Iowa and the road to the Whitehouse

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

This leads to my second question. What will be the cataclysmic consequences if we don't take action? The IPCC itself predicts that sea levels will rise between 7 to 24 inches in the next 100 years. The worst case scenario is 1/4 inch per year. I feel to see any reliable evidence that this will have cataclysmic consequences.

Now you want me to explain the consequences of global warming? Geez. I think I'll pass. If you can't find enough information about why it will be bad online, in the paper, in the debates and in books and movies, I'm not going to have any impact.

Here's more data about warming trends... just for S & G.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1213101419.htm

"One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, which at this stage ranked 2007 as the seventh warmest on record. The other dataset is maintained by the US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which indicated that 2007 is likely to be the fifth warmest on record.

Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74°C. But this rise has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment (Synthesis) Report, 2007, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

You are right though, a700, it might be more accurate to talk about climate change rather than global warming. That simply makes it more complicated and more important to understand the complex ramifications it may have.

Perhaps global climate change deserves it's own thread?

Given the amount of evidence--acknowledged by many of you--indicating that humans have at least SOME responsibility for the CO2 emissions, and the CO2 emissions at least have SOME responsibility for the warming trend, particularly in the arctic, I am not going to be convinced to just sweep it under the rug. I am going to continue to believe it is important that our next president pay great attention to it and begin laying the groundwork for addressing it over the next decade or two.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by example1

It would be both brave--because it would potentially hurt his popularity--and unlikely. ...
It went from growing at one rate (3.2) to another rate (4.3)...
Here are two definitions of progressive...Huckabee could be seen as progressive...
They are messed up...
Me neither...
That's funny...
You truly believe...
Where does your cynicism go when it comes to this?
We can agree to disagree ... We can also agree to disagree...
That's not my calculation to make...
YMMV...
All americans. Many changes...
yada yada...
smartass. ...
same here.

Again, thanks for the detailed response. Hitting only the key points of disagreement:

1) Neither 3.2 nor 4.3 % of GDP/year is a rate of change. Both are rates of expenditure. A rate of change would be the change in % GDP/year, expressed in the units % GDP/year/year.

Let's use the actual figures from both recent administrations.

From 1993-2000, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 3.4% of GDP. The rate of change was [(3.4 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/8 years, or zero. While the dollars spent increased, the increase parallelled GDP growth exactly.

From 2000-2006, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 4.3% of GDP. The rate of change was [(4.3 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/6 years, or 0.15% GDP/year/year.

Looked at differently, the budget deficit is around 1.9% of GDP (2006 figures). However, 0.9% of that is due to growth in Medicare/Medicaid that's faster than could've been anticipated using Clinton-era stats.

All this isn't a defense of GWB. I've PMed you an extraordinary criticism of Bush's integrity that goes beyond anything harped upon in the mainstream. My point, however, is that President Clinton deserves approximately no credit for balancing the budget, and that references to that work by Obama hurt Obama's credibility.

2) My ideas on gay marriage are hardly laughable. One of the leading contemporary European sociologists, Anthony Giddens, has been writing to the point that same-sex marriage opens up a great cultural unknown for over a decade. There are secular pundits on both the extreme right (George Gilder) and extreme left (Judith Stacey) who predict significant weakening of male-female marriage as an option and an institution. Choosing a highly-respected left-of-center source removed from the American Bible Belt rhetoric and influence, here's a brief quote from the BBC Religion and Ethics site:

There is no way of predicting what the long-term effect (of gay marriage) will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society.

Note, also, that I'm neither endorsing nor opposing gay marriage. I'm pointing out that there are viable secular reasons to oppose it--just as there are certainly religious reasons to oppose it and there are also potentially viable reasons to support it.

3) The issue of which Americans should make changes and what changes they should make is too important to be blown off with, "All Americans. Many changes." That can be answered by increasing Social Security taxes to pay for Medicare/Medicaid issues, a horribly regressive scheme that would, however, make the lower middle class of lawful wage earners bear the burden of increasing costs related to the medical needs of those closest to them on the social ladder.

