I marked my calendar, a red letter day, something on the WSJ editorial page I agree with!!!
Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2010, Pg. 18
“Less Government Means Less Defense Spending, Too”
“Arthur Brooks, Edwin Feulner and William Kristol claim that military spending is not the prime driver of our current fiscal crisis, but the Pentagon accounts for 23% of the federal budget (“Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself,” op-ed, Oct. 4). It is inconceivable that this spending should be exempt from scrutiny in a time of soaring deficits.”
“Rather than Congress constantly writing a blank check, the process of military budgeting should begin with a discussion about security necessities and their costs. That isn’t a discussion that Messrs. Brooks, Feulner and Kristol seem anxious to engage in—unsurprisingly, since all three support the disastrous military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“Of course, cutting spending without a corresponding reduction in commitments is a recipe for overburdening service members taxed by too frequent deployments to far-flung places. But it is already obvious that most of what America spends on its military—often erroneously labeled “national defense”—really defends others who can and should defend themselves.”
“It’s time for advocates of free markets and limited government to recognize that a vast military presence around the world is utterly inconsistent with those ideals. If we agree that government intervention domestically often has unintended, harmful consequences, we should recognize that the same principle holds true internationally, in spades. If we believe that the Constitution created a government whose most important duty is to “provide for the common defence” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” we should not be so willing to deploy the sharp end of that government’s power in support of those who are not parties to our unique social contract.”
“The Brooks-Feulner-Kristol approach to military spending amounts to another form of foreign aid, a massive wealth transfer from Americans to non-Americans, helping them finance generous social welfare systems. It is time to get our allies off the dole.”
“Ed Crane and Christopher Preble, The Cato Institute, Washington”
What is interesting is Cato tilting with: American Enterprise Inst, Heritage Foundation and Foreign Policy Inst on the WSJ editorial pages.
Now, Ilsm, this is certainly interesting. I don’t believe it, of course. Is there anything out there that echoes this odd conclusion? I’ve never heard anything like this before. Wow. NancyO
Those who read the original WSJ op-ed, Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself, as well as the CATO letter response, Less Government Means Less Defense Spending, Too, might consider additional readings to round out the issues. The exchange and difference in opinions didn’t begin or end there. Here are some of the related articles and reports.
Heritage: – Morning Bell: Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself, October 5th, 2010 – Defining the Obama Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How to Avoid Them, September 1, 2010 – The State of the U.S. Military, January 2010 – People and Platforms: An Agenda for Balanced Defense Forces, April 22, 2009
CATO: – Actually We Aren’t Running the World, October 6, 2010 – Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint, September 21, 2010
Monday, Carpe Deim (Mark Perry) had a good post which discusses an LA Times article, Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces. The focus is on continued employment/productivity changes which occurred during the recession. Mark includes a chart worth noting.
“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, manufacturing output has increased by 9.6% (or by $270 billion) through August of this year, while manufacturing employment has decreased by -0.90% (or by 103,000 workers) during that 14-month period.”
If that isn’t enough to capture your attention, take a good look at the excellent 9 sequence interactive graph presentation on output provided by Neil Irwin this week:
Monday, Carpe Deim (Mark Perry) had a good post which discusses an LA Times article, Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces. The focus is on continued employment/productivity changes which occurred during the recession. Mark includes a chart worth noting.
“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, manufacturing output has increased by 9.6% (or by $270 billion) through August of this year, while manufacturing employment has decreased by -0.90% (or by 103,000 workers) during that 14-month period.”
If that isn’t enough to capture your attention, take a good look at the excellent 9 sequence interactive graph presentation on output provided by Neil Irwin this week:
Monday, Carpe Deim (Mark Perry) had a good post which discusses an LA Times article, Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces. The focus is on continued employment/productivity changes which occurred during the recession. Mark includes a chart worth noting.
“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, manufacturing output has increased by 9.6% (or by $270 billion) through August of this year, while manufacturing employment has decreased by -0.90% (or by 103,000 workers) during that 14-month period.”
If that isn’t enough to capture your attention, take a good look at the excellent 9 sequence interactive graph presentation on output provided by Neil Irwin this week:
Until economists start asking themselves why they insist on drawing the “potential output curve” at the same upward slop it always goes, even thru GR1, it doesn’t seem like a useful discussion. More like there is a problem in the central planning department.
Wait until they find out rat brain robots can replace the entire mortgage industry and will work in little cages instead of big office buildings. That should scare the bejesus out of them.
Once we can do it with Dobermans, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and American Shepherds… there goes military employment. But Gates says he wants more boots on the ground, so DARPA may be behind the whole thing already.
Until economists start asking themselves why they insist on drawing the “potential output curve” at the same upward slope it always goes, even thru GR1, it doesn’t seem like a useful discussion. More like there is a problem in the central planning department.
Wait until they find out rat brain robots can replace the entire mortgage industry and will work in little cages instead of big office buildings. That should scare the bejesus out of them.
Once we can do it with Dobermans, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and American Shepherds… there goes military employment. But Gates says he wants more boots on the ground, so DARPA may be behind the whole thing already.
Here’s another interesting legal action concerning global average temperatures. Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal
For background, New Zealand calculates temperature similarly to the way NASA and NOAA do their calculaions. All have systematically lowered older temperature records which assures a rising temperature graphic.
New Zealanders finally took a stance and filed a law suit. This is from an article describing the results:
“ In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.
New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.
NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.”
Can a similar suit against NASA?NOAA be far off? Dunno, just asking.
In the last “decade of change” the post Vietnam 70’s there was a significant decline in food reserves, notably the Soviets began importing North American grain. The presence of trans-oceanic grain ships with the hammer and sickle was common in Lake Superior grain ports, before ‘the Soo’ froze each winter.
Many had strange antennae on them.
Trends may move toward less red meat and more grain direct to human consumption.
I recommend articles by Andrew Bacevich. As balance.
Some of the reasons for the US “force structure” are fiction. Tom Clancy novels and stuff from new names like Evan Pedone. See WSJ 11 Sep an article about “China’s Finlandization Strategy in The Pacific”. pg 13
As if the littorals around Asia are US property.
Then there are recent statements about how military retirement and health outlays for retired military and dependents will bankrupt DoD.
Gates wants a trim, while a drastic pruning is in order.
You don’t get much analysis from beltway “think tanks”.
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Project on National Security Reform, Center for Strategic and International Studies, AEI, Heritage, etc all have agendas and funding for more spending and fictions to support them. These “analyses” show up on the WSJ and Wash Post pages.
Many of the reasons for the US “force structure” are fiction. Tom Clancy novels and stuff from new names like Evan Pedone. See WSJ 11 Sep an article about “China’s Finlandization Strategy in The Pacific”. pg 13
As if the littorals around Asia are US property.
The QDR is largely written in these think tanks.
Then there are recent statements about how military retirement and health outlays for retired military and dependents will bankrupt DoD.
Gates wants a trim, while a drastic pruning is in order.
I recommend articles by Andrew Bacevich. As balance.
What comes from “think tanks” is mostly contrivance.
CoRev–Sue whom about what? That is, what is the cause of action that would come before the court? Just askin’. Courts here don’t get involved unless someone or some legal entity causes or suffers a loss to a human being. I have been hotter than hell this summer, but it’s Fall now and quite nice. Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it, if ya know what I mean. NancyO
Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations. WaPo has an acknowledged relationship with Peterson as shown in Samuelson’s “SS is in crisis!” claptrap, among other things. Peterson may now think he has SS’s revenues sewed up. If so, he may be setting his sights on DOD’s money.
Now, that would be something VERY, VERY DIFFERENT! Carter talked about reducing DOD’s budget and was inexplicably unable to get even one copter out of four sent into Iran back in one piece. Makes me wonder how DOD will defend itself against someone with real power as opposed to a mere President. I mean this in jest, of course. But, when you consider how successful Peterson has been on molding public opinion in regard to SS, it may not be so far fetched. NancyO
MG– the run up in food prices in the mid-1970s was deliberately engineered by Nixon & Connelly.
They were worried about how we were going to pay for expanded oil imports and saw higher grain prices as the answer.
So when the Soviet grain crop failed they sold the US grain stocks to the Soviets and at the same time cut back on the acreage planted in the US –at that time the Dept of Ag actually controlled that. The consequence was the explosion in food prices.
