The Republican assault on truth - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 05-11-2011, 10:04 AM

Quote:

GOP Assault on Truth: Why Do Conservatives Pretend They Know More About Science Than Scientists?

By Daniel Denvir, AlterNet
Posted on May 5, 2011, Printed on May 11, 2011
GOP Assault on Truth: Why Do Conservatives Pretend They Know More About Science Than Scientists? | | AlterNet

Earlier this year, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced legislation “repealing the...[EPA’s] scientific finding that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are endangering human health and the environment.” That’s right, politicians voted to repeal a scientific finding. It failed in the Senate. But if Republicans were to take control of the White House and Senate, the bill would undoubtedly become law.

“Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question,” cautioned EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson on February 8, “would become part of this Committee's legacy.”

It’s too late now, Secretary Jackson. Two months after the global warming hearing, Congress for the first time ever voted to delist a species from the Endangered Species Act. Politicians have determined that the grey wolf is not, contrary to all scientific evidence, an endangered species in need of protection.

“It’s a political move,” says Joanne Padrón Carney, director of the Center for Science, Technology and Congress at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Congress is not a scientific body. They’re not a peer-reviewed body.”

Who needs the careful application of the scientific method when you have congressmen with absolutely no scientific training making these decisions? Scientists and environmentalists are worried that the wolf’s delisting could set a bad precedent, encouraging Congress to do more science by decree amidst ongoing legislative wrangling. It appears that science has joined health care for the elderly and poor on the list of things Republicans and business-friendly Democrats can hold hostage to the budget and revenue crises.

The conservative attack on science is old and driven by many factors: religious opposition to reason, Barry Goldwater-style anti-intellectualism, corporate muscle, and straight-up Nixonian lies. Nixon liked to play the role of philosopher king, privately conceding that the Vietnam War was unwinnable but declaring the American people unworthy of knowing so. There are some who resist science because of sincere if misguided religious belief, and others who consciously manipulate facts for economic gain. The result, however, is always the same: a stupider America less well-prepared to make good decisions.

“Once you allow the majority to define what science is, all kinds of possibilities open up,” says Arthur McCalla, professor of religious studies at Mount Saint Vincent University. “When religiously inspired populism meets corporate power, things can get really bad."

In the United States, a campaign against the teaching of evolutionary biology has been the fulcrum of anti-science conservatism. What began as "creationism" -- the simple and unadorned assertion that the Biblical description of the history of the earth and the creation of species as understood by fundamentalist Christians was historically factual -- has come to mimic scientific language, posturing as “creation science” and now “intelligent design.” Science, in this case, is something we all have the right to make up on our own.

“It goes right back to those basic fundamentalist points. We say what science is. It doesn’t matter what scientists say science is. We know what science is,” says McCalla. “To what extent are today’s Republicans doing the same thing, except instead of defending the Bible, they are also defending industry?”

Everyone has their own truth. Whichever rendition has the most powerful patron wins. “Facts” get made up about everything: science, abortion, the budget, and Iraq.

Arizona Republican Jon Kyl took to the Senate floor and claimed that abortion was “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does,” when the number was actually just 3 percent.

Caught in a lie, Kyl released a statement matter-of-factly explaining that his comment was “not intended to be a factual statement.” Kyl, notes Stephen Colbert, simply “rounded up to the nearest 90.”

And why not? Kyl’s dissembling is more than idiotic or crassly misleading. It represents a purely instrumental and self-interested relationship to the very notion of truth or fact. This is the political equivalent of parents telling adolescents that masturbation will make hair grow on their hands. We are a nation infantilized.

Conservatives tell women that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and infertility -- statements that don’t, to be sure, have the virtue of being true.

The Bush administration was notoriously hostile to science and wholeheartedly embraced what Colbert dubbed “truthiness” in decision-making, from the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to the scientific evidence on global warming.

In 2005, the New York Times discovered that the Bush White House “removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved.” The Times obtained the incriminating documents from whistleblowers, so one can at least give the Bush administration credit for trying to hide its misbehavior. Exiled from the executive branch, conservatives must now practice science by decree in broad daylight. And they don’t seem very embarrassed.

Some on the Right are sincere in believing the Bible over science. Others, one suspects, know all too well that they are lying. Business-friendly Republicans -- and, to be sure, Democrats -- trade in an opportunistic relativism that holds “facts” to be no more than objects of political convenience.

“I think it’s far more cynical at the corporate level,” says McCalla. “I think they know what the science is. Many fundamentalists don’t understand it. But at the corporate level, they’ve found a populist strategy they can capitalize on.”

The entire Republican platform is currently based on ill-intentioned lies: if they repeatedly pin the blame for the economic crisis on teachers and Medicare, maybe the public will forget that unregulated bankers brought the economy to its knees and robbed the rest of us blind.

“We are divided,” intoned Colbert, “between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart.”

The scientific elite is so proud of their facts, scorning the proudly ignorant everyman and Sarah Palin, their surprisingly lithe mama bear and champion of aerial wolf hunting.

The anti-science attitude, particularly strong in the United States, is rooted in a conflation of "elites" and the specialized knowledge of experts that -- and I'm sure Tea Party readers will appreciate this -- goes back to the very early days of the Republic.

“A key element of the Revolution for later American history", says McCalla, "was its rejection of elites of all kinds. For a period after the Revolution, anyone could practice as a doctor or a lawyer, for example. The governing ethos was the populist credo that no one has the right to tell me how to understand the world. While certain professional groups have been able to reassert their professional status, in many areas of American life -- including science -- the questions of elitism and expertise seem to be hopelessly muddled. There is a great suspicion of experts."

Senator Inhofe, who humbly calls himself “the most outspoken critic of man-made global warming alarmism in the United States Senate,” places the entirety of science squarely within the realm of the culture war -- “the likes of Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Hollywood elite.” Science is another calculated immorality that liberals embrace, like homosexuality, yoga and Mexicans.

Though anti-intellectualism may thrive here, it is far from uniquely American. And at the risk of running afoul of Jon Stewart’s prohibition on noting historical parallels between authoritarian regimes of the past and the 21st-century United States, I would suggest that the Soviet Union’s treatment of science offers an illuminating parallel.

In 1948, a Soviet state Agricultural Sciences summit declared that genetics was scientifically false. For ideological reasons, they decided that instead of Mendel, a 19th-century French scientist named Lamarck and his theretofore unknown Russian popularizer Trofim Denisovich Lysenko were correct: characteristics acquired by organisms during their lifetime are heritable, meaning that they can be passed on to the next generation. The admixture was christened “creative Soviet Darwinism.”

Under Stalin, science was reduced to just another ideological plaything: reactionary “bourgeois science” versus revolutionary “proletarian science.”

One scientist was forced to secretly carry out his research under the guise of breeding foxes for their fur. Soviet state campaigns against quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity and cybernetics followed, justified as a critique of “bourgeois” and “idealist” science. Stalin’s Soviet Union was also hostile to basic research, mandating that everything be justified by clear practical aims.

Stalin was so interested in deciding the big questions of the universe that he took it upon himself to personally edit the speeches of major Soviet scientists. For Stalin, the communist state could make not only new men and women, but also an entirely new reality. As historian of Soviet science Kirill O. Rossianov put it, Stalin recreated scientific fact in the image of his own ideological needs, “a new picture of the world as it purportedly was, articulated by the political leadership.” He even wrote “definitive” articles on linguistics under his own name.

The personal touch is striking.

“It is hard to imagine similar behavior on the part of the political leaders of democratic countries (such as Roosevelt or Churchill) or even of other dictators (such as Hitler or Mussolini),” writes Rossianov. “Even in George Orwell's famous classic, 1984, the top political leaders who stood behind the mythical ‘Big Brother’ did not do this themselves: the work of rewriting history was done by small clerks in the Ministry of Truth.”

The conservative attack on science is sometimes this explicit, but often far more subtle. There is now apparently “Democrat [sic] science” and “Republican science.”

