I see no reason why Richardson can't be a prominant member of Obama's cabinet or administration.

Likewise. Thank you for your reasoned response.

same here.

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

I recently heard that there has been no warming trend in the last several years--- since 2000.

Here are how the candidates answered questions about their view on whether or not global warming concerns are overblown:

Edwards: It seems to me that every time we get more scientific information it indicates the problem is more severe, more serious than we though. So, no, I don't think it's being over-hyped.

Thompson: There are a lot of unanswered questions. We don't know to the extent this is a cyclical thing. This may or may not effect very much. The extremists are the ones who want to do drastic things to our economy before we have more answers as to how much good we can do and whether people in the other parts of the world are going to contribute.

Clinton: I don't think that it's over-hyped. I think we have time but we have to start acting now.

McCain: I have been to Greenland, I have been to the South Pole. I've been to the Arctic and I know it's real.

Obama: No, I think they're serious. I think we have to take significant steps now to deal with it. I've put forward a very substantial proposal to get 80 percent reductions in greenhouse gases by 2050.

Romney: I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you're seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it.

Richardson: No, if anything they're underblown.

Rudy: There is global warming. Human beings are contributing to it. I think the best answer to it is energy independence.

Huckabee: I don't know. I mean, the honest answer for me, scientifically, is I don't know.

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/cleane...ening-new.html

================

Most of the candidates know that it is a signficant problem and realize that the potential consequences of ignoring it are disasterous.

Here's the UN's report on global warming:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG...rstitialski p

Composed by scientists from 113 countries.

Here's an article about that report:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...c-report_x.htm

Here's one of Bush's top science advisors, the head of the Office of Science and Technology saying it is a significant problem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

And Bush's Chair of the Wiite House Counsel of Environmental Quality, from the same article:

"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and put people out of work," he said.

"I don't know of any politician that favours shutting down economies."

I'm not being reactionary, I'm being realistic, as are those above. They're right, we either shut down the economy and stop producing this shit, or we make a concerted effort and try to make our technology less harmful to the environment. Republicans have no financial gains from entering the discussion about global warming at this late date, and Democrats have been consistently made-fun-of for talking about it (the UN group focusing on global warming has been around since 1988, we are only now, in 2007, gaining widespread acceptance that it is a real problem).

We can argue all day whether or not we need China on board in order to reverse global warming. We cannot argue that global warming is real, it is strengthened by CO2 emissions, and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the hotter it will get.

[a700hitter]

OMG Example, I just asked about the accuracy of the statement about global temperature not increasing for the last several years (since 2000).

BTW About 35 years ago when I was a young impressionable lad, we were being told that it was a fact that the supply of fossil fuel would only last 10 or 20 years. The world was rapidly running out of oil. That was the big lie then. It was in my Senior Scholastic magazine repeatedly. President Carter made us lower our thermostats. We waited on lines for gas. for hours We were clearly running out of oil. Cheap gas was a thing of the past. Well, there's plenty of oil left and the OPEC pricks keep fucking with opening and closing the spigot.

Is Global Warming a big lie? I don't know. If there is Global Warming does man play a role? I don't know. How rapidly is it happening? I don't know, but I have seen this type of lie before and I think all global changes occur very slowly. When was it that Ted Danson and many in the scientific community were convinced that the oceans would be dead in 10 years. Now these same scientists are afraid that we will be one big ocean. When did Gore make the statement that we have 10 years to act before it is too late. That has to be a couple of years ago ...no? IN 8 more years, we'll know definitively. In the meantime, I drive a Dodge Charger with the big Hemi, my second car is a gas hog SUV, I barbecue outdoors in the winter, and I'm switching to aerosol sprays. I will neutralize the actions of 8 -10 tree-huggers. The Chinese will do the rest. Come what may in 10 years. The Demagogues in D.C. will have found another issue with which to terrorize us by then...maybe the necessity to conserve sunlight because the sun is rapidly burning out.

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

OMG Example, I just asked about the accuracy of the statement about global temperature not increasing for the last several years (since 2000).

BTW About 35 years ago when I was a young impressionable lad, we were being told that it was a fact that the supply of fossil fuel would only last 10 or 20 years. The world was rapidly running out of oil. That was the big lie then. It was in my Senior Scholastic magazine repeatedly. President Carter made us lower our thermostats. We waited on lines for gas. for hours We were clearly running out of oil. Cheap gas was a thing of the past. Well, there's plenty of oil left and the OPEC pricks keep fucking with opening and closing the spigot.

Is Global Warming a big lie? I don't know. If there is Global Warming does man play a role? I don't know. How rapidly is it happening? I don't know,

There's a lot you don't know. You don't spend your life researching it and you also refuse to listen to those who do.

but I have seen this type of lie before and I think all global changes occur very slowly.

Like the melting polar ice caps? Here's an article, complete with NASA photograps, showing that the polar ice caps have mealted by nearly half in my lifetime alone. Whether or not you consider that "slow" does not really matter. It really just "is". I would say that the ice caps melting by 75% in your lifetime would be pretty significant, and pretty drastic, and pretty fast. You may not. You must not have much concern for the global health of, say, your great grand children. I do.

When was it that Ted Danson and many in the scientific community were convinced that the oceans would be dead in 10 years.

So now Ted Danson is why you don't believe in the findings of science?

Now these same scientists are afraid that we will be one big ocean. When did Gore make the statement that we have 10 years to act before it is too late. That has to be a couple of years ago ...no? IN 8 more years, we'll know definitively. In the meantime, I drive a Dodge Charger with the big Hemi, my second car is a gas hog SUV, I barbecue outdoors in the winter, and I'm switching to aerosol sprays. I will neutralize the actions of 8 -10 tree-huggers. The Chinese will do the rest. Come what may in 10 years. The Demagogues in D.C. will have found another issue with which to terrorize us by then...maybe the necessity to conserve sunlight because the sun is rapidly burning out.

Gore was merely point out that we have 10 years to act if we want to reduce global CO2 emissions (and thus the warming of the atmosphere) merely to the levels it was at in the 1970s. Look it up man, the increase in the past 30 years has been tremendous.


Let me make sure I have this straight. You think there are unlimited supplies of fossil fuels and you disregard the findings from nobel prize winners, 100+ countries worth of scientists, the top scientists in our government and published study after study? I don't know what kind of proof you need, but clearly you aren't going to be convinced at all--you're not open to the possibility that it is real, so no amount of proof to the contrary would do any good.

I commend you on your strong views, but I can't say that your faith that everyone is lying is in any way convincing that you are right and much of the rest of the world is wrong. EDIT: and instead of doing something that could mitigate the problem should some sort of rock-solid proof of the impact of fossil fuels on global warming and their finite availability come about--not that you would believe it, even if it did--you will laugh at people like me and do whatever you can to flaunt how little you believe in it. I find that to be a very counterproductive strategy. Have you at least switched a few lightbults?

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

So you think there are unlimited supplies of fossil fuels and you disregard the findings from nobel prize winners, 100+ countries worth of scientists, the top scientists in our government and published study after study? I don't know what kind of proof you need, but clearly you aren't going to be convinced at all--you're not open to the possibility that it is real, so no amount of proof to the contrary would do any good.

I commend you on your strong views, but I can't say that your faith that everyone is lying is in any way convincing that you are right and much of the rest of the world is wrong.

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of fossil fuels, but clearly there was well in excess of 10 years, and more oil is used today than 35 years ago. The oceans aren't dead yet either more than 20 years later, so yeah color me skeptical about the timeline and the supposed urgency. The earth has experienced climate change before man walked the earth and it will continue to change regardless of anything man does. Global climate changes are slow and gradual, and I like the warm weather. Who the hell wants to live in Green Bay. What is the catastrophe that we are fearing from the warmer climate... melanoma?

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

I don't think there is an unlimited supply of fossil fuels, but clearly there was well in excess of 10 years, and more oil is used today than 35 years ago. The oceans aren't dead yet either more than 20 years later, so yeah color me skeptical about the timeline and the supposed urgency. The earth has experienced climate change before man walked the earth and it will continue to change regardless of anything man does. Global climate changes are slow and gradual, and I like the warm weather. Who the hell wants to live in Green Bay. What is the catastrophe that we are fearing from the warmer climate... melanoma?

How about famine in Africa and central Asia?

I hear you man, I was with you probably 5 years ago. I was really hoping that there were just big, lumbering, natural cycles coming and going that were too hard for us to see clearly. I thought it will just warm up a bit, but in 10 generations my grandchild would be preparing for an ice age.

While I don't doubt that there are big cycles at play, the logic and the evidence is too easy to understand. You don't need to simply look at the rate of decline of the solid frozen ice throughout the world, nor the rising temperature of the ocean. You simply have to think about it as a closed system within which we have been pumping CO2.

Comparison between CO2 production then and now:

Here's a link, available from EPA:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm

Notice those graphs. Global CO2 production has skyrocketed following WWII. Furthermore, we have kept the same high per-capita CO2 usage (globally) despite having doubled our global population.

You are skeptical of fast global changes, yet in your lifetime we have more than doubled the population of the world. Make of it what you will, but I call that a fast global change.

That's a MASSIVE amount of shit pouring into the atmosphere as if it is an open systen, which it is not.

EDIT: sorry for all the editing, but I could'nt leave it as it was.

[rician blast]

TOO
MANY
PEOPLE

Anyone ever see the movie Soylent Green?

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

How about famine in Africa and central Asia?

If the planet warms, there is a prediction of famine in Africa? That's a pretty safe prediction. That's like predicting that Brittany Spears is in for a tumultuous year. What about all the famine in Africa before Global Warming? What caused those? I guess Sally Struthers will be very busy.

Let me reiterate, in the 1970's the scientific community (not one or two scientists) said that there was 10 years left of fossil fuels. They had facts and figures that they were relying upon. Running out of oil is a much easier concept to grasp with more definitive consequences than the consequences of Global Warming. They were wrong.

It wasn't Ted Danson that concluded that the oceans were dying in the 1980's. It was the scientific community. Again they were wrong.

I have two questions left. I'll only ask one in this post, because I still have not gotten an answer. Is it true that the earth has not warmed in the last seven years? I'd appreciate some links to those statistics.

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

If the planet warms, there is a prediction of famine in Africa? That's a pretty safe prediction. That's like predicting that Brittany Spears is in for a tumultuous year. What about all the famine in Africa before Global Warming? What caused those? I guess Sally Struthers will be very busy.

Let me reiterate, in the 1970's the scientific community (not one or two scientists) said that there was 10 years left of fossil fuels. They had facts and figures that they were relying upon. Running out of oil is a much easier concept to grasp with more definitive consequences than the consequences of Global Warming. They were wrong.

It wasn't Ted Danson that concluded that the oceans were dying in the 1980's. It was the scientific community. Again they were wrong.

I have two questions left. I'll only ask one in this post, because I still have not gotten an answer. Is it true that the earth has not warmed in the last seven years? I'd appreciate some links to those statistics.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1099253~Om...s_Experts.html

Here's an article talking about the rise in summer ice pack meltage, and how 2007 was a worse year than 2005, which was the previous worst.

Here's a NASA article from 05 talking about how arctic temperatures continue to rise:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...e_decline.html

There's plenty of indication that temperatures are rising, particularly in the arctic. There are plenty of indications that human fossil fuel usage is at least partially responsible.

I certainly advise taking a thorough look at the problem yourself if you don't trust me to be critical enough.

That said, I think it is a really poor reason to disbelieve the best in modern scientific thought. Honestly, your politics resemble your opinions about baseball. It's a whole lot of telling me what you've seen in a similar situation before, then you talk about being disillusioned, and now you deserve to be able to remain on the outside looking in because you're cynical. We won't blame you when the shit hits the fan, because you were disillusioned by past experiences.

We all have our particular filters, and I do genuinely sympathize with your prior broken trust between you and your government and you and the Red Sox. I tend to trust you when you talk about Yaz and the good old days, but we've certainly seen some good things come to pass despite your protests to the contrary over the past few years.

GIven that, and given the changing nature of our world, it does not seem inconceivable to me that new scientific problems confront us now compared to those in the mid-70s. I also see no reason to mistrust the general consensus of the scientific community on most issues. I'm sure that sometimes I have the wool over my eyes and get fleeced by a company or group that has a larger agenda based on personal interest. However, I am not looking FORWARD to having to make lots of changes. I LIKE my car, I like the selection of fruits in the grocery store, and cheap gas. I like alot of things about modern life and I don't WANT it to change. I hope you're right and it is all a bunch of BS; however, the consequences seem too great to not do ANYTHING about it and the sooner we start the better off we will be in the long run. I find it foolish to think that something like the greenhouse effect is far-fetched. We have seen other planets that appear to have undergone their own greenhouse effect (Venus is a giant ball of CO2). It seems naive to think we're immune, unless you have a really strong faith in an interventionist protector of some sort.


Given the amount of science that says there IS global warming doesn't it make even more sense to at least try to make the little life changes that would really help? Support public projects to that effect, for instance? I don't know...

