Glad to see Josh and Brink agreeing that Obama's War is the wrong one at the wrong time. Keep saying so, guys! We especially need Cato Institute people to step up to the plate to pick up the slack of otherwise peace-loving Dems. who are disinclined (or afraid) to criticize Obama.

First of all, my apologies if I misrepresent anything either of you say, I was doing other things while listening to this in the background, so I may have missed some things. A) Brink, you make it sound like satellite data is more reliable then other sources, as it does not contain arbitrary correction factors, but this is not true. Satellite data is corrected just as much if not more then other sources. Details here Note: RSS and UAH(?) have achieved fairly close results (If I remember correctly, they only have a significant difference in the tropics) using different methods, so this is a good indicator the corrected values are robust. B) Brink, you also make it sound like climate skeptics have been shut out from any venues where they could have respectable debate. I can't agree with that, if anything, many organizations have lowered their standard in order to make sure to include skeptics. For instance, last year the APS let Monckton have an article in their newsletter.
I do agree with you both on the need for greater transparency. There must be a way to open up the process, without making it so scientist A can easily poach scientist B's work.

Joshua, I'm sure there are many on this very site who will point you to the non-crank climate skeptic materials you are looking for. Great points, Brink, on both the discussion of the health care bills and climate-gate.The latter is an unbelievable mess and speaks to how messy we can, given the opportunity, make things. What were those founding fathers thinking? The former is entertaining and may perhaps lead to some good things. I liked your comment about the democrats getting the demagoguery they so richly deserve. What have we learned? "It's a bummer to deal with cranks."

[quote=Starwatcher162536;141820 if anything, many organizations have lowered their standard in order to make sure to include skeptics. [/QUOTE] please elaborate.

The bumbling, stumbling, stuttering discussion of Climategate is saved by the capsule of troubling revelations given by Brink at around the 50 min mark. It is actual progress! BhTV commenters (well, one of them) are actually addressing the issue, although even after admitting that the earth temps stopped warming in the late 90s (something many alarmists still won't do) they ignore the elephant in the room that manmade CO2 emissions have climbed steadily and temps refused to follow suit. The money shot was watching Joshua (Has there ever been a more pained-looking and sounding commentor here?) going through his tortured logic on how 'science is important' and oh my goodness skeptics now have their foot in the door trying to lump anyone who asks questions in with promoters of ID, only to see Brink shoot it all down by explaining the need for skeptics and their value to science. Joshua, Holdren once advocated forced sterilizations, coerced abortions and redistribution of wealth......if that's not socialism, what is? .......and he's the best Obama could come up with for a science czar? It must have had something to do with his impeccable work in

With Some Historical Perspective it is apparent that the climate is always in flux.

Well, at least you're backing up your assertions with a link. Unfortunately it's a link to a website whose advertisements include one for a book about "Darwin's threat to America" and another one called "The Islamic Antichrist". I think we all know how credible this is.

I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.

You know what this means? It means we need to use less coal. As for the forced abortions and sterilization, YOU'RE WRONG. Also, czar is just a nickname, and he isn't getting any land or serfs, in case you were confused. None of them are, actually. They're just advisors.

Nice, you shoot the messenger but you dodge the truth that Holdren said what he said: "A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

YOU'RE WRONG.

You may swallow this dodge but I don't. Holdren was clearly saying that forced sterilization and coerced abortions would be reality if the people didn't get in line and view over population the way he (erroneously) did in regards to the calamitiies we faced in the 1980s [snicker]. And if he was so taken out of context as your link claims, why did he say this much later: "I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When

I have never understood the large protracted time period of several years it takes for the U.S. to get the Iraqis and Afgans to learn how to fight. Case in point: In 1968 I was in my late teens, had never fired a weapon, not particulary athletic, and was drafted into the U.S. Army. Four months later I had gone thru basic and advanced light weapons infantry combat training and was sent overseas to fight a war. That's it: 4 months including a 2 week vacation which puts it at 18 weeks. Yet I can remember the Bush Administration's ad nauseum bogus talking point of the years it would take for the Americans to train the Iraqi's to fight. Of course, everything about these wars makes little sense to many of us who are interested in current events and foreign affairs including our astute diavlogers Brink and Josh. John

Wonderment, Your comment on the peace loving dems reminds me of Tammy Wynette's song "Stand By Your Man" or stretching it a bit the Beach Boys' "Be True To Your School." John

Quoting bkjazfan: I have never understood the large protracted time period of several years it takes for the U.S. to get the Iraqis and Afgans to learn how to fight. Case in point: In 1968 I was in my late teens, had never fired a weapon, not particulary athletic, and was drafted into the U.S. Army. Four months later I had gone thru basic and advanced light weapons infantry combat training and was sent overseas to fight a war. That's it: 4 months including a 2 week vacation which puts it at 18 weeks. Yet I can remember the Bush Administration's ad nauseum bogus talking point of the years it would take for the Americans to train the Iraqi's to fight. Of course, everything about these wars makes little sense to many of us who are interested in current events and foreign affairs including our astute diavlogers Brink and Josh.

John

There probably wasn't anybody offering to pay you more than what the military was already offering. If there were, the relatively uncorrupted legal processes here in the States would still have given you a reason to reconsider such an offer. That's not a good description of the

Regarding man made global warming, I don't see the point in arguing if it is happening or not, whether the warming is caused by human industrial activity or by fluctuations of solar output. There is nothing that can be done to halt or reverse either affect. There are billions and billions of people in Africa, Asia and South/Central America. Going forward, the CO2 footprint of these societies dwarfs that of the millions living in the modern world. The focus has to be on taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Even if it is not causing warming, it is causing harmful changes to the PH of the oceans.

Quoting harkin: The bumbling, stumbling, stuttering discussion of Climategate is saved by the capsule of troubling revelations given by Brink at around the 50 min mark. It is actual progress! BhTV commenters (well, one of them) are actually addressing the issue, although even after admitting that the earth temps stopped warming in the late 90s (something many alarmists still won't do) they ignore the elephant in the room that manmade CO2 emissions have climbed steadily and temps refused to follow suit.

Sorry, no. This is not correct. To repeat something I posted in another thread, here's today's news, from James Kanter and Andrew Revkin (emph. added):

Global Warming Is Not Slowing, Report Says

Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending, according to new analysis by the World Meteorological Organization made public on Tuesday.

The decade of the 2000s is very likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years, according to a provisional summary of climate conditions near the end of 2009, the organization said.

The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s and so

Thanks very much to both Josh and Brink for a reasoned discussion. I really appreciate the way to two of you allow each other to give lengthy and nuanced answers. It is a welcome change from so much discussion that one sees on video.

Two of the best on bhtv. How ironic that it is the libertarian Brink Lindsey who understands what Machiavellian calculations may have entered into Obama's Afghan shenanigans (it rhymes with Afghan.) Could Liberals be naive?

Is it not that they could be naive but to what degree of naivety are they inflicted.

Agree with the need for more SOBER discussion on both sides of the global warming issue. And not just the science, but also the economics of the issue: there is certainly no "consensus" among economists about the costs and benefits of warming itself nor of the relative merits of mitigation vs. adaptation strategies for coping with the adverse consequences of warming which might occur. Where are the economists? (OTH, be careful what you wish for: I'd hate to see an invasion of ex-financial engineers peddling long-term econometric models of the global economy!) I think William Nordhaus at Yale has done some good work in this area. It is also nice to compare the Wegman report on the so-called Hockey Stick controversy (sober) with the one issued by the National Academy of Sciences (not so sober). You can find them via Wikipedia.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry, no. This is not correct. To repeat something I posted in another thread, here's today's news, from James Kanter and Andrew Revkin (emph. added):

How strange that you trust scientists more than Rush Limbaugh and his legions of braindead followers. Why O Why won't you trust the oil and gas industry, Brendan? You obviously hate capitalism.

Quoting TwinSwords: [...] You obviously hate capitalism.

Would I support Obama if I didn't????1?

Agreed. The "more time to train the locals" is a pretty transparant line that just sounds better than saying "we don't want to leave for other reasons and this sounds like a good excuse." As the old Soviet army could attest, Afghans knew how to fight pretty well before getting years of training from occupying US and NATO troops. The sort of fighting to be done by Afghan troops fighting insurgent groups, if Afghans chose to support the government, consists mostly of small-unit infantry actions - company and platoon operatons. The US is now working on year 9 of occupation and training. One so naive as to think that timespan isn't enough to produce reasonably functional companies out of hardy fighters but who is also capable of thinking that if we just train for another 18 months things will fundamentally change is someone who can do some interesting mental gymnastics.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The focus has to be on taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Yeah, right. Any ideas how?

Quoting Simon Willard: Yeah, right. Any ideas how?

Yeah. Let hard-working Americans escape from the socialist Democrat carbon breathing oppressors.

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah. Let hard-working Americans escape from the socialist Democrat carbon breathing oppressors.

I don't care how it's done. Just save the ocean(s)!

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah. Let hard-working Americans escape from the socialist Democrat carbon breathing oppressors.

Jeff! You sell Steve short; he's also the master of the dada sci-fi solution http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...95&postcount=7

Quoting nikkibong: Jeff! You sell Steve short; he's also the master of the dada sci-fi solution

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...95&postcount=7

Good catch! "Defeatist" is the adjective I was groping for, but just couldn't quite put my fingers on amongst the swiss cheese and cobwebs I'm forced to pretend is a mind. I couldn't have hoped to match the scope of imagination needed to paint such a beautiful image as that.

Quoting AemJeff: Good catch! "Defeatist" is the adjective I was groping for, but just couldn't quite put my fingers on amongst the swiss cheese and cobwebs I'm forced to pretend is a mind. I couldn't have hoped to match the scope of imagination needed to paint such a beautiful image as that.

Well, it was one of my favorite BHTV posts of all time - the mental imagery alone. It was a nice touch when he threw in "dithering" as well.

Nice, you shoot the messenger but you dodge the truth that Holdren said what he said

Listen, I don't buy stoptheaclu.com and I don't buy a news organization run by the Media Research Center either. I could have sent you to Media Matters instead of Politifact, but I didn't, because I'm not an idiot and I figured that since you are obviously not a liberal, you wouldn't trust an explicitly liberal organization.

"I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States. I don't think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed.".....much like his dire warnings on the 'coming man-made ice age'?

Attempt at snark duly noted. It's true that a lot of scientists, politicians, and people in general were preoccupied with overpopulation in the 60s and 70s. That's why it's not surprising that Holdren talked about it in his book. He did not recommend that forced abortions/sterilization should be used, he simply said

Well, you can start by googling "Monckton APS article" and then googling "Monckton APS article reviewed". I guess some will say that it's just a newsletter and doesn't count as debate in a respectable venue, but meh, I usually stick to trade journals, so from my perspective, I would consider "APS Teen Spring-break Bonanza!" as pretty far up the totem pole.

Franco and I don't agree about everything, but we agree about a lot:

How ironic that it is the libertarian Brink Lindsey who understands what Machiavellian calculations may have entered into Obama's Afghan shenanigans (it rhymes with Afghan.)

This was ironic. The thing is, it always seemed to me that Obama's position on Afghanistan during the campaign was itself quite obviously very calculated, probably not the result of sincere conviction, so he stuck himself with it because he thought it was a necessary part of getting elected. I don't say that it's impossible that Obama sincerely believed his line on Afghanistan during the campaign, I just don't happen to believe that he did. And, even if he did, things may be worse there and harder to turn around, in the event, than he believed during the campaign. The bargain with the devil on this subject was struck a long time ago. But Cohen is right, everyone who supported Obama was on notice. I certainly was. And I actually am not *that* upset about this yet. It depends upon how many people get killed and maimed, really. While I think that a rapid withdrawal now from Afghanistan could well cost

By the way, I thought both Cohen and Lindsey were a bit naive in their reaction to "Climategate," about which I know very, very little. It sounds like some scientists in East Anglia did some rather "unscientific" things. The only point I would make is that this ideal of apolitical peer-reviewed science is just that, an ideal. I am reminded of the excellent bloggingheads edition within the calendar year in which a German female theoretical physicist and an American physicist interlocutor were talking, in part, about the "political" pressures at work in theoretical physics. And there is the "takeover" of the elite physics departments in the US by string theory, about which many have complained, but prominent among the complainers has been Michael Smolin, who was on bhtv. Human reality is inherently political. There is no way to keep politics out of science, particularly in a heavily freighted case such as climate science and global warming. I am not saying that good scientific papers which run counter to whatever the ruling consensus is should not be published. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the exclusion of dissenting opinion is endemic to organized human existence. I just thought

Quoting ledocs: Franco and I don't agree about everything, but we agree about a lot.....

Yes, no doubt. We certainly see eye to eye on the Afghanistan shenanigans (More to come at a theatre of war near you). And on this too, though I am less sanguine than you that suicide is avoidable.

Quoting ledocs: A Palin presidency might well be cause for suicide, though, not that I think that this is at all likely.