The Right, like the rest of us, is confused by the complex and fast-changing world we live in. What to make of the ever more rapid creation of wealth and poverty, the widespread migration of peoples, the waging of war through remote controlled aerial drones? What sets the Right apart, however, is the degree of hypocrisy at play:

“Conservatives still don’t know what to make of the modern world. They embrace the internal combustion engine and nuclear power while rejecting the theory of evolution and the science of global warming; puzzling over the depravity of ‘Jersey Shore;’ they daydream about small-town geniality from the confines of the sprawling rec room of an exurban McMansion.”

Science is only appreciated when it delivers results that can be consumed in the home or blown up abroad. Science is a political buffet, where politicians legislate research at the meeting point of scriptural delusion and economic self-interest.

In 2008, Sarah Palin infamously maligned federal funding for “fruit fly research in Paris, France,” thoroughly oblivious to the important role drosophila play in science.

People on the Right prefer the more instrumental sciences that reinforce the status quo of war, capitalism and ecological destruction. The building blocks of matter and the history of the universe are to be mocked as the idle curiosity of pointy-headed and effete nerds.

“Many of them,” says McCalla, referring to conservatives, “have technical degrees in communications and high-tech. Technology they love. Science they define in such a way that it allows them to pick and choose what’s good science and bad science.”

Studies have found that in the United States, results-oriented engineers are far more likely to identify as conservative than professionals in any other discipline.

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for a renewed commitment to science education. Many Americans know little about science because they did not learn much about it in school.

“The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations,” he said. “We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.”

Obama even held a science fair at the White House. But the education “reform” policies the president supports (his “Race to the Top” is much like Bush’s “No Child Left Behind”) -- more and higher stakes testing on narrowly conceived reading and math skills -- makes it increasingly hard for educators to find the time and money to teach science (let alone music, English, civics, history...).

The ever-narrowing test regime is hostile to the spirit of creative inquiry that undergirds science. The worship of test scores as ends in and of themselves has hollowed out the knowledge they are supposed to reflect. In a desperate attempt to make the grade, teachers and principals are increasingly caught cheating on their students’ tests. This is what happens when society is run like a business instead of a laboratory for good ideas.

“The fact that congress can get away with repealing scientific findings and not outrage people just shows that people don’t understand or don’t care what science is,” says McCalla. “That’s the really outrageous thing about it.”

Policymaking can only run further adrift without a scientific compass. Though perhaps wishful thinking will keep our consciences calm: monkeys will not be my uncle, the water will not rise, and the grey wolf will live happily ever after.

Daniel Denvir is a journalist in Philadelphia. Follow him on Twitter @danieldenvir.
© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: GOP Assault on Truth: Why Do Conservatives Pretend They Know More About Science Than Scientists? | | AlterNet

Republicans are spreading lies about:

Global warming
Evolution
Abortion
And God knows what else

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

What is the real danger of elected Republicans overriding science and choosing "Biblical truth" instead?

What do you make of religious fundamentalism in politics having a direct impact on how science is developed in and applied to society?

I find it more than just a little disturbing that a kind of creeping neo-Puritanism seems to be taking place in the U.S. I believe that if a Republican nominee were to beat Obama in 2012, that it could usher in a disturbing trend in how the U.S. government formulates its scientific and social policies, especially if the next president is a Tea Partier.

Derwood · 05-11-2011, 11:34 AM

Can we stop calling them Republicans and start calling them their proper name: Fascists?

Mantus · 05-11-2011, 11:59 AM

My comment was off topic. Sorry.

aceventura3 · 05-11-2011, 12:03 PM

The article cited is a bit of a mis-characterization of the proposed legislation and the intent of the legislation. I took a look a a couple of summaries of the proposed legislation and from my point of view, it takes away some of the unchecked power of the Administrator of the EPA. I would rather have actions regarding "global warming" go through Congress rather than a partisan bureaucrat.

Quote:

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

H.R. 910: Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

And a more detailed summary:

Quote:

4/1/2011--Reported to House amended. Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 - Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change. Excludes GHGs from the definition of "air pollutant" for purposes of addressing climate change. Exempts from such prohibition: (1) implementation and enforcement of the rule, "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards" and finalization, implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed rule, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles"; (2) implementation of the renewable fuel program; (3) statutorily authorized federal research, development, and demonstration programs addressing climate change; (4) implementation and enforcement of stratospheric ozone protection to the extent that such implementation or enforcement only involves class I or II substances; and (5) implementation and enforcement of requirements for monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide emissions. Provides that none of such exemptions shall cause a GHG to be subject to regulations relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality or considered an air pollutant for purposes of air pollution prevention and control permits. Repeals and makes ineffective the following rules and actions: -"Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases" -"Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act" -"Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs" and the memorandum, "EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program" -"Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule" -"Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call" -"Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases" -"Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan" -"Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule" -"Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program" -"Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans" -"Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule" -Any other federal action under such Act occurring before this Act's enactment that applies a stationary source permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a GHG to address climate change
Prohibits the Administrator from waiving, and invalidates waivers given by the Administrator before the enactment of this Act, the ban on states from adopting or enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or engines with respect to GHG emissions for model year 2017 or any subsequent model year. Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system; (2) addressing climate change is an international issue, involving complex scientific and economic considerations; and (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis. Urges Congress to fulfill such role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.

H.R. 910 - Summary: Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (GovTrack.us)

Baraka_Guru · 05-11-2011, 12:14 PM

So, ace, you'd rather have wanton approaches to the issue through industry?

Do you think HR 910 is about taxes or "unchecked power" or is it about profits?

Is this more lies?

YouTube - Congresswoman Hirono: HR 910 should be called the "Dirty Air Act"

Quote:

The Verdict is in: H.R. 910 is Bad for Health, Gas Bills and Oil Dependency

Today, a key US House committee is scheduled to vote on HR 910, the bill that would not only allow unlimited carbon pollution from smokestacks, but would also raise drivers’ fuel bills and worsen our oil dependency by blocking clean car standards.

Somewhat incredibly, Chairman Fred Upton’s claims his HR 910 bill is a “first step” to stopping rising gas prices (see his letter to his colleagues on the Hill). Politifact (the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checker of political claims) took a closer look at Upton's bill and pronounced the claim of gas price increases “FALSE”.

Upton’s bill, in fact, will increase driver fuel bills by blocking new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pollution standards for new cars for 2017 and beyond. Although the Department of Transportation (DOT) could still set fuel economy standards, EPA’s standards are more effective than the DOT’s fuel economy standards at saving money, oil and pollution.

The greater effectiveness is due to differences in underlying statutes. Based on EPA’s and DOT’s own analysis, the existing Environmental Protection Agency program results in much greater benefits over the life of the model year 2012-2016 vehicles covered by the rule: 44% more consumer cost savings, 27% more oil savings, and 47% more carbon pollution reductions. That’s a loss of $58 billion in net consumer savings, 18 billion gallons in reduced oil consumption, and 307 million metric tons of carbon pollution reductions. (See my previous blog for more explanation).

The next round of EPA standards will have similar levels of benefits over the DOT fuel economy program alone. The standards for 2017-2025 have the potential to raise fuel economy to as high as 62 mpg, and save drivers as much as an additional $7,400 over the life of vehicle. These numbers are conservative since EPA’s estimates were done prior to the recent run up in oil prices.

By repealing the “endangerment” finding, the bill may also block the current 2012-16 National Program standards too. The Environmental Protection Agency carbon pollution standards for 2012-2016, if allowed to go forward, will save drivers $3,000 over life of the vehicle.

Besides blocking clean car standards, H.R. 910 will also worsen oil dependency by preventing EPA from setting similar standards for planes, trains, ships, off-road equipment and industrial uses. As pointed out by Rep. Markey at last week’s subcommittee hearing on H.R. 910, EPA’s broader pollution authority gives it the opportunity to reduce oil use from planes, trains, ships, off-road equipment and industrial uses which compromises 45% of our oil use. DOT, on the other hand, has no authority to set fuel economy standards for these sources.