You deserve more than a criticism, though. Here's what I support:

i) The ideas of Democratic Senator Jim Webb articulated in his autobiographical book Born Fighting, and

ii) Action to bring the Gini Coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient back to its 1950's through 1970's levels of around 35-40. The Gini Coefficient was 46.9 in 2005 according to the US Census Bureau. That's indicative of highly unequal wealth distribution rarely seen in Western Democracies, and I subjectively perceive it as a threat to our way of government. An immediate first solution would be restoration of pre-Reagan tax rates on the mere top 1% of wage earners.

But I commented earlier on the importance of median vs. mean statistics. Given that five percent of our nation possesses over half of its wealth, I can understand your frustration with use of aggregate GDP or mean household income.

4) The concept that the actions of mankind significantly influence global warming is not a scientific consensus. Even if it were, unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions would be a highly counterproductive response. Others are challenging you on this--I strongly recommend abandoning that aspect of your position.

But as an aside, remember that my points regarding the uncertainty of humanity's influence on global warming were drawn from your own EPA link. You cannot accurately claim that the US Government or Bush Administration agrees with you--it does not. Furthermore, outside the Bush Administration there are many studies that question the effect of human actions on climate, pointing to climate changes before the last century or two as evidence that the planet has appeared to endure warmer periods in the post-Ice Age timeframe without rapid collapse of global ecosystems.

***

Example1, thank you for sharing your passionate views.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

Now you want me to explain the consequences of global warming? Geez. I think I'll pass. If you can't find enough information about why it will be bad online, in the paper, in the debates and in books and movies, I'm not going to have any impact.

I read and I listen and I don't hear anything that compels me to believe that there will be dire consequences. There will be more drought? more hurricanes? more famine...in Africa? Oceans rising at the rate of at most 1/15 to 1/4 inch per year for the next 100 years (predicted by the IPCC). After experts predicted that Florida would be going through a 20 year cycle of extreme hurricanes, they remained unscathed the last two hurricane seasons.

BTW: The stats about the last 13 years in the link you provided conveniently ignored that after the hottest year 1998, the temperatures declined and stabilized. With the exception of 2005, temperature has trended down in 2004, 2006 and 2007 with lower temperatures each year.

Also, throughout history, man has found ways to cope with drought and flooding. The Hoover Dam completed in 1935 reclaimed 1/12 of the U.S. that had been previously uninhabitable due to regular flooding (that had nothing to do with CO2). The amount of land that was reclaimed was enormous.

As for drought, man has had technology to overcome that for a long time. You need only look to the Aqueducts in Ancient Rome. The earth's water will not disappear. As you pointed out, this is a closed system. It may move. Some places may have less and others will have more, but man has been finding and transporting water for thousands of years. We also have the technolgy to tame flooding rivers and to live in cities below sea level.

Originally Posted by example1

Given the amount of evidence--acknowledged by many of you--indicating that humans have at least SOME responsibility for the CO2 emissions, and the CO2 emissions at least have SOME responsibility for the warming trend, particularly in the arctic, I am not going to be convinced to just sweep it under the rug. I am going to continue to believe it is important that our next president pay great attention to it and begin laying the groundwork for addressing it over the next decade or two.

I don't doubt that man has some impact on these trends, but apparently so do flatulent cows and lots of other things. The biggest causes are probably the evidence that the sun is getting hotter and the elliptical orbit around the sun. Other planets have experienced warming and an increase in CO2. What they have in common with the earth is the sun and the elliptical orbit around the sun. What they don't have in common with earth is man. I'll close with this, in a world covered two-thirds by water and about 90% of the worlds population inhabits 10% of the land (less than 4% of the surface of the planet), so that means that the globe is mainly empty space without people. Only man could be arrogant enough to believe so strongly that what we do while inhabiting 4% of the earth's surface could effect global climate more than the heat of the sun or the earth's orbit around the sun. It would be a tragic mistake to wreck economies around the world based on the scientific theories regarding climate. Economic crisis will most assuredly cause hunger and death.

