PDA

View Full Version : America's Rocky Relationship With the World


Bloggingheads
04-20-2008, 09:16 PM

bjkeefe
04-20-2008, 10:35 PM
Now, that diavlog sounded more like the sorts of debates we should be having on global warming and foreign policy. I suspect some commenters will see this as "two liberals agreeing." I saw it as two people fairly well in disagreement, but with some sanity at work in establishing a base from which to depart; to wit, global warming is a real problem and the US has a lot of work to do to get back in the good graces of the rest of the world.

I thought Eric sounded at times like he was trying to throw up roadblocks by being too "letter of the law," but it was probably useful to help strengthen the argument that Heather represented. I think the view Heather presented is a good estimation of what a Democratic administration will (be forced to) do, and the debate between these two showed how that's going to be a communication problem for the new Administration -- it just won't be that easy to succinctly state concrete differences between itself and the Bush Administration.

I also thought Eric was wrong to say we'd be at a disadvantage in global negotiations on dealing with emissions, etc., if we first started instituting some measures just within our own country. I think if we don't do at least something along those lines beforehand, China and India, among others, will find it easy to say, "Why should we do anything when the US won't? We're just starting to build our economies here." Whether that's specious or not is not really at issue. The question is, how much resonance will such a stance generate? I fear that it will work for them, and will end up defeating the talks or, at best, will result in a terribly watered-down agreement that will consist mostly of pledges.

Very good diavlog overall.

David Thomson
04-20-2008, 10:52 PM
Global warming hysteria is nothing more than a get rich scheme invented by rent seeking "elites." They are intellectual cowards who hide behind the walls of the ivy schools. Al Gore, Jr., for instance, has acquired millions of dollars since he jumped on the gravy train. Do you really want to know more about the scientific aspects concerning this issue? If so, you should visit the Planet Gore blog hosted by National Review. Chris Horner and Henry Payne are among the contributors. Here is a link:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

Isn't it about time Al Gore and his buddies were embarrassed into participating in a debate with those opposing global warming? Have you ever wondered why this hasn't already occurred? What are you waiting for? Why not demand it? It's time for the former vice president to put up---or shut up.

bjkeefe
04-20-2008, 11:10 PM
Global warming hysteria is nothing more than a get rich scheme invented by rent seeking "elites."

As I predicted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=74565&postcount=16) (second paragraph).

bkjazfan
04-20-2008, 11:28 PM
Al Gore with his 4 houses is a big hypocrite. Yeh, I know he greened his large home. Talking about big it looks that way with his expanded waistline. He's definitely living the good life.

John

AemJeff
04-20-2008, 11:31 PM
Al Gore with his 4 houses is a big hypocrite. Yeh, I know he greened his large home. Talking about big it looks that way with his expanded waistline. He's definitely living the good life.

John

What's up with the weird ad hominem? Is there a "therefore" coming at some point?

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 12:20 AM
What's up with the weird ad hominem? Is there a "therefore" coming at some point?

Save your breath, Jeff. The denier camp's argument always boils down to this: Al Gore is fat, therefore global warming is a hoax.

Baltimoron
04-21-2008, 01:50 AM
I have to disagree with you, and Hurlburt.

1. It's like managed trade vs. free trade: a national policy will create a web of interest groups more committed to the current policy than creating the best international system. Any president should restore respect for making IGOs more accountable and transparent by first using an IGO to advocate for a treaty, and then work within that IGO for passage.

2. Any president also has to find a way to tell the Second and Third Worlds, that they cannot have the same sort of profligate development the US has, and that the US has to change its ways, too. That's where the example has to start. The US has to be willing to talk about what it will give up within the international eco-system, to show what others have to do.

3. American conservatives have to abandon their knee-jerk opposition to IGOs by constructively proposing solutions, that will make IGOs accountable and transparent enough for them to work with the IGOs.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 02:18 AM
Joseph:

Isn't your point 2 essentially an agreement with Heather and me? Particularly:

... and that the US has to change its ways, too. That's where the example has to start.

Baltimoron
04-21-2008, 02:30 AM
Yes, and that means working within the IGOs it created to lead during the Cold War, but now as just one state. Passing unilateral laws for a photo-op or a partisan maneuver, instead of follow-on legislation agreed at the IGO level, are the worst courses of action.

InJapan
04-21-2008, 04:15 AM
A somewhat more substantive than average diavlog, though I think it may have been better if they would have disagreed a bit more.

D. Thomson - that part of NGO is one of their weaker offerings, IMO. The problem with some of what goes on that blog, and with your arguement, is that they (you) too much want to define "global warming" as synonymous with Al Gore. Al Gore has his own problems wrt image and persona and IMO is not the best spokesman for talking about anthropogenic climate change. However, the scientific basis of ACC is not dependent upon Al Gore.

Secondly, what all too often happens to the non-scientist (whether journalist or layman) when hearing about a certain published paper or research is that the ongoing dialog between the scientists is omitted, and the journalist/layman will come away with the wrong impression. Example would be sea level rises. There are all sorts of different calculations on what the sea level rise will be by the year 2100, and how much Greenland and WAIS melting will play into that. So, as happened this last week when a couple of new papers were published about Greenland and ice dynamics, your linked site at NGO writes on these papers... but (1) tries to conclude too much from them, and (2) writes off as non-apocalyptic the melt off of Greenland just because the amount is limited to less than a majority of the ice sheet. What the NGO writers casually write off is that there are millions and millions of people around the world that live only a few feet above sea level (by coasts) and that, even with the limits of melt water as indicated by last week's published papers, the expected sea level rise is still catastrophic for them.

However, the writers at NGO and you got to ding Al Gore, which I guess is the most important thing to do in life...

bjkeefe - have to disagree with you about Eric's raised issues with current US legislative initiatives. If you look at multiparty negotiations as needing both carrots and sticks (and perhaps you wouldn't agree with that...), then there are damn few sticks the US has to bring to the table when it sits down with the BRIC nations. The only strong bargaining chip we have is the "Do you want us to play?" poise.

If the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is serious enough to have a multiparty treaty with every major nation in the world participating then the US needs to find some way of plying concessions.

On the rest of the diavlog - Heather is still hung up on Gitmo and supposed "torture". It is wrong IMO to equate imprisonment with "torture". The Gitmo inmates are prisoners, caught on a battlefield. They fall into a gray area as some sort of "non-lawful" combatant. Heather is deluded to think that these people would have treated any US captive (say in Afghanistan) per the Geneva convention and I for one do not feel the US should be bound to treat them under that treaty as some sort of prophylactic quid pro quo.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 04:44 AM
InJapan:

bjkeefe - have to disagree with you about Eric's raised issues with current US legislative initiatives. If you look at multiparty negotiations as needing both carrots and sticks (and perhaps you wouldn't agree with that...), then there are damn few sticks the US has to bring to the table when it sits down with the BRIC nations. The only strong bargaining chip we have is the "Do you want us to play?" poise.

I'm not against carrots and sticks. I just think that without the US doing something concrete before trying to get developing nations to sign on, their attitude will be, "Yeah, sure. You enjoyed your century of industrialization and car culture. And now you want us not to do it." It's going to be hard to get these nations to do anything in any case, and I think without us showing some real leadership, they'll just dismiss us out of hand (but much more diplomatically, of course).

It's conceivable that we could go in all hard-nosed and say, "Look, we're not going to be the first ones to suffer when things get bad, so you better agree with us now, or the hell with you." In fact, I am afraid that's what will happen.

Ultimately, I'm halfway convinced that no one will do anything of significance for at least another decade, and the only thing left to do will be to see if it's going to be as bad as predicted.

More optimistically, I am inclined to believe that if we can ever get going on this, the push for new technologies could yield real surprises and large economic benefits. The key is to get going, and not to worry about who wins what in the opening round of the negotiations. It's not like we're not all in this together. Sometimes it's hard to remember, especially lately, but "cooperation" can be an operative word in world affairs.

InJapan
04-21-2008, 05:47 AM
InJapan:


It's conceivable that we could go in all hard-nosed and say, "Look, we're not going to be the first ones to suffer when things get bad, so you better agree with us now, or the hell with you." In fact, I am afraid that's what will happen.

Ultimately, I'm halfway convinced that no one will do anything of significance for at least another decade, and the only thing left to do will be to see if it's going to be as bad as predicted.

That is my expectation. Not just the US (along with Canada), but the energy exporting nations (OPEC, Russia) have more to lose in the short term (in controlling CO2 emissions), while the India and China have less to lose in the short term (from ignoring CO2 emissions), but more in the long term (in regards to serious effects of climate change.)

As I see it, the parties' vested interests lay in different directions, and it is hard for me to see any real reduction in CO2 coming because of this.... and the fact that we use fossil fuels because we need them, and it will take decades to roll out enough nuclear/solar/wind to replace just coal, not to mention oil and natural gas.

Agree that bringing alternative energy sources online and rebuilding our civilization to use them is full of potential economic plusses, but we must also be realistic about the costs, which will be considerable, and the time required.

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 07:32 AM
I never would have thought that Heather was such a admirer of Hitler.When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.

-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Until there is actually some confirmation, to the conclusions reached from the various models used to guess at the nature of the future climate, I have a hard time understanding just how far we should restrict or ability to grow uneconomically, by burdening the system with what will be undoubtedly costly programs. It seems that the warming trend has really been on a hiatus for the last 5-6 years yet CO2 production has continued to increase. After what period of time is it no longer considered weather, by the climate doomsayers, when the facts belie the model and you know become climate?

bkjazfan
04-21-2008, 08:46 AM
Sorry, no college here. I can still post though, "freedom of speech."

John

johnmarzan
04-21-2008, 09:18 AM
Now, that diavlog sounded more like the sorts of debates we should be having on global warming and foreign policy. I suspect some commenters will see this as "two liberals agreeing."

haha... no, i'm glad eric was there to rein in heather, and wasn't drinking in the same kool aid fountain.

