Login to Change.org
Create an Account
C H
Recent Activity
-
C commented on the article |I'll say it again: When it was floated in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office certainly considered an individual mandate like this unprecedented: ""A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government." (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4816&type=1)
It is of a different character than other regulations which have been found to fall under the interstate commerce clause. So while it may in fact pass constitutional muster--so many things that shouldn't do these days--that doesn't mean it definitely will, much less should. What I find interesting is that one of the aspects of it the CBO finds problematic is that it "would impose a duty on individuals as members of society." And yet it seems to me that that's precisely what an income tax does--indeed, taxing you on that which you must do to survive--and yet CBO presumably sees no problem with that.
-
C commented on the article |
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in 1994, in response to the Clinton-inspired version, that a federal mandate to purchase health insurance would be unprecedented: "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government." (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4816&type=1)
There is a difference.
As to the general welfare clause, that clause has been strained so far past its original meaning and expectations as to be meaningless now. James Madison: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between funding for a highway and providing someone a personal check shouldn't be allowed to vote.
-
C commented on the article |
I think there's a danger to trying to teach too much current events at the expense of past events, which is the reality considering the time limitations of a modern school year. (Where was Fall Break when I was in high school?) The danger is that current events are just that: current. As such, the longer perspective that rounds out our knowledge of a subject isn't available. Harry Truman was considered a failure shortly after his presidency; today he's considered one of the best of the last century. We're just now learning lessons from economic decisions made a decade ago. With an increasingly polarized political atmosphere, the present is hardly the best time to be teaching about the present. And to the degree that we do, as others have already pointed out, the best way to learn about the present is to compare it to the past. So as far as I'm concerned, the more we can teach the past, from various angles, the better. I'd much rather have someone be well-versed on the past than well-versed on the present.
-
C commented on the article |NASA doesn't disagree. The GISTEMP chart clearly shows the years I listed as the hottest years in the contiguous U.S. back to 1880. My original point on this, based on your raising the issue in your first post in the thread, is that it was those records--not the global means that your latest link describes--that were the focal point the AGW view for years. But in the past few years, and especially since the adjustment that places more hotter years before 1953 than after, the focus of the AGW argument has shifted toward the global mean.
And once again, I'm not arguing that there hasn't been a warming trend over the last thirty years. I do argue that there's not enough data yet to conclusively link that warming to human activity rather than a natural cycle, and that the models being used are too imperfect--knowledge of the systems on which they're based being still too limited--to justify extreme scenarios and drastic action. (Not to mention the fact that the timeframe to determine models' predictive power is still woefully short.)
You say they have inadequacies, but aren't themselves inadequate. I'd argue that depends on the scope of the inadequacy. It's still a major point of contention as to whether water vapor--about as basic and determinative a criteria as there could be--produces a positive or negative feedback. The multi-model mean across several models has been deviating from observational data for some time. Hence my personal skepticism about the predictive powers of the various GCMs, and any efforts premised on their predictions.
Which brings me to this: I know that if the model predictions began to mirror reality better than they do, and those eminent climatologists and scientists in closely related fields who presently question the AGW view began to swing to that view, I'd be persuaded to accept it myself. I have to ask: What would it take for someone like yourself to be persuaded in the other direction? Schmidt himself says in the comments on his blog that if the cooling continues for another decade or so, they'll have to question the efficacy of the theory. (I should hope so.) What will it take for Emily? -
C commented on the article |
"...human-propelled climate changes are happening along with natural climate fluctuations, such as the El Nino/La Nina cycle in the Pacific."
All but the first two words of that are entirely correct and accepted by pretty much everyone. "Human-propelled," however, at this stage of the game, is pure conjecture. -
C commented on the article |
For want of a quotation mark, the post was butchered. (But colorful!)
Let's try that again:
I'm not incorrect. NASA/Goddard was forced to adjust the GISS dataset in August 2007 after a software bug was spotted in it (by a skeptic, no less). The top ten hottest years of the last century, from the top, are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939. That's six from before 1953, and only one from the last ten years. 1998, once the hallowed "hottest year in the last thousand years," doesn't even make the top ten of the 20th century.
Nor do I believe I'm incorrect about my characterization of goalposts being moved. Your own language shows it. When 1998 was the big bad, no caveat about global 5-year means was considered necessary. Now it is. (Considering the dearth of long-term historical surface temperature data from around the globe, it's probably not wise to be trying to sell the global mean idea either.)
And now it's the champions of the AGW view, not just Republican strategists, who are using "climate change" instead of "global warming," much out of character from previous years. It's got nothing to do with it being more scientifically accurate; scientifically it's meaningless. Of course the climate changes; it's done so since the Earth formed.
