An Interesting Point About A Weird Discussion

In ruminating about just who is anti-science, Kevin Drum notes that it is American conservatives, not European ones, who seem to be mindlessly bucking the global; warming consensus.  His question, reasonable in its context, is how one can arge about "conservative" and "liberal" minds without noting this seeming discrepancy across the water.

But he links to a summary article by Chris Mooney, the author of the book, and I am hopelessly stalled.  The lead paragraphs explain - at length! - that Conservapedia, the right-wing counterpart to Wikipedia, is anti-science and doubts Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Well, I have no reason not to take his word for it, but so what?  I have never heard of Conservapedia, I don't believe I have ever linked to it, I don't believe I have ever clicked through on a link that took me to it, and I don't think I have ever heard it cited by anyone, anywhere, for any reason [not quite true - see UPDATE].  Who are these Conservopedia people, who cares, and why does anyone think they represent "the right" on anything?

As to the larger question, I understand that it is great fun for the left to imagine that the right is anti-science; this is of a piece with the semi-annual articles we get where yet a another lefty demostrates yet again that liberals are superior walkers, talkers, ballroom dancers, and just generally better examples of humanity.

Whatever.  I am highly confident that most of America, regardless of political persuasion, lacks the expertise to evaluate the claims made in the global warming debate.  So let's ponder a different question - do American conservatives tend to trust Al Gore, the New York Times and the United Nations?

I don't suppose puzzling over that is quite as much fun as dumpster diving at Conservapedia, but it might be a better guide to the real answer.

KEEPING THEIR HEADS HIGH:  Interesting that Kevin is wondering about those daffy conservatives in the same week that the liberal cocoon on the ObamaCare mandate collapsed.  Obviously, one topic is law and the other is science, but still, the notion of an echo chamber of liberal pundits, policymakers and scientists reinforcing their views and la-la-la'ing the opposition might be something for a humble liberal to consider.

UPDATE:  Checking Google, the first page of cites of Conservopedia include 'Ha ha - those daffy conservative!' blasts from TPMuckraker, NPR and Boing Boing.  Righty links?  None I recognize.

This carefully researched article at Wired includes a few laughers from 2007:

An alternative Wikipedia written by conservative Christians has become a major target of mockery on the web.

Conservapedia, a wiki-based encyclopedia that offers the historical record from a conservative perspective, is attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers.

Conservapedia "is a gold mine of unintentional hilarity," wrote Mark Frauenfelder on Boing Boing last Monday.

The Wonkette political blog encouraged its readers to contribute to "this fast-growing, Jeebus-and-America-friendly online resource." So did the ScienceBlogs network, which said, "There's much fun to be had."

Even conservative commentators like Andrew Sullivan are bemused.

...After it launched, the site quickly found itself picked apart by bloggers of all stripes. Conservapedia was lampooned by conservative blogger Jon Swift for its brash denial of scientific facts in favor of biblical rhetoric.

Sully and Swift are conservatives?  Really?  If the "Swift" name was an insufficient clue, maybe the blog header can help:

I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues.

So Conservapedia is Chris Mooney's launching point.  I can't say I am resolute in pressing on with his article, but if anyone does, feel free to give us the highlights.

 

Comments

[JeffC]

I'd be willing to bet Conservapedia is a leftist false flag operation ...

[Rob Crawford]

American conservatives wish to conserve the classical liberal order -- individual liberty, free markets, reason. I cannot speak to what European conservatives might want.

(The unfalsifiability of AGW cultism is profoundly anti-reason. It's, bluntly, yet another excuse for imposing totalitarianism justified by the trappings, but not the practice, of science.)

[Minimalist Poster]

That's the first I've heard of "Conservapedia."

[Gmax]

Never ever heard of it.

[rse]

TM-suggest adding Lisa Jackson and Carol Browner to your list.

LUN is about Lisa jetting off to Paris to discuss sustainability.

And to get us ready for Rio.

[rse]

I don't know why link did not work.

Such a nice picture of Lisa.

And TM-my experience with bureaucrats these days is they mean behavioral science when they use the term "science".

All about trying to get people to conform with the computer models of desired behavior.

[Extraneus]

Never heard of it either, but why would there be a conservative counterpart to Wikipedia? Is the author claiming that Wikipedia is a lefty site?

[rse]

Speaking of anti-science, LUN is how the Aussies are pushing Human Achievement Hour.

It will take a global effort to stop rio's planned tsunami.

And I want one of those posters.

[Jack is Back!]

