Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 03/ 7/2011

Unfavorable exchange rate

By Tom Toles

c_03072011454.gif

***

Spit take

Hello commenters. Seems as though a certain ecosystem is developing in the comments section here. I have misgivings, sure, because I have this peculiar aversion to getting sprayed in the face by spittle from lunatic climate-change deniers. But things seem to have calmed down enough that I can peek in the clubhouse window and say hi.

While there are clearly visitors who do not think before they write, or after, or ever, I think a good percentage of the comments are by people who know their inclinations, but are interested to test those and see what others have to say. Just like me! This is the real value of free speech in a democracy. Not merely to get to say what you already think, but to listen to others, sometimes in a gale of saliva and all. I brought a towel.

And, deniers: The climate evidence isn't perfect, but the overwhelming preponderance is on my side, and it PREDICTED your increasingly erratic behavior. --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_03072011.gif

By Tom Toles  | March 7, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  China, International  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: One way or another
Next: Knots landing

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

~~Bert, responding to your post at the very beginning of this bruhaha, you may want to keep in mind that one reason non-union wages are as good as they are is the effort of some owners to keep unions out by competing with the wages paid to union workers. I worked in a place like that many years ago, and I'm certain we weren't the only one.

"Forced?" That's an interesting concept. I wonder how many union workers really feel "forced" to participate.

While we're on that subject, what about the way I'm "forced" to subsidize lobbyists for one thing or another basically every time I purchase a product? (Yes, I know... I could choose not to buy that product. Just as a potential employee in one of those "forced" union workplaces could choose to work elsewhere.)

; )

Posted by: jonroesler | March 8, 2011 3:14 PM

jon, you missed my point. I said unions are 'no longer' needed. They have served their purpose. They no longer have the the 'power' they once had. time to move beyond the 'union mentality'.
Also...there is a difference between having money taken directly out of your paycheck and purchasing something.
And as I've also stated before...if someone is in dire straits and needs a job and the only type available is a union job no one in there right mind would refuse said job just because they are unionized. Thereby not, really, having a choice...

Posted by: bertzel | March 9, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Why not look deeper into world social systems
and design an economic system that accounts for guile....
prevents the bulk of it?

We have aggregate self-interest going against Democracy.

Would you have an economic system trump a forward-looking
social system? No system in the world is a good model... yet.

Posted by: Tony-KS | March 9, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I'll wait for the Berkley climate study data to be released; since it is purported to contain original data, and the criteria and rationale for adjustments.

Good science requires peer review, lots of it. When there is a lot of variance in results of studies and experiments, that should be taken that the models those studies and experiments are based on aren't well understood, and often wrong.

Climate change, and its causes, fall into that category of wildly variable results and poorly understood models, even today. Trying to change the conditions of a dynamic system when we don't have enough understanding of what we are doing is a lot like 6 people all using baseball bats on a swinging, spinning tether ball. A lot of energy is wasted, the ball goes in unexpected and undesired directions, and sometimes we beat the hell out of each other.

Posted by: mhoust | March 9, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

PTG

I would say it is you with confirmation bias by not looking at the papers posted and cherry picking the lower ice extant but ignoring the extensive snow cover and conclusions of the NSIDC report.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 8, 2011 10:38 PM | Report abuse

PTG

been there today already

Don't tell me the press doesn't have bias.

The Post story left out the part from NSIDC report that the snow cover is the sixth greatest since 1966 and that the Arctic Oscillation was the most negative since 1951.

Their conclusion

"Reduced sea ice extent and extensive snow cover are not contradictory, and are both linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (see our January 5, 2011 post). A strongly negative AO favors outbreaks of cold Arctic air over northern Europe and the U.S., as many people experienced first-hand these last two winters. Whether this is a trend, or is in any way linked to ongoing warming in the Arctic, remains to be seen. "

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 5:42 PM

Show me the links or it's just blowing smoke there. Please show me the science links from 1975

What wild goose chase. I know you learned that there have been other CO2 measurements before Keeler and you at least were able to choose to deny that evidence compared to not knowing about it. Knowledge is power. Just look at another scientific viewpoint and look at the papers I posted for you.

I read and research both sides of the issue and have concluded that

Global average temperature measurement as reported is seriously flawed.

The causal relationship between CO2 rise and temperature rise is not well proven from several points of view.

Positive feedback from clouds is likely false and several scientists in your camp are in agreement with this premise inc. Joel Norris Ph.D.

The IPCC recommendation for reducing CO2 output is completely inadequate for real reductions. Money for adaption to a warmer climate will prevent harm more effectively than trying to change the weather through economy busting carbon reductions.

Other indicators show an increasing chance of serious cooling in the near future and putting corn and sugar in our tanks is a poor way to prepare for this potential problem and has done nothing to reduce CO2 from all sources.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 8, 2011 10:20 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner

I challenge you to find me a link to one paper prior to 1976 considering global warming.

It is interesting how the temperature data presented in 1975 has been sanitized in 2009 to fit the 'scientific consensus' of today.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 8:26 PM
-----------------------------------------------
dalyplanet,

I quickly found links to TWO pre-1976 papers on global warming. it was not difficult in the least. I am absolutely certain that you could do the same...if you wanted to( confirmation bias)...but you don't (confirmation bias). If you really can't find such links online, my time would be better spent showing you how to use the Internet. It's certainly easier to find link to papers by AGW deniers--just follow the money.

For similar reasons I did not look at the papers that you provided links for--you've sent me on wild goose chases before (confirmation bias) and I was quickly able to tell you why you were wrong.

Why don't you do your own research? Answer: You only look at papers that you think confirm your current beliefs on GW=confirmation bias! Of course, you don't say clearly what your beliefs are. It's time to "poop or get off the pot."

By the way, arctic ice extent for Feb. 2011 is tied with 2005 for an all-time extent low for Feb.--so much for having a cold winter. It's too early to tell, but we may again reach an arctic ice extent record low for the summer of 2011. Last record was during the summer of 2005. Details at http://nsidc.org/ You can always argue that the National Snow And Ice Data Center is part of the GW conspiracy, and that their rapidly changing, "trick", catch me if you can slide show is a scheme to conceal data.

Once you melt each ice, albedo decreases with more solar radiation being absorbed by the ocean--another non-existent positive feed back effect.

Ooooh, this can't be happening. So it isn't. Gadzooks, it's not our fault. And if it's our fault, what's the harm? Yikes, it's too expensive to do anything about.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 8, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey, anyone care to refute the claim that there is a causal link between cigarette smoking and health issues? Or is that just another hoax, too?

Posted by: jonroesler | March 8, 2011 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Bert, responding to your post at the very beginning of this bruhaha, you may want to keep in mind that one reason non-union wages are as good as they are is the effort of some owners to keep unions out by competing with the wages paid to union workers. I worked in a place like that many years ago, and I'm certain we weren't the only one.

"Forced?" That's an interesting concept. I wonder how many union workers really feel "forced" to participate.

While we're on that subject, what about the way I'm "forced" to subsidize lobbyists for one thing or another basically every time I purchase a product? (Yes, I know... I could choose not to buy that product. Just as a potential employee in one of those "forced" union workplaces could choose to work elsewhere.)

; )

Posted by: jonroesler | March 8, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

No experts. Challenge everything!
From the moment you first opened your eyes you have been taking a test. The easiest answer is to just sleep until it's over.
Even if you are getting it wrong as long as you want to get it right you are really getting it right.

Faith starts with believing in yourself and your neighbors that in a pinch we help each other and if we don't or won't what is the use anyways?

An open mind does not rubber stamp anything. You can have strong feeling for your beliefs but please do not let others of good conscience suffer -- be a 'people'.

Posted by: Phyvyn | March 8, 2011 12:06 PM | Report abuse

In response to the cartoon: WALMART CAllING

No doubt our climate is changing. BUT WHY EXACTLY! Don't you think just maybe these HAARP technologies used by US and other nations could be a major contributing factor.

Posted by: JONAHandtheFISH | March 8, 2011 11:03 AM | Report abuse

PTG

compare the data from this temperature graph

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm

To this one from NCAR in 1975

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

and tell me the 'overwhelming preponderance of evidence' for man made warming is not fabricated or distorted.

Did you look at either of the two papers posted by me for your educational edification.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner

Dont you think it is funny that the language used in this Newsweek article on global cooling is the same as present day articles on global warming.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner

I challenge you to find me a link to one paper prior to 1976 considering global warming.

It is interesting how the temperature data presented in 1975 has been sanitized in 2009 to fit the 'scientific consensus' of today.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

~~~ I contend that AGW/CC is not an ideological dispute; rather, it is a scientific dispute.
Posted by: ptgrunner | March 7, 2011 7:46 PM ~~~~

yeah, I know ranger can defend himself : )
but I must comment as well...
I would contend that it is both ideological And scientific....

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Then there is confirmation bias. Belief based on faith ("science kills") becomes stronger, more fervent in the face of contrary evidence. We have strong, compelling evidence of AGW caused by CO2. But belief in the opposite seems to become stronger because deniers engage in selective thinking. I believe that those of us who take a more science-based approach have little problem changing our minds when faced with compelling evidence, precisely because our beliefs are not based on faith. People with a strong confirmation bias can be made to believe impossible things, such as that increased solar radiation is causing global warming. [Solar radiation has been declining since about 1960.] Another impossible belief is that people were riding around on dinosaurs a very few thousand years ago. Or--try to imagine this if you can--that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility. Or that Scott Walker must eliminate collective union bargaining rights for WI public employees. Or that the Tea Party ( "the Constitution, Founding Fathers) has something going for them other than mindless anger and some slogans. And the Tea Party is the perfect example of those who group-think and are subject to confirmation bias. Science, empirical data, critical thinking do not support their agenda. But they believe.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 7, 2011 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 6:39 PM

In the mid-1970s scientists were talking about global warming due to "greenhouse gases." I had several conversations with a physics professor who taught my Atmospheric Physics class: "the theory is sound, but we have little data to support that." Now we also have data.

That the earth cooled slightly from about 1940 to about 1970 is well known. It is also known why the earth cooled during that period. I have no idea why you dig up this 35 yo article from Newsweek. The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted global warming. Most of the articles suggesting long-term global cooling were in the non-scientific print media.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 7, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

@Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:49 PM

Yeah. Calling someone a "mental midget" is a personal attack. I should have responded to that comment as my instincts told me to. Exactly how did YOU mean that comment?????

You can claim anything you want wrt your knowledge of AGW, who you've heard talk, papers you've read. But I do not recall you even once debating AGW/CC on scientific merit, and you display absolutely no scientific knowledge of the subject. To you, it's about liberals vs. conservatives. I contend that AGW/CC is not an ideological dispute; rather, it is a scientific dispute.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 7, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Another interesting link from newsweek 1975

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Pdog

Don't tell me the press doesn't have bias.

The Post story left out the part from NSIDC report that the snow cover is the sixth greatest since 1966 and that the Arctic Oscillation was the most negative since 1951.

Their conclusion

"Reduced sea ice extent and extensive snow cover are not contradictory, and are both linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (see our January 5, 2011 post). A strongly negative AO favors outbreaks of cold Arctic air over northern Europe and the U.S., as many people experienced first-hand these last two winters. Whether this is a trend, or is in any way linked to ongoing warming in the Arctic, remains to be seen. "

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 5:42 PM | Report abuse

~~~Expecting anti-human, profit driven corporations to pay equitable wages out of the goodness of their non-existent heart is not going to happen. ~~~

Dave...you cannot sum up all corporations in your twisted view.
Perhaps more laws should be passed then to protect the 'common folk'.
Course all in the political arena are evil bastards too!! Especially those damn republicans right dave??
What to do?....

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

4 - We all have our reasons to blog. I've stated mine several times over the past 6 months or so. I like to challenge others and be challenged on my views in order to develop my positions on policy, strategy, and actions. I ask you questions sometimes - I have no expectations that you'll respond; happy to hear from you when you do.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 3:56 PM


Ditto.
: )

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't like private unions at all - but I think they're a necessary evil.
Posted by: pararanger22

Right, or was it left?
The same goes for voting Republican or Democratic.
Right now, the Republicans are the greater evil with there sociopathic attack on the poor and give away to the rich.
They get the Sheriff of Nottingham award.

Expecting anti-human, profit driven corporations to pay equitable wages out of the goodness of their non-existent heart is not going to happen. Working people will only get what they are willing to fight to get.
It is the government's responsibility to protect people from greedy corporations but they gave that up a long time ago for corrupting election hand outs. They are bought and paid for.
If the government does not do their job; there will be a bloody civil war just like in Libya. We are not getting what we voted to get.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 7, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

I live in Ohio near the city of Moraine. I geologic terms, a moraine is the collection of gravel a glacier leaves behind when it receeds. According to scientists (NASA no less) there was roughly a mile high block of ice sitting on my lot just 15,000 years ago. Anyone who denies that the earth is warming is a drooling idiot.

But, there are three main tenets to the Anthropologic Global Warming Theory:

1) The earth is getting warmer.

2) CO2 is the main element causing the warming.

3) Human activity is causing the CO2 rise.

The only tenet with a sound scientific basis is the long term warming. The second two are subject to debate. Debating the debatable does not make one a member of the Flat Earth Society.

The only two classes of people who think "The Science Is Settled" are the scientists promoting the more popular of two conflicting positions on a theory, and people who form their opinions by reading non-scientific media.

Half

Posted by: HalflifeToolmaker | March 7, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

......

Posted by: bertzel

1 - The 'N' in RaNger is for Nowledge? That means I'm so stupid I can't even spell 'knowledge' correctly. Self-deprecating humor.
2 - I have known plenty of folks in dire straits before but never anyone who had to make a decision on a union versus non-union job. There weren't a lot of unions in Texas as I recall, thus, my inexperience. In the past decade (and job experience in DC) I HAVE known folks who had the luxury of not selecting a union job because a non-union job was available.
3 - Yes, I know you advocate truth. You also challenged me on my support on the existence of private unions. I've been trying to ascertain if you were advocating that unions aren't necessary, inter alia, they should not exist. You've answered my question.
4 - We all have our reasons to blog. I've stated mine several times over the past 6 months or so. I like to challenge others and be challenged on my views in order to develop my positions on policy, strategy, and actions. I ask you questions sometimes - I have no expectations that you'll respond; happy to hear from you when you do.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

~~ If one has a selection of employment opportunities, not all of them union, one could choose the non-union job.
Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 2:46 ~~~~

That is a no brainer ranger...

as per your personal experience comment...are you telling me you know of people who are in dire straits and yet refused employment because it involved joining a union??? I find that very hard to believe and very stupid.

as for my advocation....truth! Already said that did I not?
If the decline of unions and reasoning behind that decline are included in that 'truth' so be it.
Would I call up my congress person and demand that unions be abolished? No! This is an opinion blog and I am here for that purpose...I, nor anyone else here, will be solving the world's crisises, and to think such would be in vain to say the least. Would you not agree, ranger?

People have to take off their blinders eventually.Perhaps they will run across this blog and read not only Toles' commentary but some of the postings on this blog, as well and in so doing THINK...

Kindly explain your n word comment,ranger.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

~~~Interesting point. I wonder how many folks shy away from joining unions because of union propensity to support the Democrat Party.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:58 PM~~~

Oh please...I suppose the same amount who would turn down joining the union in the first place thereby turning down a much needed job.
Seriously?

~~~Truth, check. Simple, check. N in Ranger is for Nowledge, check.

Posted by: pararanger22

Second time you've thrown that one in my face ranger....how 'bout you just say what is on your mind instead of playing the 'word' game.

Posted by: bertzel

-----------------------

I'm so confused.

1 - I was being self-deprecating, not playing a game & not throwing anything in your face.
2 - To the point: are you advocating the abolishment of all unions?
3 - I know lots of folks to that have turned down jobs because of required union membership. I understand your point - if you need the job, you take the job - but that hasn't been the case in my personal experience. If one has a selection of employment opportunities, not all of them union, one could choose the non-union job.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

~~Per climate change, Tom you've stirred the pot once again. A note to deniers; see the story in today's post about ice cover being at its lowest level ever recorded in the Artic.
pdog~~

Don't have to read an article in the post concerning that topic pdog...that is not news...

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

~~~Interesting point. I wonder how many folks shy away from joining unions because of union propensity to support the Democrat Party.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:58 PM~~~

Oh please...I suppose the same amount who would turn down joining the union in the first place thereby turning down a much needed job.
Seriously?

~~~Truth, check. Simple, check. N in Ranger is for Nowledge, check.

Posted by: pararanger22

Second time you've thrown that one in my face ranger....how 'bout you just say what is on your mind instead of playing the 'word' game.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I don't know ...perhaps because union dues get taken out of someone's personal paycheck?? What if that someone does not support the Democratic party? Should they be forced to contribute their hard earned
dollars???
I think not...

Posted by: bertzel

Tell you what, show me this is a problem and I'll consider debating it. Show me that there is a significant percentage of people who are members of unions that are upset that their money goes to Democrats.
Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 7, 2011 12:30 PM~~~

jwalkr...you are changing the subject and have lost your initial arguement....you implied that if corporations can give monies to political parties, unions should be able to as well....unions take money directly out of an employee's paycheck...corporations don't take money out of an employee's paycheck.

I'm not about to start a poll on whether or not a union member minds this practice (that would be a good job for pdog : )....I will say that I know of several, personally, who do mind. Period.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of sad that some private sector employees keep calling government workers "spoiled". Sad because those private sector employees used to have secure pensions and good benefits. Union busting, corporate greed, and the hunger of the continuous growth stock market model have since taken that from them, and now they wish the same on government employees, rather than realizing who it was that took their benefits and security away in the first place.

So, do we punish the Wall Street types that caused this mess? No. Instead we blame budget problems on teachers and other government workers for "soaking the taxpayer". It would be funny, if it wasn't so truly tragic what the corporate and wealth mentality is doing to the 90% of the rest of us. What's truly tragic is the fact that so many people still defend this practice.

Per climate change, Tom you've stirred the pot once again. A note to deniers; see the story in today's post about ice cover being at its lowest level ever recorded in the Artic.

I wait with baited breath for the standard responses from the Three Amigos attacking whatever I say, and likely peppered with some lovely personal insults as usual.

Posted by: PrairieDog60

------------------------

Boo-hoo PrairieDog60 :) Hey - I agreed with some of your points the other day, didn't I?

I agree with your post 'the hunger of the continuous growth stock market model' as a major problem for everyone but stockholders.

I am solidly behind punishment of bankers and insurance peddlers that led to the economic crisis. I thought that the POTUS was going to do that - I still don't understand (completely) why this hasn't happened, especially Lehman's and AIG.

Straight up - I thought the Liberals would have loved to make some more of those criminals make the perp-walk. I don't mean this as a criticism but why didn't the Democrats do it? Seems that they had a good case and it would make for good politics for their side too....

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of sad that some private sector employees keep calling government workers "spoiled". Sad because those private sector employees used to have secure pensions and good benefits. Union busting, corporate greed, and the hunger of the continuous growth stock market model have since taken that from them, and now they wish the same on government employees, rather than realizing who it was that took their benefits and security away in the first place.

So, do we punish the Wall Street types that caused this mess? No. Instead we blame budget problems on teachers and other government workers for "soaking the taxpayer". It would be funny, if it wasn't so truly tragic what the corporate and wealth mentality is doing to the 90% of the rest of us. What's truly tragic is the fact that so many people still defend this practice.

Per climate change, Tom you've stirred the pot once again. A note to deniers; see the story in today's post about ice cover being at its lowest level ever recorded in the Artic.

I wait with baited breath for the standard responses from the Three Amigos attacking whatever I say, and likely peppered with some lovely personal insults as usual.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | March 7, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Tom, the Post' newspaper competitor, the NY Times had an opinion piece on the anti-science hosebags out there. If you did not get a chance to read, you should check it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/magazine/27FOB-WWLN-t.html?_r=1

Posted by: bushidollar

-------------------------

Maybe Mr. Toles could read it to you before night-night time.

There might be a few 3 syllable + words in it that you might find brain-humbling, bumbledollar...

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I don't know ...perhaps because union dues get taken out of someone's personal paycheck?? What if that someone does not support the Democratic party? Should they be forced to contribute their hard earned
dollars???
I think not...

Posted by: bertzel

Tell you what, show me this is a problem and I'll consider debating it. Show me that there is a significant percentage of people who are members of unions that are upset that their money goes to Democrats.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr

----------------------

Interesting point. I wonder how many folks shy away from joining unions because of union propensity to support the Democrat Party.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Tom, the Post' newspaper competitor, the NY Times had an opinion piece on the anti-science hosebags out there. If you did not get a chance to read, you should check it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/magazine/27FOB-WWLN-t.html?_r=1

Posted by: bushidollar | March 7, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:51 PM

"Truth, check. Simple, check. N in Ranger is for Nowledge, check."

----

Negative, it is for "nonsense".

Posted by: bushidollar | March 7, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

~~Valid points all but what exactly are you advocating?

Posted by: pararanger22


The simplest of things, ranger, yet the hardest to realize...the truth.

Posted by: bertzel

---------------------

Truth, check. Simple, check. N in Ranger is for Nowledge, check.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

There you go again. Because do don't understand GW/CC and because you have faith that AGW is not occurring, you engage in personal attacks on others. Are these the best you can do for thoughtful comments?

Posted by: ptgrunner

----------------------

'mental midget day' qualifies as a personal attack? You are so delicate - even when my comments are addressed to rowens1 and not you! Anyway, rowens1 is making the exact same argument. The last time rowens1 was here, he engaged in a useful debate, at first, then went straight to tossing out dispersions. I didn't say too much about it but it was disappointing.

I believe I've read more about climate change than you; listened, in person, to more international advocates of climate change than you; read more dissertations on how to change energy policy in order to avert further man-made climate change than you; and yet I'm not convinced that the theory is valid.

You may well be right, ptgrunner, but you haven't convinced me.

I can tell you this: no one on the Liberal side of this blog arguing the case for climate change ever advocates what they want in any detail. My conclusion is that you simply want something to argue about. Sure, I read that you are trying to save the planet, conserve, blah, blah, blah, but you offer nothing a Congressman could work with in terms of policy. Have you no thoughts on how we could adjust our energy policy to accomodate near term needs for fossil fuels on a descending slide as other greener type energy methods ascend?

Yeah - I ask that question a lot. But I never get any feedback on it from you or anyone else here.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I don't know ...perhaps because union dues get taken out of someone's personal paycheck?? What if that someone does not support the Democratic party? Should they be forced to contribute their hard earned
dollars???
I think not...

Posted by: bertzel

Tell you what, show me this is a problem and I'll consider debating it. Show me that there is a significant percentage of people who are members of unions that are upset that their money goes to Democrats.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 7, 2011 12:30 PM | Report abuse

~~Valid points all but what exactly are you advocating?

Posted by: pararanger22


The simplest of things, ranger, yet the hardest to realize...the truth.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

bertzel wrote:

Ranger, Unions already lost their power. That battle has been fought. Therefore they really are of no use any longer...other than an illusion of sorts.
And who does that really benefit? REALLY...
Certainly not the workers.

----------------------

Valid points all but what exactly are you advocating?

