Consensus or Con?
The global warmists are the real deniers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069551130098386.html

Michale.....

Sure would be nice to get a proponent of the now-defunct AGW theory to come in here and give some support for that position.

My guess is that they are too embarrassed.. :D

Michale.....

Yep, that's a pet hate of mine too. Forget how offensive it is to sceptics, it's a complete disgrace to the victims of the Holocaust. To trivialise something that horrific and use it to push a political agenda is in such poor taste (and I've met several members of the Kindertransport; they were truly amazing people). I know people whose families were torn apart by the Holocaust.

The only things that should be compared to the Holocaust are other cases of genocide. The only thing that should be compared to the Nazis is another totalitarian government. Comparing global warming sceptics to Holocaust deniers is a form of reductio ad Hitlerum and utterly inappropriate.

That's a good point. If one looks at the AGW and the Dependency/Pollution issues as two distinct and separate issues, then yer right. It's a GOOD thing to get that crap science out of the way so as to concentrate on the REAL issues, the REAL threats.

Sadly, the average American probably won't differentiate between the fraud/con that is the AGW theory and the real pressing issues of oil dependency and pollution control. Therefore, the REAL threats won't get the attention they deserve.

And therein lies the shame...

I think many AGW proponents would be surprised how many of us sceptics are actually in agreement that pollution and oil dependency need dealing with. We might be able to meet in the middle and come up with a plan.

We probably COULD have, had the hysterical AGW proponents not been so vindictively aggressive in their denunciation of AGW skeptics.

Comparing AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers is NOT the way to establish common ground and work together towards a better future.

No, there is too much bad blood between the proponents and the skeptics for any commonality to be established anytime soon..

On the lighter side, it's hilarious that the tables have turned so quickly.. The AGW proponents are now the DENIERS!! They deny the facts as presented by their own priests..

For someone who has battled the AGW fraud/con for so long....

" bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay' "
-Old Klingon Proverb

Translation: "Revenge is a dish best served cold"

Actually, I disagree with you. The sooner we get rid of this ridiculous AGW fear-mongering, the sooner we can actually sit down and look at the issues properly and possibly come to a consensus about what to do about it.

I think many AGW proponents would be surprised how many of us sceptics are actually in agreement that pollution and oil dependency need dealing with. We might be able to meet in the middle and come up with a plan.

Forgive the hyperbole. Got caught up in the moment.

The Left actually has several agendas that have merit...

My bust...

Michale.....

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Ya'all can mark your calenders.

This is the day that the AGW theory was thoroughly and completely discredited..

Gone will be the Carbon Credits Con..

Al Gore will FINALLY shut up..

On some level, it's actually a shame.. Pollution and oil dependency are REAL issues, REAL threats that truly need to be addressed.

It seems that the Left, once again, has totally fraked up practically the ONLY agenda they had that actually had some merit..

But, as far as the AGW theory goes.... Michale will be a VERY happy camper today... :D

Michale.....

That's it in a nutshell...

I have always said time and time again...

"In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant' "
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

:D

.... that AGW is a POLITICAL issue, not a scientific one.

Consensus is a POLITICAL point, not a scientific point. Just because 20 scientists say "YEA" and only 1 scientist says "NAY" doesn't automagically mean that the 20 scientists are right.

Science is NOT a popularity contest..

Michale.....

However it's the preachiness, the "religion", almost "cult" status of the AGW theory that gets my back up. I don't like the way scepticism is silenced, and I know many scientists, of both pro and anti AGW persuasions, who agree.

Science needs healthy scepticism, it's dependent on it, and blind consensus is bad.

Worse, as you say, the scare-mongering and fear tactics that the left have often accused the right of are now being utilised by those with a clearly anti-capitalist agenda to get us to take drastic measures that destroy a system they disagree with. It's politics masquerading as science.

My feelings on the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) religion are very well known to the people here.

But since yer new here, I'll lay them out. I don't think you'll find much to disagree with..... :D

Regardless of what the Left wants us to believe, the science IS in dispute. This is fact. For every scientific fact that supports AGW, there is a corresponding fact that disproves AGW.

So, the science is inconclusive. Anyone who denies this is simply a denier with an agenda.

So, since the science is in dispute, other factors come into play.

So, we must look at those other factors. One of those factors would be the actions and attitudes of the proponents and the skeptics.

Let's take the skeptics first.

Are the actions and attitudes of the skeptics in line with their position? Do we see skeptics running around in electric cars, going on a massive tree-planting crusade, setting up their homes and work with solar and/or wind power?

No, we don't see that. So, by casual observation, it's apparent that the skeptics truly believe their position. Granted, that's not evidence of facts disproving AGW. All it shows is that the skeptics truly believe their position.

Now, let's look at the proponents of the AGW theory and their actions.

Do they act like the end of the world is nigh? Do they drive around in electric cars, go on a massive tree-planting crusade, set up their homes and office with solar/wind power?

No they do not. Ergo, the logical conclusion is they do NOT believe in their position.

As I said, neither of these are direct evidence of any factual nature of the validity or invalidity of the AGW theory.

However, they DO conclusively show that, on one side of the debate, the people really and truly believe their position is valid and the people on the other side of the debate do NOT believe their position is valid.

As I have said many times, whether humankind has caused, helped or been ignored by the planet's climate is completely irrelevant.

Getting a handle on and preventing more pollution is a laudable goal in and of itself. Getting this country off of oil dependency and developing more sustainable forms of energy is an honorable position to take.

But telling other people how to live their lives while ignoring one's own lifestlye is a crass and obvious effort to make millions and billions of dollars by scaremongering???

That's just wrong.. Pathetically and pathologically wrong.

I'll be ready to live like Al Gore and Richard Branson wants us to live as soon as Al Gore and Richard Branson lives as Al Gore and Richard Branson wants them to live.

Can't get more fair than that... :D

Michale.....

There's nothing wrong with partisanship, as long as, as you say, people are respectful, because that's the beauty of democracy. Plurality of opinion can only be a good thing, and who says we all have to agree anyway?

The "reality-based" idea is one I hold dear myself, in fact I've often referred to my political ideology as "pragmatism" rather than "liberal", "conservative" or "libertarian" (you have no idea how hard a time I've had putting a label on my views!). My views on gay rights (pro), the death penalty (against) and the theory of Evolution (it's scientific fact, or as close to as it can be) rarely fit in a "conservative" crowd, but my fiscal views (low taxation and regulation, free market left to do what it does best) rarely sit well with the left.

To answer your questions, I'm a Londoner, born and bred, although I've long held an affinity for the US. Whereabouts is the lovely Mrs Weigant from, may I ask? I will definitely agree with you that many Americans have some weird ideas about the rest of the world, especially about us in jolly old England.

Actually it was the fact that it was clear that you didn't agree with tea party ideals and yet still treated the movement with respect, rather than mockery, that made your piece so interesting. I fully expected the likes of Fox to have good things to say, but the left had, until I read your piece, poked fun.

Although I wouldn't classify myself as a tea party conservative (I'm not quite as rigid on the bailouts, I think they were necessary, and the same with both wars, but that's another story entirely), what really got to me was what I saw as the left-wing media being pompous towards this fledgling movement.

You stood out from that, and deserve kudos for taking it seriously.

(Incidentally it was the article you linked to that I read on Huff Post, and later came by the other, more recent piece, on your blog here. Both are excellent)

Yes, Obama's framing of the climate change issue was spectacular, and like you, I've long held the opinion that the whole issue of global warming is, to a large extent, a red herring when it comes to energy policy. Depending on fossil fuels can't last forever, they will run out, so we'll need other sources of energy eventually. I'm a big believer that hydrogen cars are the future.

I once saw an interview with Jay Leno (who has an impressive car collection) where he said he felt that cleaner cars wouldn't mean the end of petrol cars, but rather, like when the car replaced the horse the horse became simply a recreational tool, petrol driven cars will still exist and possible even prosper.

Whatever the future holds, oil isn't the answer.

To be fair there are plenty of ways to make the Green movement palatable to the right, including mentioning the bottom line. When I realised how much I would save by using energy saving bulbs, I switched. Rising petrol prices in a country with affordable public transport has incentivized me to drive less.

Make the case that stuff will cost less the right are putty in your hands.

Obama's State Of The Union actually used a lot of a lot of nationalism, so it was no real surprise to see him use it with the Republicans. As you pointed out in your analysis of the SOTU, it was Reagan-esque, and if there's a man who ALL Republicans love, it's Ronnie (he's my second favourite politician of all time behind Maggie Thatcher. Don't tell anyone but my third is Clinton...)

Actually I think the reason bipartisanship hasn't worked so far is the amount of bad blood between the two parties. The last campaign was dirty, from the insane "Obama's a muslim terrorist who wasn't even born in the USA" slurs to the accusations that Palin's baby was her daughter's. That's why I think there appears to be a tone, both in the SOTU and the GOP response, that civility needs to be brought back to Washington politics).

For our side of the aisle, I think it's instructive to look at how the Democrats behaved in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the support they (initially) gave Bush. Obama faces a challenge of similar proportions and there does need to be a willingness to listen, rather than merely say "no" to everything.

Welcome to the site. Your first comment was held for moderation, as are all first-time comments, but from now on your comments will be automatically posted (unless you post more than one link per comment, which are held for moderation to cut down on blog spam), just FYI.

A quick introduction -- I would say I am biased but not prejudicial towards a Lefty point of view. Meaning I sympathize with most Lefty positions, but I also see things as they are, not as I would like them to be. Hence the "Reality-based" motto. Also, I'm not afraid to take Lefties to task when they deserve it, in my opinion.

M-Thurs, we offer pretty straightforward analysis, but on Fridays we get pretty partisan, I have to admit, as the Friday column series is geared towards getting Democrats to use the tools of politics better than they normally do.

We do have a pretty wide range of viewpoints here in the comments (cue: Michale), so you will find there are those here who agree with you on certain issues. I welcome all viewpoints, as long as they are generally respectful of others' viewpoints.

Oh, and we don't have word limits here, so don't worry about using the words you feel you need to comment on things.

To answer your points specifically --

Where across the pond do you find yourself? I spent a few years in Europe myself (in pursuit of a girfriend who is now my lovely wife), and I think it is a life-changing experience to get out of the USA and see how the rest of the world sees us, personally. It certainly forces you to re-examine some things you always took for granted in your own thinking, that's for sure.

Anyway, I take the tea party folks seriously because I think they're going to have a definite impact on American politics, at least for the next few years. I actually have sympathized with their effort (although not with their ideas or their cause), simply because I'm a sucker for people who actually get out and protest the government, from whatever ideology. Here is the first column I ran on the movement, right before their initial Tax Day protest, which you might enjoy.

My point about global warming is that I've never quite seen such a brilliant re-framing of such a contentious issue as Obama seems to have done. His point, which I have long held myself, is: "Who CARES what's causing global warming or even if it exists, transitioning from oil is the wave of the future (that oil's going to run out some day), and if the USA isn't at the forefront of that wave, we are going to get surpassed by others (as indeed we already have, in this area). To keep the US being a world leader, we have to drive the innovation in this area."

Simply brilliant, since it feeds into nationalism (or exceptionalism, or jingoism -- call it what you will), which is traditionally a Righty argument. This could make the whole Green movement a LOT more palatable to the Right, and also removes the whole "is it or isn't it" debate from the equation entirely. As I said, simply brilliant.

You may have a point about the media and bipartisanship, but go back and search the term during the Bush years, and you'll see what I mean. Bipartisanship was always "getting a few Democrats on board what Republicans were pushing for," but then, as you point out, they were the "in" party at the time, and this may be a function of who is "in" and who is "out."

And you are entirely correct, I am waiting to see what this week of good speeches actually produces in the weeks ahead.

Once more, allow me to welcome you to the site, and encourage you to join in the debate whenever you feel like it. We may not agree, but we can certainly present arguments in a reasonable fashion, as you have already proven so well.

-CW

I'm from the "other side" of the aisle (actually, the other side of the atlantic, but that's another point entirely) but came across your piece on Huff Post about the Tea Party movement and it was intriguing to read someone from the left taking the movement seriously. So I popped by your blog. I like it.

As a moderate conservative (I'm largely socially liberal, fiscally conservative, though I do oppose late-pregnancy abortion and I'm certainly in the Global Warming sceptic camp) I like to read well reasoned stuff from Democrats as it brings balance to the discussion and to my own reasoning on issues.

And it's the issue of global warming that actually prompted me to comment, as I think President Obama, despite the overall quality of the speech (and I have to doff my cap to him on pulling it off in, as you say, the lion's den), is wrong about one thing. The world IS sceptical about Global Warming.

Certainly I've noticed a trend on this side of the pond towards scepticism in light of the Climategate scandal, with even the mainstream media showing a leaning towards scepticism. I'm not sure about continental Europe, but one would also think that the East (India and China) would be opposed to action on climate change out of financial self-interest (it would hit China hardest given their reliance on manufacturing), leading to a trend of scepticism.

Of course his argument that the US should be leading clean technology as a pioneer still stands. Whether one agrees with the AGW theory or not, there's little doubt that we cannot remain as reliant on fossil fuels as we are now, if for no other reason than the likely scarcity of such fuels in the future.

I'm not sure I agree with you that the media (with the notable exceptions of Fox and WSJ) like to frame bipartisanship as being 100% Republican driven, in fact I'd argue the media has been portraying any Republican opposition, regardless of its basis, as obstructionism (which is, I feel, unfair). There has to be some scope for the Republicans to oppose (we are, at the moment, a party of opposition after all, with no real legislative power). Whilst this must not be abused, some opposition is actually healthy to the process.

Of course democracy dictates that a party with the mandate that the Dems clearly have (whether I like it or not) gets to pursue its agenda, but it doesn't entitle them to pursue it without ANY opposition, surely? There's scope for a modicum of opposition before we call it obstructionism, right?

Now of course I'm unlikely to agree with Obama on many things, and I still don't, but I have to say, that was one heck of a speech. I'm curious now to see what he follows it up with (in terms of action), as, I'm sure, are you.

Jackie Chan indeed ...

-David

Have to admit, got a laugh out of your Jackie Chan reference.

:-)

-CW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY

All 85 minutes in one big happy chunk. It's like watching Jackie Chan fight off 140 attackers with nothing more than two chalkboard erasers and a garden hose (well, except that they didn't all attack him. But they could have done! And he was ready for them!)

IOW, Obama learned more than one lesson from the failures of '93.

video exists, but I'm not sure where. I think it's probably like 1 - 1.5 hours long, just to warn you! If you think the excerpts were long, the transcript has many more gems within it...

I heard Fox News cut it off halfway through the Q&A session.

Heh.

-CW

Is there video of Obama and the Republicans? I sure would like to see that - but, I'll enjoy reading the transcript, too!

I get really tired of the GOP complaining that they are not included in the discussion when Obama has bent over backwards to invite them to participate in the process.

Working together is all about compromise and as you point out both parties need to remember that.

...Stan