The best determinate of grain prices has been stocks. Historically when stocks fall below one years consumption prices soar. I have not looked at this recently to see if it is still true.
But the first impact of rising feed grain prices in the US is to reduce the CPI for food. The CPI for food is dominated by meat and eggs, not grains. But the first things farmers-ranchers do when feed grain prices rise is accelerate bring their calves, pigs, chickens to market so they don’t have to spend as much feeding them. In the short run this increases the supply of meat and causes meat prices to fall. Of course this cause the CPI for food to fall or moderate. But in the long run the meat supply falls and so does the price of meat. So only with a significant lag — maybe about a year — do higher grain prices show up in a higher CPI.
Another long run truths about grain rices is that they generally rise after some large population group becomes wealthy enough to start eating meat almost every day as the Chinese have recently done.
NanO, actually there are several law suits against EPA already re: the CO2 ruling. Since much of that is based upon the temp records, and we have the NZ suit, it is only a matter of time.
Ya think billions in tax revenues based upon temp records are not damages????
Here in “Winterpeg” (Winnipeg, in the middle of Canada) we have had amazing weather, with a week of highs in the high 70s. The whole province is hotter than we usually have in June, and crazy warm for mid-October. The trees had a hard time deciding whether to drop their leaves or not, and the geese didn’t all leave at once, but in small groups.
As well, we have river flooding that looks like what we usually see in April and May. The high water has been in place all summer, and we had to open the floodway (diverting river water around the city) in midsummer, which I don’t think we have had to do previously.
Well, CoRev–Cap and Trade didn’t pass and may never pass. As a result, no can show damages as a result of any existing temp. measurements and, of course, you’d have to comply with rules of evidence, etc., to get your argument anywhere near the court. Not only that, but also you have the question of what is the proper forum for such a suit? Is it a class case? Or, specific affected individuals, or corporations, or stock holders–define the cause of action, please. Heck, CoRev, one final thing. Taxes are not, by definition, damages. Not. NO
That’s very interesting, Miss Noni. Here, it’s too cool too soon. In the old days, people would be anticipating making sausage and hanging hams a month earlier than usual. Now, people like me take advantage of a not needing AC or heat for once! Last winter was Siberian by local standards. I don’t think this winter is going to perform according to our warm-blooded expectations. And, I expect that no matter how unusual this fall is by you, the winter can be far away. NancyO
Bruce Bartlett takes on “This hypocrisy was on full display on Oct. 4, as American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol penned a joint op-ed for the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page on why the defense budget should be totally off limits to budget cutters.”
Iran Hostage rescue and Jimmy Carter. The US military only prepares to fight the war they “want”.
Currently, the war they “want” requires massive capital, supported by high tech manpower and huge contractor presence. I have been involved buying these things. I won’t go into the defects, waivers and deviations to sell the technology solutions for the wars they “want”, another ancestor of failure.
The things the DoD buy are supposed to provide “capabilities”, which define the war those novelists inside the beltway “want” to fight, which happens to require 6% of GDP to be ready to fight.
Unfortunately, as in 1941, 1950, and 2001 the war the US gets does not fit the capabilities the militarists’ and experts desired.
Once you recognize the capabilities con the reasons US wars start out badly is clear, add poor execution, dismay leadership and bewilderment in the face of a war they did not “want”. The money is spent wrongly usually for the profits and jobs that come from preparing capabilities for fictions.
Among the most flimsy myths is that demobilization brings trouble.
it would be relatively easy for the gov to argue that cap and trade had more to do with national defense than global warming. or maybe the deficit… saving taxpayers money, you know, by forcing them to drink less gas.
nancy is right… at least the need to show actual harm to get standing has been a rule that i have heard of more than once. can’t imagine anyone suing on the basis of temperature records.
I’ve been mulling over this thought for a while now. It is really a perplexing issue for me. I wonder how many others think about the conundrum that I try to spell out below.
How can a Tea Party partisan believe in the Republican rhetoric? How can a working class or middle-class American accept either ideology, assuming that there is any difference other than degree, between the two groups. What do they offer to the American voter? This list of ideological concepts which are frequently spoken of by both Republicans and Tea Party types is not exhaustive, but make the point.
Unions are bad and the minimum wage is too high. Social Security benefits are too lavish. There should not be a minimum wage. Americans should work until they are 70 years old. Public employees get paid too much and have too good a pension plan. The Social Security program should be replaced by private plans which are subject to market fluctuations and investment services fees. Military spending is good for the USofA Military action shows how tough we are on our enemies. Public school systems are too costly regardless of how little is spent on public education. The wealthiest Americans should pay less in taxes. Believe what I say not what you see me do. The poor (that”s about 40% of Americans) deserve their lot in life. Better […]
New Zealand signed up to Kyoto, so they are on an alternate timeleine. The way that’s been working is “violators” get fined, your government collects the fines, then the money is forwarded to countries that win the Kyoto Lottery, like China and Russia.
Jack said: “This list of ideological concepts which are frequently spoken of by both Republicans and Tea Party types is not exhaustive, but make the point. “
Where did you get such drivel? They make what point?
This is what Wiki says: “The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups.[11] The movement’s primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,[12] lowering taxes,[13] reducing wasteful spending,[13] reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit,[12] and adhering to the United States Constitution,[14] among other issues. The movement’s members have been known to speak out on a wide variety of other issues, such as national defense,[15]illegal immigration,[16] etc.”
It also has this contract: “ The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[82][83] Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)Reject emissions trading: Stop […]
I have read Europe sent $20B to Russia. Kyoto set the bar very low for developing countries like China. The limits were set in 1990, and Russian industrial output was way down, because, well, they just emerged as Russia.
CoRev–Let’s see. “Demand a balanced federal budget.” Ok, I demand it. Sounds like rhetoric to me, because I satisfy the requirement only be demanding it.
On to earmarks, let’s see. Suppose you live in NOLA and you want the Corps of Engineers to finish their levee projects. In this scheme of things. NOLA gets no relief. Neither would any town or city living up and down the Mississippi or any body of water in the US should there be a catastrophic failure of a bridge, or levee, or lock. They all require earmarks as do freeway overpasses, exits and resurfacing. No earmarks–no relief.
And, reduce all taxes. And, while we’re at it, reduce the national debt. In fact, pay it all off! To which I say, with what for money? Well, CoRev? Whaddaya say? NO
NanO, why ignore the remainder (Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.) of the balanced budget initiative?
Then you go offf on earmarks with NOLA levees which are budget items for the COE. There are emergency funds for FEMA/DHS for those ole catastrophic events. Most of what you assume are funded via earmarks are annual budget items.
At what point do you concede that we are spending too much? Paying more in taxes just lets them spend more. Plaease, please, please, let them try to live within a budget like the rest of us. Y’ano a balanced budget?
The Tea Party blames both Dems and Repubs equally for that borrowing and spending (or vice versa.) Stop the arrogance in DC, and let them actually represent us.
Cedric, New Zealand also initiated its own ETS (Cap & Trade). New Zealand is able to trace the temp actions to a specific person. He proposed the processing changes when he was in grad school. He later joined the NZ weather service.
Being so small there are very few weather stations and their records are reasonably well maintained. Without the ?corrections? the raw data show NZ temps to be stable for the past 150 years.
So why are the Kiwis paying more for everything to stabilize their temps? C’mon now, someone help us out here!
For the AGW ore CAGW “true believers”, you know who you are, here’s the NZ remp graphs. Before adjustments we can see a statistically insignificant ~.06C per 100 years. After adjustments we can see ~.91C per 100 years.
For the AGW or CAGW “true believers”, you know who you are, here’s the NZ temp graphs. Before adjustments we can see a statistically insignificant ~.06C per 100 years. After adjustments we can see ~.91C per 100 years.
I guess that I’ve been listening to what members of both groups, Tea Party operatives and Republican elected officials have to say to the public. s there some disconnect between what they have to say and what they write into their contracts for Americans? Are the ideas that I listed above not often expressed by our “conservative” friends? Have I been listening to too much Fox News?
CoRev, Please enlighten me. Which of the points that I’ve listed are not supported and expounded by the Republican and Tea Party faithful?