I also thought Eric was wrong to say we'd be at a disadvantage in global negotiations on dealing with emissions, etc., if we first started instituting some measures just within our own country. I think if we don't do at least something along those lines beforehand, China and India, among others, will find it easy to say, "Why should we do anything when the US won't? We're just starting to build our economies here."

i'm sorry bj, but like anne applebaum said, in many countries, the desire not to be poor is, at the moment, stronger than the desire to breathe clean air. just look at smog filled beijing.

if don't include the biggest polluters like china and india in the emissions treaty, then you punish the economies of those who are willing to follow the rules and sacrifice.

if you put self restrictions on yourself while others are let off the hook, you will see businesses in the US move to other countries where there are no environmental restrictions that increase the cost of doing business, like china and india.

AemJeff
04-21-2008, 09:25 AM
Sorry, no college here. I can still post though, "freedom of speech."

John

Oh. I will post with short words then. What does fat have to do with it?

Bloggin' Noggin
04-21-2008, 10:59 AM
Now, that diavlog sounded more like the sorts of debates we should be having on global warming and foreign policy. I suspect some commenters will see this as "two liberals agreeing." I saw it as two people fairly well in disagreement, but with some sanity at work in establishing a base from which to depart; to wit, global warming is a real problem and the US has a lot of work to do to get back in the good graces of the rest of the world.

Hi Brendan,
I guess some commenters would see it as "two liberals agreeing", but I don't believe Posner is a liberal. He's someone who believes in the rule of law and who understands some of the realities of government. Unfortunately, in the Rove-Bush era, that is apparently enough to make him a "liberal" and therefore next-door to a traitor, but I'd call him a reality-based conservative (based on his appearances on BHtv).

It's a sad day when one party is defined by contempt for the rule of law and rejection of objective reality.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-21-2008, 11:20 AM
So if Hitler didn't jump off a cliff, everyone else should jump off the cliff to show that they disagreed?
Pisc, some of your comments are insightful, reasonable and a helpful addition to debate (though even then often rather tendentiously expressed). But sometimes they seem like sheer nonsense.

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 12:15 PM
So if Hitler didn't jump off a cliff, everyone else should jump off the cliff to show that they disagreed?
Pisc, some of your comments are insightful, reasonable and a helpful addition to debate (though even then often rather tendentiously expressed). But sometimes they seem like sheer nonsense.That sort of depends on te fellow commenters ability to keep general track of the general themes of my previous arguments. As I fully believe that a dictatorial regime, here in America, is more likely to come from the left than the right; the more the left emulates the behavior of the policies of the The National Socialist German Worker's Party the more concerned I become.

bkjazfan
04-21-2008, 12:30 PM
He's using more than his share of the world's resources by having multiple residences and eating too much. I may not have studied logic but I do try to use common sense. However, I realize many think that's OK since he is looking out for the little people. In Los Angeles we too have our share of "limousine liberals."

John

look
04-21-2008, 12:31 PM
That sort of depends on te fellow commenters ability to keep general track of the general themes of my previous arguments. As I fully believe that a dictatorial regime, here in America, is more likely to come from the left than the right; the more the left emulates the behavior of the policies of the The National Socialist German Worker's Party the more concerned I become.

So how many of Jonah's books did you buy to give as gifts? ;-)

look
04-21-2008, 12:34 PM
He's using more than his share of the world's resources by having multiple residences and eating too much. I may not have studied logic but I do try to use common sense. However, I realize many think that's OK since he is looking out for the little people. In Los Angeles we too have our share of "limousine liberals."

He's sacrificing his body to a greater cause eating at all those consciousness-raising dinners, don't cha know?

AemJeff
04-21-2008, 12:36 PM
The question is: "What difference does any of that make?" It has no bearing on what the truth is. I'm sorry that "ad hominem" isn't an acceptable term, but whether you like it or not, attacking the messenger isn't a particularly effective method of argument. Al Gore can defend (or not) his personal habits as he wishes. What he's said doesn't stand or fall on that basis.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-21-2008, 01:02 PM
Unfortunately, Hitler probably said many true things. So the inference "Hitler said P, therefore P is false" is clearly invalid.
If he had said "wash your hands before you eat," I would not regard his having said it as evidence against it. And if people all wash their hands before they eat, I wouldn't regard it as creeping fascism.

If there's something wrong with what Heather said, there ought to be some way to show that that relies on valid inferences. Pointing out that Hitler said something that sounded sort of similar is neither here nor there.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 05:17 PM
InJapan:

Agree that bringing alternative energy sources online and rebuilding our civilization to use them is full of potential economic plusses, but we must also be realistic about the costs, which will be considerable, and the time required.

I don't dispute that. I do, however, think we're going to have to do it sooner or later, and the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become.