Our pocketbooks, economy and our national security should not be held hostage to global prices, supply shocks and political events largely beyond our control. Cutting our oil dependency through efficiency and clean fuels is the only real solution.

Let’s hope Congress stops playing games with our future and rejects H.R. 910.

The Verdict is in: H.R. 910 is Bad for Health, Gas Bills and Oil Dependency | Roland Hwang's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

aceventura3 · 05-11-2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

So, ace, you'd rather have wanton approaches to the issue through industry?

"Wanton" is not a word I would use to describe my desire here. In my view the administrator of the EPA has too much power. I think this power needs to be checked. I would rather see the issue first broadly addressed through legislation rather than regulation.

Quote:

Do you think HR 910 is about taxes or "unchecked power" or is it about profits?

I think it has to do with the US industry being able to compete internationally.

Quote:

Is this more lies?

Being a gentleman the word I would use is mis-characterization. I also think she is using hyperbole for dramatic effect, I rarely buy into speeches, from either party when designed for sound bites on the evening news.

Mantus · 05-11-2011, 03:36 PM

Ace,

All arguments about 910 aside there is still the issue of it prohibiting a government agency that deals with protection of the environment from implementing scientific knowledge. That's like forbidding IRS from using using algebra. 910 neuters EPA; and for what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think it has to do with the US industry being able to compete internationally.

Ah, I guess that's worth it?

urville · 05-11-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Can we stop calling them Republicans and start calling them their proper name: Fascists?

qft

aceventura3 · 05-13-2011, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ace,

All arguments about 910 aside there is still the issue of it prohibiting a government agency that deals with protection of the environment from implementing scientific knowledge. That's like forbidding IRS from using using algebra. 910 neuters EPA; and for what?

I disagree. I would say it is more like giving the IRS the ability to write tax law selectively requiring some to be held to one standard and others to another standard. I don't want political appointees having that much power.

Also, let's understand the underlying strategy. Some can not get their way through legislation, so they want to use the regulatory process to bypass the legislative process. Liberal or conservative can we agree that is not a good way to run our country.

Quote:

Ah, I guess that's worth it?

There are costs, but there are benefits. I would like honest discussion of the two. The pretense that severely limiting US industry through excessive and unreasonable regulation has no negative consequences is unacceptable. There will be no honest debate until there is real acknowledgment of the trade-offs from environmentalists.

Baraka_Guru · 05-13-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There are costs, but there are benefits. I would like honest discussion of the two. The pretense that severely limiting US industry through excessive and unreasonable regulation has no negative consequences is unacceptable. There will be no honest debate until there is real acknowledgment of the trade-offs from environmentalists.

Has an objective party deemed this as severely limiting, excessive, and unreasonable?

And I think the issue isn't just about environmentalists; it's about industry too. The intermediaries shouldn't be overlooked either: this is where scientists come in.

aceventura3 · 05-13-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Has an objective party deemed this as severely limiting, excessive, and unreasonable?

Those were my words.

Quote:

And I think the issue isn't just about environmentalists; it's about industry too. The intermediaries shouldn't be overlooked either: this is where scientists come in.

I have no problem with science. Nor do I have a problem with the true costs to society including environmental cost being assigned to industrial production. If the goal was to honestly assign these costs, I would have no objection to what the EPA is trying to do - my gut tells me the goal is to be punitive.

I believe if true costs are properly assigned, the best solutions emerge. For example why is our government pushing battery or electric powered vehicles rather than the use of natural gas to power vehicles? What does the science say about that? We should focus on real solutions and not phantom solutions - is the real goal to reduce CO2? If so, what can we do to have the biggest impact?

Quote:

Natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, as evidenced in the Environmental Protection Agency’s data comparisons in the chart below, which is still current as of 2010. Composed primarily of methane, the main products of the combustion of natural gas are carbon dioxide and water vapor, the same compounds we exhale when we breathe. Coal and oil are composed of much more complex molecules, with a higher carbon ratio and higher nitrogen and sulfur contents. This means that when combusted, coal and oil release higher levels of harmful emissions, including a higher ratio of carbon emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Coal and fuel oil also release ash particles into the environment, substances that do not burn but instead are carried into the atmosphere and contribute to pollution. The combustion of natural gas, on the other hand, releases very small amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, virtually no ash or particulate matter, and lower levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other reactive hydrocarbons.

NaturalGas.org

I will save Roach some time - the source has a bias.

Baraka_Guru · 05-13-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Those were my words.

Are you the objective party?

Quote:

I have no problem with science. Nor do I have a problem with the true costs to society including environmental cost being assigned to industrial production. If the goal was to honestly assign these costs, I would have no objection to what the EPA is trying to do - my gut tells me the goal is to be punitive.

Will you kindly ask your gut to elaborate on this?

Quote:

I believe if true costs are properly assigned, the best solutions emerge. For example why is our government pushing battery or electric powered vehicles rather than the use of natural gas to power vehicles? What does the science say about that? We should focus on real solutions and not phantom solutions - is the real goal to reduce CO2? If so, what can we do to have the biggest impact?

Are you suggesting that electric technology is unrealistic and phantom? As for the biggest impact, in a perfect world, we could just leap onto it, right? I mean, how many years did the aviation industry depend on prop tech before going to jet tech?

Solutions aren't about being in the best possible place and the best possible time at the best possible cost. Solutions are about progress and development. Industry is reluctant to face these challenges because they're more concerned with profit margins than they are with progress and development. But I get that. It's business.

Quote:

NaturalGas.org

I will save Roach some time - the source has a bias.

I'm not against the development of natural gas. I understand that the U.S. is sitting on enough of the stuff to be considered one of the gassiest nations in the world. I have no answers as to why your politicians aren't more concerned with developing it, but I do have some ideas. I think there is a concern with fracking and whether there is an infrastructure barrier for fuelling private automobiles. Electricity grids are already widely available. The other issue with natural gas development, I think, is the low price vs. oil.

aceventura3 · 05-13-2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Are you the objective party?

On this subject, yes.

Quote:

Will you kindly ask your gut to elaborate on this?

The reason it is a "gut" feeling is because I do not have objective information or data that supports the view I hold. Honesty, requires me to clearly state when I have a "gut" feeling compared to a view held based on hard evidence.

Did I really need to explain that? Have you ever had "gut" feelings? Is it something that only extremists have? Are you just being provocative? what?

Quote:

Are you suggesting that electric technology is unrealistic and phantom?

Powering vehicles with natural gas would have a big environmental impact immediately at a very reasonable cost to society. Electric, battery powered vehicles depend on coal fired plants and require metals and materials we do not have in abundance. We have about a 300 year supply of natural gas even if we convert vehicles to natural gas. Again, I asked the questions - what does science say? Clearly you don't know, yet the basis of your thread suggests that you would and that conservatives would not.

If science should drive the discussion, the discussion is broader than just the EPA administering new CO2 regulation - I repeat, we need to broadly address the issue through legislation not regulation. If based on that, you conclude that I am against science, so be it.

Baraka_Guru · 05-13-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

On this subject, yes.

I'd hate to bring up your credibility on a topic twice in one night, ace, but you kinda had it coming. What makes you think this is severely limiting, excessive, and unreasonable? Your gut?

Quote:

The reason it is a "gut" feeling is because I do not have objective information or data that supports the view I hold. Honesty, requires me to clearly state when I have a "gut" feeling compared to a view held based on hard evidence.

Did I really need to explain that? Have you ever had "gut" feelings? Is it something that only extremists have? Are you just being provocative? what?

Nothing of the sort, ace. To clarify, I don't give a shit about how your gut feelings work. I do have a gut. It has feelings too. I wanted you to elaborate on the EPA thing being punitive. What's the point of it being so? Why? What are the goals?

Quote:

Powering vehicles with natural gas would have a big environmental impact immediately at a very reasonable cost to society. Electric, battery powered vehicles depend on coal fired plants and require metals and materials we do not have in abundance. We have about a 300 year supply of natural gas even if we convert vehicles to natural gas.

Powering vehicles with natural gas could be done immediately at a very reasonable cost? What part of "fracking" and "lack of infrastructure" don't you understand? And did you know that they can use natural gas to fuel power stations?

Quote:

Again, I asked the questions - what does science say? Clearly you don't know, yet the basis of your thread suggests that you would and that conservatives would not.

Where are you getting this information?

Quote:

If science should drive the discussion, the discussion is broader than just the EPA administering new CO2 regulation - I repeat, we need to broadly address the issue through legislation not regulation. If based on that, you conclude that I am against science, so be it.

I'm not going to suggest you're against science. I would suggest, however, that you have a misconception about how regulations work. Regulatory bodies are meant to steer industry behaviour in such a way that ensures compliance with parameters deemed reasonable, essential, and/or desirable based on evidence or common practice. If you think this EPA issue isn't based on any credible information, practice, or reasonableness, then lets talk about that.

The purpose of regulation is to ensure that industry simply doesn't run amok. That's why there is regulation in other industries such as aviation and banking. Regulations avoid safety issues, public or environmental damage, and unethical practices. I know you're generally against regulation beyond the bare minimum, but that's not realistic in this day and age when we're working with some serious health and environmental issues, and at a time when alternatives are feasible (and desirable from the public's perspective).

Mantus · 05-14-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I disagree. I would say it is more like giving the IRS the ability to write tax law selectively requiring some to be held to one standard and others to another standard.

"Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change. Excludes GHGs from the definition of "air pollutant" for purposes of addressing climate change". - HR 910

In the 1990 acid rain was becoming a serious issue for urban centers. The EPA implemented the Acid Rain Program which introduced hidden environmental costs of burning coal into the energy equation. This got much flack at first but the energy industry dealt with it and ARP eventually became a success. Now if we go back to 1990 and apply the same GOP strategy as we are using today they'd be asking the EPA to pretend Acid Raid doesn't exist. From a scientific standpoint: is this a logical way to deal with a problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There are costs, but there are benefits. I would like honest discussion of the two. The pretense that severely limiting US industry through and unreasonable regulation has no negative consequences is unacceptable. There will be no honest debate until there is real acknowledgment of the trade-offs from environmentalists.

I believe it's the GOP who are suffering from selective ignorance to the real costs here. We are very well aware of the financial costs but the entire planet is in jeopardy. We have to account for environmental damage in the price of our energy. The sooner we do this the better. This is supply and demand 101. Raise the cost of energy and stimulate our industry to come up with solutions. Just look at what happened in Europe: gas prices went up and the auto industry developed vehicles that are twice as efficient as US counterparts. That is progress.

There is only two ways out of this. Either we all sit on the fence and wait for our world to fall apart or we start making progress towards fixing this problem. If it's the later then the sooner we begin to move forward the further ahead we'll be technologically when countries like China finally decide to come into the 21st century.

Speaking of being stuck in the 20th century...

“Let’s face it, these regulations and others from EPA amount to a war on domestic coal.omgomg Coal is the energy source America possesses in the greatest abundance.omgomg It provides half the nation’s electricity and 92 percent in my home state of Kentucky, and it does so because it is affordable.omgomg “ - Ed Whitfield
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans Press Release :: Upton and Whitfield Urge Support of the Energy Tax Prevention Act to Protect American Jobs and Families

This is about acknowledging science and facing reality Ace. I know you are worried about money. I'm worried about money too. My business will be effected by raising energy costs. My electricity costs are already through the roof and shipping costs are getting out of hand. But I want to leave this planet in a decent shape for my children.

aceventura3 · 05-16-2011, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'd hate to bring up your credibility on a topic twice in one night, ace, but you kinda had it coming. What makes you think this is severely limiting, excessive, and unreasonable? Your gut?

No. My broader views on this subject are based on various sources of information. I did not go into research with preconceived notions.

Quote:

Nothing of the sort, ace. To clarify, I don't give a shit about how your gut feelings work. I do have a gut. It has feelings too. I wanted you to elaborate on the EPA thing being punitive. What's the point of it being so? Why? What are the goals?

There are better more direct and effective ways to address CO2. Many environmentalist and liberals seem to resent industrialization and seem to believe industry exploits the environment and need to be punished for their behavior.

Quote:

Powering vehicles with natural gas could be done immediately at a very reasonable cost?

Relative compared to the alternatives.

Quote:

What part of "fracking" and "lack of infrastructure" don't you understand?

I am not an expert. There is no perfect solution. However, I do believe natural gas is our best available course of action if we want to make a significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the most cost effective way. Again, and as a conservative, I ask you and other liberals, what does science say about that?

Quote:

And did you know that they can use natural gas to fuel power stations?

Yes.

Quote:

Where are you getting this information?

What information? The charge was made that conservatives ignore science - it is clearly not true - and given the presentation in this thread one could easily assume that liberals and environmentalists have done their homework - that is the basis of my question.

Quote:

I'm not going to suggest you're against science. I would suggest, however, that you have a misconception about how regulations work. Regulatory bodies are meant to steer industry behaviour in such a way that ensures compliance with parameters deemed reasonable, essential, and/or desirable based on evidence or common practice. If you think this EPA issue isn't based on any credible information, practice, or reasonableness, then lets talk about that.

I have no objection with society doing what we can to be good stewards of the planet, including the control of excessive CO2 emissions. Assuming we share that goal, it seems the issue is the means.

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Now if we go back to 1990 and apply the same GOP strategy as we are using today they'd be asking the EPA to pretend Acid Raid doesn't exist. From a scientific standpoint: is this a logical way to deal with a problem?

Again, I think you mis-characterize the bill and its intent. An administrator in the EPA, given the ability to regulate CO2 through regulation could impose regulations on how much you can exhale or impose costs upon you and others as individuals. That is too much power. It is power that would be used selectively. It is power that I think would have political implications more so than true environmental implications. For example, would a favorite industry, i.e., automotive industry, get favored treatment? Why? Again, we need to first have a national policy agreed upon with well defined parameters for regulators.

dc_dux · 05-16-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again, I think you mis-characterize the bill and its intent. An administrator in the EPA, given the ability to regulate CO2 through regulation could impose regulations on how much you can exhale or impose costs upon you and others as individuals. That is too much power. It is power that would be used selectively. It is power that I think would have political implications more so than true environmental implications. For example, would a favorite industry, i.e., automotive industry, get favored treatment? Why? Again, we need to first have a national policy agreed upon with well defined parameters for regulators.

No, ace.

It is more you like mis-characterizing the legislation and demonstrating a lack of understanding of the difference between legislation (setting general goals) and regulation (setting specific standards).

Beyond that, what the EPA is doing is its job of implementing the Clean Air Act...the law that the US Supreme Court ruled in 07 that the Bush Administration willfully ignored.

Quote:

In a decision that amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the agency's contention, and that if the agency still insists that it does not want to regulate those emissions, it must give better reasons than the "laundry list" of invalid considerations it has offered so far.

Supreme Court backs states on Clean Air Act and greenhouse gasses - The New York Times

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Unlike legislation, regulations are developed through a process of public engagement and public comment prior to implementation, so that even ideological voices like yours can have their say.

You should really try to understand the process better before falsely characterizing or misrepresenting it.

aceventura3 · 05-16-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No, ace.

It is more you like mis-characterizing the legislation and demonstrating a lack of understanding of the difference between legislation (setting general goals) and regulation (setting specific standards).

I have been specifically stating my concerns regarding the administrator of the EPA having the power to regulate CO2 emissions, the legislation addresses that, and I suggest that Congress clearly define their intent on the issue of CO2 emissions. Your comment above is vague.

Quote:

Beyond that, what the EPA is doing is its job of implementing the Clean Air Act...the law that the US Supreme Court ruled in 07 that the Bush Administration willfully ignored.

I never stated that EPA did not have the authority. I have stated that I think the EPA has too much power and I have concerns regarding how that power can be used. Again, I would like Congress to address the concerns, not just held by me but many others as well.

Quote:

You should really try to understand the process better before falsely characterizing or misrepresenting it.

Can you be more specific? What have I said about the power held by the EPA that is incorrect? I actually posted a summary of the legislation, but what have I said about it that has not been correct? I admit I am not an expert and if there is an opportunity for me to learn, I am open to it. If I have mis-read the legislation, I am open to being corrected. I am not open to ad hominem argument.

dc_dux · 05-16-2011, 03:45 PM

ace, its really pretty simple.

The bill is a feeble attempt to nullify the '07 Supreme Court decision, which made clear the fact that the EPA not only has the the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, it has the legal obligation to do so.

Mantus · 05-16-2011, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again, I think you mis-characterize the bill and its intent. An administrator in the EPA, given the ability to regulate CO2 through regulation could impose regulations on how much you can exhale or impose costs upon you and others as individuals. That is too much power. It is power that would be used selectively. It is power that I think would have political implications more so than true environmental implications. For example, would a favorite industry, i.e., automotive industry, get favored treatment? Why? Again, we need to first have a national policy agreed upon with well defined parameters for regulators.

From the H.R.910 discussion draft:
“IN GENERAL: The Administration may not, under this, promulgate any regulation concerning, take actions relating too, or take into consideration the emission of green house gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change”.
http://republicans.energycommerce.ho.../GG_01_xml.pdf

Ace, again, the "intent” behind H.R. 910 aside, the bill takes science of out the equation. It doesn't attempt to alter the way EPA responds to global warming. It doesn't try to curb EPAs power over this issues. The Energy Tax Prevention Act removes global warming for the list of environment problems that the Environment Protection Agency is allowed to attend.

The scope of this action demonstrates that global warming is of no concern to republicans. In fact I heard they want to introduce the Last Judgement as an alternative to climate change in schools.

urville · 05-17-2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not open to ad hominem argument.

Really? I was getting the distinct impression over many discussions and threads that this was actually your go to method of argument.

aceventura3 · 05-17-2011, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace, its really pretty simple.

The bill is a feeble attempt to nullify the '07 Supreme Court decision, which made clear the fact that the EPA not only has the the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, it has the legal obligation to do so.

That as a given, there are those who do not want the EPA to have that power.

Do you have any concerns regarding the EPA exercising that power in a manner inconsistent with what is in the best interest of the environment and the country?

What if the next President appointed me as the head of the EPA, would you want me to have the power?

Assuming your answer is no to the last question, how would you want to control the EPA?

Perhaps a more narrow mandate from Congress, with defined minimum and maximum expectations?

As is standard protocol, I do not expect direct responses to my questions. I already know the answers, consider the questions rhetorical. Feel free to go back to the -conservatives don't believe in science - narrative. That makes for much better drama - who really cares about the true merits, pros and cons of legislation.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

From the H.R.910 discussion draft:
“IN GENERAL: The Administration may not, under this, promulgate any regulation concerning, take actions relating too, or take into consideration the emission of green house gas due to concerns regarding possible climate change”.
http://republicans.energycommerce.ho.../GG_01_xml.pdf

Ace, again, the "intent” behind H.R. 910 aside, the bill takes science of out the equation. It doesn't attempt to alter the way EPA responds to global warming. It doesn't try to curb EPAs power over this issues. The Energy Tax Prevention Act removes global warming for the list of environment problems that the Environment Protection Agency is allowed to attend.

The scope of this action demonstrates that global warming is of no concern to republicans. In fact I heard they want to introduce the Last Judgement as an alternative to climate change in schools.

Just to take a moment and look at the semantics in the summary in a nit piky way - why would they use the word "possible" with climate change if they truly wanted to eliminate science for the discussion. Would a better way be to state with clearly worded language that green house gases have no relation to climate change and therefore the EPA has no authority to regulate green house gasses in any attempt to address climate change? I think it is clear that the intent is to restrict the EPA going on a one agency crusade against any and all industries with any type of CO2 footprint. The EPA with that kind of authority can regulate every facet of American life. Regardless of the climate change debate, should one agency have that kind of power in your opinion? That is my first question, after that I would love to go into conservatives and our view of the science.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville

Really? I was getting the distinct impression over many discussions and threads that this was actually your go to method of argument.

For example in this thread, my initial focus was solely placed on the legislation in question, not ad hominem argument. However, others have consistently directed their responses to me as an individual and not the topical points presented. If you can support your charge, please do.

urville · 05-17-2011, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

For example in this thread, my initial focus was solely placed on the legislation in question, not ad hominem argument. However, others have consistently directed their responses to me as an individual and not the topical points presented. If you can support your charge, please do.

Because you may cite a legislation or piece of information, but then you argue it from your belief. i.e. your gut feeling. Which I can understand, but like you said in our other discussion:

Quote:

Correct, I am not arguing. I am sharing what I know to be true.

That is not an argument of the facts, that is you explaining your viewpoint, your gut feeling. Again, i get it, having said that: It's primarily fuzzy and not proven. So i believe that makes exactly what you do ad hominem argument in some form. not that there is anything wrong with that as a whole.

I think people then find that in that argument, directing responses at you is the only appropriate way since its your feeling and you represent it in this forum of discussion.

aceventura3 · 05-17-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville

That is not an argument of the facts, that is you explaining your viewpoint, your gut feeling. Again, i get it, having said that: It's primarily fuzzy and not proven. So i believe that makes exactly what you do ad hominem argument in some form. not that there is anything wrong with that as a whole.

On this topic, global climate change, I have read lots of material and I have not come to a definitive conclusion. Therefore I am still looking for answers. I read the legislation in question and I believe I read it correctly and that I understand the context, if I am wrong I am open to correction. There are some topics where I am not looking for answers and where I am not open to correction because I know what I know. For example, I understand the Pythagorean theorem, there would be nothing to discuss - I know it to be true. I try to make a point of separating my "gut", opinion, feelings, fears, biases from factual data. I also differentiate my interpretation of factual data compared to a more widely held interpretation of the data. And most importantly I ask questions to seek further clarification of what others write or to help clarify a view I hold. There you have my pattern of behavior on TFP - if it is problematic, I don't understand why, do you?

Quote:

I think people then find that in that argument, directing responses at you is the only appropriate way since its your feeling and you represent it in this forum of discussion.

I tend to think it is because they have no real response to the substance of an argument and the easiest way to respond is to make it somewhat personal. I am a pretty easy target on the surface, I am often under-estimated.

In this thread, there is only on real point being emphasized by me, in the form of a question: Does the EPA have too much power? No one has yet to give a direct response. Agree or disagree and I move on, directing comments to me personally or ignoring the point makes me dig in deeper and deeper - I get fixated - I wonder more and more why they won't they address the point - and eventually I draw my own conclusions from it.

roachboy · 05-17-2011, 10:36 AM

sometimes i think ace is a fiction invented by a trotskyist as a performance art piece.

the piece is a parody of conservative thinking.

it features a remarkable incompetence in the handling of information, an absolute refusal to think critically about his own assumptions--one that is linked (obviously, when you think about it--and here is a bit of ham-fisted work on the part of the trotskyist) to a refusal just as absolute to move outside those assumptions.

in the piece, the character "ace" never actually talks about the world, but only about how the world feels to him on the Island of Solipsism.

and that's what makes it fun for the trotskyite to make his fiction "ace" do things---no matter the topic, it ends up being all about him.

which is not that different than what happens at academic talks during the questions when various fac members of departments x or y stand to ask why they weren't mentioned or why their interests were not foregrounded.

and so on.

which is why i suspect that the trotskyite is a graduate student somewhere.

btw, i don't find the character believable.

Mantus · 05-17-2011, 12:20 PM

Ace,

You keep sidetracking this discussion by demonizing the EPA. We are talking about whether the GOP are smearing, misrepresenting and attacking science in this thread; not the reasons behind these actions. I'm participating in this discussion because I believe that such actions lead to poor, shortsighted and dangerous policies. I'm here with the pretense that ignorance of US government officials has ramifications for the entire world.

Also, I find your criticism of the EPA to be lackluster and I've gone to answer some questions you've posed just to demonstrate how superficial they appear from my point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just to take a moment and look at the semantics in the summary in a nit piky way - why would they use the word "possible" with climate change if they truly wanted to eliminate science for the discussion. Would a better way be to state with clearly worded language that green house gases have no relation to climate change and therefore the EPA has no authority to regulate green house gasses in any attempt to address climate change?

Indeed. To me using the word "possible" indicates that they are not quite convinced regarding climate change - and this is true.

Of course a direct challenge to climate change science would never fly. However, we have to understand that clear language is of no consequence here. Once this bill passes climate change with regards to the EPA is no longer a debatable issue. The consequences here is that a new agency will be required to deal with climate change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think it is clear that the intent is to restrict the EPA going on a one agency crusade against any and all industries with any type of CO2 footprint.

Yes, isn't that the EPA's job? Would you prefer two, three, or ten agencies to be on this crusade? The EPA seems like an ideal candidate for the job – you just have to figure out how it should go about it. If the Energy Tax Prevention Act is passed there would be no choice but to create more government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The EPA with that kind of authority can regulate every facet of American life. Regardless of the climate change debate, should one agency have that kind of power in your opinion?

I get it. You don't want another federal agency to stick their grubby little hands into your business. So should every state have their own army? Should every state have their own embassy in countries all over the world? Why bother with a with a federal government at all?

The federal government is there to deal with issues that affect all Americans. Global warming is an issue that effects all Americans. An issue that effects the entire country should be overseen by a federal agency. P.R. 910 asks a federal agency to ignore a national issue which should fall under it's mandate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you have any concerns regarding the EPA exercising that power in a manner inconsistent with what is in the best interest of the environment and the country?

I'm concerned with how every government agency exercises it's powers. H.R. 910 ask the EPA to stop acting regarding climate change indefinitely. It's like being unhappy with how USDA handles Mad Cow Decease and writing a law that strikes BSE from USDA's agenda entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What if the next President appointed me as the head of the EPA, would you want me to have the power?

Or the head of CIA, Department of Agriculture, Compress, Defense, Energy...I guess it would depend on what kind of person you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Assuming your answer is no to the last question, how would you want to control the EPA?

Just like any other agency. You give them boundaries that allow them to do their job while having minimal impact on citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps a more narrow mandate from Congress, with defined minimum and maximum expectations?

Exactly.

On a lighter note.

Ace, even though we disagree, I want to thank you for continuing to respond because our discussion has brought me tremendous insight and knowledge due to the amount of research I had to do in order to continue participating in this thread. I hope it has been a similar experience for you. Cheers!

urville · 05-17-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There you have my pattern of behavior on TFP - if it is problematic, I don't understand why, do you?

I speak only for myself here...

Your opinion/beliefs are not facts. This is true for everyone. They can be facts for you, but not necessarily otherwise. So my issue is that you dont(cant?wont?) see why people argue you as a believer instead of arguing your points as facts. Which is self explanatory.

You are asking people a question, people have told you their opinion in a way i think everyone else agrees is understandable, your not agreeing with the answer and posing arguments at the same time you claim they dont address the actual question with a simple answer... I see an error there... and that you would move on if they did.

You are in an argument claiming beliefs as your facts asking people not to argue with "you" but instead your "facts", even after your saying they arent answering your question. In a belief based argument you are as relevant as your facts since they are yours, and in this case, yours alone.

As I see it, you claim your beliefs as facts and as separate from you and yet acting like you cant understand why others dont acknowledge them as facts, all the WHILE you argue their facts as not being facts because they dont mesh with your beliefs(facts) and discarding them because its obvious they have "no real response to the substance of the argument". You have created a matrix of discussion and argument that it is impossible to be anything but you or someone who agrees with you in, so of course that supports your belief even further. "They must be scared to address my belief with any concrete proof (which i can easily dispel as untrue via my belief when they do, which they do) so this means I am certainly right." I call this the republican ring of truth. It can be whatever, change at any time, and morph at will and always be right because it can even dispel hard evidence, data, etc with beliefs and vague interpretations.

Again... thats how people argue it. Like that is what it is, because it is. You are your beliefs because your the sole believer. To argue your "facts" is to argue your "belief" and thusly "you".

Quote:

"ace" never actually talks about the world, but only about how the world feels to him. no matter the topic, it ends up being all about him.

dc_dux · 05-17-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That as a given, there are those who do not want the EPA to have that power.

Do you have any concerns regarding the EPA exercising that power in a manner inconsistent with what is in the best interest of the environment and the country?

What if the next President appointed me as the head of the EPA, would you want me to have the power?

Assuming your answer is no to the last question, how would you want to control the EPA?

Perhaps a more narrow mandate from Congress, with defined minimum and maximum expectations?

ace....you refuse to acknowledge the facts and persist with the same old fallacious arguments and "what ifs".

The EPA has the sole authority and obligation to implement the intent of the Clean Air Act by developing and implementing regulations, including as the Supreme Court made clear, regulating CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

If you or the Republicans in Congress or the Koch brothers or any interested party believe that EPA has exceeded its legal authority, the proper remedy is through the federal judiciary, not through bogus legislation to nullify the Court's '07 decision by rejecting any science with which you disagree.

In much the same manner as interested parties successfully took the Bush EPA to court for willfully ignoring the intent of the Clean Air Act by not developing regulations.

Its called checks and balances, ace, through the judiciary, just as the framers of the Constitution intended. That is how you address the excessive use of power if it exists.

And that is how the system works, not by saying "Fuck You" to the EPA and the US Supreme Court with bogus legislation if you disagree with their actions.

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

It is a growing tactic of Republicans to attempt to circumvent or nullify court rulings they don't like though any means necessary rather than through the proper means to address an "alleged" excessive use of power by the executive branch.

In extreme cases, we are seeing Republicans calling for impeachment of judges, not for malfeasance, but simply because they disagree with a court's decision.

An appalling and willful ignorance of the rule of law.

aceventura3 · 05-18-2011, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

sometimes i think ace is a fiction invented by a trotskyist as a performance art piece.

Absolutely no one here has been lectured to by Roach more than me. No one will ever come close to my record. Know what I call that:

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ace,

You keep sidetracking this discussion by demonizing the EPA.

I am not demonizing the EPA, I believe they have too much power. It is not their fault.

Quote:

We are talking about whether the GOP are smearing, misrepresenting and attacking science in this thread; not the reasons behind these actions. I'm participating in this discussion because I believe that such actions lead to poor, shortsighted and dangerous policies. I'm here with the pretense that ignorance of US government officials has ramifications for the entire world.

The problem to me seems to be in the mis-characterization of the legislation. I made that point, it is o.k. for the rest of you to go back to the GOP not accepting science narrative if you want.

Quote:

Ace, even though we disagree, I want to thank you for continuing to respond because our discussion has brought me tremendous insight and knowledge due to the amount of research I had to do in order to continue participating in this thread. I hope it has been a similar experience for you. Cheers!

I enjoy participating here, I enjoy reading the points of views held by others. I also, enjoy the challenge in doing additional work to support or defend my position. I have learned to take the responses directed at me with a sense of humor - I don't take it personal.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by urville

I speak only for myself here...

Your opinion/beliefs are not facts.

I pretty much know that. I try to seperate my opinions/beliefs from facts, if I have fail(ed) to do that, let me know.

Quote:

You are asking people a question, people have told you their opinion in a way i think everyone else agrees is understandable, your not agreeing with the answer and posing arguments at the same time you claim they dont address the actual question with a simple answer... I see an error there... and that you would move on if they did.

Why not give direct responses to direct questions, I don't understand the issue?

Quote:

You are in an argument claiming beliefs as your facts asking people not to argue with "you" but instead your "facts", even after your saying they arent answering your question. In a belief based argument you are as relevant as your facts since they are yours, and in this case, yours alone.

As I see it, you claim your beliefs as facts and as separate from you and yet acting like you cant understand why others dont acknowledge them as facts, all the WHILE you argue their facts as not being facts because they dont mesh with your beliefs(facts) and discarding them because its obvious they have "no real response to the substance of the argument". You have created a matrix of discussion and argument that it is impossible to be anything but you or someone who agrees with you in, so of course that supports your belief even further. "They must be scared to address my belief with any concrete proof (which i can easily dispel as untrue via my belief when they do, which they do) so this means I am certainly right." I call this the republican ring of truth. It can be whatever, change at any time, and morph at will and always be right because it can even dispel hard evidence, data, etc with beliefs and vague interpretations.

Again... thats how people argue it. Like that is what it is, because it is. You are your beliefs because your the sole believer. To argue your "facts" is to argue your "belief" and thusly "you".

In this thread I presented the summery of the legislation in question (fact), I gave my interpretation (opinion) and I laid out the premise that there was a mis-characterization of the legislation. All anyone had to do was explain their interpretation and/or explain how my interpretation is incorrect. It seems to me that anyone making the jump from reading the legislation to concluding the GOP does not accept science has taken much broader leaps in logic and reason than I have, yet no support has been provided and the point is argued as fact.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....you refuse to acknowledge the facts and persist with the same old fallacious arguments and "what ifs".

The EPA has the sole authority and obligation to implement the intent of the Clean Air Act by developing and implementing regulations, including as the Supreme Court made clear, regulating CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

If you or the Republicans in Congress or the Koch brothers or any interested party believe that EPA has exceeded its legal authority, the proper remedy is through the federal judiciary, not through bogus legislation to nullify the Court's '07 decision by rejecting any science with which you disagree.

In much the same manner as interested parties successfully took the Bush EPA to court for willfully ignoring the intent of the Clean Air Act by not developing regulations.

Its called checks and balances, ace, through the judiciary, just as the framers of the Constitution intended. That is how you address the excessive use of power if it exists.

And that is how the system works, not by saying "Fuck You" to the EPA and the US Supreme Court with bogus legislation if you disagree with their actions.

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

It is a growing tactic of Republicans to attempt to circumvent or nullify court rulings they don't like though any means necessary rather than through the proper means to address an "alleged" excessive use of power by the executive branch.

In extreme cases, we are seeing Republicans calling for impeachment of judges, not for malfeasance, but simply because they disagree with a court's decision.

An appalling and willful ignorance of the rule of law.

The above is non-responsive.

For clarity, I never suggested the EPA is exceeding its legal authority. What I have stated, clearly, several times is that the EPA has too much power. In addition I fear abuse.

I understand the desire held by most here to want to go back to the - they don't accept science - narrative. It must be a wonder how conservatives make a cup of coffee. We are all the same, we all get the same talking points, we all think the same way, we are all extremist, etc., etc., That as a given, my response would be to encourage all conservatives to not take any critique or input from liberals seriously. You may think conservatives are being isolated more and more by the tactic on display here - to the contrary, if you step outside of your usual circles you will find the conservative message is gaining traction. Expect the non-science believers to be in the full position of setting the political agenda in 2012.

Baraka_Guru · 05-18-2011, 09:29 AM

So do conservatives all have the same talking points or don't they, ace? You're confusing me again.

dc_dux · 05-18-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The above is non-responsive.

For clarity, I never suggested the EPA is exceeding its legal authority. What I have stated, clearly, several times is that the EPA has too much power. In addition I fear abuse.

I understand the desire held by most here to want to go back to the - they don't accept science - narrative. It must be a wonder how conservatives make a cup of coffee. We are all the same, we all get the same talking points, we all think the same way, we are all extremist, etc., etc., That as a given, my response would be to encourage all conservatives to not take any critique or input from liberals seriously. You may think conservatives are being isolated more and more by the tactic on display here - to the contrary, if you step outside of your usual circles you will find the conservative message is gaining traction. Expect the non-science believers to be in the full position of setting the political agenda in 2012.

Non-responsive? Thats pretty funny coming you, ace.

You think EPA has too much power. Well, guess what. In the case of the Clean Air Act and regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. And, the Court is the final aribter, not you or the Republican House.

But you just wont accept that and instead are attempting to defend a bill that nullifies the Court's clear and unambiguous decision.

I also addressed your "what if" scenarios. If the EPA attempts to impose regulations beyond the scope of the Court's decision or what you or the Republicans or the Koch brothers deem to be excessive, the recourse is through that same Court....if or when that occurs. And not through bogus legislation to circumvent the process with the sole purpose of denying EPA the authority to do what the Court determined it has the authority and obligation to do.

I dont know how to be more direct and responsive than that.

Mantus · 05-30-2011, 06:54 PM

Ace, I think people have been more than fair and went as far as answering your inane and misdirecting questions in hopes of getting something of value in return.

I just don't understand how someone as fervent and passionate as you can bring so little substance.

I had a hunch that you view global warming as I view Reaganomics - I just wish that you came out and made that point clear from the very beginning instead of alluding to some greater truth behind your reasoning.

You think climate change is BS. OK. This discussion is over. You participating in this discussion concerning the Energy Tax Prevention act is like a Y.E. Creationist giving a lecture on speciation.

Thank you for your effort though.

aceventura3 · 05-31-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

You think climate change is BS. OK.

I think the earth's climate changes.
I believe the earth's climate has changed in the past.
I believe the earth's climate will change in the future.
I think there is more to learn about the earth's climate than the sum total of what we know now.
I think the earth's climate is self correcting, meaning I do not believe there is a "point of no return".
I believe humans, since the industrial era have had a negative impact on the earth's environment and we should incrementally do what is reasonable to minimize our future impact on the earth's environment.
I believe in my lifetime we have become much better stewards of the planet and I expect the improvements to continue.
I believe in evolution, in particular survival of the fittest. I believe animals and plants that fail to adapt to changing conditions are destine to become extinct.

Tell me what you believe.

Baraka_Guru · 05-31-2011, 08:11 AM

I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe in destiny. I also don't believe we should rely on the earth to self-correct on its own, especially if we're its stewards in any capacity.

If things go severely wrong, there is no plan B. There is no escape route.

The earth will likely be here long after we're gone. Self-correcting.

Mantus · 05-31-2011, 09:15 AM

Ace,

I think I summed it up better. You think global warming is BS. That's fine. I'm not really here to educate you but since you asked,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Tell me what you believe.

This: Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

aceventura3 · 05-31-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe in destiny. I also don't believe we should rely on the earth to self-correct on its own, especially if we're its stewards in any capacity.

I don't think we should "rely" on the earth to self-correct either. I never stated that, I think we (humans) need to be good stewards of this planet and minimize our negative affects on the earth.

Quote:

If things go severely wrong, there is no plan B. There is no escape route.

I don't buy into doom and gloom. I think if conditions change on earth, there will be some areas the benefit at the cost of other areas. Again, I don't think we fully understand the real dynamics of this planet. I also do not under-estimate the ingenuity of the human race. We can adapt. Perhaps cities actually below sea level currently should not have dense populations. I think it is foolish to try to manage water levels in a city like New Orleans. No matter what we do, that city will always have a higher than acceptable risk of flooding.

Quote:

The earth will likely be here long after we're gone. Self-correcting.

I am guessing you don't get the full nature of what I describe as self-correcting.

---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ace,

I think I summed it up better. You think global warming is BS. That's fine. I'm not really here to educate you but since you asked,

This: Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

When I think something is b.s. I have no problem saying so. When you say "global warming", I am assuming you mean that humans are the direct cause. I don't think we know enough about our climate to come to that conclusion, although it may be correct. CO2 levels on this planet have been higher than they are now and I doubt measuring climate cycles on this planet in a few decades compared to hundreds of thousands or millions of years is good science.

Perhaps, I have one of those nuanced positions. Who would have thought me, a conservative could be nuanced. Go figure.

---------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

This: Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

We have less than 200 years of data, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. you do realize that is like 1.5 seconds in a full 365 day year.

From your link:

Mantus · 05-31-2011, 02:44 PM

Ace, I get it. You don't have to repeat yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We have less than 200 years of data, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. you do realize that is like 1.5 seconds in a full 365 day year.

Creationists use this argument against evolution. Thank you though. I'll inform the hundreds of scientists working with IPCC about this oversight. Morgan Griffith can educate them about melting ice caps on Mars while we are at it.

Honestly Ace, your pontification is not going to change my mind; but I would like to know what information made you come to your conclusions. Maybe you can post a link or point me to a book.

aceventura3 · 06-01-2011, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

Ace, I get it. You don't have to repeat yourself.

Creationists use this argument against evolution. Thank you though. I'll inform the hundreds of scientists working with IPCC about this oversight. Morgan Griffith can educate them about melting ice caps on Mars while we are at it.

Honestly Ace, your pontification is not going to change my mind; but I would like to know what information made you come to your conclusions. Maybe you can post a link or point me to a book.

I have no intent of changing your mind. My participation in this thread was based on the notion that conservatives are anti-science. That is laughable on its face, but given the numbers who buy into that premise having any type of grownup conversation is pointless. My suggestion is that conservatives totally ignore those on the left who hold such a view. There should be no compromise. No give and take, we need to just move forward with our agenda.

To think that some on the left have actually said that the science on this issue has been settled, to me suggests it is they who are not accepting science.

You bring up creationist argument against evolution in context of our relative ignorance - many can acknowledge that we still have a lot to learn. Are you suggesting that we know what needs to be known?

ASU2003 · 06-02-2011, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There should be no compromise. No give and take, we need to just move forward with our agenda.

That is the biggest problem with conservatives right there.

When the agenda is "Drill, Baby, Drill" and we will try to deal with any consequences later in few years if it effects our base (when most conservatives will be dead or age 80+), isn't a very good policy for the rest of us and the planet.

Most people don't work outside anymore, and are in temperature stabilized homes, stores, cars, and offices, so I don't doubt that they could think, "what problem?". But for those people with no A/C and that work outside, or have farms that can't easily move north to better weather, it is a problem. It will become a big problem when what happened in Russia and Australia last year happens in the midwest in the US. If it is too dry to grow any crops, and the Canadian woods and grasslands aren't converted to farm fields fast enough, food production will be impacted.

pan6467 · 06-04-2011, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I think the earth's climate changes. I believe the earth's climate has changed in the past.

It does and has hence the Ice Age. The planet is wobbling, What causes it too wobble? Too many people? That is laughable.

Quote:

I believe the earth's climate will change in the future.

It will and it will again.

Quote:

I think there is more to learn about the earth's climate than the sum total of what we know now.

I agree. We tend to wabt to believe we can predict global warming, there is no God, that the world should be a utopia. It's NEVER been that way and NEVER will be. Egypt and North Africa went from tropical forests to deserts. Did man cause that? I don't think so. Someone prove me, without ANY doubt, that I am wrong, it's impossible, but I am open minded. Show me facts.

Quote:

I think the earth's climate is self correcting, meaning I do not believe there is a "point of no return".

I tend to agree, I don't think WE can do anything, good or bad to prevent NATURAL shifts in the climates.

Quote:

I believe humans, since the industrial era have had a negative impact on the earth's environment and we should incrementally do what is reasonable to minimize our future impact on the earth's environment.

I was around back in the day and still hear stories of how Akron and its 'burbs would have black ash filling the sky, from the tire plants. The Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland. THAT was man made. But to not believe the volcanoes that push out more ash in one eruption than those plants did in the time they were operating, aren't or weren't just as "bad" for the environment is ludicrous.

Quote:

I believe in my lifetime we have become much better stewards of the planet and I expect the improvements to continue.

We have, at least in the USA, which is why we have shipped jobs overseas, less regulation. They can be as filthy and dump whatever they want into water and the lands and pay less if anything.

Quote:

I believe in evolution, in particular survival of the fittest. I believe animals and plants that fail to adapt to changing conditions are destine to become extinct.

Now, this I do disagree with. I can grasp and accept evolution to a degree, because who is to say that 24 hours is a day to (dare I say this without someone ripping me for saying His name) God, A day could be centuries, millenia, whatever, so you can have evolution and devine creation at the same time. It is egotistical and self righteous of mankind to think we have all the answers.

I think animals like racoons tend to prove that either they adapt or die as a species. BUT we shouldn't actively go killing off a species because we want their land. Ever step on an ant or watch a fly in a spider's web? Whether you want to call it impulse or whatever, those creatures fight to live. Life is a splendid thing, which I have come to grasp after my health issues. (sorry, got sidetracked.) That splendor of life is not just for humans to experience but for all creatures. Even the Bible, whether you believe or not talks about preventing extinction (Noah's Ark). Man didn't kill off the dinosaurs or the wooly mammoths, they could not adjust to natural climate change.

Quote:

Tell me what you believe

I think I just tried to.

But Carlin says it much better:

YouTube - ‪George Carlin - Saving the Planet‬&rlm;

05-11-2011, 11:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Can we stop calling them Republicans and start calling them their proper name: Fascists? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

05-11-2011, 11:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	My comment was off topic. Sorry. Last edited by Mantus; 05-11-2011 at 12:13 PM..

05-16-2011, 03:45 PM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace, its really pretty simple. The bill is a feeble attempt to nullify the '07 Supreme Court decision, which made clear the fact that the EPA not only has the the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, it has the legal obligation to do so. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-17-2011, 10:36 AM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sometimes i think ace is a fiction invented by a trotskyist as a performance art piece. the piece is a parody of conservative thinking. it features a remarkable incompetence in the handling of information, an absolute refusal to think critically about his own assumptions--one that is linked (obviously, when you think about it--and here is a bit of ham-fisted work on the part of the trotskyist) to a refusal just as absolute to move outside those assumptions. in the piece, the character "ace" never actually talks about the world, but only about how the world feels to him on the Island of Solipsism. and that's what makes it fun for the trotskyite to make his fiction "ace" do things---no matter the topic, it ends up being all about him. which is not that different than what happens at academic talks during the questions when various fac members of departments x or y stand to ask why they weren't mentioned or why their interests were not foregrounded. and so on. which is why i suspect that the trotskyite is a graduate student somewhere. btw, i don't find the character believable. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-18-2011, 09:29 AM	#30 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	So do conservatives all have the same talking points or don't they, ace? You're confusing me again. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-30-2011, 06:54 PM	#32 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Ace, I think people have been more than fair and went as far as answering your inane and misdirecting questions in hopes of getting something of value in return. I just don't understand how someone as fervent and passionate as you can bring so little substance. I had a hunch that you view global warming as I view Reaganomics - I just wish that you came out and made that point clear from the very beginning instead of alluding to some greater truth behind your reasoning. You think climate change is BS. OK. This discussion is over. You participating in this discussion concerning the Energy Tax Prevention act is like a Y.E. Creationist giving a lecture on speciation. Thank you for your effort though.

05-31-2011, 08:11 AM	#34 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe in destiny. I also don't believe we should rely on the earth to self-correct on its own, especially if we're its stewards in any capacity. If things go severely wrong, there is no plan B. There is no escape route. The earth will likely be here long after we're gone. Self-correcting. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot