Quoting thprop: Great to see Ta-Nehisi! Began reading him earlier this year - starting with his Atlantic piece on Bill Cosby. Need to hear more voices like his.

Agreed. Hopefully he can tackle a weightier issue next time: A pressing issue for our Nation's waistline.

i'm confused is being obese a good or bad thing? Megan has taken both sides of the the issue

It appears that the case Morgan Spurlock presented in Super Size Me was not very accurate. Start off by listening to this episode of Skeptoid. Documentary filmmaker Scott Caswell went on an all McDonald's diet - but did not gorge and chise well. He lost 20 pounds. Check out Bowling for Morgan.
The Wikipedia entry for Super Size Me has information on other alternative fast food experiments. I think Megan is right - morbid obesity is a problem. There is no evidence that being overweight (according to antiquated tables) is a major problem. Steve Levitt noted Eric Oliver's work in this area three years ago. But the news is still harping on the obesity epidemic. Here is an AP story from March which notes that scientists are really looking at the issue rather than just making crap up.

Being morbidly obese is bad - i.e. BMI greater than 40. No indication that a BMI of 25-40 is actually unhealthy.

The problem is simply that we cannot distinguish between weight loss for health reasons and weight loss for appearance. The two things get mingled and the fear of lack of popularity based on appearance spreads into many aspects of self, not just weight loss.

Hmmm. Here Megan makes a good argument for a simple approach to Carbon taxation (by source fuel content). And Mickey made the point in a recent diavlog how he likes high fuel costs, as it reduces his traffic woes. Doesn't this sort of feed into Mickey's earlier concern that income inequality leads inevitably toward social inequality. But a highly regressive tax like a carbon tax accelerates this process in visible and emotional ways--making things like steaks and air conditioning prohibitively expensive for the lower classes.

I wonder whether the thinking is changing much regarding the childhood obesity epidemic. Lord knows, as new father, I've felt the full brunt of the parental guilt industry...

Lord knows, as new father, I've felt the full brunt of the parental guilt industry...

Parents often feed into it (pardon the pun). If a child is a little chubby, insecure and sometimes anorexic moms and dads want the pediatrician and the schools to raise the alert level to code red. Teachers and doctors, eager to please the "health-conscious" parents play along. It's tough to separate the propaganda from the truth on obesity. One problem is that the rejected child or teen who is chubby but not obese may be at risk just because of the ostracism. The shunning induces low self-esteem, stress and depression. Depression and stress DO have negative health consequences, so it's then easy to find the correlation between chubbiness and bad health.

Hmmm. Perhaps the story is a bit more troubling regarding eating disorders like anorexia, as health dangers from prolonged periods of self-starvation are pretty stark. But point taken. And I really like the dents analogy from the diavlog. If you have a car with one dent, you get it fixed. A car with fifty dents is just a hail damaged vehicle.

I'd never really even feared Bloggingheads could ever get this bad.

Quoting Abdicate: I'd never really even feared Bloggingheads could ever get this bad.

In part-two of this diavlog Megan will discuss the existential implications of the iphone.

great diavlog as usual. though i have to disagree with megan re: the stupidity of poor people. THEY ARE usually stupid.

Quoting razib: great diavlog as usual. though i have to disagree with megan re: the stupidity of poor people. THEY ARE usually stupid.

Actually, multiple studies over decades continually confirm that IQ is not correlated to socio-economic class.

Actually semi starvation appears to produces biological processes that have much to do with longevity.

Quoting TwinSwords: Actually, multiple studies over decades continually confirm that IQ is not correlated to socio-economic class.

really? can you give a citation? i suspect you're making this up or misremembering. i just went to the general social survey and checked the correlation between WORDSUM (basically, vocab) and SEI (socioeconomic index). the r = 0.37, and regression SEI on WORDSUM gives r-squared of 0.140. so i await these studies of which you speak to prove that the poor are not disproportionately stupid ;-)

I was under the impression that there were so many offsets that the market for them had collapsed in Europe.

Quoting graz: In part-two of this diavlog Megan will discuss the existential implications of the iphone.

But somehow manage to work in five more times that she's 6'2" with a BMI of 18 ("oh, and did I mention that I'm in the 98th percentile?")

I was surprised they didn't mention them. Between insurance, medicare, and medicaid, the welfare state has made obesity (and smoking) something everyone pays for. As long as the government is on the hook for your heart disease, diabetes, and oxygen tent, expect it to try to control your behavior. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Just so. Meg's perception that the typical Economist reader or Bloggingheads viewer cannot help but be entranced by any limning of her ex-beau, her diet, her body, her autobiography, her many identity-solidifying rubs with the manor-born. Of course he's utterly horrible too. But we've seen a vastly less screeching, neurotic MM at times in the past, I'm quite sure.

This diavlog is rife with New York provincialism. Sorry, Megan: New York is not the only place in the country where 'All You Can Eat' buffets are not the be-all and end-all in dining. Not to toot the horn of my own small burg, but - oh what the hell, why not? - here in Portland, Oregon, I can't think of one place that featuers an all you can eat menu. But if anyone knows of any, could you tell me where they are so I can go stuff my face?

Not including diavlogs that contain Ezra Small, this is without doubt the worst discussion I have heard on BHtv. Time to start the drive for less content and more quality! I don’t know what Megan Mcardle is like in person, but judging from this diavlog alone I would conclude that she must be a truly hideous human being. BHtv has a European audience, how unfortunate for them see such tripe. Megan brings a new dimension to the phrase “ugly American”. It is no wonder that northern Europeans are applauding the collapse of the US economy. They can’t wait until the dollar is no longer a traded currency. Believe me, with poorly hidden glee, they are counting the days until the collapse. Megan, as she portrays herself here, would be a good poster girl for their anti-American view. I have heard MM many times before, and I know she has economic smarts. Given the horrendous state of the economy right now, it is too bad that these two missed the opportunity to actually inform us with relevant insights on our failing economy rather than treating us to a mental enema. PS: guaranteed healthy weight loss for anyone: No white rice, no

Please prove me wrong! P.S. El Cominito Del Rey was really cool, but flamenco rhino: not.

That's an interesting link, Pisciverous, but I suggest that your take on the article goes way beyond the (rather limited) conclusions of the research.

Quoting nikkibong: This diavlog is rife with New York provincialism. Sorry, Megan: New York is not the only place in the country where 'All You Can Eat' buffets are not the be-all and end-all in dining. Not to toot the horn of my own small burg, but - oh what the hell, why not? - here in Portland, Oregon, I can't think of one place that featuers an all you can eat menu.

But if anyone knows of any, could you tell me where they are so I can go stuff my face?

Just do a Google! http://portland.citysearch.com/roundup/40997

I wasn't particularly trying to offer a take on the article but mostly offered it up for informational purposes. I agree the research is preliminary and I don't think I will missing many dinners on such a casual link to causality.

Razib: i have to disagree with megan re: the stupidity of poor people. THEY ARE usually stupid.

There are studies showing that many inner city residents do not have ready access to produce and other healthy food since those type of businesses shy away from setting up shop in those neighborhoods -- sometimes its even hard to frequent a full grocery store or supermarket. Not true for fast food establishments though which are generally plentiful. I believe that it was Newark NJ that set up a program to offer better access to fruits and vegetables with good results. Community gardens in the inner city have also proven useful in getting those residents to eat better. As Ta-Nehisi said, your environment and companions can really affect your perceptions of what is acceptable and/or attractive. So while poor people are often uneducated, it's certainly not hopeless.

Quoting razib: really? can you give a citation? i suspect you're making this up or misremembering. i just went to the general social survey and checked the correlation between WORDSUM (basically, vocab) and SEI (socioeconomic index). the r = 0.37, and regression SEI on WORDSUM gives r-squared of 0.140. so i await these studies of which you speak to prove that the poor are not disproportionately stupid ;-)

Alas, I have no citations, at least not without digging out my old college notebooks from 25 years ago. I had a couple of classes back in the day where this was discussed at length. I know intuition and "gut feeling" are no substitute for actual science, but if you think about it, why would you expect IQ to correlate to socio-economic status? For that to be true, there would have to be a massive amount of social mobility, with lots of smart kids born into poor families ending up successful, and lots of dumb kids born into rich families becoming poor. That obviously is not happening. The fact is that a lot of poor people are very smart but for a variety of reasons will never become wealthy. And obviously, the children of the rich generally do

the late, great mitch hedberg on one of the most unmanageably-sized portions you can get: the new york deli sandwich:

I eat a lot of sandwiches, who doesn’t man, sandwiches are easy to eat. But I hate sandwiches at New York delis, too much fuckin’ meat on the sandwich. It’s like a cow with a cracker on either side. “What would you like sir?” “A pastrami sandwich.” “Anything else?” “Yeah, a loaf of bread and some other people.”

Quoting osmium: a loaf of bread and some other people

LOL, that's hilarious. And the "cow with crackers" analogy is also funny. I used to live in Cincinnati and there were many delis there that were the same way. Each sandwich literally had 2 pounds of meat -- ham, turkey, roast beef, whatever you were having. On two thin slices of bread with a single slice of cheese. It was disgusting, but popular.

if your book is from 25 years ago it's out of date, don't you think? leon kamin famously made up the fact that IQ has a 0 heritability back in the 1970s, which even he backed off. anyway, i just gave you numbers that took me 2 minutes to get. the correlation isn't SUPER HIGH, but it's there. so you're wrong.

Quoting razib: if your book is from 25 years ago it's out of date, don't you think? leon kamin famously made up the fact that IQ has a 0 heritability back in the 1970s, which even he backed off.

anyway, i just gave you numbers that took me 2 minutes to get. the correlation isn't SUPER HIGH, but it's there. so you're wrong.

Okay, thanks! The numbers you're referring to were vocabulary and social class? Do you think vocabulary is an acceptable substitute for IQ? I've been meaning to ask you since I first viewed your blog: What's your opinion of the research of Charles Murray? You know, the theory that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, and generally less intelligent.

She's just not likeable, ya know? Or sensitive to the needs of commenters who matter. What could she and her co-host have been thinking, bringing up their respective weight problems in the larger context of a discussion on obesity? Don't let the cutsie vlog titles and light tone here fool you, Megan. This place is serious as a heart attack. And Megan, if you're really interested in winning the hearts and minds of the 'progressive' males here, get a boyfriend and creep into his frame during a diavlog. They'll coo and cluck like a bunch of biddies over a baby carriage.

Quoting look: Don't let the cutsie vlog titles and light tone here fool you, Megan. This place is serious as a heart attack.

Yes Indeed
6

Then again perhaps this alternative should also be considered The Courage To Do Nothing. This is by a bunch of you know industry paid heretics

*According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society, the American Physical Society was founded in 1899 and is the second largest association of physicists in the world, with over 40,000 members.

P.S. Takes a paid subscription to see the actual article thus the link is to an article that quotes it.

Quoting look: She's just not likeable, ya know? Or sensitive to the needs of commenters who matter. What could she and her co-host have been thinking, bringing up their respective weight problems in the larger context of a discussion on obesity? Don't let the cutsie vlog titles and light tone here fool you, Megan. This place is serious as a heart attack.

And Megan, if you're really interested in winning the hearts and minds of the 'progressive' males here, get a boyfriend and creep into his frame during a diavlog. They'll coo and cluck like a bunch of biddies over a baby carriage.

Point taken. But Megan gives self-referential a new meaning. Bye the way, did she mention that she is 6'2" again? If I had the time or it served a greater purpose I would dingalink the last 10 times she told us that. She is undoubtably smart and tall, but her stage here and at the Atlantic
allows her to lapse into her well documented "everything can and is filtered through the eyes of my personal experience."
It is ready made for skewering.

concerning the new york law making chains post their calories, i have found it helpful even though it may seem unfair to only make the chain restaurants do it. a muffin at dunkin donuts is 750 calories--i never would have known. the little slice of cake at starbucks is 450. i mean, i'll still eat it if i want, and i know i could have always looked these things up. but, the reminder, presented in as neutral a way the restaurant could manage--i thought it was good to see. on a second point, i don't see the difference megan sees in mcdonalds and high fructose corn syrup. sure, poor people know mcdonalds is bad for them, and everyone also knows high fructose corn syrup is bad. they can read the label. corn is subsidized, but isn't it also true that if each mcdonalds had to open up independently and survive like a mom and pop restaurant, they wouldn't all necessarily make it? society is organized in such a way as to push both corn and mcdonalds. i know libertarians are supposed to hate the farm bill, but maybe the real libertarian argument

Quoting piscivorous: Then again perhaps this alternative should also be considered The Courage To Do Nothing. This is by a bunch of you know industry paid heretics

Perhaps this is a flame-worthy comment, since it mentions Bjorn Lomborg, but do you have any thoughts on the sort of cost/benefit thinking employed at the Copenhagen Consensus? http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
I like the idea of assessing these world problems both in terms of "bang for the buck" and in terms of which problems are actual priorities for the various world governments.

I am in pretty much complete agreement the Copenhagen Consensus and believe I have included a link, to something along the same line, previously.

Quoting osmium: ...
i actually don't agree with my own assertion there, but i feel like posting it anyway.

When faced with this conundrum a good deal more snark is mandated.

Quoting piscivorous: Then again perhaps this alternative should also be considered The Courage To Do Nothing.

Nice title for marketing purposes, especially considering that "do-nothing" as a label is so pejorative. Bear in mind that the APS is not, as a body, disputing the IPCC report, at least not according to the blog post you linked to. It has been announced that one of their publications will feature a continued debate. The blog post then goes on to talk about and quote the view of one person. Overall, I think the blog post tries to mislead by conflating this one person plus the willingness of an editor of one magazine to continue the debate with the impression that all of the APS is in lockstep disputing the IPCC. I am willing to grant some uncertainty in the long range forecasts about AGW, and maybe even a bit in the analysis and interpretation of the existing data. Still, I don't think it's wise to assume that a few people who dispute the consensus of many necessarily have the right answer. To that end, I think it's wise to move ahead with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially

I have no interest in reassessing our standards for beauty to be more inclusive of fat people. Beauty should not be a treated as a synonym for commonplace; it's an ideal that most people should be incapable of attaining. Let's not lower our standards just to make people feel better about themselves. If we're going to try to be inclusive for obesity, what should our standards of beauty accomodate next? Serious acne? Problems with body odor? And why should we want fat people to feel especially good about themselves? I can only speak from personal experience with the obese (though I'm from the Midwest, so my experience is probably pretty significant), but most I've known were rather weak-willed people who let their urges take over their lives -- which isn't to say that lots of them didn't have many positive qualities, too. It's not simply a matter of diet that causes fatness (I'll grant that some people are genetically inclined to obesity), it's also a matter of living a lifestyle where very little physical activity takes place (a related habit that we should look down upon). If you

Quoting JIM3CH: BHtv has a European audience, how unfortunate for them see such tripe. Megan brings a new dimension to the phrase “ugly American”. It is no wonder that northern Europeans are applauding the collapse of the US economy. They can’t wait until the dollar is no longer a traded currency. Believe me, with poorly hidden glee, they are counting the days until the collapse. Megan, as she portrays herself here, would be a good poster girl for their anti-American view.

Wow, that's a lot of hate. You give legitimate Mcardle lampooning a bad name. Can anyone join the Northern European Alliance of American Economy Haters?
Are the dues paid in Euros?

One more comment on this thread: there is a book on creativity by a philosophy of science professor at Harvard (late 70's, early 80's -- I'm sorry I don't have the book with me right now) and in it they (it is a compendium) spend some time discussing the relationship between IQ scores and native intelligence and say that the correlation is low but appears to be, weak as it is, about the best predictor easily available. Part of the "socio-economic" bias of these tests is that in validating the testing (look at the score, look at the test taker -- that sort of thing), especially at younger ages, the validation is unavoidably confounded with performance. If the middle or lower scores are associated with the kids who are all getting the best grades, it doesn't forecast well for the future and doesn't seem to make sense in the present. But good grades are a performance issue (influenced by socioeconomic factors), introducing a bias in the scoring. These things are well known and there are tricks for addressing them, but validation is always a challenge. Interestingly (I thought), the five highest correlates (at that

Quoting bjkeefe: The potential problems of global warming, as envisioned by a lot of the best people who have studied the problem, are very serious indeed. It therefore makes sense to err on the side of caution, and if this means spending some money that turns out not to have been necessary to spend, then I look at it as paying for insurance that I don't make a claim on. Hurts a little bit, especially from the luxurious position of hindsight, but there was no way to be sure beforehand, and the anticipated possible risks would have been too great to run.

Well at lest you are willing to concede that the debate is not over and the science is settled; that's better than many here. I still think it foolish to make a commitment with it's rather substantial costs, in a world of limited financial resources, has to be weighed and balanced with all the competing demands.

Oddly enough, I think it was from Dan Drezner's blog that I first heard of the Copenhagen Consensus. Or maybe it was from seeing John Bolton on C-Span, who was co-presenting the first Copenhagen Consensus UN conference.

Ta-Nehisi makes a confession.

look: You're doing a little special pleading here. It's not a gender thing that provokes criticism of Megan as she presents in a diavlog. It's what she does, not who she is, and one of her irritating habits is an excessive tendency to talk about big, complex issues only as they affect her, personally, or as she sees them from what comes off like a very sheltered life experience.

So my sister that walks a mail delivery 6 days a week, and is considerably overweight by any stranded,must there fore be genetically inclined to being fat. Yet I wear the same size jeans as when I left the service (32" waist). It could be based on the diets you know as I eat a considerably different diet than her.

6' 2" ? Itzik Basman

Quoting piscivorous: Well at lest you are willing to concede that the debate is not over and the science is settled; that's better than many here. I still think it foolish to make a commitment with it's rather substantial costs, in a world of limited financial resources, has to be weighed and balanced with all the competing demands.

You've missed my point, slightly. I am saying that we should start doing things now, not immediately start spending every last nickel on one problem. It is my belief that we could be doing a lot, starting now, in the direction of reducing GG emissions that wouldn't be crippling to the economy. Perhaps you are not using them in this way, but whenever I hear phrases like "debate is not over," "science is not settled," "requires further study," and so on, I hear them as coded arguments to do a whole lot of nothing. I don't think we can afford to risk that position any longer. Very rarely do we enjoy perfect understanding when we have to make a decision, especially on a complex scientific problem. The thing that has to be considered, besides how settled the matter is, is the risk involved

It is impossible to be too thin. Just as it is impossible to be too rich or like me too handsome and athletic. I have girls trying to break dwon my door--they are the ones locked in my room! Itzik Basman

Quoting bjkeefe: Considering those that might: I don't have an informed opinion on taxes vs carbon offsets, but it does seem to me that (1) it's going to take a while to get the ball rolling on either of these, so we should keep pushing to get these in place while the debate continues, and (2) either or both programs could be phased out or stopped if it turned out they weren't needed, or were causing more problems than they were solving.

That seems like a very sensible point of view, except that the so-called carbon tax seems like a massively regressive tax system dressed up as a "punishment" to corporations. Which means that the poor and middle class get taxed, income inequality increases, and the political rhetoric locks out any rollback of this tax, since any reduction of this tax would be portrayed as a boon to "big oil" or some such. Do you think this concern is misplaced? I actually found Megan's presentation of the carbon tax incomplete. Everyone talks about pricing externalities as if it only punished the polluter. However, the real punishment hits the consumer, right?

Gee so all the subsidies we have given to wind and solar for the last couple of decades was not a start and only now are we moving forward. Gimme a break. If you could tear yourself from the hype you will see that under this administration spending has gone up considerably for these two alternatives in addition to fuel cell research.

Ex-boyfriend: 6' 9" 140 pounds? Itzik Basman

Quoting bjkeefe: There are always some benefits to be obtained in a situation like this -- new technologies, new industries, new markets. I'm not saying it's all win-win, but it's not all lose-lose, either.

Is this a case of concentrating the penalty in exchange for a diffuse benefit? I mean, let's pick 2 hypothetical plans for using carbon tax dollars:
1) we go humanitarian with the money from carbon tax. Fund Alt-energy schemes here in the US, for the benefit and glory of mankind.
2) we churn the money back into funding the American Dream (a la Fanny Mae) and into health care benefits. It seems like option (2) is more of a win win for the American people in exchange for this new tax, whereas people pitching this tax seem more in favor of option 1.

Quoting Chef: That seems like a very sensible point of view, except that the so-called carbon tax seems like a massively regressive tax system dressed up as a "punishment" to corporations. Which means that the poor and middle class get taxed, income inequality increases, and the political rhetoric locks out any rollback of this tax, since any reduction of this tax would be portrayed as a boon to "big oil" or some such.

Do you think this concern is misplaced?

I actually found Megan's presentation of the carbon tax incomplete. Everyone talks about pricing externalities as if it only punished the polluter. However, the real punishment hits the consumer, right?

Your concern doesn't sound entirely misplaced. However, I do think that one way or the other, costs get passed along to the consumer, whether the costs start out as a new tax, or regulations that increase the cost of doing business, or whatever. One way to react to this is to think about how you might ease the burden to make the costs less regressive; e.g., you might restructure the tax code to compensate low income individuals. A second thing that has to be realized, I think, is that a big part

Quoting piscivorous: Gee so all the subsidies we have given to wind and solar for the last couple of decades was not a start and only now are we moving forward. Gimme a break. If you could tear yourself from the hype you will see that under this administration spending has gone up considerably for these two alternatives in addition to fuel cell research.

Stop erecting strawmen, pisc. If you insist, we have already "started." In that case, I am saying we need to start doing more, a lot more. Also, it is my understanding that the fossil fuel industry has gotten way more help from the government than have alternative energy sources. And that doesn't even count the swollen DoD budget, a big part of exists merely so we can exert our will in the regions where we buy our oil.

Quoting bjkeefe:
A second thing that has to be realized, I think, is that a big part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is going to have to come from changing people's behaviors.

Well, on the broad stuff, I think I'm in full agreement with you, but this is another instance of what Mickey said in a recent vlog: that it's more important for global warming that India and China get air conditioning right than whether we can get 50 MPG cars. I would also be far more skeptical than you are about our ability to "mod" the tax code to remove this regressive effect I'm talking about. Slightly off-topic, but I saw Obama get dinged a lot for his comments about our needing to change our behavior (his comments about A/C and SUVs). Did he stick to his guns on that one?

Two final profundities: 1. Why did the guy ask her to repeat what she said when it thundered; what difference did it make to him? and (related to the first); 2. ""Gotcha' ": new word for "I don't know what the hell you are talking about!" Itzik Basman

Quoting bjkeefe: Stop erecting strawmen, pisc. If you insist, we have already "started." In that case, I am saying we need to start doing more, a lot more.

Also, it is my understanding that the fossil fuel industry has gotten way more help from the government than have alternative energy sources. And that doesn't even count the swollen DoD budget, a big part of exists merely so we can exert our will in the regions where we buy our oil.

I figured this would be in your response and contemplated cutting it off preemptavily but the bit about building strawmen in the same post which you present this strawman argument is hilarious. As the costs of producing electricity from these sources is an order of magnitude above that of more traditional forms and those costs will be passed on to the consumers, that's you me and those that have problems paying for this electricity already, how much more should we do?

Quoting Chef: Is this a case of concentrating the penalty in exchange for a diffuse benefit? [...]

As a general principle, I think it would be better to keep focus on the problem of AGW by using those funds to deal with that problem alone, whether it's investing in new technology, alleviating short-term pain for low-income individuals, or whatever. To the extent possible, anyway. Trying to make, say, a carbon tax pay for national health care just seems like it would risk making everything more complicated. Legislation would become that much more baroque, special interest groups would have more opportunity to cloud the debate by munging statistics, arguments that win against one part would make all the rest come tumbling down, etc. Plus, it just seems like too big a step towards an over-managed economy. I think we should try to keep things as compartmentalized as possible.

Quoting Chef: Well, on the broad stuff, I think I'm in full agreement with you, but this is another instance of what Mickey said in a recent vlog: that it's more important for global warming that India and China get air conditioning right than whether we can get 50 MPG cars.

Possibly so. Nonetheless, we probably should start by doing things that we can do most easily. We also should not allow ourselves to do nothing just because someone can point out that the best solution we have for the time being is not perfect. We're not going to be making a one-and-done policy change. Whatever we do, we can adjust as time goes on. Also, I think we'll have more credibility on the world stage if we lead by example a little more, and remove some of the obvious rebuttal points about America consuming disproportionate amounts of resources.

I would also be far more skeptical than you are about our ability to "mod" the tax code to remove this regressive effect I'm talking about.

I'm not an expert, but this doesn't seem like an insoluble problem for experts. Boost the EIC, give rebates, give gas cards in

Quoting bjkeefe: Trying to make, say, a carbon tax pay for national health care just seems like it would risk making everything more complicated. Legislation would become that much more baroque, special interest groups would have more opportunity to cloud the debate by munging statistics, arguments that win against one part would make all the rest come tumbling down, etc. Plus, it just seems like too big a step towards an over-managed economy. I think we should try to keep things as compartmentalized as possible.

Look, that's a good point, especially on the political point, where you risk giving a specific proposal several extra achilles heels. But you still run into the problem that the cheapest and most market-friendly solution to taxing carbon pollution is to do nothing at all. Nature will help somewhat by wafting CO2 concentrations to other places that don't generate as much, and all we have to pay for is the immediate effects on our local climate in the United States. These effects will themselves be the "tax" on pollution. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your hypothetical proposal. Are you talking about an extremely small carbon tax that's set only at a

Quoting basman: Ex-boyfriend: 6' 9" 140 pounds?

Itzik Basman

She is a foodie and really likes Porsche's.... go for it. And set free those prisoners in your room.

Quoting Chef: Look, that's a good point, especially on the political point, where you risk giving a specific proposal several extra achilles heels.

But you still run into the problem that the cheapest and most market-friendly solution to taxing carbon pollution is to do nothing at all. Nature will help somewhat by wafting CO2 concentrations to other places that don't generate as much, and all we have to pay for is the immediate effects on our local climate in the United States. These effects will themselves be the "tax" on pollution.

It is my understanding that it is the consensus of those best qualified to say that doing nothing is not an option. If you don't believe in AGW, or don't believe the effects will be significant, that's a different debate, and one I'm not going to have. I am starting from the point that treats as a given that AGW is probably real, will probably get worse, and is probably potentially devastating, and that the probabilities are high. I believe that we have to take serious steps to address this problem, and that the longer we put it off, the worse it will be. I truly fear

Quoting piscivorous: Well at lest you are willing to concede that the debate is not over and the science is settled; that's better than many here.

i wouldn't say the debate is over and the science is settled. but there are several different debates and sciences one could be referring to. often they get all jumbled together. i was reading an article by freeman dyson the other day, about climate change, and i thought it was really good. and i found myself wondering, "would piscivorous from the bloggingheads also like this?" to me, "low-cost backstop" (from the article) equals inexpensive solar cells. (so as you mention in another post here, if the bush administration is increasing money for solar cells and/or sequestration, i of course tip my hat to them.) what i'm not sure about is: does piscivorous think CO2 can be emitted without reclaiming it at any rate we desire? that science, i would say, is totally settled. the solutions, not so much.

Quoting piscivorous: I figured this would be in your response and contemplated cutting it off preemptavily but the bit about building strawmen in the same post which you present this strawman argument is hilarious. As the costs of producing electricity from these sources is an order of magnitude above that of more traditional forms and those costs will be passed on to the consumers, that's you me and those that have problems paying for this electricity already, how much more should we do?

I don't think the costs are as significantly different as you claim. My own electric bill bears this out -- participating in a program that gets some of the juice from green sources is only marginally more expensive. Also, as with any technology, the more it gets used, the more efficient it becomes. There are more R&D dollars, there are economies of scale, and so on. Plus, as I said before, I think a lot of fossil fuel costs are hidden, and that we pay for a reliance on coal and oil in lots of other, indirect ways. I already mentioned the increased defense costs; add to them environmental problems, health problems, and, of course, AGW. I know you don't so

Quoting bjkeefe:
Don't know. Don't care. Ixnay on the orseracehay.

Heh. sorry. forgot we'd reached burnout on that. But again, it seems like there's a pretty good left/right consensus on this, and it certainly looks like the political wind is going your way. And your public diplomacy point is well taken too, but can we honestly expect to "win over" much of the world on this? Part of our high carbon footprint is our high GDP. And without reducing GDP growth, I suspect anything we do to tax emissions will look like window dressing to the rest of the world. I don't know if you've read the '06 Stern Review or the latest assessment report from the UN panel on climate change, but the bar seems *incredibly* high in making any significant impact on temperature change. I got seriously depressed when I read the pie-in-the-sky list of mitigation strategies from the UN report, and contrast that to the policy tools available to accomplish any of this.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am starting from the point that treats as a given that AGW is probably real, will probably get worse, and is probably potentially devastating, and that the probabilities are high.

Oh, so sorry. I wasn't meaning to be unclear. I agree with all that too. Moreover, I was under the impression that there simply isn't much room left for skepticism on this, is there? I was merely trying to understand what you were saying about compartmentalizing the carbon tax by rolling those enormous funds into research. I.e. I was pointing out that our status quo is one of diffuse benefits that far outweight the diffuse costs. From a pure economic perspective, it seems to be the worst of all worlds to simply concentrate the penalties on American consumers, and to leave any benefits as some vague promissory note for research that will solve this for all mankind. Some time. In a future far away.

Diet and exercise definitely play a role in obesity, but I'm not going to dispute those who argue that genetics also matter. Not because I necessarily agree with them, because I'm not knowledgable enough to opine on that. However, I do know that the first two variables clearly do matter, and based on my powers of observation, they can offset one's genetic predisposition to obesity.

Quoting Chef: And your public diplomacy point is well taken too, but can we honestly expect to "win over" much of the world on this? Part of our high carbon footprint is our high GDP. And without reducing GDP growth, I suspect anything we do to tax emissions will look like window dressing to the rest of the world.

I don't know if you've read the '06 Stern Review or the latest assessment report from the UN panel on climate change, but the bar seems *incredibly* high in making any significant impact on temperature change. I got seriously depressed when I read the pie-in-the-sky list of mitigation strategies from the UN report, and contrast that to the policy tools available to accomplish any of this.

To both of those, I don't really have a much better answer than: All we can do is try. On the political problem, I tend to believe that once you get the ball rolling, it becomes easier to make more progress. I mean, we're not going to pass a law and then have China say the next year, "You know what? You're right! We're changing everything, too!" But it does seem that in dealing with people, from the individual to the group

Quoting Chef: Oh, so sorry. I wasn't meaning to be unclear. I agree with all that too. Moreover, I was under the impression that there simply isn't much room left for skepticism on this, is there?

There are people who would beg to differ. Some of them post on this board. To the rest, I think I've already answered. Or at least, given as much of an answer as I can. I'll just repeat one thing: I think you're making this too black and white when you portray the possible programs that are designed to cut down on GG emissions as purely stifling costs, purely borne by Americans, that once put in place offer no possibility for refinement.

Quoting bjkeefe: But it does seem that in dealing with people, from the individual to the group to the national level, that a show of good faith pays off, as does taking a first step, and that a small increase in trust makes the next step that much easier.

Well, to that point, I think most people thought that when the Senate blocked Kyoto in '97, that it would die a swift death, but Kyoto today is anything but a dead letter.

Quoting Chef: Well, to that point, I think most people thought that when the Senate blocked Kyoto in '97, that it would die a swift death, but Kyoto today is anything but a dead letter.

If I understand your point correctly, I think we're agreeing -- this supports my point about the power of first steps, only in the negative direction. BTW, I don't know for sure if the Kyoto agreement was the right or best thing to do, and I don't want to debate that. But I do think the the larger point stands, that us being opposed to it hurt our standing on the issue, a lot. If it was that bad, it probably would have been better to go along with it and seek to modify it or replace it with something else, in retrospect.

Quoting bjkeefe: If I understand your point correctly, I think we're agreeing -- this supports my point about the power of first steps, only in the negative direction.

BTW, I don't know for sure if the Kyoto agreement was the right or best thing to do, and I don't want to debate that. But I do think the the larger point stands, that us being opposed to it hurt our standing on the issue, a lot. If it was that bad, it probably would have been better to go along with it and seek to modify it or replace it with something else, in retrospect.

Gravy, I'm off my game today (apparently I'm being very confusing). If we simply ignore the US, the story of Kyoto is a mostly positive example of what you were saying, of first steps in good faith being followed up by other countries. Of course, not much downside in signing for developing countries, and lots of imperfect implementations (e.g. Germany), but on the whole, I think you could count Kyoto as a good, positive example of what you're talking about here.

Quoting Chef: Gravy, I'm off my game today (apparently I'm being very confusing).

Or it could be my fault, for being too US-centric in my thinking. But yes, I agree with your clarification as well.

Quoting Chef: Is this a case of concentrating the penalty in exchange for a diffuse benefit? I mean, let's pick 2 hypothetical plans for using carbon tax dollars:
1) we go humanitarian with the money from carbon tax. Fund Alt-energy schemes here in the US, for the benefit and glory of mankind.
2) we churn the money back into funding the American Dream (a la Fanny Mae) and into health care benefits.

It seems like option (2) is more of a win win for the American people in exchange for this new tax, whereas people pitching this tax seem more in favor of option 1.

I don't know about your premise vis (1). I don't think a "humanitarian" argument is the best argument available for either mandating some sort of carbon discipline, or for alt-energy schemes. I really think the best long-term argument for both is straightforward economics. The "penalty" in the case of carbon taxes is diffuse in the sense that producers have just about everyone as customers, so the cost will be born by most and, I might add, more or less proportionally. Alt-energy ought not to be a hard case to make considering that the current situation is

Quoting AemJeff: I don't know about your premise vis (1). I don't think a "humanitarian" argument is the best argument available for either some mandating some sort of carbon discipline, or for alt-energy schemes. I really think the best long-term argument for both is straightforward economics. The "penalty" in the case of carbon taxes is diffuse in the sense that producers have just about everyone as customers, so the cost will be born by most and, I might add, more or less proportionally. Alt-energy ought not to be a hard case to make considering that the current situation is dependent on a finite resource.

Given that, and that (2) uses resources siphoned from pressure derived from the unsolved energy issues, I'd say that (2) really isn't the better proposal.

I don't know if I like the word carbon "discipline", which seems like a morally loaded word to describe an economic problem. Be that as it may, you simply cannot get this discipline without the penalty. My central point is that this new penalty applies to all Americans, and the benefits are vague, global, and future-tense. Given that dynamic, I don't understand how alt-energy is a particularly easy case to make (to the American voter). Nor

Quoting Chef: I don't know if I like the word carbon "discipline", which seems like a morally loaded word to describe an economic problem. Be that as it may, you simply cannot get this discipline without the penalty. My central point is that this new penalty applies to all Americans, and the benefits are vague, global, and future-tense.

Given that dynamic, I don't understand how alt-energy is a particularly easy case to make (to the American voter). Nor do I see the straightforward economic benefit you're talking about here.

I was groping for a generic word to describe the various carbon schemes. I intended "discipline" in the sense of "rigor." I definitely agree that without a penalty you won't achieve the discipline. I thought I was pretty explicit that the penalty would be applied to just about everyone. As long as it's more or less proportional that strikes me as a good thing. I contest the notion that the benefits are vague. Dependence on oil is going to become more expensive. A system dependent on a dwindling resource is a system destined for collapse, that's a fundamental truth. You can speculate that the current situation is a bubble, but even if that turns out to

Quoting AemJeff:

I think this is really a basically conservative argument. No economic system dependent on a dwindling resource is viable in the long term. It can be plausibly argued that fossil fuels have peaked in their ability to provide energy at reasonable costs. It's certainly true that they're not a long term strategy. "Alt-energy" is ultimately just jargon for "energy sources we can depend on into the future."

Well, what we're talking about is a plan that utilizes government taxation to perform major surgery on our economy. That this could provide a brighter and sustainable future is an argument.
But is this a conservative argument? I think not.

Quoting JIM3CH: Not including diavlogs that contain Ezra Small, this is without doubt the worst discussion I have heard on BHtv. Time to start the drive for less content and more quality!

I don’t know what Megan Mcardle is like in person, but judging from this diavlog alone I would conclude that she must be a truly hideous human being. BHtv has a European audience, how unfortunate for them see such tripe. Megan brings a new dimension to the phrase “ugly American”. It is no wonder that northern Europeans are applauding the collapse of the US economy. They can’t wait until the dollar is no longer a traded currency. Believe me, with poorly hidden glee, they are counting the days until the collapse. Megan, as she portrays herself here, would be a good poster girl for their anti-American view.

I have heard MM many times before, and I know she has economic smarts. Given the horrendous state of the economy right now, it is too bad that these two missed the opportunity to actually inform us with relevant insights on our failing economy rather than treating us to a mental enema.

PS: guaranteed healthy weight loss for anyone: No white rice, no

Quoting Chef: Well, what we're talking about is a plan that utilizes government taxation to perform major surgery on our economy. That this could provide a brighter and sustainable future is an argument.
But is this a conservative argument? I think not.

Ok, without getting too deep into the weeds here: you're right that I haven't named a conservative approach. But I stand by my premise. The argument that a fossil-fuel economy can't be sustained forever, and that policy needs to be designed attempting to create something that is sustainable is, I think, on balance conservative.

Quoting AemJeff: Ok, without getting too deep into the weeds here: you're right that I haven't named a conservative approach.

But I stand by my premise. The argument that a fossil-fuel economy can't be sustained forever, and that policy needs to be designed attempting to create something that is sustainable is, I think, on balance conservative.

Let's distinguish this from, say, an argument that
1) we have adequate fossil fuel reserves to avoid disaster for the near future,
2) our economy is more resilient than others to restrictions in fuel supply,
3) policies to encourage and drive sustainability should be attempted as soon as economically competitive alternatives to fossil fuels emerge.
4) the political energy and market flexibility to take advantage of successor technologies would be stifled in the future if we over-tax the economy today. That seems like a conservative argument in all senses of the word, and what's more, it's utterly consonant with your premise above. Unfortunately, it's not the big carbon tax that bjkeefe was talking about. And it's probably also cowardly to boot. I suspect that unless the tax is big and painful, then it won't modify behavior, nor will it make alternatives like nuclear power attractive enough.

Quoting Chef: 3) policies to encourage and drive sustainability should be attempted as soon as economically competitive alternatives to fossil fuels emerge.
4) the political energy and market flexibility to take advantage of successor technologies would be stifled in the future if we over-tax the economy today.

I won't take issue with your first couple of bullets. I will say that on the two I've quoted rests the hinge of the political argument. On (3), the idea behind a carbon tax is intended in part, of course, to affect exactly where the point alternatives become competitive occurs. Like most liberals, I don't have a problem nudging the invisible hand, as it were. (4) is where, in my opinion, we (the opposing sides of the larger argument, not necessarily you and me, at this moment) ought to be explicitly engaging. The assumption that the immediate effect of a carbon tax would outweigh the downstream benefit is ideologically based. (So is the opposite assumption, admittedly.)

Quoting AemJeff: I won't take issue with your first couple of bullets. I will say that on the two I've quoted rests the hinge of the political argument. On (3), the idea behind a carbon tax is intended in part, of course, to affect exactly where the point alternatives become competitive occurs. Like most liberals, I don't have a problem nudging the invisible hand, as it were. (4) is where, in my opinion, we (the opposing sides of the larger argument, not necessarily you and me, at this moment) ought to be explicitly engaging. The assumption that the immediate effect of a carbon tax would outweigh the downstream benefit is ideologically based. (So is the opposite assumption, admittedly.)

Maybe I've really been thinking about this the wrong way. I've been highly suspicious of schemes to implement a carbon tax in a "revenue neutral" manner. But it sounds like you'd be very much in favor of that. It sounds like neither you nor bjkeefe have much idea what to do with the windfall that a carbon tax would bring in, other than to go hog wild on research spending. bj mentioned that he thinks consumers are the problem, so I'm guessing he

Quoting Chef: Maybe I've really been thinking about this the wrong way. I've been highly suspicious of schemes to implement a carbon tax in a "revenue neutral" manner. But it sounds like you'd be very much in favor of that. It sounds like neither you nor bjkeefe have much idea what to do with the windfall that a carbon tax would bring in, other than to go hog wild on research spending.

bj mentioned that he thinks consumers are the problem, so I'm guessing he wouldn't really go for a "revenue neutral" scheme, but are you more in favor of that sort of approach?

Or do you have in mind something more like what Bill Nordhaus has been campaigning for -- a modest, harmonized environmental tax on greenhouse gases (say, $30 per ton of carbon). All in all, a relatively light price signal to the consumer.

I'm chuckling at the phrase "hog wild" in reference to research spending. My view is that getting energy policy wrong right now would be a disaster. Throwing some money at sustainability issues strikes me as a good investment. Investing lots of money at developing ways to convert

Quoting AemJeff:
Revenue neutrality, in the case of carbon taxes, doesn't excite me. I think the point is amortizing the cost of an inevitable transition from fossil fuels. In my view, bearing the as much of the costs as possible in the shorter term is likely to pay off exponentially in the long term.
.

Yeah, I didn't think it would. After all, at some point, an enormous, but revenue neutral tax increase is just like instituting the Flat Tax. I honestly think, though, that this question of future costs vs. near term costs lies at the heart of the dispute between Nordhaus and Stern (of the famous '06 Stern Review). At issue is whether there is any exponential payoff to be had for serious pain today. Nordhaus essentially accuses Stern of drastically overstating the economic impact by treating the needs of future generations as if their welfare were equivalent to the present. A common analogy is as follows: you choose not to give medicine to your sick child, for fear you wouldn't have the medicine for your grandchildren. Needless to say, as a conservative I'm partial to Nordhaus, whose recent punch can be read here. It's probably beyond my powers to

Slanderous?…, no. Mean spirited?…, ok, I’ll give you that. But the Megan I see in this diavlog comes across as so stereotypical east coast elitist that I have trouble disguising my revulsion. But hey, you're right, she is no different from many of the other BH’s in this respect. And, yes, I agree she is a human being. Question: How many Bloggingheads participants, male or female, do you think have served their country in uniform? My guess: 0

Quoting Chef: ...I think Nordhaus sums it up adequately on page 9, should you choose to follow the link.

I'll read it.

Quoting Chef: It sounds like neither you nor bjkeefe have much idea what to do with the windfall that a carbon tax would bring in, other than to go hog wild on research spending.

You say that like it'd be a bad thing. The truth is, I haven't thought about the carbon tax in much detail. As a general principle, though, yes: I'd prefer to see most of the revenues going into getting us off of reliance on fossil fuels and into other efforts that seek to cut down on GG emissions. As I mentioned earlier, I'm also open to short-term ideas that would ease the transition pain for those least able to bear it, and spending some of the carbon tax revenues on those. That said, though, I'll repeat that I haven't yet thought about this in much detail. It is my impression that we've barely won the battle to convince a sufficient number of people with clout that the problem is real and serious, and that's on my optimistic days. I am not holding my breath waiting for the American system of government to do anything meaningful in response. I fear that the first

I like the calorie-posting law, too, and found that it influenced my choices when I was in NY recently. I couldn't believe what was in the burger I decided not to order. I can't help thinking that Megan's reaction to the law is just ideological perfectionism at work, not analysis. True, the law simply can't impose on an independent restaurant or a kebab stall or a taco shack in the way it would impose on a chain, where the menus are mass-produced out of central headquarters. The NY law may ultimately prove to be worthless, but that determination should be made because of the data gathered, not because anti-government sniffer-dogs believe they've caught another whiff of the nanny state.

January:

The NY law may ultimately prove to be worthless, but that determination should be made because of the data gathered, not because anti-government sniffer-dogs believe they've caught another whiff of the nanny state.

Seems like the argument against posting the information could itself be viewed as nanny-statism -- both in the sense of "we don't want you serfs to worry your pretty little heads" and, of course, the idea that corporations "need to be protected" from the requirements of disclosure.

Quoting Chef: Needless to say, as a conservative I'm partial to Nordhaus, whose recent punch can be read here.

i think nordhaus believes that a low-cost carbon-neutral energy source (e.g. from cheap solar power or continued fossil fuel burning coupled with a theoretical carbon capture and sequestration from the atmosphere) is the most attractive solution to climate change from an economic point of view. so it seems like "going hog wild" (as you said) on research would be a good thing. it's not like people and companies don't make money from research.

Quoting osmium:
so it seems like "going hog wild" (as you said) on research would be a good thing.

it's not like people and companies don't make money from research.

The irony... when you think that some of the companies in the best position on carbon sequestration technologies are Schlumberger and Halliburton. But someone needs to say it: research is a bad thing. It's a bad thing because I think the scale of revenues collected by an international, harmonized carbon tax dwarf any meaningful exploitation of our scientific resources... so far, large scale energy breakthroughs have not happened, and likely will not happen, and it doesn't help to treat the issue as if we were playing Starcraft, where science is simply a money-in, solutions-out game. It's a bad thing because everyone calls for it as a matter of course. It's the dumb applause line in every Republican or Democrat speech, and the throwaway line in every research paper. It's become the "white noise" of the "what do we do now?" debate.
People shouldn't therefore think that a call for more reasearch is likely to solve much. And we certainly should not keep hoping for a silver

Quoting Chef: But someone needs to say it: research is a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because I think the scale of revenues collected by an international, harmonized carbon tax dwarf any meaningful exploitation of our scientific resources... so far, large scale energy breakthroughs have not happened, and likely will not happen, and it doesn't help to treat the issue as if we were playing Starcraft, where science is simply a money-in, solutions-out game.

i think your apparent position that progress is an illusion has a weighty counterpoint: the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. let me know how that one turns out.

Quoting Chef: It's a bad thing because everyone calls for it as a matter of course. It's the dumb applause line in every Republican or Democrat speech, and the throwaway line in every research paper. It's become the "white noise" of the "what do we do now?" debate.
People shouldn't therefore think that a call for more reasearch is likely to solve much. And we certainly should not keep hoping for a silver bullet.

instead, we should pray to the sun god and check our mutual funds. but seriously, do you think science is dumb because moronic politicians

I think Ta-Nehishi left out something important about the low income people with diabetes-related amputations: correctly managing diabetes is not cheap. I spend about $150 per month on my diabetic cat (test strips, hypodermic needles, and insulin)- and a human being should be tested more times per day than a cat. It drives me insane that Medicaid will pay for an enormously expensive (and disabling) amputation, but will not pay for test strips. As a result, many low income diabetics skip the testing and try to go by how they feel, with disastrous results. (If we get a national health plan, one cost savings may be funding better diabetes management.) Also, of course, food that's good for diabetics (vegetables and fish) is more expensive than stuff that's bad for diabetics (starch and grease). JIM3CH, bhtv has featured an active duty US army officer. By the way, for all the Megan-bashers, I totally disagree. I'm a woman whose been overweight all my life, and it's a sensitive issue with me, as my relatives have been bashing me over this all my life. I thought Megan's comments were extremely good, and there is NOTHING wrong with her mentioning her BMI.

Quoting JIM3CH: Slanderous?…, no. Mean spirited?…, ok, I’ll give you that. But the Megan I see in this diavlog comes across as so stereotypical east coast elitist that I have trouble disguising my revulsion. But hey, you're right, she is no different from many of the other BH’s in this respect. And, yes, I agree she is a human being.

Question: How many Bloggingheads participants, male or female, do you think have served their country in uniform?

My guess: 0

I have brought up your question beforeon this site. Offhand, I can't think of any blogginghead participant who has served in the military. I am sure there have been a few, very few. Granted, there are extended college degress galore but very little military service. I do find this to be an anomaly considering many of the participants are male and seemingly in good health. Perhaps, I am biased considering I came of age during the Vietnam War when most everyone I knew was either getting drafted or volunteering for the armed forces. Personally, I found it to be a life altering experience and worthwhile rite of passage. John John

Quoting bkjazfan: I am biased considering I came of age during the Vietnam War when most everyone I knew was either getting drafted or volunteering for the armed forces. Personally, I found it to be a life altering experience and worthwhile rite of passage.

John

i wonder about this same thing a lot. my father is a vet, probably your age (i.e. vietnam). something happened right before my generation, and going in the army wasn't something you were encouraged to do if you had other options. sometimes people blame us (the people my age), as if we were cowards, but i think the world just changed. my dad says the same thing about life-altering. sometimes i wish that had happened for me.

Quoting JIM3CH: Slanderous?…, no. Mean spirited?…, ok, I’ll give you that. But the Megan I see in this diavlog comes across as so stereotypical east coast elitist that I have trouble disguising my revulsion. But hey, you're right, she is no different from many of the other BH’s in this respect. And, yes, I agree she is a human being.

Question: How many Bloggingheads participants, male or female, do you think have served their country in uniform?

My guess: 0

Problem, Jim? Does it come as a surprise to you that most of the blogger/journalists Bob selects are are not militarily inclined? They are however extremely respectful of servicemen and -women. If you wish to see more military-types, why don't you start a request thread in the website forum instead of insinuating that the regular bloggers here are deficiently patriotic?

Quoting osmium:
but seriously, do you think science is dumb because moronic politicians smile moronically and say "We needs more research"? do you hate family values, too? can we make you turn on anything by putting it in the state of the union speech?

I'm basically just a hater. But do I think science is dumb? That's kinda like calling someone weak because they can't lift a car. Then again, it's 2008, and I still don't have my interstellar travel, cold fusion, or my monkey man.

nordhaus isn't against research. he's against doing something just because it sounds good, without running the numbers.

Far from it. Nordhaus is front and center on those who are hoping against hope for this massive breakthrough. And I respect his writing and he's much smarter than I'll ever be. You might remember him from his recent book called "The End of Environmentalism" But on this point, color me skeptical. And your triumphalism of science is a convenient myth that gives me no comfort. Joseph Romm of Climateprogress.org often talks about this, and he asks the question:
What technology breakthroughs in the past three decades have transformed how we use energy today?
You'd be surprised how

Quoting osmium: i wonder about this same thing a lot. my father is a vet, probably your age (i.e. vietnam). something happened right before my generation, and going in the army wasn't something you were encouraged to do if you had other options. sometimes people blame us (the people my age), as if we were cowards, but i think the world just changed.

my dad says the same thing about life-altering. sometimes i wish that had happened for me.

Osmium, I agree the mid to late 60's was a different era as far as military service was concerned. In 1968 they were drafting about 50,000 men a month - including me. They say for every man drafted it forces 3 or 4 to enlist in a more desirable service like the air force or navy - the different services were overflowing with people. Generally, draftees are put into the infantry and used for "cannon fodder." Anyhow, every army base I went to in the states was filled to the brim with military men. It was almost unbelieveable. One of the things I liked about it is it got me to mix with people I otherwise would never have had any contact with. For

Quoting Chef: it's 2008, and I still don't have my interstellar travel, cold fusion, or my monkey man.

that made me laugh. but seriously, i was having my robot type the post for me, and he just worded it a little off. bad robot.

Quoting Chef: Nordhaus is front and center on those who are hoping against hope for this massive breakthrough. And I respect his writing and he's much smarter than I'll ever be. You might remember him from his recent book called "The End of Environmentalism"

But on this point, color me skeptical. And your triumphalism of science is a convenient myth that gives me no comfort.

Joseph Romm of Climateprogress.org often talks about this, and he asks the question:
What technology breakthroughs in the past three decades have transformed how we use energy today?
You'd be surprised how little there is there.

You might also be surprised to see how little of the UN's climate change reasoning depends on new breakthroughs that solve this problem.

This is far from self-evident. Life does not resemble Starcraft, where Science is a guaranteed money-in, solution-out enterprise.

well, solar cells already exist. they just need to cost ~10x less than they do now. no

It's is beginning to look like the debates is heating up with out the benefit of a greenhouse.

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions

Quoting osmium: monkey man. that was good. are we trying to make monkey men? how about birdmen instead?

No. We're not making monkey men. Because that would be playing God.

Quoting look: Problem, Jim? Does it come as a surprise to you that most of the blogger/journalists Bob selects are are not militarily inclined? They are however extremely respectful of servicemen and -women.

If you wish to see more military-types, why don't you start a request thread in the website forum instead of insinuating that the regular bloggers here are deficiently patriotic?

Not the point I was trying to make, although an interesting reaction to my comment. Does simply stating that one has not served in the military insinuate that one is not patriotic? No. So, why do you draw that conclusion? As for the bloggingheads participants, Megan Macardle included, the point I would make is this: It is a sad commentary on society that from this pool of selected individuals, who include former advisors to past and current presidents, and will probably include future advisors to future presidents, none have served in the military. If you accept, as I believe, that Bob’s sample is representative of those who will become the most influential political operatives, news makers, and opinion shapers of tomorrow, you may begin to share my concern. That such a broad and influential “class” of people, from both right

Quoting piscivorous: It's is beginning to look like the debates is heating up with out the benefit of a greenhouse.

Note: The Australian is a Murdoch propaganda outfit, like Fox News. Courtesy of Sadly, No!:

(1) David Evans is a computer programmer who worked as a consultant for the Australian Greenhouse Office.
(2) Cf. The Australian has a long history of publishing sloppy and mutually irreconcilable anti-global-warming editorials.

And I suppose that Dr David Evans is an Oil Industry shrill right? Cant argue the merits attack the source? When will these games cease?

Quoting JIM3CH: Not the point I was trying to make, although an interesting reaction to my comment. Does simply stating that one has not served in the military insinuate that one is not patriotic? No. So, why do you draw that conclusion?

As for the bloggingheads participants, Megan Macardle included, the point I would make is this: It is a sad commentary on society that from this pool of selected individuals, who include former advisors to past and current presidents, and will probably include future advisors to future presidents, none have served in the military.

If you accept, as I believe, that Bob’s sample is representative of those who will become the most influential political operatives, news makers, and opinion shapers of tomorrow, you may begin to share my concern. That such a broad and influential “class” of people, from both right and left mind you, have no clue about what it means to serve in the military does not bode well for our future. A clueless elite will be incapable of effectively nurturing the military bureaucracy, and will be reckless in making decisions regarding its use or non-use.

I don't wish to see "military types". Rather, I wish that the Bloggingheads "class" of society had

Quoting JIM3CH: It is a sad commentary on society

The BHTV cast is a sad commentary on society? Wow.

Quoting JIM3CH: that from this pool of selected individuals, who include former advisors to past and current presidents, and will probably include future advisors to future presidents, none have served in the military.

You don't actually know how many of them have served in the military, do you? In my experience, vets don't introduce themselves by stating their branch and years of service. Have you actually looked up the biographies of everyone who has appeared on BHTV?

Quoting JIM3CH: A clueless elite will be incapable of effectively nurturing the military bureaucracy, and will be reckless in making decisions regarding its use or non-use.

Good Lord, the military bureacracy is the most overstuffed and pampered institution in Washington DC, the United States, and the world. Hell, it's the most pampered and bloated institution in human history. "But it's not enough!" Pretty soon we'll be spending a trillion dollars a year on this machine. And the whining about its neglect will continue. These are truly Orwellian times.

Quoting JIM3CH: I don't wish to see "military types". Rather, I wish that the Bloggingheads "class" of society had more personal experience with military service.

So, the

Quoting look: They are however extremely respectful of servicemen and -women.

Apparently that's not good enough.

Quoting piscivorous: And I suppose that Dr David Evans is an Oil Industry shrill right? Cant argue the merits attack the source? When will these games cease?

Jeeze, Pisc. We've argued the merits ad infinitum. You keep going back to the same well: partisan sources with a specific axe to grind, who aren't ever going to come to a conclusion other than the one you seem to seek. The source doesn't rise to the level of credibility. The author was misrepresented, his credentials inflated, and his article was found in a publication with a specific, well known bias that happens to be consonant with his conclusion. That's not the way convince anybody on a scientific issue.

Quoting piscivorous: And I suppose that Dr David Evans is an Oil Industry shrill right?

There's a decent chance he is. I doubt even you would deny that the "oil industry" has spent lots of money trying to counter the global warming consensus. If they have decided its in their interest to prevent action to address GW, why wouldn't they write him a few fat checks?

Quoting piscivorous: Cant argue the merits attack the source? When will these games cease?

No, I can't argue the merits. I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one, even for your amusement. I'm not a cancer specialist, either, so if you have a funny growth somewhere, don't ask my opinion. I've chosen to defer to the judgement of experts. If the consensus of the experts should change at some point in the future, I will again defer to their judgement. Pisc, do you mind if I ask you a question? Suppose that you knew with absolute certainty — say Jesus came down and gave you divine knowledge on the subject — that global warming was real, man-made, and would have catastrophic implications for human civilization. If you were certain of those premises, would you support

I don't wish to see "military types". Rather, I wish that the Bloggingheads "class" of society had more personal experience with military service.

I actually agree with the call for more veterans on BHeads. Let's hear from more people in the military like the following: Col. Ann Wright Iraq Vets Against the War
Veterans for Peace Vietnam Veterans against War
Military Families Speak OUt Lt. Ehren Watada

Quoting AemJeff: Jeeze, Pisc. We've argued the merits ad infinitum. You keep going back to the same well: partisan sources with a specific axe to grind, who aren't ever going to come to a conclusion other than the one you seem to seek. The source doesn't rise to the level of credibility. The author was misrepresented, his credentials inflated, and his article was found in a publication with a specific, well known bias that happens to be consonant with his conclusion. That's not the way convince anybody on a scientific issue.

Plus, has Pisc provided any evidence that this computer programmer who now wants to offer his opinion on climate science was ever a "true believer"? How does Pisc know he wasn't just a programmer collecting a paycheck? In fact, the computer programmer says, "When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good [...] The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly?" How can pisc characterize that as the attitude of a "true believer"? Pisc, should you issue a correction for your mistake?

Quoting AemJeff: Jeeze, Pisc. We've argued the merits ad infinitum. You keep going back to the same well: partisan sources with a specific axe to grind,(and your sources are non-partisan mostly because you don't offer any just more opinion of who the source is)who aren't ever going to come to a conclusion other than the one you seem to seek. The source doesn't rise to the level of credibility(and your word is definitive, as to credibility, as you offer no evidence to support your ad-hominem). The author was misrepresented, his credentials inflated,(again pure ad-hominem with no support) and his article was found in a publication with a specific, well known bias that happens to be consonant with his conclusion(all individualds and publications have bias, yours is plainly showing). That's not the way convince anybody on a scientific issue.

Again all ad-homiinem and opinion. That's not the way convince anybody that thinks of anything

Quoting TwinSwords: I've chosen to defer to the judgement of experts. If the consensus of the experts should change at some point in the future, I will again defer to their judgement.

Which experts they ones you agree with?

Quoting TwinSwords: Pisc, do you mind if I ask you a question?

Suppose that you knew with absolute certainty — say Jesus came down and gave you divine knowledge on the subject — that global warming was real, man-made, and would have catastrophic implications for human civilization.

If you were certain of those premises, would you support efforts to mitigate the causes of global warming?

As I am neither a believer in Jesus and would require considerable proof of the divinities bona fides, say make the make the CO2 levels pre-industrial warming goes away and I'll convert to this new religion of AGW. Of course there has been no documented warming, in fact it seems to have cooled since 1998 so I may have to wait a year or to to make sure it's not just the weather.

I guess I have been reading too many lefty headlines lately and have fallen into the the seldom used archaic by using hyperbole to catch the eye. Something I know that you would never do!

Damn I remember when I was taking care of my ex's cat and had to shoot it up with insulin. All my friends told me I was nuts but it wasn't the ex, it was the cat, that I cared about. She (ex) had already violated my moral principles by declawing the beasts after I left. Ironically, I was doing a lot of heroin at the time and the cat had a bag of needles for the insulin. I seriously thought about jacking a few needles but cat needles are very short so I decided against.

Quoting TwinSwords: The BHTV cast is a sad commentary on society? Wow.

Nice “sound bite“. But not what I said.

Quoting TwinSwords: You don't actually know how many of them have served in the military, do you? In my experience, vets don't introduce themselves by stating their branch and years of service. Have you actually looked up the biographies of everyone who has appeared on BHTV?

You’re right. I jumped to the conclusion that my own fearful assumption is true. I can honestly say that I would be happy to find out that I am wrong.

Quoting TwinSwords: Good Lord, the military bureacracy is the most overstuffed and pampered institution in Washington DC, the United States, and the world. Hell, it's the most pampered and bloated institution in human history. "But it's not enough!" Pretty soon we'll be spending a trillion dollars a year on this machine. And the whining about its neglect will continue. These are truly Orwellian times.

I actually should have used the word “controlling” rather than “nurturing” when referring to the military bureaucracy. I don’t really disagree with you. I’m not making, per-se, an argument for a larger military. Rather I’m saying that a dearth of military experience in the highest echelons of civil society is not healthy for

Quoting piscivorous: And I suppose that Dr David Evans is an Oil Industry shrill right? Cant argue the merits attack the source? When will these games cease?

pisc: I'm sorry if this seems like piling on, but it's an important point, so I want to add my voice. You and I have had this argument before. I think you have a tendency in this context to play the ad hominem card immediately, as though it were the ace of trumps. This is a stretch, to put it mildly. It's also lazy. It has as little worth as would a response that immediately dismissed any link-including post that you offered as argument from authority. On virtually any subject, but particularly ones that are of a scientific/technical nature, it is entirely appropriate to consider the background of the person expressing a view, especially if it stands in stark contrast to a view that many other qualified people hold. Education matters, as does affiliation. The latter has at least two important components, as it speaks to the amount of thought put into a topic as well as who's signing the source's paycheck. Move it away from AGW for a moment, and consider two

Quoting bjkeefe: pisc:

I'm sorry if this seems like piling on, but it's an important point, so I want to add my voice. You and I have had this argument before. I think you have a tendency in this context to play the ad hominem card immediately, as though it were the ace of trumps. This is a stretch, to put it mildly. It's also lazy. It has as little worth as would a response that immediately dismissed any link-including post that you offered as argument from authority.

On virtually any subject, but particularly ones that are of a scientific/technical nature, it is entirely appropriate to consider the background of the person expressing a view, especially if it stands in stark contrast to a view that many other qualified people hold. Education matters, as does affiliation. The latter has at least two important components, as it speaks to the amount of thought put into a topic as well as who's signing the source's paycheck.

Move it away from AGW for a moment, and consider two sources. The first says that Medication X is the best treatment for conditions A, B, and C, has no side effects, and should immediately become the drug

Quoting piscivorous: I guess I have been reading too many lefty headlines lately and have fallen into the the seldom used archaic by using hyperbole to catch the eye.

Um, wow. You just blamed the left for your own distortion of Evans's views.

Pisc said:

Quoting piscivorous: the standard argument proffered by those here is that any one that disagrees with the AGW hypotheses is [among other possibilities] "is bought and paid for" with no offer of evidence to back up the slurs and denigrations.

And then Pisc said, sarcastically:

Quoting piscivorous: I should but my blinders back on and follow the perceived wisdom of a bunch of experts [...] who's very livelihood depends on AGW's existence ...

Hey, pisc, are they "slurs and denigrations" when you do it?

Quoting piscivorous: as presented by laymen

Pisc,
Clarify something for me, if you would be so kind. Are you a laymen?

Quoting piscivorous: I am amazed that I have been a patient as I have. When the standard argument proffered by those here is that any one that disagrees with the AGW hypotheses is either "specific axe to grind", or "doesn't rise to the level of credibility" or "was misrepresented, his credentials inflated" or "is bought and paid for" with no offer of evidence to back up the slurs and denigrations. It matters not the credentials, history and qualifications of the particular individual so attacked. Nor does it matter the source of studies that I offer that contradicts the models given answer A but the measured data say B because the consensus say forget that data it's A because some computer model says so and computers are never wrong.

The second favorite is to use apologies that in no way resemble or are related to the situation concerning AGW. Yours is farcical because as it compares something that can be empirically tested through wide spread usage and data collected over time; thus eventually proving either the consensus or constrain view. When NASA says that the atmosphere temperature data does not agree with the predictions, or NOAA says

Nice selective editing of my comment. When you add material to a quote I think you should note it "[among other possibilities]"; but then again you do so little documentation of your arguments that you my not realize the propriety of that concept. If you must selectively edit my comments to make your point I guess I have my mine.

Defiantly.

Quoting piscivorous: Nice selective editing of my comment. When you add material to a quote I think you should note it "[among other possibilities]"; but then again you do so little documentation of your arguments that you my not realize the propriety of that concept. If you must selectively edit my comments to make your point I guess I have my mine.

Few points, Pisc: (1) Like ellipses, inclusion of summaries in square brackets is a widespread and well-understood practice. Everyone reading the text understands exactly what they are seeing. (2) There was no alteration of your original meaning. I simply removed points you were making that I was not responding to, so that the point I was responding to would be clear. (a) The remaining text is a completely accurate representation the point I was responding to. (b) The summary in brackets is a completely accurate representation of the text that was removed. (3) Your original text is one click away. Anyone following the thread saw the original text before seeing my reply, and even if they didn't, upon seeing square brackets would immediately recognize that part of what you said was being omitted for clarity.

Quoting piscivorous: Defiantly.

Thank you for the straight answer.

It is an accepted practice, to alter someones word in a quote and make no reference to the modification, because you know everybody knows that accepted practice and if they don't they're just rubies. Perhaps they are as sloppy in their habits as you and will not bother to actually click on the link and digest the meaning of the comment themselves, instead just assume your lame representation is true.

pisc: You make an impassioned case, for which you deserve credit. I also think that you make much more of a reality-based argument than do most AGW skeptics/deniers, who generally seem to say little more than "Al Gore has a big house, and besides, he's fat." Nonetheless, I still think you suffer from a tendency to pick out elements of data which support your beliefs, and don't really try to grasp what the whole collection says. The global climate is a very noisy system, and pointing to a short time series of temperature readings, say, does not refute the larger theory. Second, to repeat my earlier point, I still wonder why you are so eager to trust the occasional individual, while being so quick to dismiss the thousands of other scientists who hold the opposite view, especially when the sources you provide tend to be op-eds, not publications in peer-reviewed journals. Again, this strikes me as cherry-picking and confirmation bias. Third, you seem to hover on the edge of believing in some kind of conspiracy theory, whereby climate scientists the world over decided to promote a big lie merely to keep themselves well-fed. You don't quite go there, but you

Alas if I could get the same in return.

Quoting piscivorous: It is an accepted practice, to alter someones word in a quote and make no reference to the modification, because you know everybody knows that accepted practice and if they don't they're just rubies. Perhaps they are as sloppy in their habits as you and will not bother to actually click on the link and digest the meaning of the comment themselves, instead just assume your lame representation is true.

Sorry, pisc. I don't at all agree. Twin is entirely correct in describing "standard practice." Look at any blog or print source in the English language, and you'll see the exact same things. If people don't follow links, that's their problem, and their laziness suggests to me that their opinions probably aren't that important. Anyone who really cares about understanding the debate won't hesitate to follow a link, and in this case, I think it will be obvious that you weren't being misrepresented. You have a bit of a point on the emphasis aspect, but, as Twin pointed out, it is common for people in debates all over the Web to pick out the points they want to rebut, and to prune away

Quoting bjkeefe: pisc:

You make an impassioned case, for which you deserve credit. I also think that you make much more of a reality-based argument than do most AGW skeptics/deniers, who generally seem to say little more than "Al Gore has a big house, and besides, he's fat."

I could care less the size of Vice President Gore's stomach or house. I do believe the hypocrisy argument has some merit in his particular instance and with many others that do the most to promote this fear.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nonetheless, I still think you suffer from a tendency to pick out elements of data which support your beliefs, and don't really try to grasp what the whole collection says. The global climate is a very noisy system, and pointing to a short time series of temperature readings, say, does not refute the larger theory.

Actually I spend a lot more time and effort grasping the "whole collection" than you allude to here. I understand fully the advantage of the propagation of the hypotheses of AGW to accomplish long sought after goals, that they have been unsuccessful in selling using any other weapon, and now figure thy have discovered an issue that they see

Gee bj I never spend anytime surfing the WEB so I know nothing of what kind of slop is out there that passes good practices. Perhaps that says something in and of itself about the quality of discourse available on the WEB.

Quoting piscivorous: I could care less the size of Vice President Gore's stomach or house. I do believe the hypocrisy argument has some merit in his particular instance and with many others that do the most to promote this fear.

You complain when it's pointed out that your sources are weak that it's ad hominem, then reply with a textbook ad hominem? Hypocrisy has no bearing on the whether an argument should be taken seriously. The quality of a source certainly does.

Quoting piscivorous: Actually I spend a lot more time and effort grasping the "whole collection" than you allude to here. I understand fully the advantage of the propagation of the hypotheses of AGW, to accomplish long sought after goals, that they have been unsuccessful in selling, using any other weapon, and now figure thy have discovered an issue that they see as manna from heaven.

These are some pretty vague assertions. You're going to have to identify "they" pretty clearly. The "goals" you speak of aren't any more clearly defined. After defining both, there will still be a need to substantiate the claims.

Quoting piscivorous: NASA, NOAA; cherry picking from a group of wild eyed dissenters that write massive opinion

Quoting piscivorous: Gee bj I never spend anytime surfing the WEB so I know nothing of what kind of slop is out there that passes good practices. Perhaps that says something in and of itself about the quality of discourse available on the WEB.

If I wanted to sound like you, here's where I would start complaining about being misquoted. I did not say "good practices." I said "standard practice" in one place (quoting, as a matter of fact) and "it is common" in another. If I wanted to sound like you, I would resort to sarcasm when it had long since become clear that successive attempts to change the original argument, to avoid ever conceding a point, had themselves been exposed as weak. If I wanted to sound like you, I would fire off a comment in haste, and not stop to think about the unintentional irony of simultaneously claiming to be familiar with Web practices and unfamiliar with them, or of labeling as "slop" that which you spend so much time contributing to. But I don't really want to sound like you.

Quoting AemJeff: You complain when it's pointed out that your sources are weak that it's ad hominem, then reply with a textbook ad hominem? Hypocrisy has no bearing on the whether an argument should be taken seriously. The quality of a source certainly does.

Yet you proffer only personal opinion as as to the quality and expect one to accept your word. What I said was "I do believe the hypocrisy argument has some merit in his particular instance and with many others that do the most to promote this fear." I don't see where I have drawn any connection between the hypocrisy of individuals, with extremely large carbon footprints, and my underlying argument that the models are wrong and the data is showing that. Nor have I argued that these individuals should not be or can not be effective spokes people for the beliefs that they themselves don't practice. If the term hypocrisy bothers you, for this particular behavior, perhaps I should be more politically correct and just point out this disparity as being merely ironic.

Quoting AemJeff: These are some pretty vague assertions. You're going to have to identify "they" pretty clearly. The "goals" you

Quoting piscivorous: Not my words I borrowed the words and the concept of "whole collection" from bjkeefe so query him about this larger aggregate of issues he sees as bound up in the AGW debate.

For someone who complains about being quoted out of context, pisc, you sure seem to do a lot of it yourself. I used "whole collection" when referring to the data:

Quoting bjkeefe: Nonetheless, I still think you suffer from a tendency to pick out elements of data which support your beliefs, and don't really try to grasp what the whole collection says. The global climate is a very noisy system, and pointing to a short time series of temperature readings, say, does not refute the larger theory.

Dude, if you're going to pit a series of political editorials against a body of work published in peer reviewed journals, it's not merely "personal opinion" to assert a difference in quality, when what's at issue is the value as evidence of the competing documents.

I don't see where I have drawn any connection between the hypocrisy of individuals, with extremely large carbon footprints, and my underlying argument that the models are wrong and the data is showing that.

Then you're trying to have it both ways. Else, why bring it up at all?

I have little argument with this as a statement but have quite a difference of which side is guilty of what and to what degree.

Again, there's nothing subjective here. The AGW "skeptics" have (and I've repeatedly provided links showing this) offered cash and other rewards for papers embodying specific opinions. That's incontrovertible.

I didn't bring it up I responded. And the IPCC when it releases funds for research to individuals that are known to support their agenda aren't doing the same thing. If you have offered them here I have missed them and I generally follow links assiduously on this issue. I have offered links to a number of individuals that noticed their funds disappeared after publishing data contrary to AWG. That's incontrovertible.

You are correct I upon rereading I misrepresented that phrase.

Quoting piscivorous: You are correct I upon rereading I misrepresented that phrase.

Thanks for acknowledging.

Quoting piscivorous: I didn't bring it up I responded. And the IPCC when it releases funds for research to individuals that are known to support their agenda aren't doing the same thing. If you have offered them here I have missed them and I generally follow links assiduously on this issue. I have offered links to a number of individuals that noticed their funds disappeared after publishing data contrary to AWG. That's incontrovertible.

Here's a link. Note that the heart of this is a simple factual claim. The relationship between IPCC funding and data is an allegation. Just because somebody's had their funding pulled, that doesn't prove a conspiracy. On the other hand an offer of US$10,000 plus travel and "other" payments, is prima facie evidence of corruption.

It's amazing that an organization that doesn't believe the AGW meme is willing to pay scientists for articles that "

"The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs"

." sounds so nefarious to me that they openly solicit this research. I don't see any call to skew your data or misrepresent your data or to throw your beliefs and reputation down the tubes for the gigantic sum of $10,000.00. But when Greenpeace pays for research it's all done for benevolence and for the good for mankind; I almost bought that but then I put the joint down. As far as the IPCC being allegations instead of fact I would only say it is fairly difficult to prove a negative but then I think you know that going into this pit of pith.

Quoting piscivorous: It's amazing that an organization that doesn't believe the AGW meme is willing to pay scientists for articles that "." sounds so nefarious to me that they openly solicit this research. I don't see any call to skew your data or misrepresent your data or to throw your beliefs and reputation down the tubes for the gigantic sum of $10,000.00. But when Greenpeace pays for research it's all done for benevolence and for the good for mankind; I almost bought that but then I put the joint down.

As far as the IPCC being allegations instead of fact I would only say it is fairly difficult to prove a negative but then I think you know that going into this pit of pith.

A particular conclusion was asked for in exchange for a cash payment. That's not "research."

A 2005 review of anti-AGW research and PR paid for by ExxonMobil: chart and related story

Nor is a crime that if you have done such research and the evidence from it lead you to the conclusions that the IPCC screwed the pouch in a particular instance or conclusion to get paid to have it published.

The ever impartial Mother Jones Journal which is run by The Foundation for National Progress an of so impartial organization that hired Michael Moore as it editor and then fired him when he refused to publish an article that was critical of the bastions of life, liberty, freedom of the press in the wonderful vacation land of Communist Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. I love you idea of nonpartisan sources.

Quoting piscivorous: Nor is a crime that if you have done such research and the evidence from it lead you to the conclusions that the IPCC screwed the pouch in a particular instance or conclusion to get paid to have it published.

It seems to me that you assume the IPCC is a nefarious organization with a political agenda that trump science. If you think that's true, why don't you try to build a case to demonstrate that? To be taken seriously by anyone other than somebody who's already convinced, you'll have to do it without reference to either AEI or CEI's output, ot that of their alumni, because those organizations have, in fact, demonstrated that they are exactly what you fear about the IPCC. Up until that's been demonstrated, why should anyone accept the validity of your argument? If you read what I've posted on this topic, by the way, you won't find a single assertion on the truth of AGW. The problem I have with what you have to say about this is that you seem to have picked a conclusion (IPCC are liars, the research they reference is politically tainted) and

Excerpt from George Monbiot's book Heat, describing denialist funding and tactics from Exxon and Philip Morris.

Quoting piscivorous: The ever impartial Mother Jones Journal which is run by The Foundation for National Progress an of so impartial organization that hired Michael Moore as it editor and then fired him when he refused to publish an article that was critical of the bastions of life, liberty, freedom of the press in the wonderful vacation land of Communist Nicaragua under the Sandinistas. I love you idea of nonpartisan sources.

Quoting piscivorous: Cant argue the merits attack the source? When will these games cease?

Your own inconsistencies aside, did you notice just how many supporting links were contained within the chart attached to the story? This wasn't just an op-ed piece. This was a well-researched and well-documented piece of reporting. And if you have trouble with Mother Jones, I'm sure you could find other sources.

Quoting AemJeff: If you read what I've posted on this topic, by the way, you won't find a single assertion on the truth of AGW. The problem I have with what you have to say about this is that you seem to have picked a conclusion (IPCC are liars, the research they reference is politically tainted) and you seem willing to offer anything consistent with that idea without any evident skepticism, or acknowledgment of the polemical nature of what you're offering up.

Precisely correct. Pisc has an enormous emotional investment in denial of global warming. Liberal vs. conservative isn't really about ideology vs. ideology, it's about reality vs. ideology. Liberals tend to follow the science, whether evolution, the cause of homosexuality, the connection between race and IQ, effects of pollution, the existence of global warming ... you could list hundreds of other examples. Liberals are perfectly happy to modify our understanding of the universe as new information becomes available, and it is this single characteristic which more than anything else describes the difference between left and right.

Yes when I use your sides tactics I am being very inconsistent with what I would normal do. But What s good for the goose.... Nor does it change my basic premise that the smear of paid for partisan arguments is only from one side of the argument as complete Bovine Scatology.

Probably also worth noting the Michael Moore's connection to Mother Jones ended in 1986 (two decades before Mooney's article on Exxon funding ran). It is also not generally accepted that Moore's termination had to do with the refusal to publish an article about the Sandinistas. Moore himself gives another explanation, and others who were there at the time also deny this. But he lives in a big house, and he's fat, right?

industry funding bad evil-progressive activist group funding good honest. BS so would it surprise you that MJ takes funding from the oil, energy and chemical industries and there for all they say should be discounted.

Quoting piscivorous: Yes when I use your sides tactics I am being very inconsistent with what I would normal do. But What s good for the goose....

Nor does it change my basic premise that the smear of paid for partisan arguments is only from one side of the argument as complete Bovine Scatology.

Shorter first sentence: when I do what I do it's inconsistent with what I do. Still waiting for some links showing evidence (and not just blank assertions) of firing or loss of funding for publishing reports contradicting the IGCC report, or anything similar.

Quoting piscivorous: industry funding bad evil-progressive activist group funding good honest. BS so would it surprise you that MJ takes funding from the oil, energy and chemical industries and there for all they say should be discounted.

First, do you have any evidence, or are you just making shit up? Second, if Mother Jones does take such funding, then it would only seem to enhance their credibility if they were willing to publish such a critical article as Mooney's.

Quoting TwinSwords: Liberal vs. conservative isn't really about ideology vs. ideology, it's about reality vs. ideology. Liberals tend to follow the science, whether evolution, the cause of homosexuality, the connection between race and IQ, effects of pollution, the existence of global warming ... you could list hundreds of other examples.

Liberals are perfectly happy to modify our understanding of the universe as new information becomes available, and it is this single characteristic which more than anything else describes the difference between left and right.

Twin, I don't want to get too deep into the weeds judging our relationships with the truth based on personal ideology. I've known plenty of people without basic critical skills who hold various points of view. I'd probably count myself as a skeptic before I'd acknowledge my identity as liberal, although both are important to my self-image.

Quoting AemJeff: Twin, I don't want to get too deep into the weeds judging our relationships with the truth based on personal ideology. I've known plenty of people without basic critical skills who hold various points of view. I'd probably count myself as a skeptic before I'd acknowledge my identity as liberal, although both are important to my self-image.

I see your point, and I suppose that if you count hard core socialists and communists, you could find left wing (not liberal) ideologues who are as unfazed by reality as conservatives. But when it comes to contemporary American libearlism, can you give me any examples of liberals practicing the same kind of stubborn refusal to face reality that we see all the time on the right, on a vast array of issues? Also: I limited my initial observation to scientific matters, but the same rejection of reality characterizes Republican views on social policy, too. For example, ideology trumps reality when it comes to conservative views on public health care, government regulation, tax policy (tax cuts lead to increased revenue), public vs. private education, the long-term viability of Social Security, and many more. One example: A lot of teachers had an emotional attachment

Quoting bjkeefe: But he lives in a big house, and he's fat, right?

Michael Moore lives not too far from me, actually, and just a few minutes drive from the current HQ of the Michigan Militia.

I don't think there's a useful distinction between scientific and other matters, at least not from the standpoint of critical thinking - which, in a sense, is hard to distinguish from science on an informal level, anyway. Being married to somebody who calls herself a "Wiccan," I've had a long, long relationship with liberal irrationality. That's not to put down my wife, who's as bright a person as I've met, but we've had some pretty heated conversations about what constitutes a supportable belief. I'd say that political affiliation is an entirely orthogonal attribute in this sense, as well. There are conservatives devoted to denying the validity of the science related to a lot of topics, but the, and I use the word in its technical sense, dumbasses hell bent on shutting down the LHC are almost certainly liberals. The issue, as it often does, has more to do with whose ox is being gored than it does with affiliation. My liberalism has a lot to do with my attitude toward concentrations of power - I'm generally agin it - and I conclude that a constitutionally bound government is the least evil repository for the greatest concentration of

Look at the "strategic partners" of the parent company that funds runs and essentially owns MJ.

Quoting piscivorous: Look at the "strategic partners" of the parent company that funds runs and essentially owns MJ.

You'll have to do better than vague mutterings if you expect me to respect this, pisc. As far as I can see, and I looked yesterday when you mentioned them, the Foundation for National Progress is a 501(c)(3) corporation that appears to exist for no other reason than to handle management aspects of MoJo, which is also a non-profit organization. I imagine there is a lot of paperwork to deal with in maintaining this status, and I can also imagine that there are legal motivations at play, in ways analogous to for-profit companies setting up holding companies, limited liability corporations, etc. A wealthy disgruntled party is always in a position to cripple a non-wealthy organization by filing lawsuits, however free of merit the suits might be. I don't know the details, of course, but I see nothing that looks suspect about FNP and MoJo's relationship. I've looked at some of the results returned by Google, specifically looking for stuff that criticizes the FNP, and I'm just not seeing anything ominous. In the first five or so Google pages, in fact, the only negative link I see points

Quoting piscivorous: It's is beginning to look like the debates is heating up with out the benefit of a greenhouse.

Perhaps a little late, since this thread seems to have come to an end, but for those interested, Tim Lambert has an analysis of the claims made by David Evans in that op-ed in The Australian. (h/t: Sadly, No!)

More from S.N.

Still more!

But wait, there's even more!

Quoting bjkeefe: But wait, there's even more!

LOL. What a fantastic web site that is. But Brendan, you missed this guy! The one who thinks that the earthquake pattern in California is an Islamic cresent!

Quoting TwinSwords: LOL. What a fantastic web site that is.

But Brendan, you missed this guy! The one who thinks that the earthquake pattern in california is an Islamic cresent!

I did see that one. I was trying to stay on topic. But wasn't that just awesome?

Quoting bjkeefe: But wasn't that just awesome?

It was. The last time they wrote him up was for this gem.

The conclusions that my research had produced were startling — sometimes even to me. According to my observations and calculations, we are already in The Tribulation. (Actually, just as an earthquake has a precursor event several miles beneath the Earth's surface, days or weeks before the actual quake, we are in the precursor event of The Tribulation. The actual start of The Tribulation should be in a few days, when the "dog star" Sirius appears in the night sky. The difference between the precursor and the actual start is 13 days.

Gosh, you have to be pretty confident to predict Tribulation in 13 days!

The irony of this guy posting on a site called Renew America cannot be overstated. It cannot even be contemplated.