I also think there's sometimes a mistaken assumption underlying the debate over getting started, which is that we have to do everything all at once, with a consequent giant bill. I am in favor of doing a lot of obvious things, right now, that aren't particularly onerous while we figure out the next steps. We could, for example, implement some incentives against gas-guzzling vehicles, say, by boosting CAFE standards and/or adding a pollution tax to low-MPG vehicles. The government could set a good example and probably have some real market effect by preferring green computers and CFLs, for another example. We could do what Ireland did (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/02/once-again-irish-are-saving.html), and tax plastic shopping bags, for a third.

I don't want to argue the merits of these specific examples, and I acknowledge that, taken alone, they are insufficient. But I think the imagined costs of changing everything about our energy usage habits -- at once -- leads to a mindset that is used to argue against doing anything.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 05:20 PM
BN:

I don't believe Posner is a liberal.

Nor do I. I was just trying to point out how he would likely be viewed by some, since he has committed the apostasies of admitting anthropogenic global warming is real and our foreign policy has flaws.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 05:28 PM
john:

I agree that the desire for increased wealth and improved living standards are powerful drivers. I also agree that we can't let China and India off the hook.

The distinction between letting them off the hook and what I'm advocating is real, though. I'm sorry I'm not making it clearly enough, so let me try it again.

I am not saying that we should impose restrictions on ourselves and accept no action from China and India in perpetuity. I am saying that I believe we'd have more clout in negotiations if we began by taking some first steps. This would give us the moral high ground and diffuse their certain response if we didn't -- that the US has enjoyed the luxury of irresponsible behavior and only now wants others to clean up their acts.

I grant that in the short term, such first steps by the US could cause additional business to move to overseas. But I consider the problem we're trying to address much larger in magnitude than these short term problems, and I also think that if we do have a concrete difference in, say, emissions standards, we'll have more leverage over other countries to insist that they match ours, or suffer restrictions on the goods they'd like to sell us.

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 05:42 PM
Actually I haven't bought it. I didn't need Mr Goldberg's book to reinforce beliefs that I came to independently; and if you care to check I raised the argument some months before I was even aware of his book. But it's good that so many others, at least those whose minds are still capable of absorbing reality, have purchased it and are now aware of the the facts.


Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

- Justice Louis Brandeis How true then and even more so today with the ever expanding nanny state.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 05:42 PM
john:

An afterthought: You started your comment by saying:

haha... no, i'm glad eric was there to rein in heather, and wasn't drinking in the same kool aid fountain.

I'm glad to hear that you saw a difference, and did not equate the two as I suspect some conservatives might. However, to say that Heather is drinking the Kool-Aid is a little unfair. It's one thing to say this about someone who clings to a belief that has been rebutted, or which has no basis in fact. It's another thing entirely to say this about believing something for which there is considerable evidence, and which a large majority of those with credentials support.

I grant that some aspects of the idea of global warming are less certain than others, and I grant that some have a skepticism that is not unreasonable. But saying someone is drinking the Kool-Aid is to say that the idea is a crackpot notion, and that's really not the case here.

I may be making too much of this. You may have just tossed off what's an all-too-common figure of speech. But in case not, I wanted to make that point.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 05:45 PM
pisc:

... the more the left emulates the behavior of the policies of the The National Socialist German Worker's Party the more concerned I become.

Could you give some examples? That is, what specifically has the left done lately that worries you that we're moving towards a dictatorial regime?

I emphasize "lately" because I'm not really interested in debating, say, FDR or Woodrow Wilson.

bkjazfan
04-21-2008, 05:46 PM
Who says Gore is speaking the truth other than the Academy Awards and some libs?

John

Wonderment
04-21-2008, 06:19 PM
Who says Gore is speaking the truth other than the Academy Awards and some libs?

Um, overwhelming consensus of global scientific community?

ohcomeon
04-21-2008, 06:19 PM
piscivorous - Does this worry you as much as the dirty, liberal NAZIs?
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/17972444.html

harkin
04-21-2008, 06:22 PM
Why should europe be the only place Rumsfeld, Yoo, Cheney etc fear to visit post-Bush? I've heard so many liberals saying they should be charged with war crimes in the last six years I'm sure travel won't be necessary if the libs really follow-through on some of their rhetoric.

Conyers, Moran and the rest won't have to go into an unused government basement to set up their kangaroo courts this time (remember when these fools were calling Conyers "Mr Chairman" when what was going on was a complete charade? CSPAN pulled the plug after they figured it out to cries of "conspiracy!").

If Obama wins, these are the people who will be running the government. Comedy Central!

InJapan
04-21-2008, 06:44 PM
I never would have thought that Heather was such a admirer of Hitler. Until there is actually some confirmation, to the conclusions reached from the various models used to guess at the nature of the future climate, I have a hard time understanding just how far we should restrict or ability to grow uneconomically, by burdening the system with what will be undoubtedly costly programs. It seems that the warming trend has really been on a hiatus for the last 5-6 years yet CO2 production has continued to increase. After what period of time is it no longer considered weather, by the climate doomsayers, when the facts belie the model and you know become climate?


If you are interested in the temperature records, there are essentially two approaches to determining "how long is enough" to evaluate the goodness of a prediction. The first would be one based on statistics and the measuring data and the analysis thereof. Perhaps the best blog that addresses this is Tamino's site - e.g., the recent entry on Autocorrelation (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/autocorrelation/#more-646).

The other approach could be based on the actual physical system characteristics. That is, we know about processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation) and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. As we know these processes work over longer period of times, say 8 to 30 years, we also know then to look for changes from once period to the other (so, say we compare one 30 year period to another.) Such insight into the actual physical process would inform us of time frames to use to measure change.

I am not a climatologist and don't intend to play one on the internet, but it is straightforward to see that a 5 or 6 year period is of limited use in determining long term model accuracy.

However, I am also reminded that the theoretical foundation of anthropogenic climate change is based on much more solid reasoning than short term temperature measurements.

To answer both your and bjkeef's thoughts about what we should do - I spend a good chunk of my online time budget reading various resource-issue blogs. There seems to be building a rather compelling argument that the US needs to deal with declining availability of petroleum and natural gas in the coming years (and then coal decline a couple of decades after that.) In light of this it would seem to be in the US's best self interest to work as hard as possible on building up alternate energy sources (solar, wind, nuclear) and relying less on fossil fuels.

As such I think President Bush could have, should have, taken a more aggressive approach in dealing with CO2 emissions. In the past several years the US energy policy has been coupled to the agriculture policy (though ethanol subsidies). Rather, what we need to do is couple the environmental policy (including climate change) to energy policy, to security policy.

Finally, I wish that bloggingheads.tv would have some commentors discussing resource depletion (e.g., peak oil) and it impacts on both economics and foreign policy. Climate change has been touched on (a few times), but I don't remember any discussion about resources.

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 06:46 PM
Well said, InJapan.

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 07:00 PM
yea it's based on extrapolations of data backwards and then using those extrapolations to project forward in models that re not sophisticated enough to account for cloud interaction because we don't as of yet have sufficient computer power to throw at 50 Sq mile blocks, the point at which cloud interactions can be modeled, instead of the 500 sq mile blocks that they currently use. Garbage in garbage out

cragger
04-21-2008, 07:30 PM
There seems to be some assumption that dealing with global warming is a lose-lose game. A smart country, and in particular a smart US would realize both that it offers considerable opportunities for us and that it presents us with costs of our own if we fail to adress it.

It is just patently false to hold that changing our current patterns of energy use and pollutant emission is contrary to the best interests of the US. In fact dealing with our considerable energy problem would both be extremely valuable to the US economically as well as helping preserve what is one sweet piece of the Earth to find yourself living on. The citizens of many countries live in deserts, have few basic natural resources, can't feed themselves off their miserable land, or have to deal with some really nasty tropical parasites and diseases. We don't, until we screw it up.

Project this same debate back to the beginning of the age of oil instead of the beginning of the end of that age. Given the same political polarization and powerful interests lobbying hard to maximize their short term profits that we see now, and you would be hearing people shouting that the automobile will destroy America, that our economy is built around horse farms, buggy builders, and harness makers. The leather industry will be ruined! They want to tax us to death to build special roads that cars need!!

Times change, the economy changes. Smart countries, like smart companies try to get ahead of that curve. Losers refuse, drag their feet, and get left behind.

The US imports over 10 million barrels of oil per day. At current prices that sucks 1.17 billion dollars per day out of our economy. We spend tons more on a military and a foreign policy dominated by the need to keep that oil flowing. This is extremely profitable in the short term for certain entrenched interests, but hardly in the long term best interests of the country.

There is a considerable overlap in the technologies and policies that would reduce our emissions, and those that would eliminate our dependance on oil and ultimately on fossil fuels. A smart country would be the world leader in development of sustainable alternative energy. Begun years ago when these problems became evident, we would have a much more secure society with an economy not held hostage by the need to secure oil imports. We probably wouldn't have this festering cancer of a Mid-East mess. We would all be far richer with a dollar much stronger in providing us access to resources, goods, and services provided worldwide. We would have new industries positioned to both serve us domestically and provide the perfect carrot in international relations.

Energy is the ultimate wealth. We are not net producers, we are net consumers. Which way does wealth flow? There is only one way this path leads, through our current dependance on the fossil past, and in the case of the US to a dependance on other countries, onward to a final exhaustion. Look ahead and be smart, or dig our heels in and be stupid.

Crap, I forgot, Al Gore is a Democrat! I stand refuted.

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 07:51 PM
If you read the article you would understand that this is just some some following there deeply held religious beliefs; doing as the lord admonishes "to seek out the lions den"At a news conference Monday afternoon, Zirkle said he agreed to address the group and talk about his experience as state's attorney. He also said he took the opportunity to preach the gospel and handed out commentaries on the life of Jesus.

“If you want to witness to people, if you want to share your message with people, you have to talk to them,” said Zirkle. “ Not exactly my cup of tee. But then again neither is Castro's executioner Che Guevara (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCja99KpjWU&) someone to be admired.