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 12:18 PM | Report abuse

~~~ And as for it being OK to take dues and contribute it to candidates and other political actions, whether it is or not is beside the point (although I think if corporations are allowed such freedom then I don't see why unions should not).
jwalkr~~~

Gee, I don't know ...perhaps because union dues get taken out of someone's personal paycheck?? What if that someone does not support the Democratic party? Should they be forced to contribute their hard earned
dollars???
I think not...

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

hey PTG
read this

The AGW cure today appears to be ten dollar per gallon gas and twelve dollar diesel and jet fuel and forty cent a kilowatt hour electric and three fold increase in nat gas prices world wide. What will that do to the world economy today?

and then read this

http://bp.snu.ac.kr/lecture/presentation/%ED%97%88%EB%AF%BC%EC%9E%AC.pdf

Don't you think we should be really sure that the IPCC is right.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

@Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 11:41 AM


There you go again. Because do don't understand GW/CC and because you have faith that AGW is not occurring, you engage in personal attacks on others. Are these the best you can do for thoughtful comments?

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 7, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

rowens1~~~Any system that is described to deny the active role of entropy is untrue.~~

:-)


~~one level where we're all pretty funny. God gave us a very hands-on reminder that brings all of us into the comedy loop: our genitals.

Posted by: dudeupnorth | March 7, 2011 11:28 AM

Speak for yourself dude...

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The raison d'être for private unions is a check on corporate power. That is a reasonable, ethical, extant purpose for unions regardless of their performance of late.

Yes, private unions are notorious for ethically abusing this moral (and legal) power, agreed. Nonetheless, I would rather fight to miniturize the posture of private unions than rub them out all together.
Posted by: pararanger22 ~~~

Ranger, Unions already lost their power. That battle has been fought. Therefore they really are of no use any longer...other than an illusion of sorts.
And who does that really benefit? REALLY...
Certainly not the workers.


Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 11:44 AM | Report abuse

i like turtles

Posted by: pete1013 | March 7, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

rowens1

Entropy in thermodynamics regarding climate refers to changing from a higher state of energy to a lower. Reradiating heat from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth is transferring heat or work in the wrong direction.

Another excellent paper from a physics thermodynamics point of view.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Any precept at all that does not conform to the second law of thermodynamics is false.

Any system that is described to deny the active role of entropy is untrue.

So Tom, you can relax. There will always be those whose ideas cannot embrace the slow and relentless process of breaking down- including the climate here on mother earth.

These other views are simply folks who like the attention and don't spend any time in study, preferring only information they think fortifies their "case".

Posted by: rowens1

------------------------

Hmmm...must be 'mental-midget day' here in Toles Territory - rowens1 is back throwing hand grenades at those who don't bow to the inviolate certainty of man-made climate change. Entropy, thermodynamics, blah, blah, blah - we've heard it all before.

As usual, you don't come with any viable energy policy for the US - just like all the other courageous big-talkers from the Liberal side. All you want to do is argue about climate change theory - with no position on what to do about it. Toles must be proud - he never offers any solutions either.

Useless.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"Trolls, just listen to the experts and stop acting like you have a clue. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are."

So many times the suspicion of this implication has popped into my head when I've been dissed by someone who obviously has zero use for me. Then there's the closely-related "....as funny as you think you are." And actually, there's at least one level where we're all pretty funny. God gave us a very hands-on reminder that brings all of us into the comedy loop: our genitals.

Posted by: dudeupnorth | March 7, 2011 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Here is a concise summery of the disagreements with the 'settled science' of CAGW.

http://bp.snu.ac.kr/lecture/presentation/%ED%97%88%EB%AF%BC%EC%9E%AC.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Any precept at all that does not conform to the second law of thermodynamics is false.

Any system that is described to deny the active role of entropy is untrue.

So Tom, you can relax. There will always be those whose ideas cannot embrace the slow and relentless process of breaking down- including the climate here on mother earth.

These other views are simply folks who like the attention and don't spend any time in study, preferring only information they think fortifies their "case".

Posted by: rowens1 | March 7, 2011 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Tom Toles, I must say, I like you. Rants though they may be, who said rants couldn't make valid points? Hail to the spittle flying speech.
My only regret is that your cartoons do not appear in the Kindle edition of the Washington Post, which I have duly subscribed to in the absence of it in Washington State, where I serve for AmeriCorps this year.
Whatever editor made such the foolish decision to omit your brilliant cartoons?

Posted by: JohnS13 | March 7, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Tom Toles, I must say, I like you. Rants though they may be, who said rants couldn't make valid points? Hail to the spittle flying speech.

Posted by: JohnS13 | March 7, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

~~~I agree with yu 100%. The distinguishing characteristic in my 'union' views is simply that I believe private unions have the legal and ethical right to exist; public unions should not and do not have that right.

I don't like private unions at all - but I think they're a necessary evil.
Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 9:26 AM ~~~

I'll give you legal but ethical???
What is ethical about unions now-a-days?
And how can you call something ethical and a necessary evil at the same time?
Please explain.


Posted by: bertzel

-----------------

The raison d'être for private unions is a check on corporate power. That is a reasonable, ethical, extant purpose for unions regardless of their performance of late.

Yes, private unions are notorious for ethically abusing this moral (and legal) power, agreed. Nonetheless, I would rather fight to miniturize the posture of private unions than rub them out all together.


Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"The Science of Evolution."

Now there's an idea whose time has come!

Posted by: quiensabe | March 7, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

One could say(based on your previous comment) you think the only reason unions have any legitimate worth now is so the money pumping into the, "what-party- exactly?", will continue....I say 'what party' because you don't know my party affiliation. Do you jwalker?

So...its ok in your mind to take the union dues and feed it to the political arena, in the name of democracy, of course.

Something wrong with that scenario.

Posted by: bertzel

That part wasn't aimed at you specifically, it was aimed at the general union-bashing that the Republicans have been doing. And as for it being OK to take dues and contribute it to candidates and other political actions, whether it is or not is beside the point (although I think if corporations are allowed such freedom then I don't see why unions should not).

And no, I don't think that's the only legitimate worth unions have now. I think they are already severely weakened, as I said. However, I do think they can serve a purpose in raising standards for wages and benefits for workers across the board into the future, and had they remained strong throughout the past 20 years or so we just might still have a decent manufacturing sector left, like in other developed countries with strong unions.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 7, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Perfect spitstorm today, Tom. Congratulations. The thing about Cognitive Dissonance is that the victims get louder and nastier the less the facts support them. Behind the scenes, they are losing thousands of supporters every day, millions a year.

The End is nigh.

As for AGW, yes, the scientists are wrong. Every time they come out with on overly conservative model (which is every time) the facts turn out to be _worse_ than predicted.

Posted by: Antibogotes | March 7, 2011 10:09 AM | Report abuse

~~~I agree with yu 100%. The distinguishing characteristic in my 'union' views is simply that I believe private unions have the legal and ethical right to exist; public unions should not and do not have that right.

I don't like private unions at all - but I think they're a necessary evil.
Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 9:26 AM ~~~

I'll give you legal but ethical???
What is ethical about unions now-a-days?
And how can you call something ethical and a necessary evil at the same time?
Please explain.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

~~Trolls, just listen to the experts and stop acting like you have a clue. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Posted by: CAPSLOCK~~~

Even 'experts' make mistakes. If their data were 'foolproof' we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, no one is stating that AGW does not exist. The question is whether the actual effect plays a SIGNIFICANT role in climatic events.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 9:46 AM | Report abuse

As for an unfavorable exchange rate:

I have to question why a Levis tshirt made in Thailand costs $26.00.
Why an simple 'hoodie" (sweatshirt with a hood for all you old folks : )made in Cambodia costs $34.00.
What exactly are we paying for? Sure isn't labor and/or material...
Shipping and handling?

Inflation plays a Huge role in our current 'state of affairs' and we always seem to overlook that fact, as well.

By rights, if costs in production were to drop, one would think the cost of the product would also follow suit but, for some reason, that doesn't happen. Just sayin'.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

As for an unfavorable exchange rate:

I have to question why a Levis tshirt made in Thailand costs $26.00.
Why an simple 'hoodie" (sweatshirt with a hood for all you old folks : )made in Cambodia costs $34.00.
What exactly are we paying for? Sure isn't labor and/or material...
Shipping and handling?

Inflation plays a Huge role in our current 'state of affairs' and we always seem to overlook that fact, as well.

By rights, if costs in production were to drop, one would think the cost of the product would also follow suit but, for some reason, that doesn't happen. Just sayin'.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Ranger, private sector unions are no longer useful to the employees...that is why their wages and benefits have sunk. They union only eats up money paid in dues and I guess we know where a lot of that money goes, when not in the pockets of the union.


Posted by: bertzel

-----------------------

I agree with yu 100%. The distinguishing characteristic in my 'union' views is simply that I believe private unions have the legal and ethical right to exist; public unions should not and do not have that right.

I don't like private unions at all - but I think they're a necessary evil.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Trolls that try to use logic against climate science are funny.

Essentially:
"Well in this report the peer review failed to catch that the t was not crossed, so OBVIOUSLY climate science is a fraud."

or...
"If every bit of data doesn't prove AGW, then AGW has to be FALSE. Look, from this mountain of supportive data I found one bit of data which is questionable if I disregard the mountain that it came from!!! AGW IS A SCAM!!! HA HA!!! I BEAT YOU GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!")

Trolls, just listen to the experts and stop acting like you have a clue. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Posted by: CAPSLOCK | March 7, 2011 9:22 AM | Report abuse

~~~the weak state of unions today, is another story. One could argue it's happening anyways right now as things are already, seeing the income disparities in America and stagnation of wages we've seen as unions have represented less and less of the workforce, which would of course make all this sudden union-bashing a cynical attempt to utterly destroy an already weakened supporter of your political opponents. But that would be silly so forget I said anything.
Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 6, 2011 11:46 PM~~~

Anyways?? Alrighty then....

One could say(based on your previous comment) you think the only reason unions have any legitimate worth now is so the money pumping into the, "what-party- exactly?", will continue....I say 'what party' because you don't know my party affiliation. Do you jwalker?

So...its ok in your mind to take the union dues and feed it to the political arena, in the name of democracy, of course.

Something wrong with that scenario.

Ranger, private sector unions are no longer useful to the employees...that is why their wages and benefits have sunk. They union only eats up money paid in dues and I guess we know where a lot of that money goes, when not in the pockets of the union.

Posted by: bertzel | March 7, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Also,
Without indisputable replicable scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming, don't you realize that you're not unlike those whom you deride for not believing in evolution, who think the universe was created 6,000 years ago along with Adam & Eve. Youre believing something based ultimately on faith.

Posted by: jtg24 | March 7, 2011 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Until some indisputable replicable scientific evidence is offered, I really don't think you're furthering the cause of 'proving' anthropogenic global warming by calling skeptics "stupid".

Posted by: jtg24 | March 7, 2011 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Would love to join the warmer zombie army, but can't get past the notion of if it snowed more in 1717 than it did this winter how can someone just claim today that more snow is caused by manmade global warming/climate change/pollution? Maybe Charlie Sheen?

Posted by: jornolibist

-------------------------

Exactly. They can't do it, thus, they fail. Alas.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Climate change theory is so unsupported and so boring.

It would be a better use of time to argue the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: pararanger22

Actually, you might as well argue the existence of God. Now there's a theorey with not a lot of concrete evidence to back it up.

Posted by: Rudesan | March 7, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if anyone is aware or remembers that many years ago (while the U.S. and Russia were in conflict and the power of China was on the rise) the Chinese told us they would NOT defeat us through war but economically?

Posted by: peep1935 | March 7, 2011 7:33 AM | Report abuse

If China wants to buy it, it's not for sale. They tried to buy an oil company and offered top dollar. Sorry, not for sale. They tried to buy a technology company and offered top dollar and promised to spin off the defense contracting unit. Sorry, not for sale. If you want to balance the trade deficit, you have to sell something the customer wants to buy.

Posted by: blasmaic | March 7, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Would love to join the warmer zombie army, but can't get past the notion of if it snowed more in 1717 than it did this winter how can someone just claim today that more snow is caused by manmade global warming/climate change/pollution? Maybe Charlie Sheen?

Posted by: jornolibist | March 7, 2011 6:42 AM | Report abuse

The Climate Deniers must be direct descendents of all those that stood and made fun of Noah building his ark.

Posted by: Sam4337 | March 7, 2011 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Historically, unions raised wages and the levels of benefits for their members, and non-union companies had to do the same in order to compete for workers, hence non-union workers making "as much if not more" in the same industry. However, without unions as a part of that equation, there would not have been that raising of compensation and standard of living across the board for all those workers.

Now, whether getting rid of unions NOW means lower wages in the future, given the weak state of unions today, is another story. One could argue it's happening anyways right now as things are already, seeing the income disparities in America and stagnation of wages we've seen as unions have represented less and less of the workforce, which would of course make all this sudden union-bashing a cynical attempt to utterly destroy an already weakened supporter of your political opponents. But that would be silly so forget I said anything.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 6, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------

The lack of unions does not imply lower wages Toles...that is your viewpoint...many nonunion jobs make just as much if not more than those 'forced' to join the union.
Funny thing about Fate.
Posted by: bertzel

My Comment...
I was there. I am a graduate of the prestigious Henry Ford Trade School.
I graduated as a Tool and Die Maker and became a union member of the UAW Union.
While Henry Ford was aware of the need for sufficient wages in order that his employees would be able to buy his automobiles; it was not until the unions became strong enough to demand fair wages that factory workers joined the middle class.
Without leverage, people are forced to work at poverty level wages when there is a surplus of labor. As long as there are poverty level wages anywhere in the world, corporations can maintain a labor surplus.
There is no longer nationalism in the USA that provides support for the welfare of the nation.
Welfare has become a dirty word as people become self-centered and sociopathic. They think they are self-sufficient when the fact of the matter is that they depend on the ability of their nation to provide reasonable wages that cover the cost of living.
The "frog in the frying pan" disaster allows people to ignore the fact that their wages are being undermined by raising prices, higher taxes and hidden costs. The loss of a job, sickness or bad luck can force people into poverty one at a time until it is a national disaster.
When the working people lose their buying power, the demand side of economics fails then the supply side of economics fails and the nation is destitute.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 6, 2011 10:48 PM

------------------------------

If but for the unions, the Nation fails.

Alas.

Keep selling this sob story (read: Liberal TP) - and keep the private unions. The real crime is public sector unions stealing the Nations' wealth.

Public unions must go.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr. Toles for persevering with your outstanding work.

Posted by: rjoff | March 7, 2011 2:50 AM | Report abuse

dalyplanet has roped and cow-tied all you climate change theorists so many times. He/she has presented the true facts and the facts are undisputed: man-made climate change doesn't exist.

Climate change theory is so unsupported and so boring.

It would be a better use of time to argue the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 7, 2011 2:38 AM | Report abuse

Please post the paper predicting increased erratic behavior from those that want empirical proof of the catastrophe from using this wonderful stored carbon energy source.

I left out an important word my bad

Please post the paper predicting increased erratic behavior from ONLY those that want empirical proof of the catastrophe from using this wonderful stored carbon energy source.

rhetorical

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Toles for the truthful toons. When are you going to cartoon the Great Blogger Army of Communist China employed by Dictator Hu Jin Tao - The stuff they write in comments proclaiming how great authoritarianism is and how wonderful it is to trample on Human rights is quite funny.

Posted by: MoonChain | March 7, 2011 1:31 AM | Report abuse

And, deniers: The climate evidence isn't perfect, but the overwhelming preponderance is on my side, and it PREDICTED your increasingly erratic behavior. --Tom Toles

No spittle intended but the AGW cure today appears to be ten dollar per gallon gas and twelve dollar diesel and jet fuel and forty cent a kilowatt hour electric and three fold increase in nat gas prices world wide. What will that do to the world economy today?

Please post the paper predicting increased erratic behavior from those that want empirical proof of the catastrophe from using this wonderful stored carbon energy source.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 12:44 AM | Report abuse

The situation in China is different from that in the Middle East and North Africa regions. Similar incidents will not occur in China. China is enjoying prosperous economic development with its people eager for stability. The protest and petition is nothing but incitement and rumor of Western media.

Posted by: ettvyou | March 7, 2011 12:29 AM | Report abuse

China is enjoying prosperous economic development with its people eager for stability. The protest and petition is nothing but incitement and rumor of Western media. The situation in China is different from that in the Middle East and North Africa regions. Similar incidents will not occur in China.

Posted by: ettvyou | March 7, 2011 12:27 AM | Report abuse

China is enjoying prosperous economic development with its people eager for stability. The protest and petition is nothing but incitement and rumor of Western media. The situation in China is different from that in the Middle East and North Africa regions. Similar incidents will not occur in China.

Posted by: ettvyou | March 7, 2011 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Parkers 'proof' of the incorrect conclusions of Roger Pielke Sr et al about "Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends." is to reduce the sample data set even further. This is logical from a statistical analysis point of but not from an empirical point of discussion. Satellite measurements show a reversal in warming trend but papers by the dozens reporting this trend are ignored by popular media while questionable papers concluding a trend in slightly increased moisture in rain storm events are hyped by the media for days.

Parkers rebuttal did not address AT ALL the other important point of Pielke's paper that there is no upward trend in higher high temperatures but only a trend in higher averaged low temperature readings. There should be an upward trend in high temperature readings according to all IPCC reports to date.

Pielke's paper is but one of hundreds of papers questioning the validity of attributing all of the observed warming trend of the last 100 years to human causes. Modern analysis of world temperature has been entirely in a period of warming after a period of significant cooling despite a continued increase in CO2 output.

The one global surface hotspot driving increased global temperatures is occurring near Greenland and many scientists believe this is due to long term variations in ocean heat storage and release events. There are hundreds of scientists from many fields of study that disagree with the absolute conclusions from a handful of climatologists there are in the world today.

The IPCC reports are not as dire in their conclusions as their summaries. There are many degrees of acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of these few climatologists and world politicians. Telling you to jump to the conclusions of Pielke's report is a tongue in cheek satire of the popular cultures unwillingness to thoroughly study this issue.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 7, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

The lack of unions does not imply lower wages Toles...that is your viewpoint...many nonunion jobs make just as much if not more than those 'forced' to join the union.

Funny thing about Fate.

Posted by: bertzel

Historically, unions raised wages and the levels of benefits for their members, and non-union companies had to do the same in order to compete for workers, hence non-union workers making "as much if not more" in the same industry. However, without unions as a part of that equation, there would not have been that raising of compensation and standard of living across the board for all those workers.

Now, whether getting rid of unions NOW means lower wages in the future, given the weak state of unions today, is another story. One could argue it's happening anyways right now as things are already, seeing the income disparities in America and stagnation of wages we've seen as unions have represented less and less of the workforce, which would of course make all this sudden union-bashing a cynical attempt to utterly destroy an already weakened supporter of your political opponents. But that would be silly so forget I said anything.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 6, 2011 11:46 PM | Report abuse

The lack of unions does not imply lower wages Toles...that is your viewpoint...many nonunion jobs make just as much if not more than those 'forced' to join the union.
Funny thing about Fate.
Posted by: bertzel

My Comment...
I was there. I am a graduate of the prestigious Henry Ford Trade School.
I graduated as a Tool and Die Maker and became a union member of the UAW Union.
While Henry Ford was aware of the need for sufficient wages in order that his employees would be able to buy his automobiles; it was not until the unions became strong enough to demand fair wages that factory workers joined the middle class.
Without leverage, people are forced to work at poverty level wages when there is a surplus of labor. As long as there are poverty level wages anywhere in the world, corporations can maintain a labor surplus.
There is no longer nationalism in the USA that provides support for the welfare of the nation.
Welfare has become a dirty word as people become self-centered and sociopathic. They think they are self-sufficient when the fact of the matter is that they depend on the ability of their nation to provide reasonable wages that cover the cost of living.
The "frog in the frying pan" disaster allows people to ignore the fact that their wages are being undermined by raising prices, higher taxes and hidden costs. The loss of a job, sickness or bad luck can force people into poverty one at a time until it is a national disaster.
When the working people lose their buying power, the demand side of economics fails then the supply side of economics fails and the nation is destitute.
Dave



Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 6, 2011 10:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious Mr. Toles, why do you seem to be drawn to and repelled by stirring the crazy pot? You seem to bea pragmatic and reasonable person. What is the interest in fighting crazy with fact when reality is an alternate universe for climate change deniers?


Posted by: EarlyBird1 | March 6, 2011 9:55 PM | Report abuse

You want to know where the beef is runner???
I ATE it!

Posted by: bertzel | March 6, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

~~The idea that a few maverick scientists are correct and all the others are off base is simply not how modern science works. If there are any real mavericks, they are the ones who proposed the idea of AGW 100 years ago, when it wasn't on anyone else's radar screen. 100 years of accumulated evidence shows they were essentially correct. The scientific controversy happened 50-100 years ago; now we face a political controversy disguised as science.
Posted by: e30m42 | March 6, 2011 8:33 PM~~

I agree : )

Posted by: bertzel | March 6, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Mr. Toles. You and the science of AGW/CC are on very solid ground. Nothing is "proved" with absolute certainty. But the science of AGW is very good, improving, internally consistent, and supported by 97% of climate scientists. The resistance to AGW seems to be entirely ideologically based: "this can't possibly be happening because I don't believe in it." I'd respond that "it is happening, much as Al Gore said it would, and science shows this quite clearly."

In future generations, most people will look back and note that *we* knew and understood what was happening wrt AGW and that we refused to act decisively to prevent some really bad things from happening. Conservatives in the future will blame liberal policies as they always do. I think that we are not only failing to deal with AGW, but we are losing business opportunities to other countries (China, Japan, Canada, Scandinavian countries all thank us) simply because we refuse to compete. Now I have to say "this can't be happening."

It seems that Republicans are all about ideology. Mitt Romney states "Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for America's families." Show us how ObamaCare is bad if you possibly can. ObamaCare is very similar to the health care adopted in Massachusetts under Romney. ObamaCare extends health care coverage to 32 million people at no cost (CBO). How can it be bad? Scott Walker states that he must eliminate collective bargaining rights for public worker unions in WI to balance the state budget, but does not SHOW us why that is true. Unions are willing to negotiate their pay package, so Walker does not seem to be honest here.

"Where's the beef?"

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 6, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

gee
tony...your bs?

Posted by: bertzel | March 6, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

re Planet and the climate debate:

Yesterday Planet started the comments off with a reference to a 2007 paper by Roger Pielke Sr et al about "Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends."

Here is a link to the "official" comment by David Parker, submitted in May, 2008, five months after Pielke's paper was published.

pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321b.pdf

Parker said: "Prompted by Pielke et al.’s [2007] concerns, we have
provided an additional demonstration of the robustness of
global and hemispheric land surface air temperature series.
We have shown that Pielke et al.’s [2007] attribution of
changed temperature trends to local LULC changes is not
firmly based. We nevertheless agree with Pielke et al.
[2007] in aspirations for an improved global network
monitoring all Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)
Essential Climate Variables including....."

I think Parker is presenting data indicating Pielke's concerns are overblown, but agrees better monitoring is needed. Like planet, I focused on the conclusions. Science is best left to the experts.

One paper isn't going to change the AGW story at this point just as no one is going to discover Noah's ark on Mount Ararat.

That is the perhaps the crux of the climate debate. Science is best left to experts. There are always data that don't fit the theory perfectly. Scientists base theories not on a few pieces of data but on the entirety of the evidence--aka the big picture. And, assertions to the contrary, science is indeed based on consensus, and when 99% plus of scientists studying climate agree earth is warming and CO2 is the cause, the reasonable person accepts their conclusion. Scientists hash out disagreements through talks at conventions and peer-reviewed publications--and 99% then move on to new problems. They don't keep hashing over the same problem forever. 99% of climate scientists moved on from doubting global warming decades ago.

The idea that a few maverick scientists are correct and all the others are off base is simply not how modern science works. If there are any real mavericks, they are the ones who proposed the idea of AGW 100 years ago, when it wasn't on anyone else's radar screen. 100 years of accumulated evidence shows they were essentially correct. The scientific controversy happened 50-100 years ago; now we face a political controversy disguised as science.

Posted by: e30m42 | March 6, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to ignore the 'spit in the face', for now anyway...on second thought, no I won't.

I'm just wondering if anyone actually is aware of who 'instigated the spit fight' in the middle east.
I know I have seen a bit of the happenings...enough to see cause...

By the way Toles, democracy is an illusion.

As for your outtake...yeah, right.

The lack of unions does not imply lower wages Toles...that is your viewpoint...many nonunion jobs make just as much if not more than those 'forced' to join the union.

Funny thing about Fate.

Posted by: bertzel | March 6, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Trolls in NY Times and Wash Post may be paid speakers,
which is not free speech (or Democracy), anymore than
paid or manipulated votes is free from ...

Posted by: Tony-KS | March 6, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company