I would also be fine if CEO's went back to getting only 43 times more than their average employee (1980) instead of the 364 times margin that we have today, thus paying for a huge portion of this project and giving back to the employees in the form of better health care or retirement packages.

[One Red Seat]

Stick to social sciences, please.

One of the biggest unknowns in this debate is the level of Earth's sensitivity to changes in the shape of the elliptical orbit around the sun. The elliptical variations occur over approximately 400,000 years in cycle. Combine that type of period with our only approximately 50 years of reliable data collection ability, and you get a lot of ??? in the scientific community. Right now we are in the middle of what is considered a warming part of the period. There is concurrent warming occuring on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune's largest moon. Do we blame OPEC and the coal miner's daughter?

I have no doubt that we have contributed to the warming trend. Increase in CO2 will do that. However, warmer temperatures also increase the CO2 emission from the oceans. Data taken from glacial samples suggest this natural increase in CO2 emission from the oceans occurs with a lag from when temperatures started rising. So, natural increases in CO2 are contributing to those spikes everyone is pointing to.

There's too much we still don't understand about how this planet responds to variation in solar energy absorption to consider our impact causal. At least, not without an agenda. One could make the case that the current "consensus" opinion provides a proponderance of evidence. I'd prefer we look for beyond a reasonable doubt before initiating regulations that will hamstring our economy while other industrialized nations become more prosperous at our expense.

And, there is an alternative, and more modern, technology that has been available since 1950, but it has been ignored since 1979. I'm talking about nuclear power. No new plants since Three Mile Island in the US.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

http://www.examiner.com/a-1099253~Om...s_Experts.html

Here's an article talking about the rise in summer ice pack meltage, and how 2007 was a worse year than 2005, which was the previous worst.

Here's a NASA article from 05 talking about how arctic temperatures continue to rise:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...e_decline.html

There's plenty of indication that temperatures are rising, particularly in the arctic. There are plenty of indications that human fossil fuel usage is at least partially responsible.

You claim that there is plenty of indication of rising global temperature, but there isn't. The article you link mentions rising arctic temperatures in the title, but it gives no statistics to support that statement. Since 1998, the warming trend has stabilized with 2006 being the coldest year in that period.

http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/...rming-stopped/

Some say that this cooling trend has led to the greater usage of the term Global Climate Change as opposed to Global Warming.

Originally Posted by example1

[That said, I think it is a really poor reason to disbelieve the best in modern scientific thought. Honestly, your politics resemble your opinions about baseball. It's a whole lot of telling me what you've seen in a similar situation before, then you talk about being disillusioned, and now you deserve to be able to remain on the outside looking in because you're cynical. We won't blame you when the shit hits the fan, because you were disillusioned by past experiences.

We all have our particular filters, and I do genuinely sympathize with your prior broken trust between you and your government and you and the Red Sox. I tend to trust you when you talk about Yaz and the good old days, but we've certainly seen some good things come to pass despite your protests to the contrary over the past few years.

People have convenient memories, and when they disagree with them they tend to characterize those people in a certain way, so they think they know how those people will react in certain situations. If you want to debate a point with me that's fine, but attempts to fit me into a box to explain my opinions is just lame. Stop trying to figure out why I make certain statements and arguments and just debate the merits of the argument.

When it comes to the Red Sox, this group of owners had my full support this year. They did what they had to do after they made some very bad moves in 2005-06 resulting in a very embarrassing 2006. You will blame injuries, global warming etc., but they did a sucky job those years. Yes they had a long term plan, but part of the plan was not too be embarrassed. The team was way too thin in 2006 and they paid the price. To their credit, they took responsibility and admitted their mistakes. Theo had a press conference to offer his Mea Culpa. They opened their wallets in unprecedented fashion in the 2006 off season and made several key acquisitions to accelerate their long term plan. I was critical of the FO in 2005 and 2006, and they deserved it. The only thing that got me really mad was the poverty card they tried to play in 2006 when the Yankees trumped them and landed Abreu. That reminded me of the old ownership. It was BS. They have had tremendous resources all through the years, and now it is no secret.

Do I trust the government? No, and I don't care who is in charge. It's all about getting, keeping and expanding power over its citizens. That is human nature. That is the history of mankind. Our Constitution is supposed to protect us from our Government encroaching on our freedoms. If the politicians and the Courts continue to shred the Constitution, we will have no protection against our government.