[CrespoBlows]

Originally Posted by example1

Now you want me to explain the consequences of global warming? Geez. I think I'll pass. If you can't find enough information about why it will be bad online, in the paper, in the debates and in books and movies, I'm not going to have any impact.

Here's more data about warming trends... just for S & G.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1213101419.htm

"One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK, which at this stage ranked 2007 as the seventh warmest on record. The other dataset is maintained by the US Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which indicated that 2007 is likely to be the fifth warmest on record.

Since the start of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74°C. But this rise has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment (Synthesis) Report, 2007, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

You are right though, a700, it might be more accurate to talk about climate change rather than global warming. That simply makes it more complicated and more important to understand the complex ramifications it may have.

Perhaps global climate change deserves it's own thread?

No one disputes that global warming is real, whether it's caused by man is totally debatable. It's a fucking shame that anyone who disputes Al Gore's claims is considered a liar, a corporate tool, or a traitor. Is this what liberalism has come to?

Given the amount of evidence--acknowledged by many of you--indicating that humans have at least SOME responsibility for the CO2 emissions, and the CO2 emissions at least have SOME responsibility for the warming trend, particularly in the arctic, I am not going to be convinced to just sweep it under the rug. I am going to continue to believe it is important that our next president pay great attention to it and begin laying the groundwork for addressing it over the next decade or two.

Carbon increases usually come after temperature increases, not the other way around.

[example1]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk Bill

Again, thanks for the detailed response. Hitting only the key points of disagreement:

1) Neither 3.2 nor 4.3 % of GDP/year is a rate of change. Both are rates of expenditure. A rate of change would be the change in % GDP/year, expressed in the units % GDP/year/year.

Let's use the actual figures from both recent administrations.

From 1993-2000, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 3.4% of GDP. The rate of change was [(3.4 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/8 years, or zero. While the dollars spent increased, the increase parallelled GDP growth exactly.

From 2000-2006, the expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid combined went from 3.4% of GDP to 4.3% of GDP. The rate of change was [(4.3 - 3.4)% GDP/year]/6 years, or 0.15% GDP/year/year.

Looked at differently, the budget deficit is around 1.9% of GDP (2006 figures). However, 0.9% of that is due to growth in Medicare/Medicaid that's faster than could've been anticipated using Clinton-era stats.

Frankly, I simply don't care enough about whether or not you percieve Clinton to have had a role in balancing the budget to argue it to these lengths. I think we have all made our determination about Clinton's presidency. Personally, I give a president credit in this day and age if he agrees to anything put forth by the other party. Perhaps I'm jaded by our most recent president and years of partianship and genuine anger on both sides. If the Republican Congress was able to get that budget passed without pissing Clinton off enough to veto it, if they were savvy enough to pass welfare reform despite his ability to strike it down with the pen, then more power to them.

All this isn't a defense of GWB. I've PMed you an extraordinary criticism of Bush's integrity that goes beyond anything harped upon in the mainstream. My point, however, is that President Clinton deserves approximately no credit for balancing the budget, and that references to that work by Obama hurt Obama's credibility.

That's your opinion JHB and I hear you. Fair enough.

2) My ideas on gay marriage are hardly laughable. One of the leading contemporary European sociologists, Anthony Giddens, has been writing to the point that same-sex marriage opens up a great cultural unknown for over a decade. There are secular pundits on both the extreme right (George Gilder) and extreme left (Judith Stacey) who predict significant weakening of male-female marriage as an option and an institution. Choosing a highly-respected left-of-center source removed from the American Bible Belt rhetoric and influence, here's a brief quote from the BBC Religion and Ethics site:

There is no way of predicting what the long-term effect (of gay marriage) will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society.

This is not very convincing. I assume you're talking about this snippit from the BBC Religion and Ethics site:

---It's difficult to construct any scenario in which allowing people of the same sex to marry does any damage at all to marriage in the short term.

---There is no way of predicting what the long-term effect will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society.

---Allowing people of the same sex to marry does, of course, change the institution of marriage, but that's not the same as damaging it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics...gainst_6.shtml

Is it unfair for me to bring up the other parts of the same quote?

I'm pretty sure the same concerns were valid about other social movements in our country. Yes, it is going to fundamentally change our society if gays are allowed to "marry"; it is going to fundamentally change our society if they are allowed civil unions. It is going to fundamentally change society if gays are accepted and tolerated to the degree that I'm sure you agree they deserve. So what? Why does that prevent us from doing what is [i]morally right[i/], or at least morally consistent with American values in other areas (minority ethnic origins, minority sex)?

Given the increasing secularism in our country I see no reason that "marriage" has to perservere at all. I am married and I'm happy for it; but if one of the biggest schisms in our country is about religious-folks wanting to lay sole clame to the term "marriage", then I too can get a "union" or whatever. Marriage is a construct that has been represented in many different ways throughout history. It has been a mutual union of equal people, it has been an abusive, one-sided affair that has not been blessed or perfect. We have a long and varried relationship with marriage--also noted on the BBC page. Those who think it has been a static institution (sociologically) are uninformed. Marriage has looked different at different times.

The BBC website talks about all of that too. The stability of society has been challenged by much more earth shattering notions than allowing the small proportion of people who are gay to be "married". That said, I'm fine if civil unions are the limit.

Note, also, that I'm neither endorsing nor opposing gay marriage. I'm pointing out that there are viable secular reasons to oppose it--just as there are certainly religious reasons to oppose it and there are also potentially viable reasons to support it.

The fear of change is not a viable reason to oppose something rooted in the rights of individuals in our country to share benefits or to visit each other in the hospital, etc.,. The same argument can be put forth that "marriage"--as a religiously based union between two people and god--is an outdated idea and that nobody can predict the enormity of our society's secular movement away from god and toward rigorous study to determine what is actually happening in our world. Given the work you have gone to to show "secular" perspectives on traditionally religiously based arguments, clearly you believe that secularism is, in some sense, here to stay. The consequences of THAT shift have been--and will continue to be--more significant than a spin-off change like gay marriage/civil unions has been. I don't read that you are concerned with the deliterious effects of moving away from fundamentalist religions, and it appears that much of your work and rigorous scholarship is predicated on that movement--at least insofar as you would not tolerate "my religion tells me it is right" as an excuse for a significant social belief or practice. The pragmatist in you moves beyond that without much difficulty, it seems. The unknown is not always bad, and it is not always damaging.

You deserve more than a criticism, though. Here's what I support:

Thanks.

i) The ideas of Democratic Senator Jim Webb articulated in his autobiographical book Born Fighting, and

I would very much be in favor of a Webb Vice-Presidency.

ii) Action to bring the Gini Coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient back to its 1950's through 1970's levels of around 35-40. The Gini Coefficient was 46.9 in 2005 according to the US Census Bureau. That's indicative of highly unequal wealth distribution rarely seen in Western Democracies, and I subjectively perceive it as a threat to our way of government. An immediate first solution would be restoration of pre-Reagan tax rates on the mere top 1% of wage earners.

Fascinating stuff JHB. Fascinating. And yes, I agree with taxing the top 1% to reduce that coefficient to those more acceptable levels. I too subjectively perceive it as a threat to our way of government.

But I commented earlier on the importance of median vs. mean statistics. Given that five percent of our nation possesses over half of its wealth, I can understand your frustration with use of aggregate GDP or mean household income.

I figured you would.

4) The concept that the actions of mankind significantly influence global warming is not a scientific consensus. Even if it were, unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions would be a highly counterproductive response. Others are challenging you on this--I strongly recommend abandoning that aspect of your position.

You and I just disagree on this one. I do not propose a unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions. I believe appropriate accomodation should be made by companies that have the highest CO2 impact to address that impact. If those companies are not willing, and their CEOs are taking home hundreds of millions of dollars while spending millions to fight it, then I'm okay with unilateral action. Action needs to be taken not to squish companies that cannot manage it affordably, but other companies continue to make great profit--and invest great amounts--to keep any reductions on their CO2 production limited because it is more cost effective and helps them make a profit. I want our next president to have the balls (or ovaries) to do something about the profits for the very top end of our income earners, who largely feel that they do not need to give back and that being asked would somehow be un-american.

But as an aside, remember that my points regarding the uncertainty of humanity's influence on global warming were drawn from your own EPA link. You cannot accurately claim that the US Government or Bush Administration agrees with you--it does not.

Furthermore, outside the Bush Administration there are many studies that question the effect of human actions on climate, pointing to climate changes before the last century or two as evidence that the planet has appeared to endure warmer periods in the post-Ice Age timeframe without rapid collapse of global ecosystems.

You're right. Everything I cited said that humans DID have an impact, but it is inconclusive how much impact. I would say that until you or I are experts on the subject--which neither of us are simply by perusing the internet for the newest findings on the subject--we will argue this forever because there is no clear cut answer.

You tend to downplay it until there is absolute proof, I tend to assume that the sooner we start on fixing the problem the more likely we are to defeat it, and that we should at least think about what we can do to mitigate the problem. That was your approach with gay marriage, right? You aren't sure of what the social consequences might be but you're willing to look further into it before saying that you'll just let it happen. That's how I feel about this one, except that in this case "looking into it" requires a pretty significant investment. Of course, significant scientific investments have often proven beneficial for our country. If we figued out better ways to power our lives that do not require foreign oil then we would all be better off for it.

Example1, thank you for sharing your passionate views.

I can't wait for spring training so I can stop being the butt of everyone's political fervor!!

[example1]

Originally Posted by CrespoBlows

No one disputes that global warming is real, whether it's caused by man is totally debatable. It's a fucking shame that anyone who disputes Al Gore's claims is considered a liar, a corporate tool, or a traitor. Is this what liberalism has come to?

Bullshit. People dispute global warmin gall the time, and there is no debate that man has some accountability for it. I cited reputable report after reputable report that says "It is real, how much humans contribute is questionable, but they DO contribute".

It's a fucking shame that you are unable to put forward anything other than personal attacks to 3000 word posts, time after time. At least JHB and A700 have tried to have a conversation. So far I've been told by you not to vote. It mostly makes me think that you would prefer if people didn't challenge your deeply set beliefs and that you're willing to take away the thing that makes us fundamentally American, rather than open yourself to other view points. It is extremely disrespectful to say that to someone who has been a fine member of society, working hard to improve the lives of others on a daily basis should not vote.

It is a conversation killer, though Im sure you giggled as you wrote it.

Carbon increases usually come after temperature increases, not the other way around.

Carbon increases happen as temperature increases, you're right, and then the carbon has an effect on the temperature, thus speeding up the cycle.

From wikipedia:

"Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature". You can find it in other places too, but after being told not to vote I don't really feel like doing your research for you.

[example1]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

I read and I listen and I don't hear anything that compels me to believe that there will be dire consequences. There will be more drought? more hurricanes? more famine...in Africa? Oceans rising at the rate of at most 1/15 to 1/4 inch per year for the next 100 years (predicted by the IPCC). After experts predicted that Florida would be going through a 20 year cycle of extreme hurricanes, they remained unscathed the last two hurricane seasons.

BTW: The stats about the last 13 years in the link you provided conveniently ignored that after the hottest year 1998, the temperatures declined and stabilized. With the exception of 2005, temperature has trended down in 2004, 2006 and 2007 with lower temperatures each year.

Also, throughout history, man has found ways to cope with drought and flooding. The Hoover Dam completed in 1935 reclaimed 1/12 of the U.S. that had been previously uninhabitable due to regular flooding (that had nothing to do with CO2). The amount of land that was reclaimed was enormous.

This would require enormous federal spending, in order to protect, say, all of Miami and New Orleans, low-lying areas of Texas etc., What makes you think that people will come together to ensure that those protections are taken in time? Why would you wait to make the necessary adjustments, fighting me tooth and nail instead of just saying "you know what, one way or another, this is going to be a problem... we should address it intelligently now, while there is still time, rather than waiting until we have 5 years to build levees to protect large American cities"? Even if the answer only IS building levees then let's get started. If we can't STOP global warming then what can we do to mitigate it's effects?

As for drought, man has had technology to overcome that for a long time. You need only look to the Aqueducts in Ancient Rome. The earth's water will not disappear. As you pointed out, this is a closed system. It may move. Some places may have less and others will have more, but man has been finding and transporting water for thousands of years. We also have the technolgy to tame flooding rivers and to live in cities below sea level.

But do we have the desire to undertake massive federally funded projects? I don't see how buildling walls around all of our threatened cities/waterways is in any way less of a significant project than going to the moon or developing the nuclear bomb. It sounds like you are saying that we can throw a lot of technology at the problem and ensure that we are okay. If that's the case then what are we waiting for? I agree with you, whether it is ultimately an investment in technology answers (walls, aqueducts, etc.,) or conservation answers (slowing down the warming) I don't know, but in either case it will require some attention.

I don't doubt that man has some impact on these trends, but apparently so do flatulent cows and lots of other things.

The 1.5 billion cows on earth are not wild cows. They exist for our consumption in the form of hamburgers and steaks. We choose how many cows there are.

The biggest causes are probably the evidence that the sun is getting hotter and the elliptical orbit around the sun. Other planets have experienced warming and an increase in CO2.

I hope you're right, I hope that natural processes just happen to coincide with a tremendous increase in our CO2 production, as a species by thousands and thousands of time. I hope that the ice melt of 50% just coincidentally coincides with the superadvancement in CO2 production starting roughly in the 1950s.

Only man could be arrogant enough to believe so strongly that what we do while inhabiting 4% of the earth's surface could effect global climate more than the heat of the sun or the earth's orbit around the sun. It would be a tragic mistake to wreck economies around the world based on the scientific theories regarding climate. Economic crisis will most assuredly cause hunger and death.

I won't get into a discussion with you about whether it is arrogant to believe that humans can make massive changes to how the earth is. We have directly contributed to the extinction of species, we have been able to conquor each piece of land, we are able to survive on any of the land in this world. We have a significant impact. We go to great lengths to clean up after ourselves, for good reason. The world would be a much grosser place if we did not. The lack of effects you see is at least due in part to the great social investment we have made to clean up after ourselves. It's not because we can't impact the environment. That's the kind of naive view point people had before rivers caught on fire and before we got rid of coal plants in major American cities.

The belief that we cause global climate change is no more arrogant than the view that we don't simply because it would be inconvenient. If you have proof to the contrary, that's fine. But simply because it would seem arrogant is not a good enough reason.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by example1

This would require enormous federal spending, in order to protect, say, all of Miami and New Orleans, low-lying areas of Texas etc., What makes you think that people will come together to ensure that those protections are taken in time? Why would you wait to make the necessary adjustments, fighting me tooth and nail instead of just saying "you know what, one way or another, this is going to be a problem... we should address it intelligently now, while there is still time, rather than waiting until we have 5 years to build levees to protect large American cities"? Even if the answer only IS building levees then let's get started. If we can't STOP global warming then what can we do to mitigate it's effects?

New Orleans has been below sea level for a long time before global warming. It has been vulnerable for a long time. The reason why I fight you tooth and nail is because Florida may not flood. In fact at the projected rate of 1/15th to 1/4 inch per year for the next 100 years I don't think we are in danger of losing Florida. I fight you tooth and nail because we could spend billions and wreck economies around the world and these problems might occur anyway and we will be left with less money and resources to address those problems as they occur. What you are proposing in no way guarantees that Global Warming with its dire consequences will still not occur.

Originally Posted by example1

The 1.5 billion cows on earth are not wild cows. They exist for our consumption in the form of hamburgers and steaks. We choose how many cows there are.

This is where I start to get scared by the Global Warming issue. If they start coming after my burgers and my steaks, I will form my own militia and black ops units.

Originally Posted by example1

I hope you're right, I hope that natural processes just happen to coincide with a tremendous increase in our CO2 production, as a species by thousands and thousands of time. I hope that the ice melt of 50% just coincidentally coincides with the superadvancement in CO2 production starting roughly in the 1950s.

I thought you were afraid of the consequences of the warming. If Global Warming people are right about the consequences, they will occur whether or not man is a significant cause. I don't doubt that the planet is in a slow warming trend. I am extremely skeptical whether man can stop it and I am extremely skeptical that gradual climate changes will have any catastrophic consequences. If the Polar Bear dies out, because it cannot adapt, I think civilzation can bear that price. Pardon the pun.

Originally Posted by example1

I won't get into a discussion with you about whether it is arrogant to believe that humans can make massive changes to how the earth is. We have directly contributed to the extinction of species, we have been able to conquor each piece of land, we are able to survive on any of the land in this world. We have a significant impact. We go to great lengths to clean up after ourselves, for good reason. The world would be a much grosser place if we did not. The lack of effects you see is at least due in part to the great social investment we have made to clean up after ourselves. It's not because we can't impact the environment. That's the kind of naive view point people had before rivers caught on fire and before we got rid of coal plants in major American cities.

I never said that man could not affect his environment. That is very different from affecting Global Climate. We can polute streams, lakes etc. and we can pollute the local air. Weather pattern and global climate are another matter entirely. If we are affecting the climate, we cannot measure our effect in any reliable manner.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Originally Posted by example1

Is it unfair for me to bring up the other parts of the same quote?

Not at all!

It's just that those other two parts don't deal with the impact on society as a whole of allowing a change to permit and condone gay marriage, they deal with the institution of marriage.

I'm pretty sure the same concerns were valid about other social movements in our country. Yes, it is going to fundamentally change our society if gays are allowed to "marry"; it is going to fundamentally change our society if they are allowed civil unions. It is going to fundamentally change society if gays are accepted and tolerated to the degree that I'm sure you agree they deserve. So what? Why does that prevent us from doing what is [i]morally right[i/], or at least morally consistent with American values in other areas (minority ethnic origins, minority sex)?

Most Americans consider gay marriage morally wrong.

By nearly two-to-one, more Americans oppose (59%) than favor (32%) legalizing gay marriage.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39

If you check the detailed reasons for these answers,



you'll find that almost all of the reasons are morally-based.

This is a thread regarding the road to the US Presidency. You support Obama, in part, because of his supporting that which you consider "morally right" regarding gay marriage. Your perspective is a minority view; most American voters consider that aspect of Obama's platform "morally wrong."

Given the increasing secularism in our country I see no reason that "marriage" has to perservere at all. I am married and I'm happy for it; but if one of the biggest schisms in our country is about religious-folks wanting to lay sole clame to the term "marriage", then I too can get a "union" or whatever. Marriage is a construct that has been represented in many different ways throughout history. It has been a mutual union of equal people, it has been an abusive, one-sided affair that has not been blessed or perfect. We have a long and varried relationship with marriage--also noted on the BBC page. Those who think it has been a static institution (sociologically) are uninformed. Marriage has looked different at different times.

The BBC website talks about all of that too. The stability of society has been challenged by much more earth shattering notions than allowing the small proportion of people who are gay to be "married". That said, I'm fine if civil unions are the limit.

Actually, the concept of marriage as anything but a pro-male one-sided affair is pretty new in the leading Western Democracies. Accepting emancipation and equal rights for women was a 20th Century experiment. The results aren't in yet, and they won't be until the generation born in the 1980's and sent to day care becomes our nation's leaders and we see how they do. That said, I support using human capital to its utmost utility, so I'm pragmatically glad that our nation undertook the experiment.

Gay marriage is another experiment. If you consider it risk-free, you're kidding yourself. My particular concern, the possibility of an excess of males versus females seeking heterosexual unions, is certainly a minority concern. (But you must admit that men can often be real jerks, making one wonder why women would want us. ) Others--many others--also have concerns.

The fear of change is not a viable reason to oppose something rooted in the rights of individuals in our country to share benefits...

Whoa. Where in the Bill of Rights is there a "Right to share benefits?" I want my bar buddy to share my excellent health care benefits, as well as my wife and children. Is that my right?

...or to visit each other in the hospital, etc.,. The same argument can be put forth that "marriage"--as a religiously based union between two people and god--is an outdated idea and that nobody can predict the enormity of our society's secular movement away from god and toward rigorous study to determine what is actually happening in our world. Given the work you have gone to to show "secular" perspectives on traditionally religiously based arguments, clearly you believe that secularism is, in some sense, here to stay. The consequences of THAT shift have been--and will continue to be--more significant than a spin-off change like gay marriage/civil unions has been. I don't read that you are concerned with the deliterious effects of moving away from fundamentalist religions, and it appears that much of your work and rigorous scholarship is predicated on that movement--at least insofar as you would not tolerate "my religion tells me it is right" as an excuse for a significant social belief or practice. The pragmatist in you moves beyond that without much difficulty, it seems. The unknown is not always bad, and it is not always damaging.

OK, maybe...but Obama must understand that few voters will view him as analytically as I do. At least I just question the effect of gay marriage generations later, balancing individuals' desires to take actions and their current happiness with the societal effects generations later. Others will view allowing gay marriage as anything from hedonistic to blasphemous to morally corrupt.

I do not propose a unilateral action to reduce US CO2 emissions.

W00t!

I believe appropriate accomodation should be made by companies that have the highest CO2 impact to address that impact. If those companies are not willing, and their CEOs are taking home hundreds of millions of dollars while spending millions to fight it, then I'm okay with unilateral action.

You're right. Everything I cited said that humans DID have an impact, but it is inconclusive how much impact. I would say that until you or I are experts on the subject--which neither of us are...

Are you sure?

...we will argue this forever because there is no clear cut answer.

So, you perceive that there's no clear-cut answer, so we should invest billions of dollars for that reason?

You tend to downplay it until there is absolute proof, I tend to assume that the sooner we start on fixing the problem the more likely we are to defeat it, and that we should at least think about what we can do to mitigate the problem.

If there's no clear-cut answer, there's no problem.

That was your approach with gay marriage, right? You aren't sure of what the social consequences might be but you're willing to look further into it before saying that you'll just let it happen. That's how I feel about this one, except that in this case "looking into it" requires a pretty significant investment. Of course, significant scientific investments have often proven beneficial for our country.

We're already funding significant scientific developments more than any other Western Democracy--they're defense-related. I'm glad that you applaud that.

Gay marriage allows individuals the freedom to do as they wish without government restriction. "Fixing Global Warming" restricts individuals' freedoms. I perceive a big difference.

If we figued out better ways to power our lives that do not require foreign oil then we would all be better off for it.

Such as the DoD-related fuel cell technology that's under development by major auto manufacturers?

Seriously, North America is becoming energy-independent through development of Canadian tar sands. What I perceive that you'd like is a US that uses some clean form of energy--nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, cold fusion, whatever--and I understand that.

But this all comes back to Obama's support for Global Warming. That's wrong. That's a liability, too: Obama, or any other candidate, can support liberty for all without wasting precious capital on a half-baked theory.

MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Example1, global warming is bad science. You and your favored candidates should drop support for it.

I can't wait for spring training so I can stop being the butt of everyone's political fervor!! :lol

You're not a butt, you're a good citizen. We need more like you, IMO.

More kinda like you who, hopefully, don't believe in global warming.