Values Added: Occupy, Inc. (David Roberts & Julian Sanchez)

[Bloggingheads]

[chiwhisoxx]

that second topic is a joke, right?

[Sulla the Dictator]

This diavlog must have occurred in one of Dr. Who's parallel universes, where it was the Tea Party that was outnumbered by the media as opposed to OWS. The Tea Party put 200,000 people in Washington DC. It put ten thousand people in the middle of the desert in Searchlight Nevada. People here probably don't know what a remote dust hole that place is. Unless the unions supply bodies, the occupy movements can barely muster a thousand people.

Also, OWS isn't "global". OWS is the American left finally adopting the politics of the International Left. The foreign left has been more active than our domestic version for a long time. David Roberts seems to have this entirely mixed up.

[BornAgainDemocrat]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The Tea Party put 200,000 people in Washington DC. It put ten thousand people in the middle of the desert in Searchlight Nevada.

I just happened to be at Searchlight on a lark. What struck me was the presence of two huge, super-modern media buses with fancy custom Tea Party paint jobs, alongside the usual buses of the mainstream media. What that said to me was that this was not truly a grassroots movement. There was big money behind it.

I suppose you might say the Tea Party began as a grass roots movement. Except it was sparked by a speech delivered by an outraged trader on the floor of one of the major stock exchanges.

[ginger baker]

Bravo David! Democratic institutions and procedures have been neutralized by the simple facts of the consolidation of public and private power...and the demos is getting really pissed about it. The perceived irrationalism of OWS, warts and all, is thus largely symbiotic to the the globalization of rationalizzm, its systems and schemes, and insofar social and economic crises build in time, resentment (or rage) will only grow. The good ol' social contract has withered away, and people know it. We're perhaps in the midst of a new political founding??? or just a collapse into some techno neo-feudalism???

[Parallax]

An hour of two people lamenting why their fringe ideas (far left environmentalism and dismantling of the national security apparatus) have not caught on. If only the dumb masses realized their brilliance! To be fair Sanchez was much more tolerable than Roberts.

The flip side of poor GOP voters are suffering from a false consciousness is that any wealthy person voting for Dems is equally deluded (I have no data but I am willing to bet a majority of 1% actually vote Democratic). One is then usually confronted with: "but what they do is noble, they are voting against their own interests!". Why can't we use the same logic for poor dumb voters? They think their guns and their religion are more important than electing some Democrat who might or might not better their finances. Since Roberts ignores this possibility I must conclude that he thinks poor people can't sacrifice their material well being for anything else, that nobility is exclusive to the right kind of rich person. In short, he does not view the populace as equals but rather a herd to be managed to want the right things, to vote the right way and to say the right words.

It seems to me that Roberts has been listening/reading too much Zizek. The part where he said the OWS crowd aren't demanding anything and the issue is a deeper problem about the meaning of life, the character of capitalism and some other useless platitude I don't recall. Things are very simple, if US had 7% unemployment instead of 9%, Obama would cruise to reelection, there would not be any of this populist drivel and people would immediately forget the bailouts and bad guys at Wall Street.

Finally when Roberts says things are bad, income inequality is rising, etc. he should stop for a moment and think (it does not come too easy when you are a professional ideological crusader). I doubt Roberts is ready for the full implications of his positions. What would be the global equivalent of OWS? OUS (Occupy US). The similarities are striking: "The world bailed out US and continuous to do so by buying US treasuries even at negative real rates. And if you think about it the whole crisis started in US with the housing bubble. Americans, like Wall Street executives, were greedy, they were not happy with their nice suburban homes with the big garage. They wanted more and they screwed up the world in the process." How does it feel to be part of the faceless inhuman other that needs to be demonized Mr. Roberts?

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Parallax

It seems to me that Roberts has been listening/reading too much Zizek. The part where he said the OWS crowd aren't demanding anything and the issue is a deeper problem about the meaning of life, the character of capitalism and some other useless platitude I don't recall. Things are very simple, if US had 7% unemployment instead of 9%, Obama would cruise to reelection, there would not be any of this populist drivel and people would immediately forget the bailouts and bad guys at Wall Street.

No doubt, but the semi-lunatic Zizek would still be right about one thing: the system of consumer/financial/state capitalism that exists in the US and Europe is doomed----à plus ou moins longue échéance---sooner or later. It is just not reasonable to think that a world with a population 7 billion (and likely to reach 10 billion by 2050) can continue on its present trajectory, if that means elevating the "standard of living" of an additional 4 billion human beings to the level of Americans and Europeans. An additional planet or two would be necessary merely to feed the other half what Americans and Europeans consume.

Finally when Roberts says things are bad, income inequality is rising, etc. he should stop for a moment and think (it does not come too easy when you are a professional ideological crusader). I doubt Roberts is ready for the full implications of his positions. What would be the global equivalent of OWS? OUS (Occupy US). The similarities are striking: "The world bailed out US and continuous to do so by buying US treasuries even at negative real rates. And if you think about it the whole crisis started in US with the housing bubble. Americans, like Wall Street executives, were greedy, they were not happy with their nice suburban homes with the big garage. They wanted more and they screwed up the world in the process." How does it feel to be part of the faceless inhuman other that needs to be demonized Mr. Roberts?

Ironic isn't it?

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Florian

No doubt, but the semi-lunatic Zizek would still be right about one thing: the system of consumer/financial/state capitalism that exists in the US and Europe is doomed----à plus ou moins longue échéance---sooner or later. It is just not reasonable to think that a world with a population 7 billion (and likely to reach 10 billion by 2050) can continue on its present trajectory, if that means elevating the "standard of living" of an additional 4 billion human beings to the level of Americans and Europeans. An additional planet or two would be necessary merely to feed the other half what Americans and Europeans consume.

Obviously we have different views on Elvis of cultural studies. I think his ideas about capitalism, like the idea that China presents a new kind of capitalism have to be ignored but the parts where he criticizes the academic liberal consensus including the environmental movement is pretty relevant and to the point.

Moreover the idea that human population is a limit on growth is the old Malthusian argument that has been disproved time and again. The world population has almost doubled (a 100% increase) since 1970 and billions of people have much higher standards of living. Now what stops the same happening in 40 years with a much smaller relative population increase (43% increase)?

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Parallax

Obviously we have different views on Elvis of cultural studies. I think his ideas about capitalism, like the idea that China presents a new kind of capitalism have to be ignored but the parts where he criticizes the academic liberal consensus including the environmental movement is pretty relevant and to the point.

Moreover the idea that human population is a limit on growth is the old Malthusian argument that has been disproved time and again. The world population has almost doubled (a 100% increase) since 1970 and billions of people have much higher standards of living. Now what stops the same happening in 40 years with a much smaller relative population increase (43% increase)?

Dream on. Just repeat the word Malthusian and that settles the issue. Yes, it is true that many more people have higher standards of living than they had 40 years ago, but approximately 3 billion still live in poverty, living on less than $2 a day.

It is known with some accuracy how many acres of land are necessary to sustain the diet of the average American or European (fewer for the average European). It is also known how many acres of arable land there are in relation to the world population (between 1950 and 2000, when the population more than doubled, the land surface available to feed an individual decreased by 50%). Unless there are tremendous gains in the productivity of land, through some scientific discovery similar to the "green revolution", I think there are fairly good reasons to be, if not Malthusian, then somewhat pessimistic about the possibility of feeding so many new mouths, let alone bringing them up to American and European levels of food consumption.

[cragger]

Originally Posted by Parallax

... their fringe ideas (far left environmentalism ...

How odd that something as inherently small-c conservative as preservation of the biosphere that supports human life is considered a far left fringe idea. Or perhaps it's opposition to wealthy elites stealing from others by pushing external costs upon them that is a far left fringe idea. In either case, representative of a pathological system.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by cragger

How odd that something as inherently small-c conservative as preservation of the biosphere that supports human life is considered a far left fringe idea.

Or even on a smaller level. The notion that we should avoid wasting stuff. As someone brought up by conservative parents whose worldviews were defined by the depresison, the notion that conservativism means wasteful consumption just seems very strange.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Or even on a smaller level. The notion that we should avoid wasting stuff. As someone brought up by conservative parents whose worldviews were defined by the depresison, the notion that conservativism means wasteful consumption just seems very strange.

When I hear far-left envrionmentalism I think of Al Gore saying we need to conserve to save the planet while using as much energy as mulitple familes, or greenies saying we need to stop our dependence on middle-eastern oil as they do everything they can to stop drilling in alaska and pipelines from Canada. Or the ultimate - Chernobyl going catastrophic and the one-party state playing classical music on the TV and radio instead of informing the locals.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by harkin

Or the ultimate - Chernobyl going catastrophic and the one-party state playing classical music on the TV and radio instead of informing the locals.

Yeah, because the USSR had such an active and effective environmental movement....

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Yeah, because the USSR had such an active and effective environmental movement....

Reasoning by inept analogy: harkinism. (But you gotta love it! )

[uncle ebeneezer]

Great post by Fallows re: UC Davis:

James Fallows:

Let’s stipulate that there are legitimate questions of how to balance the rights of peaceful protest against other people’s rights to go about their normal lives, and the rights of institutions to have some control over their property and public spaces. Without knowing the whole background, I’ll even assume for purposes of argument that the UC Davis authorities had legitimate reason to clear protestors from an area of campus — and that if protestors wanted to stage a civil-disobedience resistance to that effort, they should have been prepared for the consequence of civil disobedience, which is arrest.

I can’t see any legitimate basis for police action like what is shown here. Watch that first minute and think how we’d react if we saw it coming from some riot-control unit in China, or in Syria. The calm of the officer who walks up and in a leisurely way pepper-sprays unarmed and passive people right in the face? We’d think: this is what happens when authority is unaccountable and has lost any sense of human connection to a subject population. That’s what I think here.

I would add that I'm especially enjoying the sudden emphasis on the importance of permit compliance and concerns for the use of public space among conservatives. Seems like every other day that I hear conservatives clamoring for more parks and stronger governmental oversight.

Added: Anybody wanna guess if the reaction would have been different if a bunch of Tea Party activists had been pepper-sprayed? The only question would be as to the exact words scrolling on the bottom of FoxNews. Perhaps: Obama Police State Persecutes Peaceful, Liberty-Loving Freedom Fighters!!

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I would add that I'm especially enjoying the sudden emphasis on the importance of permit compliance and concerns for the use of public space among conservatives. Seems like every other day that I hear conservatives clamoring for more parks and stronger governmental oversight.

Actually this just seems to be essentially free entertainment for lots of our colleagues on the right. Think of all of those lazy lefty scofflaws getting maced. Think of all the embedded youtube links playing over and over on conservative websites. No batons used (ingrate protesters as baby seals) unfortunately but there is always a place called Hope

Added: Anybody wanna guess if the reaction would have been different if a bunch of Tea Party activists had been pepper-sprayed? The only question would be as to the exact words scrolling on the bottom of FoxNews. Perhaps: Obama Police State Persecutes Peaceful, Liberty-Loving Freedom Fighters!!

There would have been called for investigations into Obama and probably impeachment hearings.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

there is always a place called Hope

Arkansas, right?

[Globalcop]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

There would have been called for investigations into Obama and probably impeachment hearings.

Especially since the Tea Partiers would have been getting pepper-sprayed for no good reason, considering that they, you know, didn't need to be maced.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Added: Anybody wanna guess if the reaction would have been different if a bunch of Tea Party activists had been pepper-sprayed? The only question would be as to the exact words scrolling on the bottom of FoxNews. Perhaps: Obama Police State Persecutes Peaceful, Liberty-Loving Freedom Fighters!!

Oh absolutely. It would be outrageous, because the Tea Party wasn't violent, didn't squat in public parks, didn't violate health ordinances, didn't rape anyone, didn't assault the police, and didn't kill anyone.

Strange how that works, no?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Oh absolutely. It would be outrageous, because the Tea Party wasn't violent, didn't squat in public parks, didn't violate health ordinances, didn't rape anyone, didn't assault the police, and didn't kill anyone.

and they were tidy.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Oh absolutely. It would be outrageous, because the Tea Party wasn't violent, didn't squat in public parks, didn't violate health ordinances, didn't rape anyone, didn't assault the police, and didn't kill anyone.

Strange how that works, no?

You're using facts and common sense again and that will get you nowhere with the clique. It doesn't fit their fantasy meme that the Tea Party are racist, violent rubes. It must drive the left crazy that the unruly, lawless, covered-in-crap lowlifes are their champions of socialism. Lucky for them they have a mainstream media still attempting to tell the public that what they see is not what they see. Remember the reaction and projection of blame towards the Tea Party post-Tucson? Compare that to the reaction to the Day Of Rage/Occupy/Obamaville crime circus.

I happen to be in NoCal for the holiday, so I got to see and hear a lot of the UC Davis overreactionlolapolooza. I think the funniest thing was hearing the occupy idiots (champions of the 1st amendment) chanting that the College President should not be allowed to speak. Luckily there were also adult students present. The fact that this woman (a staunch liberal btw) should be forced to beg these idiots to keep her job shows you the entire lunatics/asylum situation the Day Of Rage/Occupy/Obamaville movement represents.

Why aren't there people in Oakland and New York demanding accountability from the officials who allowed these idiots to break the law from day one, leading to the vandalism, crime, rapes, injuries, mayhem to follow? Nope - that only goes for university presidents who send cops who are better trained in how to maximize overtime and assign paid leave days than they are in enforcing the law to perform their duties.

[Globalcop]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Great post by Fallows re: UC Davis:



I would add that I'm especially enjoying the sudden emphasis on the importance of permit compliance and concerns for the use of public space among conservatives. Seems like every other day that I hear conservatives clamoring for more parks and stronger governmental oversight.

Added: Anybody wanna guess if the reaction would have been different if a bunch of Tea Party activists had been pepper-sprayed? The only question would be as to the exact words scrolling on the bottom of FoxNews. Perhaps: Obama Police State Persecutes Peaceful, Liberty-Loving Freedom Fighters!!

It's funny that there is much made of the officer being calm while deploying the pain compliance. Would it have been better if he had been enraged?

I'm really still waiting for some media outlet to give voice to the law enforcement community. When I went through the police academy back in '88, this was a basic step on the Use of Force Continuum. As soon as someone fails to comply with lawful orders, they've entered an area where pain compliance, such as pepper spray, or rolling a baton on one's joints, is completely acceptable.

Is so much being made of the "casual" nature of the officer's demeanor because that is really what is upsetting people? "He's spraying them like insects!" Or like a police pepper-spraying protesters, nothing new here. Also, the proximity complaint? The closer you spray them, the less chance you'll overspray onto other officers and the law-abiding by-standers.

Aside from all of this, anyone who has been reading and watching accounts of protests for the past 20 years has seen this happen regularly. Are we all now going to follow the lead of a bunch of naive kids (both as protesters and apparently covering the story in the MSM) who weren't even alive (or cognizant) as recently as the No Blood for Oil protests against the Gulf War?
If protesters aren't up to speed on what the legal use of force they should be prepared to deal with is, they're just stupid. Our reaction shouldn't be based on their surprise.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by cragger

How odd that something as inherently small-c conservative as preservation of the biosphere that supports human life is considered a far left fringe idea.

Well that's because it's only the far left that would be willing to swallow whole the idea of settled science and its subsequent radical prognostications and prescriptions.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by cragger

How odd that something as inherently small-c conservative as preservation of the biosphere that supports human life is considered a far left fringe idea. Or perhaps it's opposition to wealthy elites stealing from others by pushing external costs upon them that is a far left fringe idea. In either case, representative of a pathological system.

The fact that I called it far left environmentalism and not environmentalism should be an indication that I have no problem with saving the planet (although anytime someone says they want to save the planet I am tempted to repeat this). I have said this before that we should replace the payroll tax with a Carbon taxes which itself should be tied to the rate of increase in global temperatures (if the temperatures go up sharply so does the Carbon tax). An idea Obama could have easily passed with his stimulus package but his technocratic temperament, his aversion to change how we pay for SS and his myopic focus to score a symbolic and historic victory in the form of passing Obamacare prevented this from happening.

You want far left environmentalism? Start with Peter Singer. There are a lot of leftists who think human life is not worth much when it comes to saving the planet.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Parallax

I have said this before that we should replace the payroll tax with a Carbon taxes which itself should be tied to the rate of increase in global temperatures (if the temperatures go up sharply so does the Carbon tax). An idea Obama could have easily passed with his stimulus package but his technocratic temperament, his aversion to change how we pay for SS and his myopic focus to score a symbolic and historic victory in the form of passing Obamacare prevented this from happening.

What's your argument that this was doable? I don't mean to be passive-aggressive here. I'm genuinely curious. I'm of the opinion that this wasn't feasible at the time, but I could be persuaded otherwise if I hear some reason to think that it was possible.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

What's your argument that this was doable? I don't mean to be passive-aggressive here. I'm genuinely curious. I'm of the opinion that this wasn't feasible at the time, but I could be persuaded otherwise if I hear some reason to think that it was possible.

A payroll tax holiday was suggested by many people on the right when people were debating the composition of the stimulus. Obama could have offered to make it permanent, repeal AMT and reduce corporate income tax to 10% in return for the Carbon tax. He was very popular in 2009, he could have gone on TV and said: "even if you don't believe in global warming which one would you want me to tax: your work or what comes out of the exhaust pipe of your car?" A lot of people on the right had on record advocated such policy, the most famous I remember is Charles Krauthammer from Fox News.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Parallax

A payroll tax holiday was suggested by many people on the right when people were debating the composition of the stimulus. Obama could have offered to make it permanent, repeal AMT and reduce corporate income tax to 10% in return for the Carbon tax. He was very popular in 2009, he could have gone on TV and said: "even if you don't believe in global warming which one would you want me to tax: your work or what comes out of the exhaust pipe of your car?" A lot of people on the right had on record advocated such policy, the most famous I remember is Charles Krauthammer from Fox News.

I don't dispute that there was some sympathy, but I can't see that getting such a move over the finish line. For starters, a permanent cut to the payroll tax is very different from a holiday, so I could see the AARP and various other groups concerned about Social Security and Medicare getting awfully antsy about such a proposal.

The more serious problem I see is that, as with every other policy designed to combat global warming, the winners and losers are all wrong. The big winners here are either diffused and disorganized (people who pay payroll taxes), aren't citizens (Bangledeshis, citizens of the Maldives) or are in the future (people living in Florida in 2100). Wheres the losers are everybody making their living in the oil or coal businesses, meaning people that are concentrated, organized, and that will have strong preferences on this issue. The interest group math just doesn't add up without an awfully big headwind, and considering how much the Dems had to wheel and deal to keep those middle 3-4 senators on board between 2009 and 2011, I don't see the headwind they'd need.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

I don't dispute that there was some sympathy, but I can't see that getting such a move over the finish line. For starters, a permanent cut to the payroll tax is very different from a holiday, so I could see the AARP and various other groups concerned about Social Security and Medicare getting awfully antsy about such a proposal.

Obama managed to pass a bill that actually cuts Medicare!! How can he fail to pass a more centric bill that just changes its funding source??

The more serious problem I see is that, as with every other policy designed to combat global warming, the winners and losers are all wrong. The big winners here are either diffused and disorganized (people who pay payroll taxes), aren't citizens (Bangledeshis, citizens of the Maldives) or are in the future (people living in Florida in 2100). Wheres the losers are everybody making their living in the oil or coal businesses, meaning people that are concentrated, organized, and that will have strong preferences on this issue. The interest group math just doesn't add up without an awfully big headwind, and considering how much the Dems had to wheel and deal to keep those middle 3-4 senators on board between 2009 and 2011, I don't see the headwind they'd need.

I will just mention that a big drop in corporate income tax plus the abolition of the FICA taxes (half of which is payed by employers) can be persuasive to some of the people you cite as the losers of the bill.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Parallax

I have said this before that we should replace the payroll tax with a Carbon taxes which itself should be tied to the rate of increase in global temperatures (if the temperatures go up sharply so does the Carbon tax).

This is like funding the CHIP program with taxes on cigarettes.

But Jesus Christ! What if the temperatures don't go up!!!! What'll happen to Granny? Will she need to be thrown under the bus?

Recent controversy has arisen concerning trends of global temperatures from 1998 to 2009. Lines plotted through specific subsets of years during this period appear to have negative or flat slopes. People have subsequently asserted that global warming has slowed, stopped, or reversed since 1998.

[Don Zeko]

Wow Badhat. I mean, I know that you're a dishonest propagandist on this point, but why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from that site?

Lines plotted through specific subsets of years during this period appear to have negative or flat slopes. People have subsequently asserted that global warming has slowed, stopped, or reversed since 1998. Trends over such a short period should be interpreted with great caution, however, because meaningful global trends need to be calculated over at least two or three decades in order to account for natural warming and cooling of the earth’s climate. Global mean temperature can increase or decrease from year to year because of volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and large-scale ocean circulation patterns like El Niño. There are several instances in the temperature record since 1880 where 5-10 year trends appear flat or even negative, and there was a long, level period during the 1940s to 1970s. Nonetheless, the overall trend has been positive, and recent decades are clearly warmer than previous decades. Considering information from multiple years, datasets, and organizations, there is no valid statistical evidence for global cooling, and the weight of evidence still supports the long-term trend of global warming.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Wow Badhat. I mean, I know that you're a dishonest propagandist on this point, but why don't you quote the rest of the paragraph from that site?

That's why I linked it so you could read it yourself. I'm just wondering if the planet doesn't warm as expected (which it appears it is not) what will become of the grand Carbon Tax scheme? People who think it's a viable idea should consider all the possibilities, don'tcha think?

Or maybe we could just base the tax on projected possible warming. We could get Michael Mann and James Hansen to head up the whole enterprise with the appropriate salaries attached, of course. I'm sure Goldmann Sachs would like that. Carbon credits for sale!!

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

That's why I linked it so you could read it yourself. I'm just wondering if the planet doesn't warm as expected (which it appears it is not) what will become of the grand Carbon Tax scheme? People who think it's a viable idea should consider all the possibilities, don'tcha think?

You have a point there. Selectively quoting the source to imply a meaning that the source itself contradicts by the end of the paragraph you quoted and then not linking to the source would be even more dishonest than what you actually did, which was itself dishonest. And look, you immediately proceed to state that global warming isn't happening - in the course of arguing about whether or not you dishonestly cited a source that confirmed that global warming is happening.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Or maybe we could just base the tax on projected possible warming. I'm sure Goldmann Sachs would like that. Carbon credits for sale!!

Getting in touch with your inner whatfur, huh? What exactly is this word salad supposed to mean?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

You have a point there. Selectively quoting the source to imply a meaning that the source itself contradicts by the end of the paragraph you quoted and then not linking to the source would be even more dishonest than what you actually did, which was itself dishonest. And look, you immediately proceed to state that global warming isn't happening - in the course of arguing about whether or not you dishonestly cited a source that confirmed that global warming is happening.

Let me ask you something El Zeko, did you even know that there is an apparent slowing or cessation of the warming that was predicted would be so relentless? I bet you didn't because the MSM isn't talking much about it. It doesn't fit the current script of alarmism. I could have linked one of the skeptic's sites but I thought maybe a government site would at least peak your curiosity and encourage you to look beyond the indoctrination which is currently the mode of information we are being given. But I guess not.

BTW, the article doesn't contradict anything. It says that great caution should be exercised when making predictions which is very much in line with the skeptic's view.

Trends over such a short period should be interpreted with great caution, however, because meaningful global trends need to be calculated over at least two or three decades in order to account for natural warming and cooling of the earth’s climate.

And BTW, I didn't say that global warming isn't happening. You and your friends on this site just have to stretch the truth to make a point. I suggested that it might be a little crazy to link SS to global warming, as Parallax's scheme proposes, if global warming doesn't happen as expected which it appears it is not.

Details, details...so inconvenient.

Also did you know that the very definition of climate change was just reinvented? You should try to keep up.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

BTW, the article doesn't contradict anything. It says that great caution should be exercised when making predictions which is very much in line with the skeptic's view.

Lines plotted through specific subsets of years during this period appear to have negative or flat slopes. People have subsequently asserted that global warming has slowed, stopped, or reversed since 1998. Trends over such a short period should be interpreted with great caution, however, because meaningful global trends need to be calculated over at least two or three decades in order to account for natural warming and cooling of the earth’s climate. Global mean temperature can increase or decrease from year to year because of volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and large-scale ocean circulation patterns like El Niño. There are several instances in the temperature record since 1880 where 5-10 year trends appear flat or even negative, and there was a long, level period during the 1940s to 1970s. Nonetheless, the overall trend has been positive, and recent decades are clearly warmer than previous decades. Considering information from multiple years, datasets, and organizations, there is no valid statistical evidence for global cooling, and the weight of evidence still supports the long-term trend of global warming.

"there is no valid statistical evidence for global cooling, and the weight of evidence still supports the long-term trend of global warming." How much clearer could they be?

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This is like funding the CHIP program with taxes on cigarettes.

I am not arguing for the CHIP program but would you eliminate all cigarette taxes and raise income tax rates in every bracket?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Parallax

I am not arguing for the CHIP program but would you eliminate all cigarette taxes and raise income tax rates in every bracket?

Other things being equal, you tax what you want less of. If people all stop smoking and the cigarette taxes don't raise any money any more, that's a success. The need to find a new source of tax revenue because we've gotten people to lead healthier lives is the kind of problem that we want to have. Same goes for taxing carbon.

[Parallax]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

But Jesus Christ! What if the temperatures don't go up!!!! What'll happen to Granny? Will she need to be thrown under the bus?

First you are not restricted to pay for granny using the Carbon tax alone. I am proposing that we make official what has been long unofficial, that is the trusts are a joke.

Carbon tax would replace the current FICA taxes at their current levels. The increases in case the temperatures increase are on top of that and could be compensated with income tax cuts. So even in your fantastic hypothetical when the temperatures decline nothing bad happens.

[cragger]

Sorry, but that distinction doesn't seem particularly informative beyond suggesting that those things that you or your favored interests don't want are due the "far left, fringe" label. Unfortunately reference to the diavlog which you characterized as"

An hour of two people lamenting why their fringe ideas (far left environmentalism and dismantling of the national security apparatus) have not caught on.

is similarly unhelpful, since at least in the tagged segments the only reference to environmental or national defense policy was a single statement by Julian Sanchez that even in a more decentralized national model, these issues by their nature would remain national ones. Perhaps you were responding to some imagined diavlog rather than the one posted?

[Globalcop]

Originally Posted by cragger

How odd that something as inherently small-c conservative as preservation of the biosphere that supports human life is considered a far left fringe idea. Or perhaps it's opposition to wealthy elites stealing from others by pushing external costs upon them that is a far left fringe idea. In either case, representative of a pathological system.

Excellent point cragger. Maybe they've already bought tickets on the giant space ships to ferry their families to the next sustainable planet.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Parallax

Things are very simple, if US had 7% unemployment instead of 9%, Obama would cruise to reelection, there would not be any of this populist drivel and people would immediately forget the bailouts and bad guys at Wall Street.

I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound and I don't think you're giving Roberts enough credit (though, I largely disagree with him). Increased employment would mitigate the worst portions of discontent, but the discontent has been brewing for quite some time. Also, I read that 70% of OWSers are employed. The issue here is one of a perceived unfairness, however misdirected it may be.

The solution has to be NGDP targeting to boost the economy so that the have nots become haves; or at least have shit to do. If NGDP is tried, but fails, then the stagnation hypothesis is likely true and there actually isn't a solution. I'd buy lots of handguns.