Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
39 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Obama ideas I can get behind! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Obama in speech today:
Quote:
Obama has promised that a call to service would be a cornerstone of his presidency, and also has criticized Bush for asking Americans eager to pitch in after the attacks merely "to shop."

The expansion of government national service programs he has proposed would cost $3.5 billion a year, including a new "Green Vet Initiative," increasing the all-volunteer military, expanding AmeriCorps, doubling the size of the Peace Corps, expanding service programs involving retired people, and creating a tax credit making the first $4,000 of college tuition free for students who conduct 100 hours of public service a year.


Ok I can really get behind the two items in bold. Especially the tax credit for tuition, though I think it needs to be for 200 hours of service ($40/hr seems a little high on the pay side) and the tax credit would need to carry over a few years so it can be used even by people taking loans (not making a lot of taxable cash while in school) and/or be transferable to parents if they are helping to foot the tuition bill.

I wonder if he would really get this done. The AmeriCorps has never really done what Clinton envisioned. Not even when he was in office.

I would want to know more about the "Green Vet Initiative" before I could comment on this.


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
King of All Simians — Not a Mere Diplomat
United States
Wilmington
Select State
flag msg tools
designer
I love you.
badge
I love you.
Avatar
mb
Koldfoot wrote:
Why stop there? The gov't could just cap the amount schools are allowed to charge for an education. Hell, give students minimum wage for attending school.

Those are really excellent ideas!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
Obama in speech today:
Quote:
Obama has promised that a call to service would be a cornerstone of his presidency, and also has criticized Bush for asking Americans eager to pitch in after the attacks merely "to shop."

The expansion of government national service programs he has proposed would cost $3.5 billion a year


I'm all for charity by the citizens of this great country. But 3.5 billion dollars to cover it ain't charity. That's government sponsored jobs. Lets call a spade a spade. Charity is given without expectation of reward. I do not support a 3.5 billion dollar expansion of the welfare system. I do not support elminiation of welfare either, but the welfare system should be streamlined, not bloated.



Pell grants are educational welfare. Garrenteed Student loans are the Government taking on the financial risk while banks make the profits.

I am not saying we shouldn't have Pell Grants and student loans, but I am saying that a program that gives students a Tax Credit (so the play less taxes on work done for private money) for doing community services is a much better "investment" of our tax dollars than these programs already in place.

This enables more people to afford higher education in a way that actually GIVES something directly to society in advance of the perk. This is not anything like welfare. And it also isn't charity. It is society saying hey we will barter X amount of higher education in exchange for doing community service. That is a win-win. More educated people and more stuff gets done that needs to be done.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Holmes! wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Why stop there? The gov't could just cap the amount schools are allowed to charge for an education. Hell, give students minimum wage for attending school.

Those are really excellent ideas!
Haha! Exactly what I thought!

The funny thing is, Koldfoot really thinks those are bad, because people having money is more important than people having education.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
American universities aren't really the problem: There's plenty of good ones out there that do prepare students for the work environment. It's at the lower levels where the US has trouble competing.

Making it easier to access universities is a great goal. Given that the US has lost the manufacturing battle, innovation and high end jobs are the best way to dampen the ugly side of globalization. Is a tuition credit the best way to do this? Probably not. If this is done only for public universities it provide some good benefits, since the Government can also control tuition inflation. If this is also useful for private universities, all it will do is help increase tuition rates even more. The school I went to has doubled its tuition rates in the last 10 years. Do you think the prices won't go up with a move like this?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I would want to know more about the "Green Vet Initiative" before I could comment on this.


From what I understand, it involves helping returning vets get jobs as long as those jobs involve selling this generation's snake oil.


Exactly! Global warming = snake oil. What a mind!

Drew = Senator Inhofe.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
Do you think the prices won't go up with a move like this?


Why would prices go up?? The schools don't see what color of money pays them? Besides, when all is said and done, I bet less than 5% of students would even take advantage of this program.

But for that 5% it could be the thing that lets them work part time instead of full time while trying to go to school and the community service can be done over breaks or on weekends as they have time.

Community service is more flexible than a regular job. Trash getting picked up off the side of the road this week or next, morning or in the afternoon... not critical. Whenever it gets done is fine as long as it gets done. Showing up for the dinner rush at cash paying job 4 times a week is critical to the eatery.

So this program, for people who are actually paying thier own way though collage, would provide a way to keep up to $4000 extra of the money they earn waiting tables on a regular basis even, during finals or when big projects are due, by picking up trash or bringing meals to shut in elderly people on the weeks when they are not as stressed.

Sounds good to me and I don't see how it would affect the price of tuition in any way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
hibikir wrote:
Do you think the prices won't go up with a move like this?

Why would prices go up?? The schools don't see what color of money pays them? Besides, when all is said and done, I bet less than 5% of students would even take advantage of this program.


It's called basic economics. The price of private universities is what the market can bear. If it's easier for students to make money, the universities WILL raise prices, because the students would still be able to pay for it. They are for profit, you know. The fact that the government is paying for that extra money doesn't really matter: It'd be the same if a genie gave an extra 10 grand to every 18 year old.

It's not unique to universities either: If a country gave $300 a month to everyone that rents an apartment, the rent would go up, because the value of an apartment would otherwise not be aligned with the value of other goods. The natural way to lower costs in the long run is to increase supply or lower demand.

If only 5% of the students took advantage of the program, we'd not get a $4000 increas in tuition, but I'd expect at least 5% of that. Still an increase.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
hibikir wrote:
Do you think the prices won't go up with a move like this?

Why would prices go up?? The schools don't see what color of money pays them? Besides, when all is said and done, I bet less than 5% of students would even take advantage of this program.


It's called basic economics. The price of private universities is what the market can bear. If it's easier for students to make money, the universities WILL raise prices, because the students would still be able to pay for it. They are for profit, you know. The fact that the government is paying for that extra money doesn't really matter: It'd be the same if a genie gave an extra 10 grand to every 18 year old.

It's not unique to universities either: If a country gave $300 a month to everyone that rents an apartment, the rent would go up, because the value of an apartment would otherwise not be aligned with the value of other goods. The natural way to lower costs in the long run is to increase supply or lower demand.

If only 5% of the students took advantage of the program, we'd not get a $4000 increas in tuition, but I'd expect at least 5% of that. Still an increase.


Except that Universities, not even private ones, actually make money.
That is why they have to have to hit up Alumni to build buildings etc.

Private Universities just don't get as much Public Funding and thus must pass more costs on to the students who attend.

Ok maybe the DeVry (spelling?) institue or some of those other trade schools like that make money. But not schools like Yale or Notre Dame.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:
In the U.S., most of the prestigious universities and colleges, including the universities belonging to the Ivy League, are private, operated as nonprofit organizations. While most liberal arts colleges are likewise private, there are also some public liberal arts colleges. Some private universities are closely affiliated with religious organizations (e.g., the University of Notre Dame) and some are directly operated by religious organizations (e.g., Brigham Young University).


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
hibikir wrote:
Do you think the prices won't go up with a move like this?

Why would prices go up?? The schools don't see what color of money pays them? Besides, when all is said and done, I bet less than 5% of students would even take advantage of this program.


It's called basic economics. The price of private universities is what the market can bear. If it's easier for students to make money, the universities WILL raise prices, because the students would still be able to pay for it. They are for profit, you know. The fact that the government is paying for that extra money doesn't really matter: It'd be the same if a genie gave an extra 10 grand to every 18 year old.

It's not unique to universities either: If a country gave $300 a month to everyone that rents an apartment, the rent would go up, because the value of an apartment would otherwise not be aligned with the value of other goods. The natural way to lower costs in the long run is to increase supply or lower demand.

If only 5% of the students took advantage of the program, we'd not get a $4000 increas in tuition, but I'd expect at least 5% of that. Still an increase.


Bless you Jorge! I don't get to agree with you very often, but Imma give you a big hug right now and stock up for the next drought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mahaffey
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
GAME ARTIST
badge
GAME ARTIST
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Paying people to volunteer. This is a new level.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
West2 wrote:
Paying people to volunteer. This is a new level.


Hey I volunteered to work the swing shift this past week, that doesn't mean I don't expect to get paid.

We have an all volunteer miliatary at this time. But we pay them.

Volunteer has more than one correct vocabulary usage, including the one that simply means offering to do something that is often less desirable than other options.

AmericaCorps is a great program, students work for a stipend that is usually at or less than min wage and has NO corporate type benefits (vacation/healthcare) to do jobs that need doing. They do this instead of taking higher paying jobs over the summer, and some jobs last a year so they give up time at school, to earn credit they can apply toward going school later. Like the GI bill does for soliders.

The new plan proposed by Obama would allow students currently in school to PAY LESS taxes (no cash given here people) on the money they earn on real jobs and pay for tuition while in school if they do commmunity service in addition to working for the taxable pay.

It is not exactly the same as paying them to do volunteer work.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Mahaffey
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
GAME ARTIST
badge
GAME ARTIST
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand. Incentivizing kindness rubs me wrong, nonetheless. Like sport hunting... or hate crimes legislation. Or Monopoly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:

Nate = Easily persuaded by the False Preachers of Greenism.

How's that?


Yes, because it's just so evil to want to protect the environment, develop necessary alternative energy sources, and not send billions of dollars to the Saudis! The nerve!

Drew, you don't live on the Gulf coast, do you? Might change your mind just a tad. But whatever the case, the "Green Revolution" will occur, come Repub or Democrat. Enjoy the ride!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Natus wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Meerkat wrote:
I would want to know more about the "Green Vet Initiative" before I could comment on this.


From what I understand, it involves helping returning vets get jobs as long as those jobs involve selling this generation's snake oil.


Exactly! Global warming = snake oil.


Pretty much.


You must be displeased with Palin flipping on the issue so she that she, too, is in line with McCain's (and Obama's) acceptance of science, eh?

-MMM
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
SH W
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He speaks for all of us.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:


I am displeased that both parties believe they must cater to the Greenist religious zealots, yes.



I see...I'll just let you remain sleeping then.

-MMM
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Natus wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:

Nate = Easily persuaded by the False Preachers of Greenism.

How's that?


Yes, because it's just so evil to want to protect the environment, develop necessary alternative energy sources, and not send billions of dollars to the Saudis! The nerve!


None of which has anything to do with the myth of human-caused global warming, and the snake oil salesmen who are trying to brainwash young minds into believing that it's a holy writ.


And you know this for certain how? And why, pray tell, would so many people seek to "brainwash young minds"? What do they get out of it? "Oh, noes, the children are conserving energy! They're riding bikes! Aack! They even planted a tree!!" You don't make any sense.

Drew1365 wrote:
I am all for developing energy alternatives, protecting the environment, and not sending oil money to our enemies. I was a proponent of environmentalism back when it was the legitimate science of ecology. But now it's an "ism," with all the religious zealotry that implies. I am not in favor of severely crippling ourselves to prop up a false religion.


And you know it's a false religion how?

Drew1365 wrote:
Quote:
Drew, you don't live on the Gulf coast, do you? Might change your mind just a tad. But whatever the case, the "Green Revolution" will occur, come Repub or Democrat. Enjoy the ride!


You religious zealots creep me out big time.


Ironic, coming from a fervent GOPer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Octavian wrote:

You must be displeased with Palin flipping on the issue so she that she, too, is in line with McCain's (and Obama's) acceptance of science, eh?


I am displeased that both parties believe they must cater to the Greenist religious zealots, yes.


God, you make this so easy, Drew. Do you get your talking points from Exxon/Mobil?

Drew1365 wrote:
[EDIT: Read this: Michael Crichton makes a strong case how environmentalism has become a religion. While I may disagree with him on some points, I cannot disagree with his assessment of this new religion as being anti-science and steeped in superstition.


Drew, you are citing a right-wing NOVELIST! Why not cite Orson Scott Card as well to make your point? You go bat-sh*t crazy on us saying that Global Warming is unscientific when most scientists who aren't creationists AGREE on Gl;obal Warming, and then as a coup de grace you trot out Crichton. Wow, you got me there! Global Warming IS a hoax! I'm so silly; I should have listened to you and Trippy and Skelly from the first!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Merchant
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Natus wrote:
Ironic, coming from a fervent GOPer.


Sez you, buster. I'm registered with no party and never intend to.


Dude, if the iron boot fits...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
King of All Simians — Not a Mere Diplomat
United States
Wilmington
Select State
flag msg tools
designer
I love you.
badge
I love you.
Avatar
mb
I have a much deeper understanding of the way Jor-El felt, these days.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
!
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Holmes! wrote:
I have a much deeper understanding of the way Jor-El felt, these days.


http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_places_infant_s...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Octavian wrote:

You must be displeased with Palin flipping on the issue so she that she, too, is in line with McCain's (and Obama's) acceptance of science, eh?


I am displeased that both parties believe they must cater to the Greenist religious zealots, yes.

EDIT: Read this: Michael Crichton makes a strong case how environmentalism has become a religion. While I may disagree with him on some points, I cannot disagree with his assessment of this new religion as being anti-science and steeped in superstition.


From the Newsletter of the New England section of the American Physical Society

Quote:
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
New England Section Newsletter
___________________________________________________

Volume 14 Number 2 Fall 2008
__________________________________________________________________________

Paul H. Carr & Laurence I. Gould, Co-Editors


There's a bunch of stuff about the section meeting and then:

Quote:
EDITORIALS and LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

Please Note: These remarks express each writer’s considered opinion and should not be construed as representing any official position of the Executive Board of the New England Section of the American Physical Society.


From the letters and editorials below, the reader may surmise that the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not settled. This can also be seen from contributions to the debate existing in recent publications of this Newsletter. (Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 issues can be obtained from the NES APS website http://www.physics.ccsu.edu/aps-nes/News.htm.) What is surprising to us is that, given the apparent importance of the topic, there are so few people who have sent us letters (positive or negative) about the issues.

Paul Carr and Larry Gould, Co-Editors
NES APS Newsletter


Email LETTER to the Editors by Professor Frank S. Levin (received 26 June 2008) —
Items referenced: 1. Editorial — GLOBAL WARMING from a CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE; Fall 2007 issue of the New England Section Newsletter 2. AN OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE NEW ENGLAND SECTION OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY — Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism: A Corruption of Science; Spring 2008 issue of the New England Section Newsletter. Each item can be found at the NES APS website http://www.physics.ccsu.edu/aps-nes/News.htm

A RESPONSE TO LAURENCE GOULD’S EDITORIAL AND OPEN LETTER

Frank S. Levin, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Brown University (Frank_Levin@brown.edu)

For many years, skeptics/deniers have inveighed against aspects of global warming, in particular rejecting one or more of the following: that global warming is occurring, that it is caused by human activities, and that its likely consequences are potentially harmful. Overall, however, the arguments underlying their rejections are untenable: unlike the atmosphere, they generally do not hold water.

Laurence Gould’s recent Editorial (E) and Open Letter (O), in the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 Newsletters, recycled a number of the deniers’ specious arguments. Because the maximum space allotted to me for this response is limited, I can address only some of these arguments. What I present here is based on material gathered for an adult education course on earth’s climate and global warming that I taught in Fall 2007.

1. As an example of the methods often used by deniers—falsification and distortion through omission (cherry-picking)—I’ll first consider Gould’s complaint (E, p 4) that Hanson gives no references to “treading close to ‘scientific fraud’ ”. Here’s what happened. James Hanson, a noted climatologist, testified to the US Senate in 1988 about possible global warming outcomes, presenting a graph with three curves, A, B, C. He stated that B was the most likely outcome. Patrick Michaels, also a climate scientist, in his 1998 testimony to the US Senate, having deleted curves B and C from Hanson’s 1988 graph, claimed that just A represented Hanson’s prediction, that it was obviously wrong compared to data, and thus AGW wasn’t occurring. In fact, Hanson’s omitted result B (the most likely) was correct. For Hanson’s and Michaels’ curves, reference to Michaels’ testimony, and graphs showing the successes of models (theory) in fitting climate data, type the URL www.logicalscience.com/skeptic-arguments/models-don’t-work.html into Google. Hanson recounted Michaels’ action in a 1999 post on the NASA GISS website, while in a New York Times op-ed column of May 29, 2006, Paul Krugman described Michaels’ action as “it isn’t treading close, it’s fraud, pure and simple” (to my knowledge, Krugman has not been sued over this statement). Patrick Michaels’ calumny was later recycled by Michael Crichton in the “EN ROUTE , FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8” chapter of his book State of Fear. (See also Mark Bowen’s book Censoring Science). 2. Re “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (E, p 7): Gould failed to note that the denier claims in the cited DVD are invalid, as recounted in the 9 March 2007 entry of the website www.realclimate.org (RC). RC is run by researchers in climate science who refer to actual calculations (theirs and others) and to peer-reviewed papers, and who tell you when denier science articles have not gone through peer review (though peer review is not a guarantee that a paper is correct). See the 20 January 2005 post on RC for comments on peer review and citations of denier articles that didn’t go through it. 3. Only McIntyre & McKitrick are cited re the “hockey stick” chart (O, p 12), and that’s cherry-picking, for what’s omitted are references to papers that show that the original hockey stick analysis was correct and that Mc&Mc are wrong: see, e.g, the 2nd RC post on peer review —27 January 2005—plus references cited therein for a detailed analysis of the errors in Mc&Mc. The invalid claim that Mc&Mc are correct and the “hockey stick” graph is wrong has been repeated by various deniers.

4. Gould (O, p 11) refers to the Solanki et al article (Nature, 2005) claiming that the last 50 years have been one of the most active solar periods. What Gould left out is that in previous Nature articles (2004), both Solanki et al and Mueschler et al (who don’t agree with Solanki et al’s claim about the last 11,000 years) state that “solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable sun.” This quote is in the article “Global Warming Controversy” from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (to get to it, type wikipedia into your browser and then global warming controversy into its search engine). The latter article has much info on the GW Controversy. In case you distrust Wikipedia, similar conclusions about solar activity and GW are reached in the RC post of 19 May 2005, where, following the main article, you can find additional material under the heading Addendum “Celestial Driver” Part 2, Solar Cycle Length. 5. The lag of CO2 behind temperature in paleoclimates (O, p11) has been a favorite of deniers who use it to “prove” that the recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases do not lead to global warming. Omitted by them and Gould is any reference as to why such a “proof” is false. One such reference is the RC post of 27 April 2007, especially the letter by Jeff Severinghaus following the main text. 6. Gould (O, p 13) and other deniers have cited the alleged “errors” in Al Gore’s film that were found by a British judge, but this, too, is cherry-picking, for two items that Gould omits are (i) the judge’s statement that “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate,” a statement that re-affirms the film as a documentary and not “propaganda” as Gould claimed, and (ii) the post of RC, 15 October 2007 (plus others referred to there), which analyzes the so-called “errors” in detail, and points out why they are not really errors.

7. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) has been pilloried by deniers, as in O, pp 12 and 13, but the claim that it has multiple scientific errors is false. Gould cites the work of Monckton, whose statements/inferences about the hockey stick chart and solar activity don’t hold up, as I’ve already noted in 3&4 above. Here are a few more misrepresentations (among others). Gore did not insist on a link between increased frequency of hurricanes and GW: he stated, AIT, p 81, that there is less agreement among scientists on this point, but that there is an emerging consensus that GW and increasing hurricane intensity are linked. The IPCC notes that this linkage is likely: p 864 of their report Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis. Re the sea level rise of 20 feet by 2100: what Gore actually said (AIT, p 197) is that if Greenland melted or broke up, or half of it and half of Antarctica melted or broke up, sea levels would rise by 18 to 20 feet. Monckton falsified by removing the conditional clause (“if…broke up”). Re Kilimanjaro’s glacier: its loss of ice/snow began in the late 19th century and GW did not initiate it, but what Monckton omits is recent work—RC, post of 23 May 2005—noting that there is data providing powerful support that East African glaciers, including Kilimanjaro’s, have been subject to the influence of warming. Al Gore was thus not wrong to have implied that GW is now involved (“implied” because the book never states this directly about Kilimanjaro).

8. Gould claims (O, p 11) that there has been no warming trend since 2000. But there is a trend—one that has leveled off. Look at the graphs in the HadCrut3 website. But also remember that climatology deals with weather averages over space (large regions) and time (30 years or more), and so lack of an increase—even a decrease—in the global temperature for any one year—or two or three—is not evidence against GW, just as the presence of a drought or higher temperatures in some region is not evidence for it. 9. In O, p 16, Gould repeats a denier myth, viz, that “science is about facts … not consensus”. This myth has been presented to the general public by deniers as part of the scientific-method paradigm. But science is partly about achieving consensus, e.g., that a theory is valid in some domain of applicability—as exemplified by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, electrodynamics, etc, etc.

10. The RC post of 9 October 2006 deconstructs the misinformation of Claude Allegre (O, p 15). 11. For analyses of Alexander Cockburn’s invalid claims/comments (O, p 15), see the RC posts of 4 May 2007 and 7 June 2007, where you can click on the link to ZNet (3 articles and responses), which then links to Cockburn’s articles and responses to them by George Monbiot. 12. For more on Christopher Monckton’s spuriosities (O, pp 12, 14, 20), go to the web site www.monbiot.com and type Monckton into Monbiot’s search engine. See also RC, 7 February 2007, for their comments on Monckton. 13. For some of the activities of Frederick Seitz (O, p 18) and S. Fred Singer (O, p17), plus information on the JunkScience web site (E, p 7), see Chapter 2 of George Monbiot’s book “HEAT—How to Stop the Planet from Burning.”

14. Finally, for general info on, plus other responses to, denier claims, go to: www.metoffice.gov.uk, and search on climate change myths; www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan and then click on climate change fact sheet and the climate skeptics; or the RC index entry Responses to common contrarian arguments. For FAQS and answers from the IPCC, type ipccFAQS into your browser. See Chapter 2 of HEAT for some denier tactics. ..


Then one has follwoing

Quote:
REPLY to Frank Levin by Larry Gould —

I would like to start with a comment about the term “denier(s),” which has been much used by supporters of AGW. Professor Levin’s letter in effect applies that term to me 14 times. But what could the term mean?

It might mean that someone knows the facts and is evading them. Or it might mean that someone considers that the facts do not support the claims being made. Since I have argued at length (particularly in the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 issues of the Newsletter, http://www.physics.ccsu.edu/aps-nes/News.htm) that there is insufficient evidence for, as well as much contradictory evidence to, the anthropogenic global warming alarmist (AGWA) claims, I clearly am in the second category. Thus applied, I do not consider the term “denier” to be pejorative even though it appears intended to be so when used by the AGWAs.

At the beginning of his letter, Professor Levin might also be using the term “skeptic” pejoratively. However, as my Open Letter explains (heading 11. Rhetorical ploys to deflect attention from the science, item 4, quoting Robert M. Carter):

[a]ll good scientists are skeptics: that is their professional job. To not be a skeptic of the hypothesis that you are testing is the rudest of scientific errors, for it means that you are committed to a particular outcome: that’s faith, not science.

I will only make some brief comments about the substance of Professor Levin’s letter because Viscount Monckton has — coincidentally — pretty much answered that letter with his own that follows.

In Professor Levin’s letter, his point 1 takes issue with my critique of Hansen (which stands). But my critique did not just focus on Hansen but on the APS NEWS for not printing replies (or properly justifying why there weren’t any) by Michael Crichton and Pat Michaels — the people Hansen attacked. So although Prof. Levin gives his own explanation of what happened, we still do not have an explanation by Crichton and by Michaels.

His point 2 argues that claims made in the video “The Great Global Warming Swindle” are invalid. Readers may judge for themselves whether Prof. Levin’s statements are accurate by comparing the scientific arguments given in his references with those which lend support to the video (including the 100 minutes of supplementary interviews I mentioned). An excellent resource for seeing a critical analysis of the “global warming/climate change” issue is the book Taken by Storm (TS) — which has many references and is described in my following brief Editorial — by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick. In that book is also an extensive discussion of the “hockey stick” model (referred to in Professor Levin’s point 3), including an explanation of why its methodology is flawed (also see Monckton’s letter).

About his point 4, I will again refer to TS as well as to Monckton’s letter. Point 5 attributes to me a “proof” which (as the reader can check) I never claimed or implied — I was using the lag of CO2 with respect to temperature to criticize Gore’s claim (in the context of the film/book An Inconvenient Truth) that CO2 drives temperature and to point up a non-scientific error being propagated by a children’s book (one of the authors also being one of the producers of the film). Points 6 and 7 refer to Gore’s film; I have already explained what are some of the problems, as does Monckton’s letter. But the most comprehensive critique (including references) is given in Marlo Lewis’ 154-page free on-line document A Skeptic’s Guide to an Inconvenient Truth (referenced in my Open Letter; an updated and wider selection associated with the Lewis document is at http://cei.org/gencon/030%2C05821.cfm). In addition, given Mr. Gore’s pervasive elementary error in logic — as I have explained in my Open Letter — I remain baffled as to why so many people still support his film/book....


My point is that this science is still beign hotly debated.
2 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrSkeletor wrote:
whac3 wrote:

My point is that this science is still beign hotly debated.


Not only is it still being hotly debated, but more of the scientific community are jumping off these days then jumping on. There was much more 'consensus' about AWG in the scientific community 10 years ago then there is today.

Problem is today celebs and politicians have jumped on the bandwagon, so scientific objectivity is taking a back seat to the dogma of hairshirts. Drew is very correct when he compares it to religion.

Anyone who waffles on about 'the science' should immediately have seen red flags when it became apparent that the climate models developed in the 90s predicting AGW simply are not matching the real world data. Yet when Gore flys around the world doing his speeches his presentations showing global warming trends are still the models, even though graphs featuring real world data exist. How in the hell is that science?

But hey, don't let pesky facts get in the way of a good scare campaign. AWG is currently a $60 billion+ industry after all, and Gore and co do want to keep making money.


There are also a fair number like myself who are firmly in the camp of not having seen enough credible evidence to be convinced one way or the other. As such, I am skeptical and feel the onus of proof lies with those making the claims.

Rhetoric makes headlines but not good science.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:

There are also a fair number like myself who are firmly in the camp of not having seen enough credible evidence to be convinced one way or the other. As such, I am skeptical and feel the onus of proof lies with those making the claims.

Rhetoric makes headlines but not good science.


I am no climatologist, but I do know some of the statistical used to justify the claims of AGW are suspect. Since the whole aspect is based on "computational modeling", the outcomes of the model are extremely dependent on what the scientists "plug-in" to the model. Additionally, the models are treated as a black box. The scientist plugs in a bunch of parameters, then a bunch of untold algorithms operate on the inputted parameters, and TAH DAH: out come results.

Skeletor is 100% right -- the fact that the updated data is not used in the presentations or the presented models is unethical at best and criminal at worst.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.