AemJeff
04-21-2008, 08:04 PM
Who says Gore is speaking the truth other than the Academy Awards and some libs?

John

My argument has nothing to do with that. But, since you raise the point - most professionals working in the relevant fields seem to endorse Gore's arguments. The better question is who, not funded by AEI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute) or repeating arguments made by those who are, is suggesting that he isn't?

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 08:47 PM
Well he British Court system distinctly says that he isn't http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm .

AemJeff
04-21-2008, 09:07 PM
Pisc, did you bother to read that article before making your sweeping claim? That's pretty marginal stuff (and by the way, the guy on your side of the argument lost) - though better than your last attempt (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=66577#poststop).

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 09:17 PM
I'm still hearing nothing but crickets here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=74648&postcount=36) ...

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 09:53 PM
Really when a court convicts you on 9 charges the other guy lost. Did he get all he wanted no. Is Vice President Gore using hyperbole and lies to sell fear yes.

AemJeff
04-21-2008, 09:59 PM
If that's what lets you sleep at night, then: ok, dude. I would recommend actually reading the article, as well as looking up the definition of the verb to convict.

johnmarzan
04-21-2008, 10:53 PM
I am not saying that we should impose restrictions on ourselves and accept no action from China and India in perpetuity. I am saying that I believe we'd have more clout in negotiations if we began by taking some first steps. This would give us the moral high ground and diffuse their certain response if we didn't -- that the US has enjoyed the luxury of irresponsible behavior and only now wants others to clean up their acts.

I'm sorry but you can't force or shame them with "moral high ground" into agreeing with something that will hurt their economic self interest. "global warming" is one of those abastract or theoretical ideas the poor doesn't prioritize. putting food on the table and getting out of poverty are the number one goals.

to their minds, if the west (aka white people) wants to take steps to stop global warming, they're fine with it. just as long as it doesn't hamper their own ability to generate wealth.

(china for example is willing to pollute it's air and water and deal with any rogue regimes (like sudan which is responsible for genocide) to satisfy it's thirst for oil, you think they'd let "global warming" concerns get in the way of doing business?)

by the time they start considering such actions (oh, maybe after 50-100 yrs.) it might be "too late".

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 11:14 PM
John:

Even though your comment appears below one by AemJeff, it looks like you're responding to me, so I am responding to your post.

I agree that countries poorer than the US will take the attitude that you describe. I would say that only strengthens my belief that we need to lead the way on this. I would also say that if we can't get any compliance from, say China and India, we would be much more within our rights to impose trade restrictions on them in retaliation if we could show that we were ahead of them on taking steps.

I'll also repeat what has been said both by me and by others: the US is not going to be the first country to suffer serious problems due to global warming. Therefore, I suspect other countries are not going to be as intransigent as you worry.

piscivorous
04-21-2008, 11:26 PM
If you are interested in the temperature records, there are essentially two approaches to determining "how long is enough" to evaluate the goodness of a prediction. The first would be one based on statistics and the measuring data and the analysis thereof. Perhaps the best blog that addresses this is Tamino's site - e.g., the recent entry on Autocorrelation (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/autocorrelation/#more-646). It looks good on paper and with all the neat math symbols but it falls far short of the actual kinds of computations that they are using in the models much of it is based on the deferential equations of fluid dynamics. When I was at Texas A&M I spent a couple of semesters translating the poorly documented Fortran code of these rather algorithmically simple concepts of least squares and linear regression to the much more complex matrix manipulation of differential equations. I used as system called TEX to write both the textual documentation to explain the function of the mathematical process, the task each specific module of the routine preformed, and individual blocks of code. Just note that in both methods described the author makes this statement Note that the probable error is nearly 10 times as large as the estimate itself.

The other approach could be based on the actual physical system characteristics. That is, we know about processes such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation) and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. As we know these processes work over longer period of times, say 8 to 30 years, we also know then to look for changes from once period to the other (so, say we compare one 30 year period to another.) Such insight into the actual physical process would inform us of time frames to use to measure change. Most things in nature are cyclic; both physical and biological. The earth has been warmer than it is now and colder than it is now. Its atmosphere has contained fewer parts per million CO2 and higher concentrations throughout the millennia. Correlation is not necessarily causation and a flawed model that gives you the returns you wish to see, whether by conscious choice or a mistake of good faith and wrong parameterization is proof of nothing.

I am not a climatologist and don't intend to play one on the internet, but it is straightforward to see that a 5 or 6 year period is of limited use in determining long term model accuracy.

However, I am also reminded that the theoretical foundation of anthropogenic climate change is based on much more solid reasoning than short term temperature measurements. I’m not a climate scientist either but I do know just how much one can game a model that requires as many parameters as the current models do.

To answer both your and bjkeef's thoughts about what we should do - I spend a good chunk of my online time budget reading various resource-issue blogs. There seems to be building a rather compelling argument that the US needs to deal with declining availability of petroleum and natural gas in the coming years (and then coal decline a couple of decades after that.) In light of this it would seem to be in the US's best self interest to work as hard as possible on building up alternate energy sources (solar, wind, nuclear) and relying less on fossil fuels. I have no problems with the general proposition that we to curtail our carbon footprint and that we need to lesson our dependence on foreign sources of oil. But the first stab the politicians have taken to do this, namely bio-fuels is presenting a unique set of problems in and of themselves. It is foolish to turn food into fuel as the world is beginning to understand. I would prefer a more reasoned approach to moving away from foreign energy sources than the fear based philosophy of immediacy that the current proponents of doing something whether it is right or wrong are advocating.
As such I think President Bush could have, should have, taken a more aggressive approach in dealing with CO2 emissions. In the past several years the US energy policy has been coupled to the agriculture policy (though ethanol subsidies). Rather, what we need to do is couple the environmental policy (including climate change) to energy policy, to security policy. The problem is even more complex as it now involves farm and trade policy as well.

Finally, I wish that bloggingheads.tv would have some commentors discussing resource depletion (e.g., peak oil) and it impacts on both economics and foreign policy. Climate change has been touched on (a few times), but I don't remember any discussion about resources. I have no problem with the idea of having a resource depletion expert on; but before he/she gets into decision of “peek oil theory” I would like them to clarify which era of peek oil they are addressing, The 1920s one the 1940s on the 1970s one or the 1980s one or the theoretical one in the immediate future. (Dates are in general but the theory is not new by a long thought)

bjkeefe
04-21-2008, 11:45 PM
... much of it is based on the deferential equations ...

The arrogant mathematicians among us object.

InJapan
04-22-2008, 01:23 AM
I’m not a climate scientist either but I do know just how much one can game a model that requires as many parameters as the current models do.

What you appear to be skipping is that the concern about CO2 and the physics behind those concerns precedes any of the computerized global climate models. That is why I appreciate Spencer Weart 's web writeup "The Discover of Global Warming" (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/), in that he highlights these developments quite apart from delving into the large climate models (some of which he covers also.)

You also seem to be dismissive of the work that has been done on said suspect climate models. It has been shown that progressive generations of the large models have been getting better in modeling the historical record, and thus I think you are too quickly throwing them out as if they have no value.

On a possible future guest discussing resource depletion - you have also formed some very strong opinions it appears, but again I'd hope you'd to be a little bit more willing to open yourself up and accept that you just might learn something. As evidenced by the number of postings in this thread, as a possible set of topics these (global warming, resource depletion/competition) may be much more interesting to the blogginghead viewers than certain other topics (which often go minimally commented upon.)

Wonderment
04-22-2008, 01:32 AM
Finally, I wish that bloggingheads.tv would have some commentors discussing resource depletion (e.g., peak oil) and it impacts on both economics and foreign policy.

And peak everything else.

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 01:49 AM
... for a response to this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=74648&postcount=36).

Acknowledging that you spoke in haste would be fine, too.

johnmarzan
04-22-2008, 02:41 AM
john:

An afterthought: You started your comment by saying:

"haha... no, i'm glad eric was there to rein in heather, and wasn't drinking in the same kool aid fountain."

I'm glad to hear that you saw a difference, and did not equate the two as I suspect some conservatives might.

i have no problems with two left/liberals debating. example is the old reliable team of bob, and mickey (the so-called "fake democrat")

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 02:50 AM
"global warming" is one of those abastract or theoretical ideas the poor doesn't prioritize. putting food on the table and getting out of poverty are the number one goals.

A graphic worth noting (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-lede.graphic.ready.html). As it applies to our discussion, I point out that the percentage of Chinese people who are concerned about global warming is about the same as the percentage of American people who share this concern. Both sides, admittedly and sadly, are too low.

(The linked-to graphic was published as a sidebar to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-lede-t.html).)

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 02:52 AM
It's instructive to learn that you consider Eric a "leftist." But thanks again for not completely lumping him together with Heather.

johnmarzan
04-22-2008, 04:03 AM
It's instructive to learn that you consider Eric a "leftist." But thanks again for not completely lumping him together with Heather.

i never said eric was a lefty. i actually don't know much about him or his leanings.

i just said that i have no problems with the idea of two libs debating, but it will all depend on:

a) who these two are. for example, i will skip the next DV if jacqueline shire and Joseph Cirincione are paired again. better find new partners for each other.

b) topic.

jstrummer
04-22-2008, 09:19 AM
Heather Hurlburt continues to be my favorite left-of-center foreign policy guru. I'm deeply skeptical of the promise of international law, but she does an excellent job of explaining how international law is a process that constrains behavior even if it is not, strictly speaking, law in the sense of domestic law.

I have to say I found myself a little perplexed by Posner who is, I know, a very sharp guy, but who sort of seemed perplexed about that line of argument. Or if not perplexed, that skeptical in a way he could not explain. Yes, int'l law can be either evaded or narrowly construed, and so ends up not being effective in cases where member nations don't want it to be effective.

But that doesn't mean it has no force whatsoever, as Heather pointed out.

Also, I don't think Heather was overselling the changes that a Democratic administration would have. She admitted that the Democratic administration probably would not give back any powers Bush had claimed for the executive. But I think just having an administration for the next 8 years that doesn't push the line on bizarre and extra-constitutional interpretations of the law is a victory of sorts.

piscivorous
04-22-2008, 11:30 AM
Heather Hurlburt continues to be my favorite left-of-center foreign policy guru. I'm deeply skeptical of the promise of international law, but she does an excellent job of explaining how international law is a process that constrains behavior even if it is not, strictly speaking, law in the sense of domestic law.

I have to say I found myself a little perplexed by Posner who is, I know, a very sharp guy, but who sort of seemed perplexed about that line of argument. Or if not perplexed, that skeptical in a way he could not explain. Yes, int'l law can be either evaded or narrowly construed, and so ends up not being effective in cases where member nations don't want it to be effective.

But that doesn't mean it has no force whatsoever, as Heather pointed out.isn't that just another way of saying that the court is just a tool of the member nation and only servers the justice that them member nations desire. Reminds me of fair and equal application of the Jim Crow laws.


Also, I don't think Heather was overselling the changes that a Democratic administration would have. She admitted that the Democratic administration probably would not give back any powers Bush had claimed for the executive. But I think just having an administration for the next 8 years that doesn't push the line on bizarre and extra-constitutional interpretations of the law is a victory of sorts. Bizarre and extra-constitutional interpretations seems to be in the an argument of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." nature. I personally find the constitutional interpretations of the commerce clause, beginning under the Roosevelt administration, Bizarre and extra-constitutional. I mean a farmer can't grow excess crop for his own use? Can carpenters not do side work because it increases the supply of those that do carpentry; lessening the price the state sanctioned contractors can charge?

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 11:56 AM
John:

Thanks for the clarification.

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 12:01 PM
pisc:

I personally find the constitutional interpretations of the commerce clause, beginning under the Roosevelt administration, Bizarre and extra-constitutional. I mean a farmer can't grow excess crop for his own use? Can carpenters not do side work because it increases the supply of those that do carpentry; lessening the price the state sanctioned contractors can charge?

This seems like an exaggeration. As far as I know, there are no laws against growing whatever crops you want. If you want to participate in a government-sponsored price support program, then you might have to agree to limitations, but you are not compelled to participate in the program to begin with.

I know a little bit more about the carpentry trade, and here, too, I don't think you've got it quite right. It is true that unions have rules about what their members may do, and membership in a union may mean that you have to agree to these constraints. It is also true that certain customers have requirements that carpentry work be done by unionized carpenters and that certain large construction businesses require that their employees join the union. But I am unaware of any law that prohibits me, in general, from conducting business as an independent contractor, charging whatever I want.

haroldrgross
04-22-2008, 01:22 PM
This discussion involves two people whose primary difference is the degree of intervention in society, not on the essential need for it. Economists call this tactic agenda setting. I'd much rather see Heather Hurlburt discuss this topic with (say) someone like Randall O'Toole, or perhaps Fred Singer.

piscivorous
04-22-2008, 09:39 PM
BJ you obviously missed the analogy; given that you are not familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard v Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)ruling by the SC I can understand why.

bjkeefe
04-22-2008, 10:54 PM
BJ you obviously missed the analogy; given that you are not familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard v Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)ruling by the SC I can understand why.

You're right that I did not know about Wickard v. Filburn. Thanks for the link, and thanks also for the polite manner with which you offered it.

jstrummer
04-25-2008, 08:20 AM
<i>isn't that just another way of saying that the court is just a tool of the member nation and only servers the justice that them member nations desire. Reminds me of fair and equal application of the Jim Crow laws.</I>

No. It's saying that international law can serve as a constraint, but shouldn't be thought of as positive law in the sense that states can enforce positive law.

There should be a different word for "international law" - maybe international guidelines. International law never has the force of state law unless states themselves incorporate int'l law and enforce those provisions.

graz
04-25-2008, 10:33 AM
That sort of depends on te fellow commenters ability to keep general track of the general themes of my previous arguments. As I fully believe that a dictatorial regime, here in America, is more likely to come from the left than the right; the more the left emulates the behavior of the policies of the The National Socialist German Worker's Party the more concerned I become.

I have never seen you and Jonah Golberg in the same room at the same time.
Likely coincidence , or grounds for implausible denial?
And many fellow commenters also find it difficult to follow and keep track of his general track and themes.
"Liberal Fascism" - in paperback and on remainder shelves now.

piscivorous
04-25-2008, 10:39 AM
Yes and if you did you would you be able to distinguish between us.

psikeyhackr
06-16-2008, 11:25 PM
It's 39 years after the moon landing.

Shouldn't economists know and talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles by now. Galbraith was talking about it in 1959. How much pollution is created by manufacturing crappy cars.

What about the depreciation of those crappy cars? Economists don't mention that either.