Conservatives in the UK (Tories) support NHS-single payer health care. They are closer to the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democrat Party than they are to the Marl Rove idea of Compassionate Coservatism. Sarkozy and Merkel's parties even more like our Dems than W's Republicans.

That may be the baseline being measured.

[narciso]

Well she was MSC semifinalist '79, who are we to judge, con artists do have a certain genius

[Ignatz]

--Speaking of anti-science, LUN is how the Aussies are pushing Human Achievement Hour.--

Since I didn't get to celebrate National Cleavage Day on its proper day I'd like to push back, or maybe push up is more apt, against those confounded Aussies;

And all three contain valid political points so no one can accuse me of gratuitous cheesecake.

[Captain Hate]

Is the author claiming that Wikipedia is a lefty site?

I thought there were examples of things excluded and included that bore that out.

[!st Amendment Solution]

Rich Lowry gives his Maguire 2-cents worth.

"Delric Miller IV died in a hail of bullets a month ago. When someone fired 37 AK-47 rounds into his Detroit home at 4:30 a.m., he was mortally wounded while dozing on the couch. He was nine months old. No one made the multicolored teething ring he got for Christmas or his toy hammer into a national symbol of random violence.
Last year, Charinez Jefferson, 17, was shot and killed on a Chicago street. “She begged the shooter not to shoot her because she was pregnant,” a pastor explained. The alleged assailant, Timothy Jones, 18, shot her in the head, chest and back after seeing her walking with a rival gang member. New York Times columnist Charles Blow did not write a column about Jefferson’s killing as a symbol of the perils of being a young black woman in America.
Last June, a stray bullet from a confrontation on a Brighton Beach, N.Y., boardwalk killed 16-year-old Tysha Jones as she sat on a bench. A 19-year-old man, out for revenge after an earlier scuffle on the boardwalk, was charged in the shooting. Tysha’s heartbroken mother was not featured on all the national TV shows.
In January, 12-year-old Kade’jah Davis was shot and killed when, allegedly, 19-year-old Joshua Brown showed up at her Detroit house to demand the return of a cellphone from Davis’ mother. When Brown didn’t get the phone, he fired shots through the front door. No one held high-profile street protests to denounce gunplay over such trifles."

[Ignatz]

Special for Porchlight:
Fine Corinthian Leather by seven string jazz guitarist virtuoso Charlie Hunter.

[Threadkiller]

Lord Monckton is a conservative from across the pond.

[PaulV]

It was Euro scientists who thought a neutrino had exceeded the speed of light when is was merely bad wiring. Kevin Drum must be clueless after using his empty skull as a drum.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"I am highly confident that most of America, regardless of political persuasion, lacks the expertise to evaluate the claims made in the global warming debate. So let's ponder a different question - do American conservatives tend to trust Al Gore, the New York Times and the United Nations?"

Tom, with respect, and as gently as I can express it, it's comments like the above paragraph that lead liberals to believe that conservatives are not very smart.

[daddy]

Speaking of Scientific illiteracy...

The ADN has posted on their home page now since 23 Mar a column by Paul Krugman: "Obama to blame for gas prices? Not in the real world."

I mention that because I have never seen a column posted on the ADN Homepage for anywhere near as long, and what is interesting is the lack of comments made to the story (50 total in 9 days).

Any Sarah Palin story will generate easily 100 within a 24 hour period, so they can't keep posting Krugman's story because of reader response.

The answer must be something else, either pressure from the Administration or Dem supporters, or simply because our local ADN Lefty morons think that we need to see that headline every day in order to have our daily talking point to rebut Conservatives, as gas prices continue to go through the roof.

Any of that happening in your guy's Newsrags?

[Gmax]

Iggy

That is some fine stuff. A 7 string guitar with two being bass. He basically accompanies himself! Thanks whoever was on organ with him is a pro too.

[Jane]

I don't get it Kathy (which may prove to liberals I am even dumber than most). Are you saying Al Gore, the NY Times and The UN can be trusted?

[Gmax]

Kathy

Meow! right back at ya...

[daddy]

Al Gore is not stupid. Only a man with rare brilliance would have had the smarts to hire Keith Olbermann.

[Clarice]

"Only a man with rare brilliance would have had the smarts to hire Keith Olbermann." and for $50 million dollars!

[Extraneus]

I think Kathy has a point.

