Rightwing, rabid radicalism isn't new to the GOP.
This is GOP radicalism and what they did to President John F. Kennedy:
Louie Gohmert (Paste Eater-Texas) is floating the idea to impeach President Obama if the country goes into default that the GOP caused.
Thank about that for a minute.
The Goopers think it's terribly unfair the way President Obama is using his power of the purse to extract concessions from Republican congressmen.
As Pap Finn so excellently put it:
"The dirty little secret that is rapidly becoming an open secret is that conservatives ("conservatives") fucking hate, hate, hate democracy. Apologies for repeating myself, but from Clinton onward, Republicans have not and will never again accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president. This is one of many excellent reasons to start calling them what they transparently are: neo-Confederates. "
Question: If Ted Cruz and John Boehner were both on a sinking ship, who would be saved?
Answer: America.
46 comments:
Shaw, dump the hypetbole. I am a conservative by your standards.
Louie (The Loopy) Gohmert does decidedly NOT speak for me. Or the majority of TRUE conservatives for that matter.
You don't hear much about reactionaries these days. I often wonder why Shaw.
Louie Gohmert? The exponent of "terror babies" and invading demons? The man whose very name has become a verb? The man whose intellect makes Sarah Palin look like Bertrand Russell? I thought there was nothing the Republicans could come up with to embarrass themselves worse than they already have. Trust Gohmert to be the one to prove me wrong, with this idea.
RN, when people like Gohmert are taken seriously by an American political party and when that same political party does not shun him for his outrageous idiocy, there is no rational way to deal with that EXCEPT with hyperbole.
That Gohmert would even suggest that he would consider impeachment for President Obama for what the GOP is threatening to do to this country shows that this man deserves all the ridicule and hyperbole any of us can manage to use on him.
The GOP needs to be put in a straight jacket and locked in a padded cell.
Yes, that's hyperbole. And the GOP deserves it.
I don't need no more "Forest Guests" who are trickling from my peas! They're arousing my kettle, with their emulation. They refuse to sponge the linguini. They refuse to ingratiate. They have no Ritalin for us at all, with us they won't retaliate.
Instead of weaving weed, wit, and bruise, they weave rod, whisker, and groin. Fifteen poplars crammed in one hose, it's just trucking orioles.
They're shaking all our jaws, and they drink the wagons down,
they invalidate our neosporin, schlepping large cows all around.
They're grinding Organcare, they're grouting suction wheat, warfare, fool stumps, and underwear. They're always swilling to rake, they wonk under the trumpet, they confabulate not a flock, and their pimples wander, fry! Our echocardiogram's in the bank! Every pear they're swearing bunions, from hair to Texaco. It's just like dripping all that clap, into a big bucket.
they putt their own nosegays and radishes in Tuvalu,
"Pure Razors" radio, sounds putty rachet to meat!,
Then you have figuratively have put literally hundreds of thousand of silent reasonable consevatives in a straight jacket.
I'll say no more.
Saying or implying that Republicans have always been as crazy and vicious as Gohmert (I actually did a post in which I referred to him as the craziest member of Congress) is a big, fat swing and a miss, Shaw. I mean, I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember guys like Howard Baker, Everett Dirksen, Chuck Percy, Lowell Wiecker, Dick Schweiker, Ed Brooke, Jerry Ford, John Anderson, and Jacob Javits. And I'm also old enough to remember a good and decent man like Goldwater getting trashed by one of the most despicable political ads in U.S. history, the daisy ad. To try and infer that this is somehow historically and currently (the fact that that idiot, Grayson, compared HIS opponent to the Taliban, for example) a one-sided crap-fest is a little bit too hard-core partisan for my taste.
Oh, and let us not forget, either, Shaw, that it was a Democrat (former Congressman Kucinich) who initially called for Mr. Obama's impeachment, not a Republican.
Will, you have a habit of not reading carefully. My post is about "rightwing rabid radicalism." Nowhere in the post do I say ALL CONSERVATIVES.
You don't visit here very often, otherwise you would have known that I frequently quote sane, thoughtful, non-rabid articles written by non-crazy conservatives.
Also, in your eagerness to make this a "both sides do it" regarding Gohmert's impeachment threat, please understand that Kucinich would not have had any of his fellow liberals join him in his fool's errand, and that Kucinich is no longer a member of the House.
After this weekend, and after observing the rabid Republicans' behavior, I'm pretty confident that if articles of impeachment were to be drawn up in the House, Mr. Obama would be impeached by the majority that has been acting like maniacs.
"Then you have figuratively have put literally hundreds of thousand of silent reasonable consevatives in a straight jacket."
If the "good guys" in the GOP have allowed their party to be taken over and represented by lunatics, then my hyperbole is well deserved.
From the LATimes:
[T]here's a part of the story that seemingly has been lost in history: Democrats have already compromised on healthcare reform by adopting Obama/RomneyCare in the first place.
Fundamentally — and infuriatingly for the Democratic base — Obamacare is inherently a compromise because it is a health insurance reform law rather than an overhaul of the structure of our nation's healthcare system. A significant contingent of Democratic voters and activists has always supported a single-payer healthcare system, in which the government, not private insurance companies, covers healthcare costs for all Americans (think Medicare for all). [...] For many Democrats, these compromises have been hard to swallow. Frustration still lingers among liberals over the abandonment of the single-payer system. In surveys on healthcare, 11% of Americans oppose the administration's health plan because it does not go far enough. Among Democratic activists, that percentage is far higher.[...]
Despite all these compromises and concessions, House Republicans still forced a government shutdown. Having coerced the Democrats into adopting a Republican health insurance reform plan, they then accused the administration of refusing to compromise. What kind of shell game is this?
The Democrats have compromised over and over again. Now it's the Republicans' turn to play fair.
It is common knowledge the democratic socialist wing of the democratic party wants, and has always wanted single payer government run universal healthcare. Also known as Cradle to Grave.
Realisticly, and frankly in all honesty, the democratic "compromise" is ultimately not a compromise at all. It is a planned acquiescence to something less than desired with the full intention of chipping away until little by little the dream of full socialized government run healthcare is finally realized.
I make these observations not to be argumentative or make a good or bad judgement statement. I simply view them as the truth.
You seem to have mixed up your facts. It was in fact the president who ordered the shutdown not the republicans, they don't have that authority because it must come from the president.
There is plenty of blame to go around but we can all rejoice and join our elected elite in playing kick the can down the road, again and we can wait until February to see it kicked again because nothing will be accomplished.
NOTE to OCTOPUS on a CRUCIAL ISSUE:
A proper reading of the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence shows that you have a complete misconception of the reasons why this nation was funded and the principles on which its founding was based.
>>> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>>> ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... <<<
The crux of the matter lies in this phrase (emphasis added)
“[W]henever ANY form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”
Only someone of a grudging, disagreeable, overly disputatious, legalistic turn of mind eager to justify his own overbearing opinion in order to force his will on others could possibly argue otherwise.
ANY form of government. ANY form of government. ANY form of government -- NOT only the kingship of George III of England our blessed mother country. ANY government.
There would have BEEN no United States of America and no Constitution had it not been for the Declaration -- THE single most important document in our entire history bar none.
Any attempt to disassociate the Declaration with the Constitution and all that followed is a demonstration of willful misunderstanding, perverse motivation and specious logic calculated to undermine the very purpose for which our country began her life.
Well Rational Nation where do we find true conservatives in contemporary government?
Paul Ryan standing on a soapbox brandishing his copy of "Atlas Shrugged"?
Just where is the Republican center?
Maybe waiting for Sarah Palin to make a comeback?
“[W]henever ANY form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”
if that is being used as a right to overthrow the present government of the United States, then the person writing this is inciting sedition. Why is this person even talking about oveerthrowing the United States government? Isn't that what the enemies of this country talk about all the time?
This government is not destructive to the people being governed. Only a small minority think this. The rest ofthe country is not with them on this.
"Full socialized government run health care..."
That would be Medicare. And that is wildly popular with the American people.
Shaw, I don't have a problem with your criticisms of the present-day Republican party and I actually share some of them (you apparently don't visit my site very often, either) but when you cherry-picked something from the early '60s to show that the Republicans have always been like this and then ignored what was probably the nastiest ad ever perpetrated by a Presidential candidate ostensibly because it put forth by a Democrat you really needed to be called on that. I'm sorry but you did.
"Well Rational Nation where do we find true conservatives in contemporary government?
Paul Ryan standing on a soapbox brandishing his copy of "Atlas Shrugged"?
Just where is the Republican center?
Maybe waiting for Sarah Palin to make a comeback?"
Your triteness is duly noted.
Answer, you won't. You and the progressive movement has succeeded in silencing most of them. They got tired of you BS having better things to do they simply go about their business and laugh.
And both sides DO do it. I mean, have you listened to some of the rhetoric coming from House and Senate morons like Harry Reid (comparing the Republicans to terrorists) lately? From the morons at MSNBC? From the morons at the Daily Kos (really, you put THEM on your blog roll?), Media Matters, etc.?......Yes, the Republicans were unrealistic at the start of this crisis (defunding Obamacare) but they eventually moved and they moved significantly to the point where they're now only talking about legitimate things like the medical device tax. Compare that to the Keynesian, anti-science, neo-liberal, internationalist, centralizationist war-monger in the White House who refused to even meet with Republicans for weeks and, yeah, you had better believe that this was a bipartisan crisis.
Not "overthrow" it, -- there's that Marxian-Liberal-Progressive penchant for willful misunderstanding, twisted meanings, and attempts to redefine terms while putting words in other peoples' mouths to suit the liberal agenda again -- although frankly, overthrowing it might be a good idea at this point, since "it," as it stands today, is largely an abuse of power and a great waste of taxpayer's money.
By the way I want it on the record that include the Republican Party as much as I do the Democrats in my severe disdain for the federal government as it functions today.
HOWEVER, this wild-eyed, hyperbolic Denigration Derby occurring among Republican detractors here and abroad may give them some emotional release, and ease their frustration a bit -- as similar, equally tiresome antics do among conservative bloggers -- but it's childish, and any claim that tactics used by a small minority of determined Republicans are illegitimate, unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise unacceptable is simply wrong.
This highly unpopular minority of conservative-activists in the Republican party is simply exercising powers given to ALL members of congress BY the Constitution in order to counteract The Tyranny of the Majority -- often referenced by minoritarian activists.
It amuses me, but it's also irksome to see the blatant, strident, tub-thumping, horn-tooting hypocrisy employed by one side against maneuvers they'd gladly use themselves, if it was THEIR ox who was being gored.
Incessant shrieking, roaring, hyper-emotional denials, specious arguments and endless repetition of stale talking points used against sincere attempts to employ Truth and Logic in the struggle to conquer Reason by sheer VOLUME of endlessly repeated SOUND makes a sorry spectacle. It is the moral equivalent of the RIOTS initiated by Communist agitators in their many attempts to grab hold of The Levers of Power by main force in the not-so-distant past.
To call such tactics unworthy would be the understatement of the century.
FreeThinke,
A Declaration of Independence that severs relationships with a colonial power is not equivalent to a founding document that creates the new nation. The definitions of sedition - and the words “foreign or domestic” - are clear and anything but legalistic. Simply stated, you may not commit acts of sedition or treason against the government. Read the Constitution. Secession is not an option. Been there; tried that. It was called the American Civil War.
Examples of bad debating technique and troll behavior overused by you in this forum:
Bullying Assent to First Premise - big claims and sweeping philosophical statements based on no discernible evidence or justification;
Strawman - Stating your opponents’ philosophy and arguments in a preposterously extreme manner that is well beyond the level of caricature;
Conflation - Associating things that really have no connection: one key purpose is to devalue or condemn a given idea, term, practice, or person by asserting a link with something odious;
Argumentum ad hominem - You attack the character and integrity of a commenter with words and phrases such as “arrogant,” “elitist,” “commie-socialist-statist” ;
Maze/Word-Wrangling & Quibbling - At some point in your exchanges with those wicked people who dare to disagree with you, you attack your opponent even after she or he has just quoted you, verbatim;
Projection - You do unpleasant things such as distort, misquote, harp, carp, nitpick, accuse, slander, insult, heckle, engage in angry outbursts, all the while accusing your opponents of precisely such behavior although they have exhibited nothing more than understandable frustration with your incivility and incoherence.
Examples:
FreeThinke: “ Dictators, socialists, communists, Marxists, Fabian, power-hungry, “threadbare, smelly and ready to be cast onto the scrap heap.”
FreeThinke: “ I'm NOT going to accept insolence, belligerence, specious twisted logic, mischaracterization of my motives, willful misunderstanding and outright mendacity as a proper response to anything I might have to say.”
FreeThinke: “YOU and your infuriating aura of insolence, haughty condescension, self-righteous bigotry, and imperious intolerance.”
FreeThinke: “Only someone of a grudging, disagreeable, overly disputatious, legalistic turn of mind eager to justify his own overbearing opinion … (…) a demonstration of willful misunderstanding, perverse motivation ...”
In a civil and polite exchange, one argues against the message; it is offensive and rude to hurl personal attacks at the messenger as has become your habit. Furthermore, it disrespects the Proprietress of this Public House and violates her boundaries.
.
For the person who wants to use the Declaration Of Independence as his/her basis of political action; then go for it. Declare yourself independent of USA. Renounce your USA citizenship. Go whole-hog and secede. Please. Please. Please. Declare your independence from USA/renounce your USA citizenship/secede.
Person who is man enough to secede from USA and/or person who is brave enough to renounce USA citizenship is an undocumented alien and should leave USA. Given how hard certain people have whined about undocumented aliens in USA, just think how easy it will be to declare people who succeed in seceding/renouncing - illegal undocumented aliens .... and then .... deport undocumented aliens to Somalia.
Please. Do it!
Declare your independence.
__________
(O)CT(O)PUS - you nailed Free Thinke nicely. Thank you.
Ema Nymton
~ @ : o ?
.
"Compare that to the Keynesian, anti-science, neo-liberal, internationalist, centralizationist war-monger in the White House who refused to even meet with Republicans for weeks and, yeah, you had better believe that this was a bipartisan crisis."
Will, you're making a silly of yourself. And your protestations of being a balanced centrist are laughable.
You like to think of yourself as well-informed and neutral?
Here's some news for you: President Obama has compromised again and again and again with the cons.
And on top of that slush you left here, you label Mr. Obama "anti-science?"
You didn't back that accusation with anything. Has he ever, as the revered GOP President Reagan did ever scoff at Evolution and called "only a theory?"
If he's said anything as dumb as that, you should back up your claims. You didn't, so we have to assume you're just making stuff up.
Also, warmonger? Which war has President Obama dragged this country into?
Really, Will, you are more rightwing biased than you like to think you are.
Will,
Here's another backed-up-with-evidence claim where Democrats HAVE COMPROMISED:
"Whatever damage Democrats might incur through the government shutdown, they have found some satisfaction in trying to highlight the gap between House Republican leaders and their more tea party-oriented members. Former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton worked that theme in an appearance on CNN’s Crossfire.
In response to the charge that President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats are unwilling to negotiate, Burton shot back, "We have negotiated a deal that Republicans wanted, that Eric Cantor said would be a win."
PolitiFact: Our ruling
Burton said Democrats had struck a deal to avert a shutdown with Republicans that Cantor considered a win, implying that Republicans were going back on previous agreements.
Cantor’s legislative agenda memo from early September is in line with that and described the benefits of that approach. Cantor also attempted to keep that deal alive through a legislative maneuver until tea party members refused to go along. We rate the claim Mostly True."
You seem to have swallowed a big pitcher of Kool-Aid when you repeat the GOP talking point that Mr. Obama and the Democrats don't compromise.
"...you cherry-picked something from the early'60s to show that the Republicans have always been like this and then ignored what was probably the nastiest ad ever perpetrated by a Presidential candidate ostensibly because it put forth by a Democrat you really needed to be called on that. I'm sorry but you did.
Will, you apparently don't understand proportionality.
Running an over-the-top but effective political ad during a heated presidential election and claiming that a duly elected and sitting president committed TREASON are NOT the same thing.
Shortly after that piece of trash was distributed around the Dallas area, the U.S. president was assassinated.
That you don't don't understand the differece is appalling.
Meanwhile, the same element in the GOP says President Obama has committed treason.
So, there's no "cherry picking" going on.
What does it mean to be "retarted?"
Answer: To be given another delicious baked dish consisting of a filling over a pastry base with an open top not covered with pastry.
I would love to be "retarted!"
OCTO, you and others who think and behave as you do are perfect examples of everything that has gone wrong with this country and why in my opinion.
I don't come here to argue with you -- or to provoke you. You flatter yourself greatly if you imagine that. Neither do I come here in the hope of finding pleasant, fruitful conversation knowing that would be quite impossible in an atmosphere so thick with the fog and stench of deep prejudice, irrational denigration and mindless vituperation as this.
I come here ONLY to state what-I-believe-to-be-the truth as far as I have been able to understand it, because someone has to articulate an opposing view in a responsible manner.
Most conservative-libertarians avoid this site like the plague. I regard that as irresponsible, if not downright cowardly, myself, and lament the lack of balance both here -- and in most of these cyber-venues. I apologize for the many of those who simply stoop to ridicule and vulgar exclamations of inarticulate rage. I don't like or respect their methodology either.
I would not bother to analyze, criticize and certainly not to address your manner of addressing me for two reasons: ONE, I don't give a damn what you think of me or anything else. Your opinions and manner of stating them do not interest me. TWO, I have no time to waste wading through the piles of fetid fabrications, foolish distortions, abortive quotations devoid of context, and dreary denunciations you seem determined to drop in my path. The prospect very frankly bores me as much as it disgusts me.
I am not interested in engaging in personal antagonism. All of that was entirely your idea. You, apparently, don't like the way I think, so you took it upon yourself to dare to insult, upbraid and make grotesquely condescending attempts to instruct me in the way [you think] I ought to behave -- probably in an ill-conceived attempt to intimidate me in the hope I'd leave the field with my tail between my legs -- knowing full well that I could never bring myself to agree with you.
I'll break my own rules, and say flat out, "I DON'T LIKE YOU, sir." I am sure the feeling is mutual, and it doesn't faze me a bit.
I have told Ms. Shaw, whom I regard as a friend and sometime confidante, and with whom I have much in common, despite our vastly different political perspectives, that I am perfectly willing to stop posting here if she so desires.
So far, she continues to encourage me to speak out at PE, and so I shall -- as and if the spirit moves -- until such time as she may change her mind.
I'll do my best to avoid confrontation with you as much as possible in future, but when I think you are wrong, I'll say so, and give you my reasons. My intense dislike for your haughty, contemptuous, boldly insolent manner will never be used as a "reason" for any disagreement I might have with your assertions.
Ms Shaw may claim, as she often does in response to my remarks, that I am wrong, have not read very carefully, or misunderstood. I will respectfully disagree in advance, and leave with this thought:
One need not use foul language or out-and-out invective in order to qualify as something I cannot permit myself to mention even in a society as fractious, venomous and filled with bile as the one you surround yourself with, sir.
George Whyte,
What one strawberry said to the other strawberry: "If you weren't so retarted, we wouldn't be in this jam!"
you "friend" F.T. says this:
"This country was conceived, designed and developed by WHITE, PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN MEN and their wives. ;-)
As long as we stuck to THEIR concepts and abided by THER ideals, we did very well. Once the "Progressives" won a large share of public confidence, we've been plunged into incessant turmoil, and a long series of costly battles, and an enormous increase in Self-Pity along with an increasingly gasping "Entitlement Mentality." Coincidentally, the national IQ has been dropping like a stone ever since."
Those wonderful white Protestant Christian men believed in owning human beings, treating those human beings like animals, separating those human beings families for more explotation, and raping those female human beings for their disgusting pleasure. He conveniently ignores those facts of the founding of our country as well as the way those white Protestant Christian men and women decimated and all but destroyed the native populations, without which those sickly first "godly" Protestants to these shores would never have survived their first winter. The white man sure knows how to whitewash history to make himself look like a white hero doesn't he. But this guy won't get away with those lies he lies to himnself and tries to pass off as truth. Those white Christian Protestants in the south also tolerated the torture and murder of American citizens with black skin and did all in their power to keep their grotesque lynch laws in place. Another atrocity he pretends never haappened. And during the Civil Rights era those same white Protestant Christians fought with dogs, bombs, and fire hoses to keep Americans with dark skin from getting their civil rights. There are records of their atrocities in fighting against American citizens. Did he mention how thos white Protestant Christians treated the Jews? Did he mention how they were prevented from even going to certain hotels? Joining white Protestant Christian country clubs? Did he mention how the white Protestant Christians blamed the Jews for anything they felt needed blame? He's either intentionally blind or just knows nothing about the damage, intentional or not, that those white Protestant Christians visited on nonwhite Americans, native Americans, and Jews in this country. To him, since they're not like him, they don't count. That's your white Protestant Christian for you.
FreeThinke (at 5:27 PM): “I don't come here to argue with you -- or to provoke you. You flatter yourself greatly if you imagine that.”
FreeThinke (at 10:00 AM): “NOTE to OCTOPUS on a CRUCIAL ISSUE:”
(O)CT(O)PUS (at 1:28 PM): “Maze/Word-Wrangling & Quibbling … you attack your opponent even after she or he has just quoted you, verbatim …”
FreeThinke (at 5:27 PM): “... your haughty, contemptuous, boldly insolent manner ...”
(O)CT(O)PUS (at 1:28 PM): “Projection ... angry outbursts …”
If you don't like my opinion of you, improve yourself.
"Once the "Progressives" won a large share of public confidence, we've been plunged into incessant turmoil, and a long series of costly battles,"
Those "progressive battles" FYI, F.T., helped end slavery--in case you've forgotten it was the LIBERAL REPUBLICANS of Lincoln's Party that were rabid abolisionists, NOT the CONSERVATIVE Democrats. It was PROGRESSIVES who marched for Civil Rights, and it was CONSERVATIVES who fought against them. It was PROGRESSIVES who fought and marched for women's suffrage and CONSERVATIVES who were against it. And just recently it was PROGRESSIVES who fought for equal rights for gays, and it is CONSERVATIVES who are against them.
I'll stand with the progressives. You can have your regressive, oppresive, hateful CONSERVATIVES.
Roberta Fright October 14, 2013 at 9:51:00 AM EDT
Amiens to the above.... Don't these porpoises realize that their "wonderful" prestidigitation is doing more hemp than goop?
@ Octo: If you don't like my opinion of you, improve yourself.
What snotty rot. Mr. FreeThinke never said he didn't like your opinion of him. You may want to read him remarks a little closer in the future to keep yourself from looking foolish.
I would consider a low opinion of me expressed by the sea urchin an extreme compliment.
-- Wilhelm Krebs
Source: Raw Story
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Tuesday amped his recent impeachment rhetoric by claiming that President Barack Obama was “getting close to a high crime and misdemeanor.”
Fox News host Alisyn Camerota pointed out to Gohmert that after two weeks of a government shutdown, Republicans were basically guaranteed to lose on their core goal of repealing, defunding or delaying the president’s health care reform law.
“A majority in the House should be sign to the Senate that we need to negotiate,” Gohmert opined. “We have sent over compromise after compromise after compromise with ourselves. Our own leadership proposed yet another compromise and Harry Reid said all of the sudden, he thinks that’s a slap at bipartisanship.”
“He wouldn’t know bipartisanship if it came up and slapped him and said, we’re bipartisan,” he added. “So, I don’t need to hear any crap from Harry Reid about bipartisanship. He doesn’t know bipartisanship, nor does the president.”
Note to Shaw 3 - On Why Obama is Anti-Science - a) The man continues to think that increasing a trace gas (a beneficial one, at that) from three one-hundredths of 1% to four one hundredths of 1% is something that's significant and dangerous.............b) The man continues to spit out that same old thoroughly discredited statistic which claims that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming (not that science works by consensus anyway).............c) He trumpeted FOR MONTHS the Spanish green energy initiative; a policy that even the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party has admitted was an unmitigated disaster.............d) He actually thinks that the United States can reduce its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050; a target that would literally put us at pre Civil War era levels.............e) He apparently doesn't understand that the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming is a logarithmic one and that after 400 ppm the effect on warming is negligible (you might get a .2 to .5 degree Celsius increase via a doubling of it).............f) He apparently isn't aware
that the ice core data has consistently shown that it is the warming which plainly precedes the rises in atmospheric CO2 (for something to cause another thing, at the very least it has to come first).............g) He apparently doesn't know that global temperatures have essentially plateaued (starting in 1998) and that if anything we're experiencing a slight cooling trend now.............h) He apparently doesn't know that virtually every IPPC model from the 1990s has failed in its predictions (the observed temperatures actually coming in below those that were predicted by Santer and Hansen with draconian CO2 cuts!).............i) He apparently isn't aware of the fact the University of Illinois's Arctic Science Research Center has been measuring global sea ice for 40 years now and that the current level of sea ice is well within normal limits.............j) The man shows absolutely no intellectual curiosity when it comes to subjects such as power density (the fact that you would literally have to cover entire states with corn and windmills just to get the energy from a couple of coal-fired, gas-fired, or nuclear plants) and resource intensity (the fact that it takes a massive amount of energy to make a windmill and that a windmill cannot make another windmill).............k) He is abjectly ignorant when it comes to the economics of climate change; the fact that by virtually every cost-benefit analysis out there, it will be far, FAR less expensive to adapt to climate change than it ever will be to prevent (and it is doubtful that we could).............l) He apparently doesn't know that a significant percentage of the 20th Century warming actually happened prior to 1940, an era in which the atmospheric CO2 levels were still under 300 ppm.............m) He apparently doesn't realize that the United States already IS one of the most energy efficient countries on the planet and that this has come about largely via market forces and not government mandates, U.N. agreements, etc..............n) He apparently doesn't know that wind energy is highly intermittent and inefficient and that it literally ALWAYS needs either a fossil fuel, nuclear, or hydro backup.............o) He (along with Gore) apparently doesn't know that the polar bear population is up by some 300% over what it was in the '70s.......I got more but I'm tired.
Will Hart: "The man continues to spit out that same old thoroughly discredited statistic which claims that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming (not that science works by consensus anyway)......:
Well if you believe that's "anti-science," Will, please notify NASA and The American Association of Scientist, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Associatin, the Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, and the Geological Society of America. and the U.S. Academy of Science.
You had better get in touch with our most prestigious insitutions of science and tell them you're right and they and the president are wrong, that whomever is advising you and giving you information is correct, and all of these organizations don't know what they're talking about when they all agree in their consensus about climate change.
Also, Mr. Shaw Kenawe, who graduated from MIT with a degree in physics, keeps up with what that fine insitution has to say about climate change. Here's the latest:
New IPCC Report Strengthens Certainty of Climate Change The new climate report largely reaffirms scientists’ claims.
The latest report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that scientists are more certain than ever that humans are causing global warming, and that climate change will get worse if greenhouse gas levels continue to rise.
The report is influential with policymakers because it represents the consensus of hundreds of scientists who have worked for years to draw conclusions from the scientific research on climate change.
The report, the first of four IPCC reports scheduled for this year, focuses on the science of climate change. The other reports will take a closer look at the likely impacts of climate change and what can be done to minimize them.
While there are some changes compared to the IPCC’s previous report, which was released in 2007, the new report is notably similar. It acknowledges that over the last 15 years temperatures haven’t risen as fast as they had been in the preceding years. But while this fact has been fodder for climate change skeptics, the report says that the slowdown is part of the climate’s natural variability, not evidence that long-term climate change isn’t happening. The report’s predictions of temperature increases are largely in line with the last report.
If 97% of scientists in the world told you not to swallow a pill because it was poison, and 3% said that claim was just not true, I suspect you'd swallow it.
You also didn't reference where you found your data. That would have been helpful.
Susan Solomon, a professor of atmospheric chemistry and climate science at MIT.
“One of the important conclusions of this report that will resonate with a lot of people is the evidence for an increased frequency of heat waves in many parts of the world,” says Susan Solomon, a professor of atmospheric chemistry and climate science at MIT. “Not all types of extreme events are increasing because of climate change, but there is a widespread increase in heat waves that affects both people and ecosystems.”
And in spite of efforts to roll out solar panels and more efficient cars, the reports notes that carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase year after year. In 2011, humans emitted 9.5 gigatons of carbon, up 54 percent over the 1990 level."
"You also didn't reference where you found your data. That would have been helpful."
My guess is that this was a crude and quick cut-and-paste job from an unspecified source (un-reformatted text is always a dead giveaway). Rife with unsubstantiated claims, this one in particular jumps out:
"... the United States already IS one of the most energy efficient countries on the planet and that this has come about largely via market forces and not government mandates ..."
The U.S. has less than 5% of the world’s population; yet it consumes 25% of the world’s energy and produces 40% of the world’s pollution. Here are two citations:
U.S. Falls Behind in Energy Efficiency Among World Powers
China and EU Countries Beat U.S. on Energy Efficiency
Here are two more articles on the subject (with citations):
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND BOILED FROGS and …
ENERGY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND THE INDIGNANT DESERT BIRDS OF WILLFUL SELF-DESTRUCTION
You're arguing from authority, Shaw, and not from the science (not a single point of which you refuted). Yes, the titular heads of these organizations tow the party line but if you get to the rank and file there is MASSIVE disagreement on the science. Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, William Happer, Robert Austin, Piers Corbyn, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Ian Plimer, Ivar Giaever, Freeman Dyson, the list goes on and on.............And that 97% figure is utterly bogus. It is based on a sample of only 75 people who were only asked 2 very general questions that even I would have answered, yes, to. Compare that to the search that Anthony Watts and others did and of the the 12,000 recent articles on climate where only 60 or so of the articles expressly came out in support AGW, 60 out of nearly 12,000!!!!!!!
And you can tell your little sidekick here that I don't do cut and paste (as you and he have so slavishly done here going to the "official" account). I have been studying this issue for several years now and I know more than Obama does by a country mile.......References? You need a reference to tell you that CO2 has gone from 270 ppm to 390 ppm? That the Spanish green energy initiative has failed so miserably (why in the hell do you think that Obama doesn't bring up Spain anymore?)? That Waxman Markey calls for an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050? That the IPCC models have all failed in their predictions? That the warming trend from 1910 to 1940 was roughly equivalent in slope to the one from 1975 to 1998? That wind energy is only 10-35% efficient and that it always needs a fossil fuel backup? Wow, you really don't know much about this issue.
And this, to your ignorant little sidekick here - You're largely incorrect. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S carbon intensity fell by 43.6% from 1980 to 2006 (a 40% BETTER reduction than that of the E.U.), its energy intensity (the amount of energy needed to produce $1 of GDP) fell by about 42%, and its per capita energy consumption fell by 2.5% (better than Canada, the Netherlands, France, Norway, Japan, Australia, and Brazil - all of which showed a per capita INCREASE and all of which exceeded the global average). Yes, we're still using more in terms of energy than other countries but that is principally because we're far more prosperous (that and the fact that we often have to travel greater distances) and how many of us truly want that to go away?
And the point about the relationship between CO2 and warming being a logarithmic one, that is well know scientific fact, Shaw. The fact that you did not know this again underscores your lack of first hand understanding (as opposed to simply submitting to authority) on the issue.......That, and your morbid preoccupation with consensus. I mean, are you just not aware that most of the greatest advancements in science have been in the form of breakings from consensus; germ theory, continental drift, Copernicus, etc.. You really need to start thinking for yourself here, Shaw.
Will: "You're arguing from authority, Shaw..."
No. I'm arguing from facts. You obviously don't know the difference.
Will: "And this, to your ignorant little sidekick here -"
If you're such an "expert" on climate change, there would be no need for you to resort to name-calling. People who have facts on their side don't need to do that.
I warn you that my "sidekick" has a special way of dealing with impudent upstarts, and it involves ink, biting, and swallowing whole. I wouldn't tangle with someone as smart and armed as he.
I never said I had first-hand information on climate change.
I never argued about CO2 emissions. You did all that in your eagerness to show us all what an awesome "expert" you are on this, and in your eagerness to insult and demean people to prove that awesomeness.
As for your claim that all great discoveries broke from "consensus," we can also point to the fact that all great scientific frauds also broke from consensus.
So what are you arguing about? That you're right and 97% of the world's scientists in the 21st century when measuring and observation is in no way as crude as it was in the 18th, 19th and even 20th century are wrong?
What facts, Shaw? You've given me nothing but a bogus statistic. That 97% figure is something that somebody just pulled out of their ass (oh, and, yeah, and that Octopus fellow really impresses me with his cut and paste firepower). The satellites show a .3 degree Celsius increase since 1979 and NOTHING since 1998 despite a 28% increase in atmospheric CO2. Couple that with the .3-.4 degree Celsius decrease in temperature from 1940 - 1975 in spite of dozens of gigatonnes of CO2 being put into the atmosphere in the post war boom and the CO2 theory is on everloving life support.
And you want to talk about experts? Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at M.I.T., a fellow who knows more about the atmosphere than just about anybody on the planet and he says that a doubling of CO2 (and we would literally have to burn all of the reserves of fossil fuels on the planet to do that) will at most give us a .5-.6 degree Celsius temperature increase, hardly anything to destroy the entire world economy over.......And let me also introduce you to Roy Spencer and John Christy from NASA and the University of Alabama. These 2 fellows just happened to develop the NASA satellites and were awarded the NASA medal for outstanding achievement. They're skeptics, also. And so are Judith Curry, climatologist from Georgia Tech, William Happer and Robert Austin, physicists from Princeton, Ian Clark and Jan Veizer, paleoclimatologists from the University of Ottawa. There is a lot of skepticism out there, Shaw. And the only reason that there isn't more is because people are afraid. They're afraid of being fired (a la Robert Carter at Cook's Univerity in New Zealand) and they're afraid of being smeared at vicious smear sites like DeSmogBlog.com (which itself is bankrolled by a criminal). You really gotta ask yourself here, Shaw, do you in fact want to learn about global warming and energy, or do you simply want to bow to your masters? I suggest that you go to youtube and watch the Intelligence Squared debate and then tell me that Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton didn't wipe the floor with Gavin Schmidt and that lady from the Union of Concerned Scientists. If you can do that, I'd really like to hear from you.
And, yes, I did insult him, but only after he accused me of cutting and pasting. That pissed me off in that I really pride myself in thinking for myself.
Post a Comment