Hear, hear, Jack. Were there no Constitution since 1789 and were there no Marbury v. Madison and were there no laws, then the Tea Party could have its cake and eat it too. No taxes, no problem. I see a problem there. NO
An earmark is a line item in an appropriation bill. Period. So, COE budget or SSA LAE same deal as a line item to fix the bridge over the Mississippi that fell down in Minneapolis a year or two bacl. Earmarks. NO
The balanced budget [amendment] talk been around for 35 or 40 years plus or minus, no?
Heck, Gramm Rudman actually cut warfare in the face of the soviets and Iran Contra to address the deficit.
Glad to see it (balanced budget [amendment]) in the Tea party movement, but I wonder what kind of balance?
If you hold medicare and SS hostage to the annual deficit maybe you ought to hold the payment of interest on T Bills hostage, no? The SS GAS securities are pretty much T Bills.
And certainly cut all that military stuff which is behind schedule, costs too much and PM’s keep waiving specifications. And all the stuff ordered to fight some Evan Pedone fiction of running the US Navy up the Yangtse.
And the wars of occupation which are not meeting expectations well they go too.
No problem as long as the war machine and corporate welfare pays for the balanced budget as much as grandpa and poor kids.
May be a tax increase on billioniares funding the Tea party!
Jack, nearly all of your points are not supported by the Tea Party. A handful of extremist from both parties can support some of your list, but its not something I hear from most conservatives.
I asked from where you got your drivel. Your list appears to be just your own perception.
I pay a minimal amount of attention to politics. The reason being that it is obvious to me that the same guy has been president for at least 30 years now, and contrary to what you may think, it’s NOT Ronald Reagan, or even his stem cells that the Republican Party have been doing those clone experiments with. I think this mysterious individual has been seeding the House, Senate and State governments with either clones or cyborgs, it’s difficult to tell which from just looking. They have been programmed with the appropriate talking points of their respective parties, with some variety thrown in to reflect their constituencies and maybe even opinions of people who voted for them. They of course believe they are real humans. So the whole effect becomes quite believable to the casual observer.
But once they win a presidential election, the first day on the job they are led into the Oval Office and open the letter on the desk left by the previous President. The letter says “You will now take commands via microwave transmissions emanating from from The Presidential Seal.”
We will never find out who this mysterious individual is.
I pay a minimal amount of attention to politics. The reason being that it is obvious to me that the same guy has been president for at least 30 years now, and contrary to what you may think, it’s NOT Ronald Reagan, or even his stem cells that the Republican Party have been doing those clone experiments with. I think this mysterious individual has been seeding the House, Senate and State governments with either clones or cyborgs, it’s difficult to tell which from just looking. They have been programmed with the appropriate talking points of their respective parties, with some variety thrown in to reflect their constituencies and maybe even opinions of people who voted for them. They of course believe they are real humans. So the whole effect becomes quite believable to the casual observer.
But once they win a presidential election, the first day on the job they are led into the Oval Office and open the letter on the desk left by the previous President. The letter says “You will now take commands via microwave transmissions emanating from The Presidential Seal.”
We will never find out who this mysterious individual is.
“NanO, why ignore the remainder (Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.) of the balanced budget initiative?”
Hoover’s government, followed by Keynes and Roosevelt clearly showed that the Federal government should not be constrained to balance the federal debt during times of recession or depression. The time to balance the budget was during Clinton’s term (which we did) and during the GWBush term, which we didn’t. The little boys in the corner playing with themselves about balnaced budget amendments and such were over in the corner playing with themselves when the budget became unbalanced.
It should not be a problem seeing that these boys like to play with themselves and we shouldn’t hold itr against them that they can’t stop. On the other hand, we do not have to tolerate their ignorance, based on the fact that they created the budget deficit with their wars, tax cuts, and pharmaceutical industry welfare programs. Thank you Bill Frist, American Prince of the Humana Family.
NanO, the earmark submisssion timing and failure to debate them in a bright light in the normal legislative process is the issue. We both know how they show up in the budget.
In fact your list of generalities hide all of the specific ideas that I have pointed out. Those who hide their self centered view of government and refer to themselves as conservatives are masters of the sound bite that sounds nice, but means little in detail. And the significance is in the details. Listen to your right wing congressional leaders Republicans and Democrats alike) and the new crop of mindless Tea Party hopefuls and you’ll hear all of the specifics I’ve noted above. Your denial is invalid in the face of reality as it comes out of their mouths.
here is where i should have kept my mouth shut. so let me begin by saying i don’t know enough about how they do things in Kiwiland to have a useful opinion about that.
But, I seem to remember that you have said at times “the warming is real, it’s just not caused by man.”
Then you produce evidence that the warming is not real. It doesn’t seem to matter to you as long as what you are reporting is “evidence” against the great global warming conspiracy.
Since I have reason to distrust your sources, I will not leap to embrace the current scandal about “faked” data. Meanwhile the ice is melting and we are seeing the ecosystems change, and there is no better suspect than the huge amounts of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be conspirators trying to get rich on the exchange.
as a person who gets mortally offended when someont suggests you may not know what you are talking about, you really should avoid using words like “drivel.”
like anything else, i could easily agree with a lot of what you want. but the problem is that you… and the tea partiers and idealogues everywhere… can’t connect what you want to reality. Though the people who tell you what to think know exactly how what they want connects to the only reality they care about: their own near term bottom line.
A constitutional amendment to require that all laws would be constitutional would not only be redundant, it would encounter the same politics that all present laws and proposed laws encounter. Your desire for a world you can predict and control is always going to be countered by someone else who wants to predict and control it their way.
Dale said: “But, I seem to remember that you have said at times “the warming is real, it’s just not caused by man.”” your memeory is incomplete.
I said there is warming, some is caused by man, but nobody can tell us how much, and there appears to be more caused by natural sources but no one can give us any sure measurements there either.
You also said: “…and there is no better suspect than the huge amounts of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere.” Please define huge in terms of percentage of atmosphere, in terms of its total impact on green house temperature increases, and what percentage of each we can attribute to the good ole US of A.
If you can not at least do this simple math, then you are just blowing more smoke as you usually do. You can use the .91C as your baseline temp increase. You’ll need to know % of GHGs in Atmos., % of GHGs that is CO2, % of CO2 that is man made, and finally % of man made CO2 that is from US of A.
IIRC you have claimed that ALL of the temp increase is from man made CO2. Even though few (if any) climatologists would make such a claim.
your idea of doing the math is completely bogus and we have already disussed this. What is happening is that the industrial world puts X tons of CO2 in the atmostphere, at the end of the year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by an amount equal to half of X. that means that the natural sinks are able to take care of all non man made CO2 plus half of the man made. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century is entirely due to man made contributions, and the increase in global temperature over that time is about what would be predicted from the fact that CO2 slows down the passage of heat back out into space (via infra red radiation). There are complex issues which is why no one panicked when the first suggestioin of the potential for “green house warming” was made (to my knowledge about 60 years ago, but I understand that it was predicted long before that). Most, or all, of the complexities have been studied since then to a point where real scientists… not the sort of people that lend themselves to conspiracies… think the case is made.
I have no expertise to add to the “debate,” but I can generally tell when someone doesn’t know enough high school chemistry to be able to tell real science from political b.s.
you want to put up your “mathematics” i won’t even comment on it again. leave it to the readers to decide for themselves.
nor would i want to leave anyone with the impression that i was a high school science teacher. just that i can tell when someone doesn’t know even high school science.
Pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV. Be sure to catch any Republican politico espousing what they know is good for America and the American people. Don’t ask for sources to an issue that isn’t th subject of a research paper. Open up youor mind while yo open up your eyes.
Pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV. Be sure to catch any Republican politico espousing what they know is good for America and the American people. Don’t ask for sources to an issue that isn’t th subject of a research paper. Open up youor mind while yo open up your eyes.
Lessee, Dale makes claims but will not do the simplest math to support or refute the minimalist theory he provided.
Dale’s theoey: “What is happening is that the industrial world puts X tons of CO2 in the atmostphere, at the end of the year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by an amount equal to half of X. that means that the natural sinks are able to take care of all non man made CO2 plus half of the man made. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century is entirely due to man made contributions, and the increase in global temperature over that time is about what would be predicted from the fact that CO2 slows down the passage of heat back out into space (via infra red radiation).“
But not convection nor conduction? Because in Dale’s CAGW-world they don’t impact heat transfer, only radiation does? Your basic HS physics (not chemistry.) So from Dale’s own writings we understand his minimalist theory for climate temperature increases is … well, to not be advanced even to the basic HS level. Because in Dale’s climate temperature world convection and conduction are constants wherein ther are no climate conditions that increase or decrea se their impacts in both long and short cycles effecting temps.
Inherent in Dale’s minimalist theory is the claim: “…that ALL of the temp increase is from man made CO2.”
And as I pointed out: “Even though few (if any) climatologists would make such a claim.”
Y’ano in Dale’s climate world maybe clouds or even air and sea currents are also constants. Lest we miss some of the most obvious constants in Dale’s climate world we can’t overlook total solar irradiance, nor little things like el Ninos/La Ninas, snow/ice, vegetation and water cover, or even solar flares.
Remember this short list of climate impacts are all constants in Dale’s climate world, and do not cause any weather/climate changes. Since none of them change, it’s only CO2 that can be increasing temps for the past 3-4 decades, because before that the temps were going down for 3-4 decades.
So Mr. arrogant middle/HS science teacher, please, provide a peer reviewed cite for the claim all the warming is from man made CO2. Oh, and only due to radiation.
I’m sure the readers would be interested in that cite. Because they must be truly impressed with your impressive math skills (still to be tested), and your understanding of HS physics (clearly lacking in understanding.)
Boy, Mr. Dale, your understanding of advanced HS science, especially as it applies to climate, is in a word awesome.
Nancy Ortiz – “Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations.”
Peter G. Petterson wasn’t born when the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1921.
Peter G. Petterson was 12 years old when the American Enterprise Association (AEA), forerunner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was created in 1938.
Peter G. Petterson had nothing to do with the founding of the CATO Institute in 1977. CATO, a libertarian public policy organization (think tank), was founded by Edward Crane with $500,000 in financial support from Charles G. Koch.
Nancy Ortiz – “Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations.”
Peter G. Petterson wasn’t born when the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1921.
Peter G. Petterson was 12 years old when the American Enterprise Association (AEA), forerunner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was created in 1938.
Peter G. Petterson had nothing to do with the founding of the CATO Institute in 1977. CATO, a libertarian public policy organization (think tank), was founded by Edward Crane with $500,000 in financial support from Charles G. Koch.
Nancy Ortiz – “Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations.”
Peter G. Petterson wasn’t born when the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1921.
Peter G. Petterson was 12 years old when the American Enterprise Association (AEA), forerunner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was created in 1938.
Peter G. Petterson had nothing to do with the founding of the CATO Institute in 1977. CATO, a libertarian public policy organization (think tank), was founded by Edward Crane with $500,000 in financial support from Charles G. Koch.
i keep trying to find a way to save you from making a fool of yourself, but you won’t cooperate.
It’s a little hard for convection or conduction to remove heat from the earth on accounta there is nothing touching the earth to conduct heat away, and none of those hot liquids or gasses are going anywhere (convecting)… gravity, you know.
and you missed the bit where i said i am not a h.s. science teacher.
if you want a peer reviewed cite, i’d suggest you read the literature… all them science peers conspiring to steal your testicles.
the Founders were terribly worried that the ignorant masses would call for bad laws. They carefully designed the Constitution just to avoid “representing” you. In any case, when you demand they “represent us” you need to realize that there are other us’s whose representatives disagree with yours. Scary thought, I know.
So MS science buff, Dale show us even agins his depth of knowledge. Hoe di he phrase it? “It’s a little hard for convection or conduction to remove heat from the earth on accounta there is nothing touching the earth to conduct heat away, and none of those hot liquids or gasses are going anywhere (convecting)… gravity, you know. “
Watching birds and gliders rising on thermals is not convections as it does not happen in Dale-world. And, of course transfer of heat from/to the sea surfaces is only via radiation and not conduction.
Yup! Dale has shown his scientific awesomeness even again. Cause in Dale-world there is only one way. Dale’s way for heat to be transferrred and its eventual escape to space delayed.
Awesome, Dale!!!! I’m so glad I live in the real world, because in dale-world physics is a nearly non-existant science. In Dale-world I would be foolish to not agree with the known science, unlike here in the real world where I have Dale’s protection.
doesn’t look anyone else is much interested in this. but you would probably have had to take high school physics to understand why all that conduction and convectioin can’t lower the earth’s temperature. it works something like a thermos bottle. vacuum, you know. only this one is really really good.
Dale said: “it works something like a thermos bottle. vacuum, you know. only this one is really really good.”
So, the creation of clouds via convection which block solar irradiance lessening the heat input doesn’t happen? Plus, the conduction of heat form the seas’ surfaces which in turn adds heat to the atmosphere allowing for more water vapor intake and then more clouds, doesn’t happen? And the sum of these two heat transfer functions may actually move more heat to the upper atmosphere than IR radiation? Once in the upper atmosphere that heat (no matter how it achieved its re-location) is then transferred to space via IR radiation. Ahigher percentage is tranferred to space because the higher in the atmosphere the less dense. Less dense, less GHG effect. But in Dale-world those things do not happen?
Dale, your arrogance and lack of real scientific knowledge is an embarrassment. Because of your ego you can not admit that you just might be wrong. Skepticism is a mainstay of science. Blind belief is the mainstay of faith/religion.
It’s too bad that your skepticism only involves challenges of your blind faith.
There are facts that permeate the social environment that need no sources for their validation. As I said, turn on your TV or read a newspaper. You can’t help but stumble over one Republican/Tea Party talking point or another. None are verified through the use of sources to prove one point or another. The current flap over extension of the Bush tax cuts is a good example. “Raise taxes and lose investment and sink the economy.” No reference to established facts. Just political BS oozing out of an ideology that has no verifiable basis.
You are little different from the so-called conservative propaganda machine. I’d not be surprised that you are in some direct manner supported by that same PR web that pervades our right of center MSM.
What I wrote is, “ I’d not be surprised that you are in some direct manner supported by that same PR web that pervades our right of center MSM.” you respond by suggesting that I said, “conservative support.” Your quotation is obviously incorrect, but it suggests that you recognize that the use of the label conservative is only a cover for right wing ideology. The two are not one in the same.
I marked my calendar, a red letter day, something on the WSJ editorial page I agree with!!!
Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2010, Pg. 18
“Less Government Means Less Defense Spending, Too”
“Arthur Brooks, Edwin Feulner and William Kristol claim that military spending is not the prime driver of our current fiscal crisis, but the Pentagon accounts for 23% of the federal budget (“Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself,” op-ed, Oct. 4). It is inconceivable that this spending should be exempt from scrutiny in a time of soaring deficits.”
“Rather than Congress constantly writing a blank check, the process of military budgeting should begin with a discussion about security necessities and their costs. That isn’t a discussion that Messrs. Brooks, Feulner and Kristol seem anxious to engage in—unsurprisingly, since all three support the disastrous military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“Of course, cutting spending without a corresponding reduction in commitments is a recipe for overburdening service members taxed by too frequent deployments to far-flung places. But it is already obvious that most of what America spends on its military—often erroneously labeled “national defense”—really defends others who can and should defend themselves.”
“It’s time for advocates of free markets and limited government to recognize that a vast military presence around the world is utterly inconsistent with those ideals. If we agree that government intervention domestically often has unintended, harmful consequences, we should recognize that the same principle holds true internationally, in spades. If we believe that the Constitution created a government whose most important duty is to “provide for the common defence” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” we should not be so willing to deploy the sharp end of that government’s power in support of those who are not parties to our unique social contract.”
“The Brooks-Feulner-Kristol approach to military spending amounts to another form of foreign aid, a massive wealth transfer from Americans to non-Americans, helping them finance generous social welfare systems. It is time to get our allies off the dole.”
“Ed Crane and Christopher Preble, The Cato Institute, Washington”
What is interesting is Cato tilting with: American Enterprise Inst, Heritage Foundation and Foreign Policy Inst on the WSJ editorial pages.
Now, Ilsm, this is certainly interesting. I don’t believe it, of course. Is there anything out there that echoes this odd conclusion? I’ve never heard anything like this before. Wow. NancyO
I am taken aback, indeed !!
I have been saying this for some time and when I saw the blither from Kristol et al on Oct 4th I contemplated writing a letter to the WSJ editors…….
But the guys from Cato are slightly more eloquent than I!!!
Now for Something Completely Different!
The Next BIG Thing may be here.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/10/the-singularity-is-near-robot-with-rat-brain.html
Those who read the original WSJ op-ed, Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself, as well as the CATO letter response, Less Government Means Less Defense Spending, Too, might consider additional readings to round out the issues. The exchange and difference in opinions didn’t begin or end there. Here are some of the related articles and reports.
Heritage:
– Morning Bell: Peace Doesn’t Keep Itself, October 5th, 2010
– Defining the Obama Doctrine, Its Pitfalls, and How to Avoid Them, September 1, 2010
– The State of the U.S. Military, January 2010
– People and Platforms: An Agenda for Balanced Defense Forces, April 22, 2009
CATO:
– Actually We Aren’t Running the World, October 6, 2010
– Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint, September 21, 2010
All are worthy reads.
Monday, Carpe Deim (Mark Perry) had a good post which discusses an LA Times article, Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces. The focus is on continued employment/productivity changes which occurred during the recession. Mark includes a chart worth noting.
Automation, Productivity Reduce U.S. Workforce
Monday, October 04, 2010
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/10/automation-productivity-reduces-us.html
“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, manufacturing output has increased by 9.6% (or by $270 billion) through August of this year, while manufacturing employment has decreased by -0.90% (or by 103,000 workers) during that 14-month period.”
Chart: U.S. Manufacturing Output vs Jobs, Jan 2007 – Aug 2010
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TKpBryS5UZI/AAAAAAAAOfQ/6u6A7R9Dcto/s1600/mfg3.jpg
If that isn’t enough to capture your attention, take a good look at the excellent 9 sequence interactive graph presentation on output provided by Neil Irwin this week:
Why it doesn’t feel like a recovery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/the-output-gap/index.html
Neil followed that up with another brief piece:
More on the output gap: The structural unemployment debate
October 5, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/10/more_on_the_output_gap_the_str.html
Monday, Carpe Deim (Mark Perry) had a good post which discusses an LA Times article, Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces. The focus is on continued employment/productivity changes which occurred during the recession. Mark includes a chart worth noting.
Automation, Productivity Reduce U.S. Workforce
Monday, October 04, 2010
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/10/automation-productivity-reduces-us.html
“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, manufacturing output has increased by 9.6% (or by $270 billion) through August of this year, while manufacturing employment has decreased by -0.90% (or by 103,000 workers) during that 14-month period.”
Chart: U.S. Manufacturing Output vs Jobs, Jan 2007 – Aug 2010
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TKpBryS5UZI/AAAAAAAAOfQ/6u6A7R9Dcto/s1600/mfg3.jpg
If that isn’t enough to capture your attention, take a good look at the excellent 9 sequence interactive graph presentation on output provided by Neil Irwin this week:
Why it doesn’t feel like a recovery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/the-output-gap/index.html
Neil followed that up with another brief piece:
More on the output gap: The structural unemployment debate
October 5, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/10/more_on_the_output_gap_the_str.html
Monday, Carpe Deim (Mark Perry) had a good post which discusses an LA Times article, Automation is increasingly reducing U.S. workforces. The focus is on continued employment/productivity changes which occurred during the recession. Mark includes a chart worth noting.
Automation, Productivity Reduce U.S. Workforce
Monday, October 04, 2010
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/10/automation-productivity-reduces-us.html
“Since the end of the recession in June 2009, manufacturing output has increased by 9.6% (or by $270 billion) through August of this year, while manufacturing employment has decreased by -0.90% (or by 103,000 workers) during that 14-month period.”
Chart: U.S. Manufacturing Output vs Jobs, Jan 2007 – Aug 2010
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TKpBryS5UZI/AAAAAAAAOfQ/6u6A7R9Dcto/s1600/mfg3.jpg
If that isn’t enough to capture your attention, take a good look at the excellent 9 sequence interactive graph presentation on output provided by Neil Irwin this week:
Why it doesn’t feel like a recovery
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/the-output-gap/index.html
Neil followed that up with another brief piece:
More on the output gap: The structural unemployment debate
October 5, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/10/more_on_the_output_gap_the_str.html
Food doesn’t matter because it’s not in our “core” CPI calculation.
Until economists start asking themselves why they insist on drawing the “potential output curve” at the same upward slop it always goes, even thru GR1, it doesn’t seem like a useful discussion. More like there is a problem in the central planning department.
Wait until they find out rat brain robots can replace the entire mortgage industry and will work in little cages instead of big office buildings. That should scare the bejesus out of them.
Once we can do it with Dobermans, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and American Shepherds… there goes military employment. But Gates says he wants more boots on the ground, so DARPA may be behind the whole thing already.
Until economists start asking themselves why they insist on drawing the “potential output curve” at the same upward slope it always goes, even thru GR1, it doesn’t seem like a useful discussion. More like there is a problem in the central planning department.
Wait until they find out rat brain robots can replace the entire mortgage industry and will work in little cages instead of big office buildings. That should scare the bejesus out of them.
Once we can do it with Dobermans, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and American Shepherds… there goes military employment. But Gates says he wants more boots on the ground, so DARPA may be behind the whole thing already.
Here’s another interesting legal action concerning global average temperatures.
Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal
For background, New Zealand calculates temperature similarly to the way NASA and NOAA do their calculaions. All have systematically lowered older temperature records which assures a rising temperature graphic.
New Zealanders finally took a stance and filed a law suit. This is from an article describing the results:
“
In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.
New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.
NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.”
Can a similar suit against NASA?NOAA be far off? Dunno, just asking.
MG,
Good point.
In the last “decade of change” the post Vietnam 70’s there was a significant decline in food reserves, notably the Soviets began importing North American grain. The presence of trans-oceanic grain ships with the hammer and sickle was common in Lake Superior grain ports, before ‘the Soo’ froze each winter.
Many had strange antennae on them.
Trends may move toward less red meat and more grain direct to human consumption.
A new green revolution in order.
I recommend articles by Andrew Bacevich. As balance.
Some of the reasons for the US “force structure” are fiction. Tom Clancy novels and stuff from new names like Evan Pedone. See WSJ 11 Sep an article about “China’s Finlandization Strategy in The Pacific”. pg 13
As if the littorals around Asia are US property.
Then there are recent statements about how military retirement and health outlays for retired military and dependents will bankrupt DoD.
Gates wants a trim, while a drastic pruning is in order.
You don’t get much analysis from beltway “think tanks”.
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Project on National Security Reform, Center for Strategic and International Studies, AEI, Heritage, etc all have agendas and funding for more spending and fictions to support them. These “analyses” show up on the WSJ and Wash Post pages.
Many of the reasons for the US “force structure” are fiction. Tom Clancy novels and stuff from new names like Evan Pedone. See WSJ 11 Sep an article about “China’s Finlandization Strategy in The Pacific”. pg 13
As if the littorals around Asia are US property.
The QDR is largely written in these think tanks.
Then there are recent statements about how military retirement and health outlays for retired military and dependents will bankrupt DoD.
Gates wants a trim, while a drastic pruning is in order.
I recommend articles by Andrew Bacevich. As balance.
What comes from “think tanks” is mostly contrivance.
CoRev–Sue whom about what? That is, what is the cause of action that would come before the court? Just askin’. Courts here don’t get involved unless someone or some legal entity causes or suffers a loss to a human being. I have been hotter than hell this summer, but it’s Fall now and quite nice. Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it, if ya know what I mean. NancyO
Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations. WaPo has an acknowledged relationship with Peterson as shown in Samuelson’s “SS is in crisis!” claptrap, among other things. Peterson may now think he has SS’s revenues sewed up. If so, he may be setting his sights on DOD’s money.
Now, that would be something VERY, VERY DIFFERENT! Carter talked about reducing DOD’s budget and was inexplicably unable to get even one copter out of four sent into Iran back in one piece. Makes me wonder how DOD will defend itself against someone with real power as opposed to a mere President. I mean this in jest, of course. But, when you consider how successful Peterson has been on molding public opinion in regard to SS, it may not be so far fetched. NancyO
MG– the run up in food prices in the mid-1970s was deliberately engineered by Nixon & Connelly.
They were worried about how we were going to pay for expanded oil imports and saw higher grain prices as the answer.
So when the Soviet grain crop failed they sold the US grain stocks to the Soviets and at the same time cut back on the acreage planted in the US –at that time the Dept of Ag actually controlled that. The consequence was the explosion in food prices.
The best determinate of grain prices has been stocks. Historically when stocks fall below one years consumption prices soar. I have not looked at this recently to see if it is still true.
But the first impact of rising feed grain prices in the US is to reduce the CPI for food.
The CPI for food is dominated by meat and eggs, not grains. But the first things farmers-ranchers do when feed grain prices rise is accelerate bring their calves, pigs, chickens to market so they don’t have to spend as much feeding them. In the short run this increases the supply of meat and causes meat prices to fall. Of course this cause the CPI for food to fall or moderate. But in the long run the meat supply falls and so does the price of meat. So only with a significant lag — maybe about a year — do higher grain prices show up in a higher CPI.
Another long run truths about grain rices is that they generally rise after some large population group becomes wealthy enough to start eating meat almost every day as the Chinese have recently done.
NanO, actually there are several law suits against EPA already re: the CO2 ruling. Since much of that is based upon the temp records, and we have the NZ suit, it is only a matter of time.
Ya think billions in tax revenues based upon temp records are not damages????
Here in “Winterpeg” (Winnipeg, in the middle of Canada) we have had amazing weather, with a week of highs in the high 70s. The whole province is hotter than we usually have in June, and crazy warm for mid-October. The trees had a hard time deciding whether to drop their leaves or not, and the geese didn’t all leave at once, but in small groups.
As well, we have river flooding that looks like what we usually see in April and May. The high water has been in place all summer, and we had to open the floodway (diverting river water around the city) in midsummer, which I don’t think we have had to do previously.
Well, CoRev–Cap and Trade didn’t pass and may never pass. As a result, no can show damages as a result of any existing temp. measurements and, of course, you’d have to comply with rules of evidence, etc., to get your argument anywhere near the court. Not only that, but also you have the question of what is the proper forum for such a suit? Is it a class case? Or, specific affected individuals, or corporations, or stock holders–define the cause of action, please. Heck, CoRev, one final thing. Taxes are not, by definition, damages. Not. NO
That’s very interesting, Miss Noni. Here, it’s too cool too soon. In the old days, people would be anticipating making sausage and hanging hams a month earlier than usual. Now, people like me take advantage of a not needing AC or heat for once! Last winter was Siberian by local standards. I don’t think this winter is going to perform according to our warm-blooded expectations. And, I expect that no matter how unusual this fall is by you, the winter can be far away. NancyO
Not “can”. Can’t, sorry for typo. NO
Bruce Bartlett takes on “This hypocrisy was on full display on Oct. 4, as American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol penned a joint op-ed for the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page on why the defense budget should be totally off limits to budget cutters.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/10/08/Neocons-Talk-Deficit-but-Wont-Budge-on-Defense-Cuts.aspx
Iran Hostage rescue and Jimmy Carter. The US military only prepares to fight the war they “want”.
Currently, the war they “want” requires massive capital, supported by high tech manpower and huge contractor presence. I have been involved buying these things. I won’t go into the defects, waivers and deviations to sell the technology solutions for the wars they “want”, another ancestor of failure.
The things the DoD buy are supposed to provide “capabilities”, which define the war those novelists inside the beltway “want” to fight, which happens to require 6% of GDP to be ready to fight.
Unfortunately, as in 1941, 1950, and 2001 the war the US gets does not fit the capabilities the militarists’ and experts desired.
Once you recognize the capabilities con the reasons US wars start out badly is clear, add poor execution, dismay leadership and bewilderment in the face of a war they did not “want”. The money is spent wrongly usually for the profits and jobs that come from preparing capabilities for fictions.
Among the most flimsy myths is that demobilization brings trouble.
it would be relatively easy for the gov to argue that cap and trade had more to do with national defense than global warming. or maybe the deficit… saving taxpayers money, you know, by forcing them to drink less gas.
but in any case
nancy is right… at least the need to show actual harm to get standing has been a rule that i have heard of more than once. can’t imagine anyone suing on the basis of temperature records.
I’ve been mulling over this thought for a while now. It is really a perplexing issue for me. I wonder how many others think about the conundrum that I try to spell out below.
How can a Tea Party partisan believe in the Republican rhetoric? How can a working class or
middle-class American accept either ideology, assuming that there is any difference other than degree, between the two groups. What do they offer to the American voter? This list of ideological concepts which are frequently spoken of by both Republicans and Tea Party types is not exhaustive, but make the point.
Unions are bad and the minimum wage is too high.
Social Security benefits are too lavish.
There should not be a minimum wage.
Americans should work until they are 70 years old.
Public employees get paid too much and
have too good a pension plan.
The Social Security program should be replaced by
private plans which are subject to market fluctuations and
investment services fees.
Military spending is good for the USofA
Military action shows how tough we are on our enemies.
Public school systems are too costly regardless of how little is spent on public education.
The wealthiest Americans should pay less in taxes.
Believe what I say not what you see me do.
The poor (that”s about 40% of Americans) deserve their lot in life.
Better […]
New Zealand signed up to Kyoto, so they are on an alternate timeleine. The way that’s been working is “violators” get fined, your government collects the fines, then the money is forwarded to countries that win the Kyoto Lottery, like China and Russia.
Jack said: “This list of ideological concepts which are frequently spoken of by both Republicans and Tea Party types is not exhaustive, but make the point. “
Where did you get such drivel? They make what point?
This is what Wiki says: “The movement has no central leadership but is a loose affiliation of smaller local groups.[11] The movement’s primary concerns include, but are not limited to, cutting back the size of government,[12] lowering taxes,[13] reducing wasteful spending,[13] reducing the national debt and federal budget deficit,[12] and adhering to the United States Constitution,[14] among other issues. The movement’s members have been known to speak out on a wide variety of other issues, such as national defense,[15] illegal immigration,[16] etc.”
It also has this contract: “
The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[82][83]
Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)Reject emissions trading: Stop […]
Yep, Cedric, I wondered if the Kyoto accords weren’t somehow involved. Well, no cause of action in this hemisphere, I reckon. NO
I have read Europe sent $20B to Russia. Kyoto set the bar very low for developing countries like China. The limits were set in 1990, and Russian industrial output was way down, because, well, they just emerged as Russia.
CoRev–Let’s see. “Demand a balanced federal budget.” Ok, I demand it. Sounds like rhetoric to me, because I satisfy the requirement only be demanding it.
On to earmarks, let’s see. Suppose you live in NOLA and you want the Corps of Engineers to finish their levee projects. In this scheme of things. NOLA gets no relief. Neither would any town or city living up and down the Mississippi or any body of water in the US should there be a catastrophic failure of a bridge, or levee, or lock. They all require earmarks as do freeway overpasses, exits and resurfacing. No earmarks–no relief.
And, reduce all taxes. And, while we’re at it, reduce the national debt. In fact, pay it all off! To which I say, with what for money? Well, CoRev? Whaddaya say? NO
NanO, why ignore the remainder (Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.) of the balanced budget initiative?
Then you go offf on earmarks with NOLA levees which are budget items for the COE. There are emergency funds for FEMA/DHS for those ole catastrophic events. Most of what you assume are funded via earmarks are annual budget items.
At what point do you concede that we are spending too much? Paying more in taxes just lets them spend more. Plaease, please, please, let them try to live within a budget like the rest of us. Y’ano a balanced budget?
The Tea Party blames both Dems and Repubs equally for that borrowing and spending (or vice versa.) Stop the arrogance in DC, and let them actually represent us.
Cedric, New Zealand also initiated its own ETS (Cap & Trade). New Zealand is able to trace the temp actions to a specific person. He proposed the processing changes when he was in grad school. He later joined the NZ weather service.
Being so small there are very few weather stations and their records are reasonably well maintained. Without the ?corrections? the raw data show NZ temps to be stable for the past 150 years.
So why are the Kiwis paying more for everything to stabilize their temps? C’mon now, someone help us out here!
For the AGW ore CAGW “true believers”, you know who you are, here’s the NZ remp graphs. Before adjustments we can see a statistically insignificant ~.06C per 100 years. After adjustments we can see ~.91C per 100 years.
There are many discussions about this in the blogosphere, but here’s WUWT’s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/
For the AGW or CAGW “true believers”, you know who you are, here’s the NZ temp graphs. Before adjustments we can see a statistically insignificant ~.06C per 100 years. After adjustments we can see ~.91C per 100 years.
There are many discussions about this in the blogosphere, but here’s WUWT’s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I guess that I’ve been listening to what members of both groups, Tea Party operatives and Republican elected officials have to say to the public. s there some disconnect between what they have to say and what they write into their contracts for Americans? Are the ideas that I listed above not often expressed by our “conservative” friends? Have I been listening to too much Fox News?
CoRev, Please enlighten me. Which of the points that I’ve listed are not supported and expounded by the Republican and Tea Party faithful?
Hear, hear, Jack. Were there no Constitution since 1789 and were there no Marbury v. Madison and were there no laws, then the Tea Party could have its cake and eat it too. No taxes, no problem. I see a problem there. NO
An earmark is a line item in an appropriation bill. Period. So, COE budget or SSA LAE same deal as a line item to fix the bridge over the Mississippi that fell down in Minneapolis a year or two bacl. Earmarks. NO
CoRev,
The balanced budget [amendment] talk been around for 35 or 40 years plus or minus, no?
Heck, Gramm Rudman actually cut warfare in the face of the soviets and Iran Contra to address the deficit.
Glad to see it (balanced budget [amendment]) in the Tea party movement, but I wonder what kind of balance?
If you hold medicare and SS hostage to the annual deficit maybe you ought to hold the payment of interest on T Bills hostage, no? The SS GAS securities are pretty much T Bills.
And certainly cut all that military stuff which is behind schedule, costs too much and PM’s keep waiving specifications. And all the stuff ordered to fight some Evan Pedone fiction of running the US Navy up the Yangtse.
And the wars of occupation which are not meeting expectations well they go too.
No problem as long as the war machine and corporate welfare pays for the balanced budget as much as grandpa and poor kids.
May be a tax increase on billioniares funding the Tea party!
Jack, nearly all of your points are not supported by the Tea Party. A handful of extremist from both parties can support some of your list, but its not something I hear from most conservatives.
I asked from where you got your drivel. Your list appears to be just your own perception.
I pay a minimal amount of attention to politics. The reason being that it is obvious to me that the same guy has been president for at least 30 years now, and contrary to what you may think, it’s NOT Ronald Reagan, or even his stem cells that the Republican Party have been doing those clone experiments with. I think this mysterious individual has been seeding the House, Senate and State governments with either clones or cyborgs, it’s difficult to tell which from just looking. They have been programmed with the appropriate talking points of their respective parties, with some variety thrown in to reflect their constituencies and maybe even opinions of people who voted for them. They of course believe they are real humans. So the whole effect becomes quite believable to the casual observer.
But once they win a presidential election, the first day on the job they are led into the Oval Office and open the letter on the desk left by the previous President. The letter says “You will now take commands via microwave transmissions emanating from from The Presidential Seal.”
We will never find out who this mysterious individual is.
I pay a minimal amount of attention to politics. The reason being that it is obvious to me that the same guy has been president for at least 30 years now, and contrary to what you may think, it’s NOT Ronald Reagan, or even his stem cells that the Republican Party have been doing those clone experiments with. I think this mysterious individual has been seeding the House, Senate and State governments with either clones or cyborgs, it’s difficult to tell which from just looking. They have been programmed with the appropriate talking points of their respective parties, with some variety thrown in to reflect their constituencies and maybe even opinions of people who voted for them. They of course believe they are real humans. So the whole effect becomes quite believable to the casual observer.
But once they win a presidential election, the first day on the job they are led into the Oval Office and open the letter on the desk left by the previous President. The letter says “You will now take commands via microwave transmissions emanating from The Presidential Seal.”
We will never find out who this mysterious individual is.
Oh, Oh. The set up for the next wall street scam has begun. Grain futures prices will be through the roof.
“NanO, why ignore the remainder (Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.) of the balanced budget initiative?”
Hoover’s government, followed by Keynes and Roosevelt clearly showed that the Federal government should not be constrained to balance the federal debt during times of recession or depression. The time to balance the budget was during Clinton’s term (which we did) and during the GWBush term, which we didn’t. The little boys in the corner playing with themselves about balnaced budget amendments and such were over in the corner playing with themselves when the budget became unbalanced.
It should not be a problem seeing that these boys like to play with themselves and we shouldn’t hold itr against them that they can’t stop. On the other hand, we do not have to tolerate their ignorance, based on the fact that they created the budget deficit with their wars, tax cuts, and pharmaceutical industry welfare programs. Thank you Bill Frist, American Prince of the Humana Family.
CoRev,
Tea POarty Manifesto.
Where is the one about “No shooting without a declaration of war”. Like any strict reading of the constitution might show?
NanO, the earmark process and failure to debate them in a bright light is the issue. We both know how they show up in the budget.
NanO, the earmark submisssion timing and failure to debate them in a bright light in the normal legislative process is the issue. We both know how they show up in the budget.
In fact your list of generalities hide all of the specific ideas that I have pointed out. Those who hide their self centered view of government and refer to themselves as conservatives are masters of the sound bite that sounds nice, but means little in detail. And the significance is in the details. Listen to your right wing congressional leaders Republicans and Democrats alike) and the new crop of mindless Tea Party hopefuls and you’ll hear all of the specifics I’ve noted above. Your denial is invalid in the face of reality as it comes out of their mouths.
CoRev
here is where i should have kept my mouth shut. so let me begin by saying i don’t know enough about how they do things in Kiwiland to have a useful opinion about that.
But, I seem to remember that you have said at times “the warming is real, it’s just not caused by man.”
Then you produce evidence that the warming is not real. It doesn’t seem to matter to you as long as what you are reporting is “evidence” against the great global warming conspiracy.
Since I have reason to distrust your sources, I will not leap to embrace the current scandal about “faked” data. Meanwhile the ice is melting and we are seeing the ecosystems change, and there is no better suspect than the huge amounts of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be conspirators trying to get rich on the exchange.
CoRev
as a person who gets mortally offended when someont suggests you may not know what you are talking about, you really should avoid using words like “drivel.”
Cedric
thanks. i was wondering how they did that.
CoRev
like anything else, i could easily agree with a lot of what you want. but the problem is that you… and the tea partiers and idealogues everywhere… can’t connect what you want to reality. Though the people who tell you what to think know exactly how what they want connects to the only reality they care about: their own near term bottom line.
A constitutional amendment to require that all laws would be constitutional would not only be redundant, it would encounter the same politics that all present laws and proposed laws encounter. Your desire for a world you can predict and control is always going to be countered by someone else who wants to predict and control it their way.
Dale said: “But, I seem to remember that you have said at times “the warming is real, it’s just not caused by man.”” your memeory is incomplete.
I said there is warming, some is caused by man, but nobody can tell us how much, and there appears to be more caused by natural sources but no one can give us any sure measurements there either.
You also said: “…and there is no better suspect than the huge amounts of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere.” Please define huge in terms of percentage of atmosphere, in terms of its total impact on green house temperature increases, and what percentage of each we can attribute to the good ole US of A.
If you can not at least do this simple math, then you are just blowing more smoke as you usually do. You can use the .91C as your baseline temp increase. You’ll need to know % of GHGs in Atmos., % of GHGs that is CO2, % of CO2 that is man made, and finally % of man made CO2 that is from US of A.
IIRC you have claimed that ALL of the temp increase is from man made CO2. Even though few (if any) climatologists would make such a claim.
Jack, sources??????
CoRev
your idea of doing the math is completely bogus and we have already disussed this. What is happening is that the industrial world puts X tons of CO2 in the atmostphere, at the end of the year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by an amount equal to half of X. that means that the natural sinks are able to take care of all non man made CO2 plus half of the man made. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century is entirely due to man made contributions, and the increase in global temperature over that time is about what would be predicted from the fact that CO2 slows down the passage of heat back out into space (via infra red radiation). There are complex issues which is why no one panicked when the first suggestioin of the potential for “green house warming” was made (to my knowledge about 60 years ago, but I understand that it was predicted long before that). Most, or all, of the complexities have been studied since then to a point where real scientists… not the sort of people that lend themselves to conspiracies… think the case is made.
I have no expertise to add to the “debate,” but I can generally tell when someone doesn’t know enough high school chemistry to be able to tell real science from political b.s.
CoRev
you want to put up your “mathematics” i won’t even comment on it again. leave it to the readers to decide for themselves.
nor would i want to leave anyone with the impression that i was a high school science teacher. just that i can tell when someone doesn’t know even high school science.
Pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV. Be sure to catch any Republican politico espousing what they know is good for America and the American people. Don’t ask for sources to an issue that isn’t th subject of a research paper. Open up youor mind while yo open up your eyes.
CoRev,
Pick up a newspaper or turn on your TV. Be sure to catch any Republican politico espousing what they know is good for America and the American people. Don’t ask for sources to an issue that isn’t th subject of a research paper. Open up youor mind while yo open up your eyes.
Lessee, Dale makes claims but will not do the simplest math to support or refute the minimalist theory he provided.
Dale’s theoey: “What is happening is that the industrial world puts X tons of CO2 in the atmostphere, at the end of the year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by an amount equal to half of X. that means that the natural sinks are able to take care of all non man made CO2 plus half of the man made. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century is entirely due to man made contributions, and the increase in global temperature over that time is about what would be predicted from the fact that CO2 slows down the passage of heat back out into space (via infra red radiation).“
But not convection nor conduction? Because in Dale’s CAGW-world they don’t impact heat transfer, only radiation does? Your basic HS physics (not chemistry.) So from Dale’s own writings we understand his minimalist theory for climate temperature increases is … well, to not be advanced even to the basic HS level. Because in Dale’s climate temperature world convection and conduction are constants wherein ther are no climate conditions that increase or decrea se their impacts in both long and short cycles effecting temps.
Inherent in Dale’s minimalist theory is the claim: “…that ALL
of the temp increase is from man made CO2.”
And as I pointed out: “Even though few (if any) climatologists would make such a claim.”
Y’ano in Dale’s climate world maybe clouds or even air and sea currents are also constants. Lest we miss some of the most obvious constants in Dale’s climate world we can’t overlook total solar irradiance, nor little things like el Ninos/La Ninas, snow/ice, vegetation and water cover, or even solar flares.
Remember this short list of climate impacts are all constants in Dale’s climate world, and do not cause any weather/climate changes. Since none of them change, it’s only CO2 that can be increasing temps for the past 3-4 decades, because before that the temps were going down for 3-4 decades.
So Mr. arrogant middle/HS science teacher, please, provide a peer reviewed cite for the claim all the warming is from man made CO2. Oh, and only due to radiation.
I’m sure the readers would be interested in that cite. Because they must be truly impressed with your impressive math skills (still to be tested), and your understanding of HS physics (clearly lacking in understanding.)
Boy, Mr. Dale, your understanding of advanced HS science, especially as it applies to climate, is in a word awesome.
No sources, huh?
Nancy Ortiz – “Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations.”
Peter G. Petterson wasn’t born when the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1921.
Peter G. Petterson was 12 years old when the American Enterprise Association (AEA), forerunner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was created in 1938.
Peter G. Petterson had nothing to do with the founding of the CATO Institute in 1977. CATO, a libertarian public policy organization (think tank), was founded by Edward Crane with $500,000 in financial support from Charles G. Koch.
Nancy Ortiz – “Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations.”
Peter G. Petterson wasn’t born when the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1921.
Peter G. Petterson was 12 years old when the American Enterprise Association (AEA), forerunner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was created in 1938.
Peter G. Petterson had nothing to do with the founding of the CATO Institute in 1977. CATO, a libertarian public policy organization (think tank), was founded by Edward Crane with $500,000 in financial support from Charles G. Koch.
Nancy Ortiz – “Cato, AEI, and the Council on Foreign Relations are all Peterson’s organizations.”
Peter G. Petterson wasn’t born when the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in 1921.
Peter G. Petterson was 12 years old when the American Enterprise Association (AEA), forerunner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), was created in 1938.
Peter G. Petterson had nothing to do with the founding of the CATO Institute in 1977. CATO, a libertarian public policy organization (think tank), was founded by Edward Crane with $500,000 in financial support from Charles G. Koch.
CoRev
i keep trying to find a way to save you from making a fool of yourself, but you won’t cooperate.
It’s a little hard for convection or conduction to remove heat from the earth on accounta there is nothing touching the earth to conduct heat away, and none of those hot liquids or gasses are going anywhere (convecting)… gravity, you know.
and you missed the bit where i said i am not a h.s. science teacher.
if you want a peer reviewed cite, i’d suggest you read the literature… all them science peers conspiring to steal your testicles.
CoRev
the Founders were terribly worried that the ignorant masses would call for bad laws. They carefully designed the Constitution just to avoid “representing” you. In any case, when you demand they “represent us” you need to realize that there are other us’s whose representatives disagree with yours. Scary thought, I know.
So MS science buff, Dale show us even agins his depth of knowledge. Hoe di he phrase it? “It’s a little hard for convection or conduction to remove heat from the earth on accounta there is nothing touching the earth to conduct heat away, and none of those hot liquids or gasses are going anywhere (convecting)… gravity, you know. “
Watching birds and gliders rising on thermals is not convections as it does not happen in Dale-world. And, of course transfer of heat from/to the sea surfaces is only via radiation and not conduction.
Yup! Dale has shown his scientific awesomeness even again. Cause in Dale-world there is only one way. Dale’s way for heat to be transferrred and its eventual escape to space delayed.
Awesome, Dale!!!! I’m so glad I live in the real world, because in dale-world physics is a nearly non-existant science. In Dale-world I would be foolish to not agree with the known science, unlike here in the real world where I have Dale’s protection.
CoRev
doesn’t look anyone else is much interested in this. but you would probably have had to take high school physics to understand why all that conduction and convectioin can’t lower the earth’s temperature. it works something like a thermos bottle. vacuum, you know. only this one is really really good.
Dale said: “it works something like a thermos bottle. vacuum, you know. only this one is really really good.”
So, the creation of clouds via convection which block solar irradiance lessening the heat input doesn’t happen? Plus, the conduction of heat form the seas’ surfaces which in turn adds heat to the atmosphere allowing for more water vapor intake and then more clouds, doesn’t happen? And the sum of these two heat transfer functions may actually move more heat to the upper atmosphere than IR radiation? Once in the upper atmosphere that heat (no matter how it achieved its re-location) is then transferred to space via IR radiation. Ahigher percentage is tranferred to space because the higher in the atmosphere the less dense. Less dense, less GHG effect. But in Dale-world those things do not happen?
Dale, your arrogance and lack of real scientific knowledge is an embarrassment. Because of your ego you can not admit that you just might be wrong. Skepticism is a mainstay of science. Blind belief is the mainstay of faith/religion.
It’s too bad that your skepticism only involves challenges of your blind faith.
CoRev
just wanted you to know i read your last (18:50:08). Nothing more I can do here.
Dale, I want you to realize that in this thread you admitted that you w/don’t let facts get in the way of your faith-based beliefs in CAGW/AGW/CC/CD.
Expect that to be repeated when you respond in the future.
There are facts that permeate the social environment that need no sources for their validation. As I said, turn on your TV or read a newspaper. You can’t help but stumble over one Republican/Tea Party talking point or another. None are verified through the use of sources to prove one point or another. The current flap over extension of the Bush tax cuts is a good example. “Raise taxes and lose investment and sink the economy.” No reference to established facts. Just political BS oozing out of an ideology that has no verifiable basis.
You are little different from the so-called conservative propaganda machine. I’d not be surprised that you are in some direct manner supported by that same PR web that pervades our right of center MSM.
Still no sources! Plus, you are so desperate to make silly claims over my “conservative support”?
What I wrote is, “ I’d not be surprised that you are in some direct manner supported by that same PR web that pervades our right of center MSM.” you respond by suggesting that I said,
“conservative support.” Your quotation is obviously incorrect, but it suggests that you recognize that the use of the label conservative is only a cover for right wing ideology. The two are not one in the same.