Conservatives are fairly dumb, let's face it. Just because they think that Al Gore, the NY Times and the UN IPCC are a conspiracy of left-wing hacks hoping to use normal climate variability in search of a new way to further their socialist fantasies, that doesn't mean that the fact that the earth hasn't warmed in the last fifteen or twenty years is any indication that some sort of left-wing fraud is afoot.

It's fools that go off on that kind of thing.

[matt]

When an organization like the United Nations assents to Libya as chair of the Human Rights Commission, naw, I don't trust them so much.

And when pappy the double PhD was at the initial meeting founding the Environmental Protection Agency somewhere around 1965 and came home and said "those people are bad scientists" I didn't trust them too much.

And when the "most important paper in the Universe" had repeated plagiarism, falsification, and fact twisting scandals, I didn't trust them too much. When I read that Walter Duranty covered up Stalin's genocide and purges, it pretty well trashed their reputation to me.

The job of a scientist is to be skeptical. Too many of the AGW advocates do not have that skepticism and have been caught out in slanting and even falsifying results. Why?

The majority in this country now question their sources for news. Why?

Nothing is perfect, but there is cause for doubt. The Left doubts God. I doubt the Left. I think I have better data.

[jimmyk]

t's comments like the above paragraph that lead liberals to believe that conservatives are not very smart.

It's comments like Kathy's that lead conservatives to believe that liberals resort to ad hominem when unable to formulate coherent arguments on the issues.

[Ignatz]

This site provides many examples of dumb brick liberals in glass houses tossing rocks.
Here are some:

I'm always thrilled when someone else responds to any of the right's dozens of daily idiotic brain disconnects on almost any subject imaginable -- but particularly, in the last couple of weeks, about the murder of Trayvon Martin -- so I don't have to.

*********

Righties have a congenital inability to get the point. The brain damaged Rick Lowry whines that lots of black people get shot without everyone on the Left making a Big Bleeping Deal about it. ...

*********

This tale had already been undercut by a police surveillance video that ABC News obtained yesterday, showing Zimmerman in police custody after the shooting with no obvious signs of injury to his face or head, and walking into the station house with no apparent signs of pain or physical discomfort in the way he walked or held himself.

*********

I'm no economist. The jargon makes my head hurt and I've still not found anyone to explain in simple terms: if all the banks are broke and all the governments have deficits, where's the money coming from they're lending to each other, are they making it up out of thin air? But I like to think I know fiscally stupid when I see it.

Genius, sheer genius. How could Tom, or any conservative really, compete?

[Jane]

So is that what Kathy meant?

[OldTimer]

Desperate Dems cranking up the Deception Machines early...don't say Romney wasn't warned.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/31/DNC-Deceptive-Edit-Rmney-Mandate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

I don't know if any of you were as amazed as I was at how flabbergasted Tweety was to find out people really don't like Obamacare and that there is a Constitutional question surrounding the mandate.

How could someone as politically tuned in as Matthews not be aware? Mindboggling. I think the biggest mistake conservatives make is believing that their opposites are as well-informed as they are and then making assumptions that aren't born out because they rely on both sides being equally informed.

[Porchlight]

Thanks, Ignatz! That was fine indeed.

[daddy]

OT comment on financing of local political issues.

On our Tuesday Anchorage Mayoral Election we have a Lesbian/Gay/Transgender proposition on the Ballot:

The ADN today posted the largest contributors to both sides of the measure:

Pro Funding exceeds Anti funding by $341,000 to $70,000.

What struck me was that the folks for the measure (who raised considerably more money) were from out of State.
The anti's were home grown.

The top Pro's: included:

Planned Parenthood
ACLU of Alaska
Seattle based Pride Foundation
Colorado based Gay Activist
National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce
Human Rights Campaign (Washington DC)
AFL-CIO (Alaska Branch)

Top anti's:

Anchorage Baptist Church
South Anchorage Church
Davis Construction of Anchorage

So all politics may be local, but all political funding sure ain't.

[rse]

No porch we need iggy to stop with the quotes. The sheer brilliance is blinding and we are left feeling bereft with inadequacy.

Sob.

Problem with DST is it's too early to turn on those outside lights.

[Ignatz]

--So is that what Kathy meant?--

Gol-durn if any of us-ens know Jane.
Maybe ifn we pull the straw out twixt our snaggle teeth and get up offn our stumps so we kin think straight we'd be able to figger it out.

[Ignatz]

--No porch we need iggy to stop with the quotes.--

I think she meant my 5:43 link rse.
Least I hope so.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Jane,

Your parenthetical point is correct.

[bgates]

This site provides many examples of dumb brick liberals in glass houses tossing rocks.

If a theorist provides people with theory, what does an agonist do?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Gmax and Ignatz get points for humor. :-)

[Rob Crawford]

I am highly confident that most of America, regardless of political persuasion, lacks the expertise to evaluate the claims made in the global warming debate.

Pure BS, sad I missed it earlier.

I'm capable of examining the behavior of the "researchers" -- real science doesn't involve secret data, deleted sources, and the editing of history. I'm capable of examining their claims in light of history -- and I know that within written history, the world has been warmer than it is now multiple times, and that those warm times have been times of plenty. I've seen their software, and it's crap -- and with twenty years producing and maintaining software, I'm surely more qualified to judge such things than the people who produced it.

There are plenty of people capable of examining the validity of the math the AGW crowd claims to have done. They say the math is poor, and do so with more basis than we get from the supposed rebuttals.

Anyone is capable of reading the rebuttals to some of the basic claims to the AGW crowd. For example, the famous "hockey stick" is based in part on temperatures inferred from the width of tree rings -- but people who actually study trees say there are too many factors in tree growth to say anything about temperature based on the rings.

I'm amazed that given the continuous series of examples we have of the press not just being mistaken, but actively lying, so many conservatives still trust the press when the press slanders AGW skeptics.

[Ralph L]

I thought Porch is female and a mother--or was P talking about the music link, not the boobies?

[Rob Crawford]

It's comments like Kathy's that lead conservatives to believe that liberals resort to ad hominem when unable to formulate coherent arguments on the issues.

I took it the other way -- that it's stupid to act as if we're too stupid to assess the claims.

[Porchlight]

The music link, Ralph L (and Ignatz) - but I like rse's take, too.

Don't worry about DST during Human Achievement Hour tonight, rse! All my lights are going on - every single one. Indoors and out. Plus every appliance, laptop, TV, stereo component, etc.

And I think I will blast Marriage of Figaro.

8:30-9:30 your time, wherever you are...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/human-achievement-hour-vs-earth-hour

[Porchlight]

but people who actually study trees say there are too many factors in tree growth to say anything about temperature based on the rings.

Not to mention that the tree ring data didn't even say what the AGW enthusiasts claimed it did - hence the need to "hide the decline."

[Rob Crawford]

How could someone as politically tuned in as Matthews not be aware?

Why do you assume he's "tuned in"? Clearly he's not.

I'm sure he reads the NYT every day, and that he considers himself informed. It's rapidly becoming clear that, as I believe Twain said, that reading the papers leaves you less informed, not more.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

don't say Romney wasn't warned.

Romney has been sounding the warning in speech after speech. Listen to the speech he gave yesterday in Wisconsin with Paul Ryan, if you have about 25 min. It is one of his best to date and he leaves no doubt that he, his campaign, and the GOP will be up against just about everything Obama and his minions can throw his or their way.

Watch how he turns certain lefty memes on their head, not the least of which is the "out of touch" meme. Or how he answers Obama's stupidness spouted in Maine, when it is hard to believe he could have even heard about it at the time of his own speech. I doubt he had, but the Romney campaign is pretty darn tuned in itself and is good at anticipating and getting better with each passing day.

[Ranger]

This site provides many examples of dumb brick liberals in glass houses tossing rocks.

I used to be a regular commenter over there for a long time, back when it was just one guy's blog and he was actually kind of open minded (for a lefty).

I finally left around when the Bush hate got too strong to break through.

[Janet]

we have a Lesbian/Gay/Transgender proposition on the Ballot:

What is the proposition, daddy?

[Janet]

never mind, here is the story.

"Campaign reports filed this week show supporters of Proposition 5, a ballot measure to extend anti-discrimination protections to gay, lesbian and transgender people in Anchorage,..."

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"I took it the other way -- that it's stupid to act as if we're too stupid to assess the claims."

That's half of it, yes. The other half is the reference to the New York Times, the UN, and Al Gore. Like, if the entire truth and validity of the reality of AGW hangs on Al Gore, or one newspaper. It's self-reinforcing, circular logic. Tom does not believe anything that the New York Times or the UN or Al Gore take seriously, so if they take AGW seriously, AGW must not be a serious issue. And by the same token, since Tom already does not believe that AGW is real, the New York Times and Al Gore and the UN must be completely untrustworthy on the subject.

Circular logic. Self-reinforcing thinking.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

That should have read, "Like, AS if the entire truth and validity....

[Manuel Transmission]

OT and I hope it is not too offensive to the wearers of green around here -- particularly our gracious host.

Just had an interesting conversation with an ex-N. Ireland couple (long been in US) who had interesting stories from one of their fathers. So I will offer this with the expectation that all you historians can validate/ridicule.

First, when papa Joe Kennedy was having his love affair with the Nazis, he arranged for the Irish to provide refueling for Nazi subs before their attacking the Atlantic convoys. Ireland being nominally neutral, that really pissed off the N.I. folks.

Flash forward about two decades and the Russkies are apparently sponsoring the IRA and training and equipping them in Libya. The end point, besides causing a lot of trouble for the west was to destabilize N.I. until the IRA could allow the Russkis to exploit access for their subs. Anyway, supposedly all the Catholic/Protestant flak was just a useful cover story for all the crap being dished out. (Kinda sounds like another form of race baiting.)

Discuss.

[Porchlight]

It's self-reinforcing, circular logic. Liberals believe anything that the New York Times or the UN or Al Gore take seriously, so if they take AGW seriously, AGW must be a serious issue. And by the same token, since liberals already believe that AGW is real, the New York Times and Al Gore and the UN must be completely trustworthy on the subject.

Circular logic. Self-reinforcing thinking.

[Janet]

Here is a problem for the antis -

"But the rules governing church contributions to influence referenda elections are much less clear cut.

"The IRS rules say churches endanger their tax exemption if a 'substantial part' of their work involves politics, including involvement in referenda," said Rob Boston, a senior policy analyst with the Washington, D.C.- based Americans United, a non-profit that advocates for church-state separation. "It's unclear what counts as a 'substantial part' of churches' work.""

bold mine. :(

[Rob Crawford]

Manuel: It makes me wonder what JFK was planning for his second term, or if he (and RFK?) was the oddity in his family.

Ted later followed his father's example -- he raised funds for the IRA and offered to "work with" the Soviets in opposition to Reagan.

[boris]

"AS if the entire truth and validity of the reality of AGW hangs on Al Gore, or one newspaper"

Seems to me the point is that AGW, Gore, NYT and the UN share a statist agenda. IOW the AGW group wants it to be true because the obvious solution would necessarily be global and statist.

[daddy]

"How could someone as politically tuned in as Matthews not be aware?"

As I see it, The Constitution was written in the plain language of the day for plain men to understand, and the Founders and the society of the time took it as given that part of the responsibility of a citizen was to take the time and effort to try to understand the Constitution.

Somewhere along the line a generation of Chris Matthews types popped up, who IMHO, no longer trust themselves to be able to read the Constitution as the Founder's intended it, and for whatever reason, now have relinquished the responsibility to try to understand the Constitution. Instead they have abrogated that citizen responsibility, and opted for a position whereby they allow media and popular culture to identify elites who now tell them what the Constitution means. Once that pronouncement is received, the exercise by Chris Matthew's in understanding the Constitution is finished. Elite Professor So and So said such and such, and that's the answer to that.

And the people who try to understand the Constitution (or Science) through thoroughly examining the Document, the Federalist papers, the tree ring data, popular science books, etc are not only labeled as the ignorant unwashed, they are considered naive fools for even attempting to rely on their innate intelligence to determine meaning.

It is as if we are back in the Middle Ages, and the Matthew's MSM faction is the Church dictating from on high precisely what is what because their anointed elites say what is what, and those who question the Matthews church pronouncements are unschooled heretics.

That to me is how Chris Matthews can be so politically tuned in yet so fundamentally unaware.

[Rob Crawford]

Jane, so long as the Democrats depend on "men" like the "Reverend" Jackson and "Reverend" Sharpton, politicking in church will be protected.

[Danube of Thought]

"it's comments like the above paragraph that lead liberals to believe that conservatives are not very smart."

So you can surely see how conservatives feel when, in the course of two full years, no one in the left-wing cocoon bothers to ask--let alone answer--any of the questions put to the hapless SG from the bench last week. Of course not: the law was settled.

[Danube of Thought]

You'll just have to prepare yourself, Kathy. You're going to die from AGW, and Florida will be underwater.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Having listened to Lord Monckton eviscerate the main premises of the AGW alarmists, I am persuaded that AGW alarmism is totally unjustified. To the extent the NYT, Gore and the UN continue to advocate or support AGW alarmism, I think they are full of equine and bovine excrement.

If that be circular reasoning, make the most of it. I hope I make myself clear KK.

[sbw]

the problem of Gore, NYT and the UN is that they don't know -- or don't care -- that science is the pruning from theses those ideas that experience shows are demonstrably false.

They believe in feelings, not science yet accuse those who try to help them of being unscientific.

[Jane]

How could someone as politically tuned in as Matthews not be aware?

I actually think that is the norm Sara, particularly after interviewing 2 state heavyweights this week. They can argue that they are more normal, less obsessed, but they are also less informed.

The bottom line is we are all nuts, as Kathy says and putting your fingers in your ears and screeching "lalalallalalala" is what carries the day. Oh and Al Gore, The NY Times and the UN.

[Tom Maguire]

I took it the other way -- that it's stupid to act as if we're too stupid to assess the claims.

Well, waddya mean "we"? I may be underestimating the American right but I don't think the public at large is tackling these issues with quite the thoroughness of the typical JOM reader.

This all gets very awkward since I am a perennial outcast on my own blog on this AGW topic. I am reasonably aware of the conviction and depth of research done by the anti-AGW side and I know there are plenty of prominent scientists who consider many key questions open, but I have retreated one trenchline to the Bjorn Lomborg position.

Briefly, I think AGW is happening but none of the policy proposals are "serious" in the sense of being either cost-effective or likely to bring India and China along. A bunch of Euro-statists and corporatists hijacked the issue decades ago and the American left has hitched up but nothing on offer has any chance of making sense.

Just as an example, let me recycle this old bit of Krugman-bashing on climate change; I am a bit more serious here, where I bash Krugman while he bashes Gore (no, really.)

[Clarice]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that all the people with huge financial interests in AGW based "green energy" are also left wingers heavily invested in the Democrat party here and the socialist parties in Europe; that they keep pushing for these inefficacious programs despite the fact that they have everywhere proved counter productive, harmful to the environment and worst of all--useless in meeting energy needs of First World countries; and that those laughably named "public interest" groups that fight all conventional energy production are significantly funded directly or indirectly (thru outfits like Tides) by the same very rich people growing richer on this scam

[pagar]

New York Times has continued even further left than when they :

"Duranty obliged……becoming a propagandist for the Communist Party the the Soviet Union.

The New York Times obliged…..becoming a propagandist newspaper for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. "

http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/walter-duranty-new-york-times-stalinist-a-name-that-should-live-in-infamy/

AGW is simply one of the greatest financial scams ever created, IMO.

[Jim Ryan]

Kathy has an interesting interpretation of TM's thinking as "circular." Do you have any reason to suppose it's correct, Kathy?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Liberals believe anything that the New York Times or the UN or Al Gore take seriously, so if they take AGW seriously, AGW must be a serious issue."

Nice try, Porchlight. When I wrote this, though, I was referring to something written by a specific person in a specific post -- this one. You can't just reverse it and have it be true, without referring to something real, something specific -- although I know you think you can.

[Porchlight]

You can't just reverse it and have it be true, without referring to something real, something specific -- although I know you think you can.

Ah, but there you are wrong. It is true. Although I will allow that some liberals of my acquaintance (and since I have lived in blue states or towns my entire life, nearly everyone I know is liberal) have lately begun to doubt Mr. Gore as truth-teller and prophet.

[narciso]

Well RFK was as much as possible the liason to the Cuban exile community in the administration, includitng one of my relatives, was the devotee of counter
insurgency, yet yielded rather quickly to the antiwar forces, although from 'Victory Forsaken' it's arguable they had dropped the ball from the beginning.

[Porchlight]

Oh - I take it back. I lived in Louisville from age 2 to age 9. Not a blue town or a blue state. But, I also did not discuss politics for those entire 7 years, except when my dad asked in '72 who I wanted to win the election, and I answered "Walter Cronkite."

I was only 3 so give me a break.

[Jim Ryan]

Like, if the entire truth and validity of the reality of AGW hangs on Al Gore, or one newspaper.

Like, if it was a sentence. From someone who had graduated from high school.

You can't just reverse it and have it be true, without referring to something real, something specific -- although I know you think you can.

Yeah, no fair. You can't do that. You're saying it about TM but than Porchlight said it about someone else which isn't right. You get to say it but that doesn't mean Porchlight gets to too. It matters what your saying it about. Alot.

[Rob Crawford]

I may be underestimating the American right but I don't think the public at large is tackling these issues with quite the thoroughness of the typical JOM reader.