You're right that the science of climate is evolving, but that's *why* the goalposts are being moved. They have to: The models aren't matching observed reality. There's been no statistically significant warming in at least ten years. Say what you will about long-term trends, the models didn't predict it. And we're told that's normal for global warming. Arctic sea ice, contrary to your posts, according to at least two official sources has been trending up since 2007. I'm reminded of Robin Williams' take on Moammar Ghaddafi in the '80s: "Okay, you cross *this* line, you die!"
"In all cases, it's important to keep in mind that human-propelled global warming is happening against the backdrop of regular variations in climate, as well as the weather for the next day, week, or month."
Presuming, of course, that human-propelled global warming is happening much if at all. This is so much question-begging. Since the models purporting to substantiate both are unpredictable in their ability to replicate past trends and predict present ones, and the observational data are so uneven and subject to statistical misinterpretation, on the contrary, I would argue that the conservative response would be to make no sudden moves toward a guaranteed economic upheaval based on such things. Don't take my word for it; take that of the IPCC itself. The Summary for Policymakers from IPCC-2007 features a prominent graph on page four showing the "Level of Scientific Understanding" (LOSU) for the nine inputs that they believe affect our climate. Four of them--*almost half*--are given a scientific understanding of *low*, and *two more* low to medium. If the IPCC itself considers over half of the inputs used to base its predictions (which, recall, have been *lowered* from previous years) to be minimally understood, I have no qualms believing the jury is still out.
Your conclusion is just as circular:
"The inadequacies of models only argue for that more, especially as we're already seeing changes, such as the degree of ice loss in the Arctic, that are outracing some forecasts based on climate modeling."
What? If the models are inadequate, as you admit, how can you tell if any observed phenomena is "outracing" the results of those models? How can you properly determine a change has occurred if the very criteria you're using as a baseline is the result of a faulty model? Much less use it as a basis for pushing the entire global community to take emergency actions with huge economic and social ramifications? -
C commented on the article |
It's interesting that Schmidt believes the minor deviations in temperature data are trivial that now make more years from the Thirties among the hottest on record than from the last decade. When the deviations swung the results the opposite direction, the deviations seemed very important indeed. Even the language has changed again, not unlike "global warming" to "climate change." Before the focus was very much on individual year records and numbers of years in the top 10--not global, five-year means. The goalpost-moving is rather transparent and doesn't inspire confidence.
The more significant issues to me are that the numerous models themselves don't agree with each other; there's a distinct divergence in the various temperature datasets over the last few years; and not least, the IPCC reports from 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 are inconsistent even with each other. The predictions of the '07 report actually backtrack from those of '01. And yet I'm supposed to believe that "the science is settled." The amount of debate about how to properly collate, splice, and zero the *numerous* temperature datasets at issue--much less the lack of openness in making source data available for critique--ought alone be enough to give pause to anyone rushing to conclude that the science is settled.
At the bottom of the skeptical mindset--at least the honestly held one, IMO--are two overriding concerns: 1) That there seems to be an overreliance on modeling without first assuring the integrity of the data-gathering; and 2) the forecasts provided by those models don't actually model reality very well (perhaps because of #1?), and are severely limited by the time frame they've had to be tested.
Put all of it together and I wonder how anyone--why anyone--would be ready to bet the wind farm on economic programs and regulations the ramifications of which would be globally devastating. As in most things, moderation is a virtue. To those who say we don't have time for moderation, I direct you to a few billion years of Earth history and ask, where's the rush? -
C commented on the article |The degree to which I'm not bothered by such laws almost can't be measured, and the degree to which "free speech" is used to excuse all manner of uncivil behavior is ridiculous. The citizens of a city, and the owners of a business, have at least as much a right to foster and preserve a clean, professional environment, or at least discourage slovenly behavior, as someone who chooses to dress like a slob. Since when does someone choosing to let his pants fall down in public trump the general public's desire not to see it or to allow that kind of public behavior? This is a prime example of the self-absorbed self-actualization-above-all mindset that places "individual expression" above collective community values.
-
C commented on the article |
So a bunch of New Yorkers believe global warming is a serious threat. More breaking news: A bunch of Midwesterners believe in an individual right to bear arms. Today's "But nobody I know voted for Nixon!" moment has been brought to you by Edward Humes.
I'm not going to argue the science of global warming because I don't pretend to be versed enough to weigh the scientific claims vs. counterclaims. The farthest I'll go on that subject is only to point out that you don't have to get to AGW skeptics to find circumspection about some of the underlying science. Much of the evidence for AGW, as the IPCC readily admits, stems from modeling projections that are far from perfect, which is also something the IPCC admits (especially in private). The Summary for Policymakers from the IPCC's latest report features a prominent graph on page four showing the "Level of Scientific Understanding" (LOSU) for the nine inputs that they believe affect our climate. Four of them--*almost half*--are given a scientific understanding of *low*, and *two more* low to medium.
So while the pronouncements of the scientists behind this latest assessment report should be viewed as learned and respected, it's hardly unexpected that with such a shaky understanding of the underlying science, there are among their peers those who disagree with the IPCC scientists' conclusions. Moreover, if the IPCC itself can have such an estimation of the science underlying its projections, I certainly reserve the same right.
And yet eminent climatologist Edward Humes is here to inform us that, contra both the IPCC and its skeptics, that--wait, what's that? Humes isn't a climatologist? He's not a scientist by any discipline? Interesting. I especially wonder, then, on what basis he claims to be able to dismiss anyone's expertise, much less those perfectly well-credentialed scientists whose training and expertise have caused them to come to a good-faith, contrary position on the issue--and who might actually be right. Humes, of course, has no possible way of knowing. And yet he's quite content to dismiss them with sarcasm and quotation marks. As such, he is arguably more of an denier than those he seeks to dismiss, and certainly betrays more anti-intellectualism.
On what basis does Humes reject the contrary opinions of, say, Richard Lindzen? Lindzen was the lead author of an IPCC Working Group, is professor of meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, member of the National Academy of Sciences, fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also an ardent critic of the IPCC's process and conclusions.
What about Patrick Michaels, author and editor of an IPCC Working Group, and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists?
Or Richard Tol, author in all of the most recent IPCC Working Groups, PhD, Economics; author and editor of the United Nations Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies; and Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University?
How about Christopher Landsea, contributing author to both the second and third IPCC reports, who wrote the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world? Atmospheric scientist, chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones, and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He turned down the invitation to return for the latest report when when he discovered that its findings would contradict the results of his own research.
Others who have not contributed directly to the IPCC reports but nonetheless are experts in their respective fields and disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC report:
- Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling
- Timothy Ball, Ph.D., University of London, England, professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg.
- S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service
- Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
- Henry Wegman, professor, Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. It was he who proved the statistical unverifiability of a study that was a centerpiece of the last IPCC report.
The point being that there are numerous eminently qualified scientists questioning the "consensus"--such as it actually exists--from a bona fide technical perspective, and Mr. Humes is in no position to challenge them. The most he can do is resort to sarcasm--which isn't an argument--and refer to an illusory "consensus." Even if there were more to the consensus than there is, the point supporters cannot overcome is that consensus alone doesn't make something correct. Of course it's of value, but it's hardly determinative. The fact remains that it was a consensus for hundreds if not thousands of years that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that everything revolved around it. It was the efforts of a disparate few observers that put the lie to that idea, swimming against a strong current, often treacherous, of countervening opinion. Newtonian physics was the end of the line, until it wasn't.
The AGW skeptics are in fact performing the exact role that scientists are supposed to perform, checking the work of their peers and layering the discussion, and thankfully so. It was skeptics who revealed the mistaken data and methods used in the Mann hockeystick. It was skeptics who spotted the software bug in the NASA-GISS temperature data which suddenly made the 1930s hotter than the 1990s.
The last time I checked, we didn't discourage such work, we encouraged it. Real science--and respectable scientists--shouldn't be afraid of it. Judging by the fact that the IPCC's most recent predictions for warming have been scaled back from their predictions in 2001--closer, in fact, to the predictions of many of the skeptics--it appears that the skeptics have warranted a place at the debate table, and that both sides have their work cut out for them.
I for one welcome all of their input, not censorship of the only check and balance on what has for too many become an article of faith--and a potentially whopping industry--both of which are dangerous when it comes to science. When it comes to banking a significant portion of the world economy on a solution possibly in need of a problem, it's all the more necessary. I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson's exhortation to his nephew Peter Carr: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; for if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
AGW believers would do well to take Jefferson's advice. Squelching debate, or simply dismissing those who question the mainstream view, is neither intellectual nor persuasive. Welcoming it will reveal the truth one way or the other, and more quickly. And it is the truth that everybody wants, right?
P.S. For those who want to pretend there's a funding issue, be sure to investigate both sides. Everyone should follow the funding link in Mr. Humes' post. It's almost laughable compared to the private as well as government funding available for the AGW view. The skeptics look like a Salvation Army bell ringer by comparison.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits