Interesting examination of the Clinton campaign debt by David Kurtz of TPM here. The article includes including additional links, the first of which is a good introduction to the legal aspects of paying it off.

It seems more like a cry piece more than anything else. He is not happy that an ex President has made a lot of money and has decided to let his wife, whom he owes his political life to, use some of it to try and get elected. Big whoop! I prefer that to the way papa Joe Kennedy made his money which helped launch a political dynasty.

White Hillary Voters in WV Can Use X for Signature. Hilarious. Well it's least it better than that video that new commenter is pushing. Although that might not be saying much.

Nice of Jonathan Chait to quote a unknown poll that Kerry was ahead of Bush on Iraq at the end. Was that poll part of the exit polls that predicted a landslide victory for Kerry?

Well it's least it better than that video that new commenter is pushing.

Talk about setting a low bar.

Paul: Jon said that he'd just looked at those data. Unless you have some evidence to back up your dispute with what he said, I don't see any reason to doubt his word. Sounds like empty carping.

Yea it took me about 10 seconds to see that one coming so I edit my comment shortly there after, adding, "Although that might not be saying much.", but I guess not short enough.

There was a point that Ross made near the beginning of this diavlog that I'd like to augment. He said that it made sense, for the good of the party, to have Clinton stay in the race until all the primary elections are done. I think of it this way: imagine how you'd feel if you lived in Oregon or South Dakota, and Clinton dropped out after tomorrow's vote in West Virginia. That could stall the momentum for registering new voters. Not that I think Clinton is going to drop out, actually.

Sorry for jumping in so soon.

It seems that in this day of the WEB, and with them being able to include links on the side, it is not an unreasonable request as that thought crossed my mind as I listened to the diavlog. It's not that Mr. Chait is partisan or anything like that.

Looks like the NY times has finally woken up to a problem with the meme, that a President Obama will be the panacea to the Islamists, that they generally preach. President Apostate? .

It's no problem. I got to admit not to cover that was a definite brain fart.

Quoting piscivorous: It seems that in this day of the WEB, and with them being able to include links on the side, it is not an unreasonable request as that thought crossed my mind as I listened to the diavlog. It's not that Mr. Chait is partisan or anything like that.

Seemed like a minor, and unplanned, point, brought up only because he and Ross got off on a bit of a tangent. Besides, in this day of the Web, it doesn't seem like it asks much for commenters to use The Google. For example, this CNN data set backs up Jon's main point: For those for whom Iraq was the most important issue (15% of voters), Kerry was preferred over Bush 73% to 26%.

Quoting piscivorous: Looks like the NY times has finally woken up to a problem with the meme, that a President Obama will be the panacea to the Islamists, that they generally preach. President Apostate? .

It never fails to amaze me how eagerly you lunge at opinion pieces that match your own wishes, and treat them as gospel. I read that piece this morning, and while I thought there was a little merit to it, it didn't make a solid case. First, there's an assumption in the piece that all Muslims in the world are like those fundamentalist nutjobs that we see blowing themselves up on TV. Second, the biggest "worry" this guy had was that security considerations during presidential visits would be complicated. The second point is just a howler. The Secret Service doesn't assume one American president is going to be safer than another. When Obama goes anywhere, he'll have airtight protection, just as any other president would. To the larger point: It will, I believe, be seen as a huge plus for many Muslims around the world (not just those in the Middle East) to see a new president who is not Bush (or McSame), just to begin

Besides, in this day of the Web, it doesn't seem like it asks much for commenters to use The Google. For example, this CNN data set backs up Jon's main point: For those for whom Iraq was the most important issue (15% of voters), Kerry was preferred over Bush 73% to 26%.

Note the title of the CNN data set - U.S. PRESIDENT / NATIONAL / EXIT POLL
Forgive me if I take any conclusions taken from the exit polls that predicted a Kerry win, with a large grain of salt.

Quoting bjkeefe: Interesting examination of the Clinton campaign debt by David Kurtz of TPM here.

Thanks for the link. It underscores the political savvy that the Clinton's posses. I don't have any big ideas as to how to perfect the system.
Obama's small donor method is bound to force adjustments and rules for both parties. But in this case it clearly has dealt Hillary an undeniable obstacle and forced her hand financially.

Quoting PaulL: Note the title of the CNN data set - U.S. PRESIDENT / NATIONAL / EXIT POLL
Forgive me if I take any conclusions taken from the exit polls that predicted a Kerry win, with a large grain of salt.

Jon wasn't talking about predictions. The whole point of that discussion was whether issues or "character" played the major role. He said character was more important, and said that the only real issue -- Iraq -- proved his point; i.e., had the issues been the most important thing, Kerry would have won. He substantiated this by talking about exit poll data.

First, there's an assumption in the piece that all Muslims in the world are like those fundamentalist nutjobs that we see blowing themselves up on TV.

The nutjob, it seems to me, is Luttwak, the author of the op ed. He manages to pump from the bottomless well of Islamophobia yet another rant on supposedly crazy Muslim barbarians at the gate. Luttwak is otherwise known for his own radical dogma that war brings peace.

The real difference between Republicans and Democrats

I guess there are a couple of different conclusions one could draw for your clip, dependent upon point of view.
to Mr. Douthat it is obvious that he fells having to spend a fraction of your wealth to peruse a goal is not that big a thing. After all how is the Clinton life style going to be affected by having disposed of some rather small percentage of the wealth, given it's size, so why not. Mr. Chait believes in the inherent selfishness and greed of the wealthy and all that the care about is preserving their wealth and accruing more of it. Perhaps they are both correct as the book advance win or lose will be staggering, it is just a mater of how long before either Senator Clinton, or Senator Obama collect it.

Perhaps both sides should read this one page synopsis of a report by U.S. Energy Information Administration Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

Jon Chait is a smart guy and generally good on economics; so I was surprised to hear him mis-characterize Pareto optimality here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10975?in=00:37:33. A Pareto optimal outcome is one where nobody can be made better off without making another person worse off, that is where all of the mutually beneficial trades have been exhausted. It says nothing about whether the winners compensate the losers. I have everything, and you have nothing is a Pareto optimal outcome. What I assume Chait meant to say was that free trade represented a potential pareto improvement - that is a change where the gains outweigh the losses and where the winners could compensate the losers - and that liberal proponents of free trade erroneously assumed that since the winners could compensate the losers that they would compensate the losers. Sorry to be pedantic, but if Chait is going to use fancy economics jargon, he should use it correctly.

Quoting piscivorous: Perhaps both sides should read this one page synopsis of a report by U.S. Energy Information Administration Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

What conclusions do you draw from this?

I mostly offered it up for information. As to conclusions it appears that the move to the environmentalists preferred energy sources is going to be very expensive.

Quoting piscivorous: I mostly offered it up for information. As to conclusions it appears that the move to the environmentalists preferred energy sources is going to be very expensive.

Off topic, but I had a dream the other day that it was ten years in the future. Conservatives had finally come to grips with the reality of global warming, and were determined to apply their special solution to fix the problem: threatening to invade and bomb China and India unless they got their emissions under control. Funny, because that's exactly how I thnk it would play out ... except for the fact that the conservatives will never come to grips with global warming. We could see the Eastern seaboard under water and they would still insist that human activity had nothing to do with it.

Bob M:

Sorry to be pedantic, but ...

No need to apologize. I like precision in language myself, especially when it comes to technical terms. In this case, it does seem that Jon wasn't entirely off base in his usage (I am basing this on a quick read of Wikipedia). It seems to me that he was saying that there were things that could have been done to improve the situation for those hurt by NAFTA without (much) cost those who were gaining from it. From Wikipedia:

Given a set of alternative allocations of, say, goods or income for a set of individuals, a movement from one allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement.

I'm guessing he meant that tax breaks, increased education and worker retraining spending, etc., could have been made part of the whole NAFTA planning package, and that it wouldn't have hurt those who strongly favored NAFTA to somehow kick in towards this; e.g., by accepting larger tax rates at the higher end of the scale. I agree that Jon's follow-on sentence about "the losers would be compensated" doesn't

Then would you agree that Racial Carson is one of the greatest mass murderers ever. In the hysteria she and those that followed caused surrounding the use of DDT has left how many people dead from Malaria that need not have died. It is only now that we are beginning to redress the use of DDT in the malaria fight. hasty policy based on questionable science has consequences not all of them so pleasant. I really don't want to reprise the debate about what you believe to be be true vs what I believe to be true about the effects on what is minor gas in the atmosphere, by volume or weight, has or does not have on the climate. the east coast has been under water before, at least the part I now live on and for a few miles west of me, or there would be no road here with the name "High Ridge." It is named that because it runs atop a ridge of coral that was laid down quite some time in the past; before there were humans using fossil fuels or

I'm sceptical of the idea that, based on their previous earnings, the Clintons will have no trouble making up the millions they spent on the campaign. Did anyone really think that paying Bill Clinton tens of thousands of dollars for a motivational speech was worth it? Call my cynical, but I'd see that as influence-buying to get the favor of a future president. If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, and Obama wins in November, I think Bill's speaking fees go way, way down. Minor point- Giuliani's speaking fees will also go down (here's hoping). Piscivorous- Obama is not going to be considered a Muslim apostate. For one thing, he never made the shahadah, the Muslim profession of faith. ("I testify that there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet.") Second, Obama's father was raised Muslim but was either atheist or agnostic before Obama was born. Also, if a Muslim father abandons his child(ren), as Obama's father did, Muslim law says that the mother, as sole responsible parent, has the right to raise the children in her faith.

Andrya6: Interesting take on the apostasy issue. Thanks for that. I disagree with you somewhat about the speaking fees thing. I agree that there is some amount of influence- and access-purchasing at work when you hire a guy like Bill Clinton to give a speech. On the other hand, even if Hillary loses this election, Bill will still have plenty of clout. Even if she retires from politics, and/or divorces him, he will. I also think that a lot of people continue to make a lot of money for doing appearances and speeches even when they would appear to have no clout or appear to have lost it. Lots of organizations are willing to pay big dollars for a rock star, even if that star hasn't had a hit in years, if you take my metaphor. Maybe Bill Clinton's fee goes from X to 0.5X or 0.25X or even 0.1X, but I am certain he'll have no trouble continuing to make millions if he wants to.

The Clintons can live quite comfortably on his presidential pension and her Senate salary and future pension. Why do they have to be mega-rich? Since they identify so completely with the middle class, maybe they can get by with only ten times or so the retirement income and perks the rest of us endure. If they are greedier, Hillary will get a huge book deal, and they can trade on their fame and speaking abilities for the rest of their lives. They are both clearly maniacal workaholics, so I doubt they will find themselves with too much time on their hands.

I am so much more reassured now that you have authoritatively spoken for the what 2 billion Muslims in the world. And while you may be correct about how he will in general be viewed by the Islamic masses; what of that fraction that will use any manner of deceit, deception and guile, to propagate their particular interpretation of the Koran and Hadith in pursuit of the world Caliphate. I'm not sure tht all we hold you point of view.

Pisc:

I am so much more reassured now that you have authoritatively spoken for the what 2 billion Muslims in the world.

Funny. You were so quick to believe one other person speaking on behalf of all the world's Muslims before. Wonder how that could be. Here is some additional support for Andrya6's point of view: First, from Matt Yglesias:

Man, Barack Obama's really got it coming and going. First John McCain runs around the country talking about how much Hamas loves Obama, now Edward Luttwak says Islam requires Obama's murder for the crime of apostasy. I'm no expert on Islamic law, but if this were any kind of real issue, shouldn't The New York Times be able to locate an actual Muslim who sees things this way?

Second, following a link in another post by Matt, we come to this post by Ali Eteraz. Eteraz echoes some of Andrya6's points, and adds considerably more.

Quoting Big Wayne: Off topic, but I had a dream the other day that it was ten years in the future. Conservatives had finally come to grips with the reality of global warming, and were determined to apply their special solution to fix the problem: threatening to invade and bomb China and India unless they got their emissions under control.

Funny, because that's exactly how I thnk it would play out ... except for the fact that the conservatives will never come to grips with global warming. We could see the Eastern seaboard under water and they would still insist that human activity had nothing to do with it.

What would it take to convince you that liberals had come to grips with global warming, would it be when they embrace nuclear power? And Al Gore was talking about the oceans rising ten feet in his lifetime.......now that the term 'global warming' is being very cleverly changed to 'global climate change' based on the fact that temps have decreased since 1998.........I hope Al has had second thoughts about moving to higher ground any time soon. Just keep collecting the $$ off

Obama should thank McCain (and conservatives) for pointing out his Hamas connections. I really doubt he would have fired Robert Malley last week.....for meeting with Hamas.......unless someone outside his campaign had clued him in. All McCain should say is 'happy to help!'. If only liberals attacked Hamas with the same vehemence with which they attack McCain. And now that Obama has had the blinders pulled off regarding both Rev Wright and Hamas.......how long will it be before he realizes Bill Ayers is an unrepentant, America-hating ex-terrorist? Obama's getting quicker on the uptake....it may only be a matter of weeks.

Quoting piscivorous: Then would you agree that Racial Carson is one of the greatest mass murderers ever.

One of the greatest mass murderers ever? Do you know what murder is? Would you actually describe Rachel Carson as a mass murderer?

Quoting piscivorous: the east coast has been under water before, at least the part I now live on and for a few miles west of me, or there would be no road here with the name "High Ridge." It is named that because it runs atop a ridge of coral that was laid down quite some time in the past; before there were humans using fossil fuels or a place called Greenland because when the Nordic peoples settled there it was actually green instead of frozen wasteland.

Before I respond further, can you clarify which of the following points you are trying to make? Either you are suggesting: Because climate change in millenia past was not man made, no climate change is man made. Or you are suggesting: Climate change has had natural causes in the past, so we should doubt the possibility that climate change in the present is man-made.

Quoting harkin: Obama should thank McCain (and conservatives) for pointing out his Hamas connections.

His Hamas connections? I must have missed that. What are his Hamas connections?

Quoting harkin: If only liberals attacked Hamas with the same vehemence with which they attack McCain.

Yeah. Same goes for the right. If only you guys attacked Hamas with the same vehemence with which you attack Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or the majority of the American people who find George Bush to be a spectacular failure. There's a reason members of both political parties focus more on each other than they do on Hamas. I think you know what it is.

Quoting harkin: And now that Obama has had the blinders pulled off regarding both Rev Wright and Hamas.......how long will it be before he realizes Bill Ayers is an unrepentant, America-hating ex-terrorist?

Do you actually have any evidence that Obama does not believe Ayers is an unrepentant, America-hating ex-terrorist? Is it just the fact that he doesn't foam at the mouth about it like Sean Hannity?

Your projecting onto my comment the attitude that I was ".... so quick to believe one other person speaking on behalf of all the world's Muslims ...." by merely bringing up the article is carrying the ball abit too loosely. As for Mr. Yegalis, at this point in the political season, will say just about anything or everything to further the cause In general I think his analysis is weak and always tinged with with bias of his politics so I have a hard time apportioning any level of creditability to his stuff until after November when he has regained some measure of sanity. The Ali Eteraz article I did find informative.

Quoting harkin: What would it take to convince you that liberals had come to grips with global warming, would it be when they embrace nuclear power?

I doubt you are totally clueless, so I suspect you are aware that liberals, increasingly, do support nuclear power.

Quoting harkin: now that the term 'global warming' is being very cleverly changed to 'global climate change'

What's clever about that?

Quoting harkin: the term 'global warming' is being very cleverly changed to 'global climate change' based on the fact that temps have decreased since 1998

Two questions: Where is the evidence supporting your claim that the term is being changed to "climate change" because of the decrease in temps since 1998? What is your evidence that temps have decreased since 1998? Even Rush Limbaugh openly admits that temps are rising. (He just disputes the cause.)

As far as Racheal Carson goes I believe that she is responsible for the deaths of millions. Did she order them lined them up against the wall and shot no; but they are still dead in large part to the hysteria she and the others help foster.

Quoting Big Wayne: Either you are suggesting:

... Because climate change in millenia past was not man made, no climate change is man made.

Or you are suggesting:

Climate change has had natural causes in the past, so we should doubt the possibility that climate change in the present is man-made.

I don't particularly see climate change and it's cause as binary. I use the two examples to point out that the climate has always been and will always be in a state of flux. To define the climate we have to day as optimal and there fore mandate that we adopt policies, no matter what the costs to society, to try and lock in the current climate as a fools errand. It would also be foolish to argue that mankind has never had an impact on the atmosphere, acid rain and the ozone depletion

Did any one notice which particular flag pin Senator Obama was wearing in West Virginia yesterday?

October 4, 2007:...particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,...

So first he makes the accusation that those who wear the flag pin are using it as a substitute for "true patriotism" when he is courting the left in the primary, and now he is back to wearing it as he has to somehow make his appeal at least palatable to the center. Yep that's the new politics of change, which the Senator so eloquently pontificates about, and another concrete example of just how far his actions are from his rhetoric.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/109...4&out=00:16:51

What a weasel. Hope Wonderment knows his Bible.

Allah Hu Akhbar!

Quoting piscivorous:
The climate we are experiencing today is still well within the norms of what has been experienced before, both in the long view of epochs past, "High Ridge Road" and geologically speaking essentially yesterday, the Nordic discovery and settlement Greenland.

If your binary options were the sum and substance of the possibilities I guess that I would have to chose the latter of the two until mother nature shows significant variance from historical norm or that the models projections actually start to conform to the actual data we are getting.

What do you think of CO2 hitting 800 ppm? 1100? Is it your contention that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate? Or that increased levels of CO2 is non human-related? Whether climate change is already proven to be anthropogenic or not, no one disputes that 1100 will have disastrous effects, and there is no dispute about our current course. Which part of the equation do you take issue with?

Quoting kidneystones:

It's about character, integrity and judgment.

Do you think that McCain has been affected by interactions with advisors and/or voters? Do you know about the story Obama is peddling about a veteran who approached him and gave him a pin, explaining the meaning it held for him? Is it completely out of the realm of politics and integrity for a politician to wear a pin given to him by a vet at a veteran's event in WVA? You seem to think that puncturing the pr brand that a candidate's campaign sells is the same as revealing the antichrist. This kind of dialogue between local constituencies, changing the focus of a message, etc. is how campaigns operate, and it's how they pretend to represent the interests of the people, especially when people seem to think that whether you wear a pin or not is an important criterion for choosing a president. THese games are mostly shams, and Obama plays into them, just like all other candidates. He does seem more authentic than most, however. I can't think of another presidential contender who writes his most important speeches, for example. This criterion, to me, is

Quoting kidneystones: Not a fucking peep in your vapid excuses of the flag-pin debacle about the your candidate's Kentucky Posters.

I am shocked and appalled that Obama is trying to knowingly emphasize one part of his story (did he not endure the worst shitstorm of his candidacy for staying with Trinity Church?) in order to appeal to voters in Kentucky. Just as shocked as when GW Bush pretends he has a "ranch" or McCain pretends to have "learned his lesson" at the hands of the voters about border security.

Quoting kidneystones: (via the Corner) Right-wing folks are circulating posters of Obama standing at the pulpit beneath a large cross preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the un-believers. Jumpin' Jeebuz, can you smell sainted pandering?

You are clearly a devout Christian, and I can understand your pain at seeing those posters. Do you know if OBama, by chance, has ever testified at the pulpit at Trinity or other churches?

Quoting pod2: What do you think of CO2 hitting 800 ppm? 1100? Is it your contention that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate? Or that increased levels of CO2 is non human-related? Whether climate change is already proven to be anthropogenic or not, no one disputes that 1100 will have disastrous effects, and there is no dispute about our current course. Which part of the equation do you take issue with?

Oh I have no problem with accepting that the CO2 levels have risen and that over the last 100 years or so it has gotten warmer. But correlation is not prof of causation. Nor is a computer model that, even as sophisticated as it is, is still so full of holes it is GIGO. In what year are we projected to reach 8/100s of one percent (800 ppm) of the atmosphere and in what year will the even more frightening 11/100s of one percent (1100 ppm) will we be reached in what year. What will the effect of the concentrations of CO2 have on the clouds? Don't know? Well neither do the scientists quit agree on this and even if they did the couldn't model it yet

Quoting kidneystones: WTF?

I'm not putting out posters conflating my faith with political destiny.

Obama is.

You're supporting a huckster who has less scruple than Jim and Tammy Fae.

Obama is raising fucking money and votes with the bible. There's an excellent chance, however, that Obamabots each living in their own uniquely crafted Obama bubbles will only hear about Obama's religious pandering if they happen to have registered as 'church goers' with Obama central.

That's the great thing about getting all your information about Obama from Obamaland. You just get the facts you need to keep forking over the cash and looking upon Obama as your personal saviors.

No need to look up, just keep praying and listening to the preacher.

I'm involved in non-denominational community-outreach. Atheists and agnostics are all welcome. But I'll say a little prayer for you while I'm there.

Send Cash to Obama!

Make the Baby-Jesus Smile!

You're a funny kid. Imagine a parallel universe. Imagine that, in this universe, there is a candidate running for president who has been a member of a Christian church for decades, and has caught significant flack for membership in such congregation. Imagine that in this

Quoting piscivorous:
In what year are we projected to reach 8/100s of one percent (800 ppm) of the atmosphere and in what year will the even more frightening 11/100s of one percent (1100 ppm) will we be reached in what year. What will the effect of the concentrations of CO2 have on the clouds? Don't know? Well neither do the scientists quit agree on this and even if they did the couldn't model it yet with the current computer power that they have to throw at the models. .

Here's where you kind of give away the game. There is no dispute that 1100 ppm would mean unbelievable departure from even interglacial period climate. I don't think you've thought this point through, and you should really consult some of the science before just saying that there is no consensus or unanimous predication in the scientific community. THere is consensus, and it becomes unanimous once you reach 800 ppm, let alone 1100. If you want to pursue this point, I'll be glad to argue in more detail, but I think you're not quite sure what 1100 means.

Is this a response to my post? Have you not repeated the same points before? Care to respond to my points about how campaigns work? Dispute any of my points? Or, we can just repeat our earlier posts ad nauseum, that works too.

Quoting kidneystones: Can't say I'm surprised you'd rather talk about my faith than you're candidate's hucksterism.

Did you read my post? Did you read the sentence about micromarketing? About the widespread belief that Obama is a Muslim? Do you dispute these points? Do you think it is unacceptable for a candidate to address widespread incorrect damaging beliefs that voters have about him? Sincerely interested, podtwo

In your quote I 4 questions and made one statement: 1.) In what year are we projected to reach 8/100s of one percent (800 ppm) of the atmosphere
2.) and in what year will the even more frightening 11/100s of one percent (1100 ppm) will we be reached in what year.
3.) What will the effect of the concentrations of CO2 have on the clouds?
4.) Don't know? Well neither do the scientists quit agree on this and even if they did the couldn't model it yet with the current computer power that they have to throw at the models. Notice that my point has noting to do it will those levels cause warming or not. It has to do with how will it affect clouds. On which there really is no consensus. I than go on and remind you that the current models can not actually model cloud behavior the modelers substitute in some guess, in the form of parameters. Sure if you would like to point me in the direction that shows the model have been redone to shrink the block size sufficiently so that cloud behavior can actually be

Quoting piscivorous: In your quote I 4 questions and made one statement:

1.) In what year are we projected to reach 8/100s of one percent (800 ppm) of the atmosphere
2.) and in what year will the even more frightening 11/100s of one percent (1100 ppm) will we be reached in what year.
3.) What will the effect of the concentrations of CO2 have on the clouds?
4.) Don't know?

Well neither do the scientists quit agree on this and even if they did the couldn't model it yet with the current computer power that they have to throw at the models.

Notice that my point has noting to do it will those levels cause warming or not. It has to do with how will it affect clouds. On which there really is no consensus. I than go on and remind you that the current models can not actually model cloud behavior the modelers substitute in some guess, in the form of parameters.

Sure if you would like to point me in the direction that shows the model have been redone to shrink the block size sufficiently so that cloud behavior can actually be

Quoting pod2: My point is that there is unanimous agreement among climatologists that 1100 ppm would not be good. 800 ppm would not be good. We are accelerating past 400 at a geometrically terrifying pace. Best case scenarios see us stabilizing at around 550 or 600 ppm.

My point is that no scientist is saying that we should risk continuing up past 700 and 800.

We have an administration that invaded Iraq because of the 1% doctrine. The scientific community is advocating a 90% doctrine. 90% (a charitable concession on my part) of climatologists say that an increase in 40 or 50 ppm is having a dramatic and damaging effect on our climate. You say that we should wait until there is 100% certainty before deciding what to do. Do we as humans respond to ANY risks to our survival in this way? 90+ percent of the scientific community cites imminent danger of climate change that would take more lives than 9/11 and you want to wait until we reach 100%? This is not how we run risk management-- as families, individuals, towns, or nations. Imminent disaster usually provokes some kind of dramatic response, even if only 9/10 of the experts studying the problem are warning

Quoting piscivorous: Well at least you have finally surrendered the straw man of 800/1100 but you still insist that there is a unanimity of thought that simply does not exist. If you can show me some hard data about this unanimity I would;d really like to see it. Just because ex Vice President Gore says there is does not make it a fact. In reality Global Cooling is a much more serious threat to life than any of the guessed at global warming coming out of the models. If you look at the weather related deaths the winter runs about 5-1 vs the summer if I remember correctly.

The 800 and 1100 argument is not a straw man; I want to know whether you think there is controversy about whether 1100 or even 800 ppm would have dramatic effects. Do you? Your argument seems to imply that there is NO reason to limit or reduce carbon output, whereas, by citing the 800 and even 1100 as the logical extremes, I wanted to get a feel for whether you think that co2 has NO impact on climate. It's kind of a stab at a reductio ad absurdum, but I wouldn't say it's

Quoting piscivorous: Well at least you have finally surrendered the straw man of 800/1100 but you still insist that there is a unanimity of thought that simply does not exist.

I am claiming that it is unanimously accepted that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases cause heightened greenhouse effect. You can't be disputing this, can you? It's one of the fundamental tenets of climatology.

It would be ignorant to not accept the greenhouse theory, in general, as the physics argues that the Earth would be a much colder place with out the greenhouse effect. It is wholly another matter to accept that a very minor component of the atmosphere, CO2, is having any wheres near the forcing effect that is currently being attributed to it based on a a the very rudimentary understanding, not to discredit how far our understanding has progressed, of the very complex mechanisms that influence and control climate.

John Quiggin has a post up on Crooked Timber, pointing to an article he co-authored, that refutes the claim that Rachel Carson is responsible for the death of millions. There's a shorter version (HTML) and a longer version (PDF), both linked to from within that post.

That's a good read. You will also notice that my argument is based around the hysteria that was generated not by any particular position of Mrs. Carson. Mr. Lambert explicitly acknowledges the over reaction when he says

Sanity now appears to be returning to the malaria debate.

Her book contributed greatly to this hysteria and it is the same kind of hysteria that I see building around the issue of global warming that is of particular concern to me.

Quoting piscivorous: Her book contributed greatly to this hysteria and it is the same kind of hysteria that I see building around the issue of global warming that is of particular concern to me.

I still think you're blaming Carson too much -- in my view, she gave voice to solid ideas that others may have taken too far. I also think that what you call "hysteria" was a state of mind at least partially created by those industries who wanted to push back against the anti-DDT movement. However, I do thank you for taking the time to read the article.

I generaly read where yow send me, I just can't always make it to the end of some of it though. Does she get to much blame, probably yes because others misused her work, her words, and she herself to push beyond sensible policy to accomplish their particular extream ends no matter the real damage that were the logical consequences of those ends.

Fair enough. And I know that you're always a good one for reading others' offered links -- just thought I'd acknowledge it this time.