I was unaware that it was necessary for everyone to do the primary research.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Seems to me the point is that AGW, Gore, NYT and the UN share a statist agenda. IOW the AGW group wants it to be true because the obvious solution would necessarily be global and statist."

That's silly, Boris. Either AGW is real or it's not real. Obviously, there's room for disagreement and discussion about how serious AGW is, how we should respond to it, etc., but if you believe that the New York Times is making it up to advance a "global" or "statist" agenda (whatever those might be), all you have to do is read up on the issue on your own. You don't have to, and shouldn't, take the New York Times's, or ANY single source's, reporting, on faith.

And if AGW *is* real, then even if the NYT has this "globalist, statist agenda," how does that change the reality of AGW if it's real?

[boris]

"AGW is happening but none of the policy proposals are "serious" in the sense of being either cost-effective or likely to bring India and China along"

The kind of AGW using positive feedbacks with runaway temperature increase is not happening. Can't happen.

The kind of AGW that's possible was going to happen anyway, humans (MAYBE) moved it up a century or two. Proposals aren't cost-effective? Hell, current policies in effect are counterproductive. Human technology is advancing exponentially faster than climate change and 100 years from now, if humans are not extinct or mired in another dark age, AGW will not be a problem for them.

[OldTimer]

Here's an excerpt from LUN written by Peter Suderman. He takes on the liberal legal elites who are genuinely stunned at the Supreme Court Obamacare mandate discussion.

Liberals can’t even imagine the opposition’s arguments to ObamaCare's individual mandate.

"...What can explain liberals’ widespread failure to anticipate the Court’s wariness of the mandate? Research conducted by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests one possible answer: Liberals just aren’t as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think. Haidt helped conduct research that asked respondents to fill out questionnaires about political narratives—first responding based on their own beliefs, but then responding as if trying to mimic the beliefs of their political opponents. “The results,” he writes in the May issue of Reason, “were clear and consistent.” Moderates and conservatives were the most able to think like their liberal political opponents. “Liberals,” he reports, “were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’”

[boris]

"believe that the New York Times is making it up to advance a "global" or "statist" agenda ..."

Just meant that is their incentive to "believe" ... their heaven on earth if you will.

[Danube of Thought]

I will give KK a very brief summary of this one conservative's view on AGW, and she can ponder it or not as she chooses. I can tell her first that I am trained in the scientific method and published in mathematics, but I don't believe those credentials are necessary for me or anyone else to reach these conclusions.

1. The scope of the warming that has occurred in the past 150 years, and is projected to occur, is uncertain and disputed, but is almost certainly trivial. The proportion of this warming that is caused by human activity is less than 100%. More important,

2. If tomorrow it were shown to an absolute certainty that all of the recent and projected warming had in fact occurred and will occur, but that it had been and will be caused exclusively by cosmic and geological events over which mankind had no control whatsoever, concern over this warming would evaporate overnight.

3. It would evaporate because it would no longer afford a rationale for controlling people's lives. I do not believe it is any accident at all that those who have seized upon AGW for that purpose--GORE, the NY Times and the UN are but examples--have a long and unblemished record of believing that human lives can be improved if only certain elites exercise more control over them.

[Clarice]

And if AGW is overhyped, unscientific B.S. that suits the NYT' "globalist, statist " agenda the fact that the NYT endorses the theory adds nothing to its value.

[narciso]

No, it's not real, otherwise they would n't play all these game with 'heat island' observation posts, the medieval warming period, any number of other data points,

[Ignatz]

--The other half is the reference to the New York Times, the UN, and Al Gore. Like, if the entire truth and validity of the reality of AGW hangs on Al Gore, or one newspaper. --

The problem with what you wrote is in large part the truth and validity [or lack of same] does hang on the UN since the IPCC is under its umbrella and the vast majority of AGW alaramism and its undeserved authority stems directly from the IPCC.
As the IPCC has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a sad excuse for good science, to the point that even some warmists are calling for its dismantling, your point is seemingly without foundation.

[Threadkiller]

Jim, I used to have faith in Monckton. Turns out he is a birther, so his credibility is permanently ruined.

Unless he is right.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Ah, but there you are wrong. It is true. Although I will allow that some liberals of my acquaintance (and since I have lived in blue states or towns my entire life, nearly everyone I know is liberal) have lately begun to doubt Mr. Gore as truth-teller and prophet."

Porchlight. You have not understood a word I have written here. Whether AGW is a real threat, or it isn't, has zero to do with Al Gore being a truth-teller and a prophet, or not being a truth-teller or a prophet. You're doing exactly what I talked about in that other comment about circular reasoning and self-reinforcing logic. This is not about Al Gore. AGW is not about Al Gore.

I have no faith that you will understand what I'm saying here. But I say it anyway. I don't know why.

[Clarice]

Once again, you're just too bright for us, kathy.

[Ignatz]

And I have a question for Kathy K on a much more pressing issue anyway.

Just exactly where do you stand in the deep divide between the twin peaks of pro and con on the touchy issue of National Cleavage Day?

[Threadkiller]

I have not understood a word either.

[narciso]

An "Inconvenient Truth' has been propagated as gospel, in many public school curriculums, despite the myriad omissions, lies and misrepresentations. An earlier piece of hysteria, 'After the WArming' by James Burke,
is also rather common, and many of the arguments from 20 years, form policy planks now,

[Porchlight]

Whether AGW is a real threat, or it isn't, has zero to do with Al Gore being a truth-teller and a prophet, or not being a truth-teller or a prophet.

You're right! AGW is not a real threat AND Al Gore is neither a truth-teller nor a prophet.

[Ranger]

Kathy,

I big part of the problem is that a few of us are old enough to remember when the climate crisis was the impending onset of a new Ice Age. All of the people who now so seriously warn us of the dangers of Global Warming, were convinced that glaciers were going to start advancing south any moment and we needed to get prepared. Of coruse, get prepared meant strong, co-ordinated inter-government action to manage global society as the catastrophy loomed. Now, the problem is warming, but the answer is always the same, more power to the state, and more power to the institutions of global governance. Funny how it works out that way.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

At least he's a birth certificater, Tk. That doesn't ruin his credibility for me.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Jane: I think you and Daddy are both right. We have a situation where they are not only plugging their ears and remaining arrogantly oblivious and we have at least two generations now who are hopelessly undereducated and underinformed about history, whether it be Constitutional or scientific or any other area. It is like if it didn't happen since the advent of computers, it didn't happen at all.

[Threadkiller]

Acid rain baby!!

[Threadkiller]

Me either Jim.

[Porchlight]

T-9 minutes until the start of Human Achievement Hour. Get ready to flip those switches UP.

[Danube of Thought]

"I have no faith that you will understand what I'm saying here."

I understand every word you have said, and find you entirely unpersuasive. You have said not one word about what, if anything, should be done about AGW, nor why it should be done, nor whether it would be sensible to do it.
Instead you have contented yourself with attacking those who disagree with you.

If you are troubled about the fact that you and your allies are losing the argument, you might consider all of this. But i am confident that you won't. You believe yourself to be morally and intellectually superior, and you are offended by the very notion that you should have to address your adversaries' views on the merits.

[henry]

All switches on, all amps on max.

[Porchlight]

Ditto, Henry. Even the candles.

Human Achievement Hour is in full swing, y'all. Fire up those incandescents!

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"The problem with what you wrote is in large part the truth and validity [or lack of same] does hang on the UN since the IPCC is under its umbrella and the vast majority of AGW alaramism and its undeserved authority stems directly from the IPCC."

Assuming for the sake of argument that what you say about the UN is true, so what? You have not made a valid argument for the proposition that AGW does not exist. Your position *still* is completely circular -- "the vast majority of AGW alarmism" (and here you are assuming it is alarmism -- that's the assumption you go in with) "... stems directly from the IPCC." So that's your evidence that AGW doesn't exist. Because it's alarmism (which is not a reason; it's just a restatement of the belief) and the IPCC promotes the alarmism (which you still haven't explained WHY you believe it's alarmism), so that makes the IPCC unreliable, and since the IPCC is unreliable, their position on AGW is unreliable.

It just doesn't work.

[scott]

"all amps on max" uhhh, Ok, but it's gonna get loud around here!!

Long live Edison....and Jim Marshall!!

Lights blazing.

[bgates]

You have not made a valid argument for the proposition that AGW does not exist.

Rob Crawford has made arguments for that proposition, and others on the thread have mentioned Bjorn Lomberg and Lord Monckton. You haven't engaged any of their arguments, nor have you made a valid argument for the proposition that AGW does exist.

[Danube of Thought]

Come now, KK--answer a simple hypothetical question:

Suppose that tomorrow Gaia herself disclosed that all past warming was in fact not caused by man, and projected future warming could not be affected by man. What would you recommend?

Would one be safe in assuming that, whatever must be done, the UN should play a prominent role? Just guessing...